News Is it possible to have a peaceful resolution without resorting to violence?

[JohnDubYa]

It would be nice to believe you were making a joke here, but I've seen you misread things this badly too many times. Do you honestly think that sentence makes sense in context if 'misleadership' does not refer to the current administration?

I was quite clearly pointing out poor English. Read my post again. I knew what he meant.

 

[JohnDubYa]

NO!, there's a bigger chance I would have lost a family member to Bush or Clinton's dead-beat sanction attitude. Better go back and count how many Iraqis died under American policy compared to Saddams policy, over the last ten years. American murder count on Iraqis is at about a million. It's called trinkle down holocaust.

State your source.

 

[plover]

I was quite clearly pointing out poor English. Read my post again. I knew what he meant.

Yes, it was clear that you were indicating the poor English. No, it was not obvious that you knew what he meant (otherwise I wouldn't have said anything). It is now clear that your answer to my question is no.

 

[studentx]

NO!, there's a bigger chance I would have lost a family member to Bush or Clinton's dead-beat sanction attitude. Better go back and count how many Iraqis died under American policy compared to Saddams policy, over the last ten years. American murder count on Iraqis is at about a million. It's called trinkle down holocaust.

So you think Saddam killed less than a million ppl with his wars? Better go over the numbers again. As for sanctions, the blame lies entirely at Saddam. Since you are opposed to war, sanctions were the only alternative. Or are you saying both war and sanctions are wrong, and let me guess... you don't have any alternatives?

 

[Smurf]

The Alternative would have been supporting one of the few attempted rebel uprisings perhapse?

 

[JohnDubYa]

The Left would have complained about that too. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

And Saddam would have crushed any uprising, US supported or not.

 

[studentx]

Its obvious if the US supports an Iraqi uprising then these Iraqis become puppets of the US and we all know its ok to carbomb those

 

[JohnDubYa]

It would be called "an illegal war." And if anyone innocent was killed, they would have mentioned that we supplied the weapons.

 

[omin]

Read Your Facts, Drop the spin, 1,000,000

State your source.

United Nations.

The US led sanctions are responsible for a million deaths and 100,000 are children from what I remember.

Did Saddam do that to his people. No! THis was at the direct command of criminally insane American Leaders. THere was no cause for doing this to Iraqis. Do you have a basis for this? Could you justify this? I'd love to hear that. It's an intelligence question for sure. And if you think you can justify it, can you say HITLER? It's a different kinda holocaust.

But, the most important element of that is, that Iraqis are most likely to remember who did how much to their own people. In light of that, American leadership is not more disliked, but hated for till the end of their lifetimes. That's how the fine human logic works for all humans in the same circumstances. That's why Bush will never get his way, even if he steals office again for four years. The last few years went by so quick our heads our spinning, and the spin doctore make the entropy that is occurring look like progress. It will only get worse and four years will be a new maginude of stupidity that the democrats will have to clean up. In light of things, I'm sure they won't be dead-beats this time.

 

[JohnDubYa]

United Nations.

The US led sanctions are responsible for a million deaths and 100,000 are children from what I remember.

In other words, you have no source. Show us where the United Nations ever said that the US was responsible for a million deaths, Mr. Dan Rather.

Do you have a basis for this?

I am not going to respond to unproven allegations. Show us the goods.

 

[omin]

State your source.

Let me give you a little secret. It's called google. If you can't find it using google, I think you need to learn how to do simple searchs on the internet using key words. You might find help from a community college extension office in your area who'll probably provide this service free.

For now, "death toll", "Iraq" and "sanctions" "ten years" should lead you to the source. United nations will have their studies ready for your viewing, if you care enough to find the data. It was Iraqi deaths at the hands of American leaders.

