The W
Views: 97893321
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.8.14 2335
The W - Current Events & Politics - Some Nobel Laureates Oppose War with Iraq (Page 2)
This thread has 54 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(2296 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (35 total)
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 sec.
#21 Posted on
Sorry to repost so quickly, but one of my stats was off and I did not think it was fair to edit my original post after someone had responded.


    Originally posted by PalpatineW
      Originally Posted by Leroy
      That "do nothing" President was still bombing Iraq all during his term, and supported economic sanctions that directly caused the death of over 1.5 million Iraqi children. Which helped to strengthen Hussein's power, since most people were completely dependant on him for survival.


    Sanctions directly caused the deaths of 1.5 million children? What, then, is the Food for Oil program? And, if we lifted those sanctions, do you think Saddam would spend the money on weapons or food? Look at Jong Il, that other lunatic. If he cut his army in half, he could feed his people. He doesn't want to, and neither does Hussein.



Actually, I was off on my stat there - it is 1.5 million TOTAL deaths as a result of sanctions, over 500,00 of which are children. The numbers come from a 1995 UN Food and Agriculture Organization report, so I am sure the number has grown since then. In fairness, a report from Columbia estimated the number of children deaths in 1995 at around 200,000 - although, there was also a UNICEF report that had it at 500,000 as well.

There was a 60 Minutes interview done with Madeline Albright in 1996, in which she was asked about these stats (although I am unsure as to whether or not the interview actually aired), and said she, "We think the price is worth it."

Sorry, my bad.



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2747 days
Last activity: 2590 days
AIM:  
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
Your stats are irrelevant to my argument, though. All I'm saying is Saddam kills his people, not sanctions.



Damn your eyes!
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1904 days
Last activity: 1838 days
#23 Posted on
"If that's your attitude, then we'll forever be under the thumb of murderers and dictators."

More amazing selfishness. America is NOT under the thumb of murderers and dictators, especially not when compared with so many parts of the world. If you're so concerned with Humanitarian efforts, then why aren't we marching into war against Rober Mugabe and his evil regime? Oh, wait, because it's not "in the US's best interests". America will never ever be under threats even a tenth of how badly war will affect the Middle East, and your willingness to carry out such destruction just so Americans can sleep a little easier at night quite frankly disgusts me. It's just another example of the overwhelming self-importance and arrogance that pervades this entire issue. And this isn't an attack on America; the few Britons that think this way get the same reaction from me as well.

"That's not what bin Laden says."

When did "infidel" become a complement? I must have missed that entry into the Oxford Dictoniary.







"Here's the thing: I don't give a tupenny f*ck about your moral conundrum, you meatheaded shit-sack. That's pretty much the thing." Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, Gangs Of New York. You'd be surprised at how many statements this can be used as a response to.

OldManChase
Cotto








Since: 9.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 4035 days
Last activity: 3716 days
#24 Posted on
I find the anti-war folks - and the left in general - love to throw out "facts" without any critical thinking or proof. Of course, I know the same can be said for the other side as well sometimes. Here's the truth on the Iraqi children:

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization did conduct a study on child mortality in 1995 using information provided by officials from the IRAQI Ministry of Health. On the basis of this five-day, 693-household, Iraq-controlled study, it was announced that "child mortality had increased nearly five fold" since the pre-sanctions era. The authors subsequently withdrew the study’s conclusions after finding many, shall we say, "flaws" in the Iraqi techniques.

In 1996, the World Health Organization published its own report based solely on data provided by the IRAQI Ministry of Health. This study showed that a total of 186,000 children under the age of 5 died between 1990 and 1994 in the 15 Saddam-governed provinces.

In 1996, based on these 2 studies an advocacy group called the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) concluded that "these mortality rates translate into a figure of over half a million excess child deaths as a result of sanctions." Lesley Stahl confronted Madeleine Albright about these numbers on 60 minutes and Albright did replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." What she should have said is “these numbers are wrong”. They are based on numbers provided by the IRAQI government and then greatly INFLATED by an interest group. But, then again, we are talking about Madeleine Albright.

It's interesting that oldschoolhero takes bin Laden at face value. I don't know, is it possible he has a reason to lie? I'm pretty sure Saddam and bin Laden would put their differences aside if it meant getting a dirty nuke into New York.

The question is - will military action prevent more deaths in the long run then it will take in the short term? The answer, with respect to both American and Iraqi adults and children would be yes.



"A dope trailer is no place for a kitty!" - quote from Bubbles on the Trailer Park Boys, best Canadian made show ever! (yes, that's not saying much I know)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1187 days
Last activity: 984 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Leroy
    There was a 60 Minutes interview done with Madeline Albright in 1996, in which she was asked about these stats (although I