As far as showing goods, why don't we move in chronological order. Bush seems to eminate from your argumentative methods. The invasion of Iraq, the murder of Iraqis, and the stealling of their resources has no prior or post justification(assuming we alow appeal to ignorance as valid), where are the "Goods" for this? Is it petty-Hitler Republican propaganda promoting the war? Not enough. No evidence, means no intellgence. You need to support your position of the agreement to murder Iraqis and take there resources and force upon them a political structure they do not want. This can't be found in any newspaper or websight, because I've followed along these past years and Bush doesn't provide empirical evidence for his actions. HE IS A LIVNG BREATHING APPEAL TO IGNORANCE. He's an unscientific, religious, republican idiot that if his team steals the office again will have another four years of wasted time, where Iraq will have gained more support internally and externally against Bush and his connections witht he so-called leaders in Iraq and domestically it will be eight years of dead beat policiy in America. Bush is the biggest dead beat and rollbacker to regressive laws we've seen in decades.

If Bush does steal office again, Democrats are guarteed a good three terms of clean up, because a Republican four years will be have an a higher entropic rate than the last term.

It's only Americans like me who guarantee that Iraqis have someone who actually understands them with respect, instead of pitying them or taking the attitude that they need to be murdered. Remember that, while things gradually turn worse for Repubican murder operations and better for the Democratic diplomacy they will implement in the future. They have a right to defend themselve against stupidity, even if that stupidity is a brainwashed group of people who misuderstand what it means to defend there homeland and traded that logic in on murdering others who are not striking against any humans on Earth. They are simple defending their homeland.

There is no way to eliminate the death wish upon the present Iraqi adiministration put in by Republicans. That's nature, it's inertia has been timeless, even if you can't understand it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I did, and nothing from the United Nations appeared. Again, state your source. You made the claim, you are the one obligated to provide the link.

 

[studentx]

i second that. State your source

 

[omin]

So you think Saddam killed less than a million ppl with his wars? Better go over the numbers again. As for sanctions, the blame lies entirely at Saddam. Since you are opposed to war, sanctions were the only alternative. Or are you saying both war and sanctions are wrong, and let me guess... you don't have any alternatives?

Been there. Done that. I'm including the ten year war. But you must categorize based upon the actions taken there. And this is out the context anyway. You go back and check.

The link to the source that I could find is:

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopoli...tionsreportsonmassivedeathtoll--fromsanctions

"When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."" -- John Pilger, "Squeezed to Death", Guardian, March 4, 2000

This comment alone implies that numbers are very high, otherwise it would have been refuted at the time of the interview.

Because of the main stream printing of the statistics and that UN is cited as it's source, that 1,000,000 deaths of been created by the sanctions, and has not been refuted in mainstream press, I am inclined to think it's founded.

The best Bush has done is say Saddam was starving his people. Sorry, the sanctions weren't Saddam idea or inertia.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Okay, let us suppose your assertion that half a million children (or adults, it isn't clear) died from the sanctions.

George W. Bush removed the sanctions. So if the US is solely responsible for the deaths under the sanctions, shouldn't Bill Clinton bear the brunt of the blame for the deaths? Shouldn't George W. be praised for taking action that led to the removal of the sanctions?

And didn't the United Nations initiate an oil-for-food program? What did Saddam do with the money and food? How can we be blamed when we provided the food but Saddam refused to give it to his people?

And no, I don't blame Bill Clinton for the deaths under UN sanctions. Saddam is every bit to blame, however.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I have never liked sanctions. They didn't work on Mussolini, and they didn't work on Saddam. They attack the common people, and leave the elites alone. But like the old League of Nations, the UN is limited to actions aginst nations, not individuals or regimes, and sanctions are about the only tool they have. That about guarantees the UN will be ineffective in imposing its will on rogue states.

 

[JohnDubYa]

There is one more tool the UN has, but they were unwilling to use it. So Bush had to do it for them.

 

[omin]

Okay, let us suppose your assertion that half a million children (or adults, it isn't clear) died from the sanctions.

George W. Bush removed the sanctions. So if the US is solely responsible for the deaths under the sanctions, shouldn't Bill Clinton bear the brunt of the blame for the deaths? Shouldn't George W. be praised for taking action that led to the removal of the sanctions?

He removed the sanctions out of the kindness of his heart? No. When he got into office he would have done that first, because that would proved intelligent intentions. He removed sanctions because it part of his terror strategy upon the Iraqis. He went into Iraq murdering and stealing. Because of this behaviour, to decrease the threat of strikes against invaders and American homeland and decrease the existing world condemnation of the attack upon innoncence, he must atleast feed them and provide the with some things his kind was holding back from Iraqi people during the sanctions. THis of course keeps the holocaust trinkle-down, even though the rate of entropy increase during the invasion. You are just like a idiot republican, you prove your mental disorder by representing things in disorder that fits your limited murder, theiving petty-Nazi theories. Get ahold yourself! The republican propoganda has meind confistated your reasoning!

And didn't the United Nations initiate an oil-for-food program? What did Saddam do with the money and food? How can we be blamed when we provided the food but Saddam refused to give it to his people?.

In otherwords, if Iraq didn't sell oil to those who imposed ridiculous sanctions upon innocent civilians the sanctions were killing, they would get no food. You know, you have limited mental capacity to reason, when you can only see things from one side. What did he do with the money and food? How in the heck do you use money for things you need if sanctions eliminate what you do need? You can't buy what you need. Duh! The food, oh, Saddam probably ate it, huh! Or traded it for things he couldn't get. Get a grip! Did you get your logic from a kindergartn nonsense rhymes? By the way, they didn't get a reasonable deal on the oil anyway.

Futhermore, Saddam was in office with the fastest growing economy in any state on the planet. There is no way Saddam is a idiot-madman like you want him to be by asserting he means to murder his own people by starving them to death. You are hook line and sinker petty-Nazi Repbulican propogandized citizen. Be patient and your mind may clear up with simple reasoing.

And no, I don't blame Bill Clinton for the deaths under UN sanctions. Saddam is every bit to blame, however.

I do Blame Clinton and the American powers behind the sanctions. Unlike you who blame somebody who actually didn't apply the sanctions. The sanctions were applied without justification either. Which you cannot provide nor anyone.

I just don't know why Clinton was a deadbeat. But, I know for a fact he was because the trinkle down holocaust occurred and it helped neither the US or anyone on the planet who could have benefited from Iraqi acceptance in trade. In light of these among other points, the Democrats have learned a lesson, Bush isn't applying to the situation.

 

[studentx]

He removed the sanctions out of the kindness of his heart? No.

Proof your assertion.

He removed sanctions because it part of his terror strategy upon the Iraqis.

proof your assertion.

Futhermore, Saddam was in office with the fastest growing economy in any state on the planet.

Proof your assertion.

There is no way Saddam is a idiot-madman like you want him to be by asserting he means to murder his own people by starving them to death.

The Iraqis disagree with you, in particular the Marsh arabs (most of which now lie buried in the Iraqi desert).

 

[JohnDubYa]

Futhermore, Saddam was in office with the fastest growing economy in any state on the planet. There is no way Saddam is a idiot-madman like you want him to be by asserting he means to murder his own people by starving them to death. You are hook line and sinker petty-Nazi Repbulican propogandized citizen.

I think it is pretty clear that you are a troll. I'm done with you.

 

[graphic7]

I think it is pretty clear that you are a troll. I'm done with you.

Excellent.

Do everyone a favor and keep quiet.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Speak for yourself.

 

[omin]

I just read Kerry wants four more years of murder and theft in Iraq.

That sucks. Now, I hate him just as much as Bush. I guess Diplomacy was a pipe dream the whole time for the Democrats on the Iraqi issue. There loosers too, damn.

I'll have to exclude his reasoning on Iraq now and pay attention to other issues he just might have some intelligence to make a decision that will improve things.

 

[Smurf]

The Iraqis disagree with you, in particular the Marsh arabs (most of which now lie buried in the Iraqi desert).

If they're dead they can't disagree with him can they?

 

[kat]

. You are just like a idiot republican, you prove your mental disorder by representing things in disorder that fits your limited murder, theiving petty-Nazi theories. Get ahold yourself! The republican propoganda has meind confistated your reasoning!.......

Get a grip! Did you get your logic from a kindergartn nonsense rhymes? By the way, they didn't get a reasonable deal on the oil anyway.......

You are hook line and sinker petty-Nazi Repbulican propogandized citizen. Be patient and your mind may clear up with simple reasoning

I think you need to watch the personal attacks. IMO this is waaaay over the line. Dubya should report you to the forum mentor if you don't delete this crap.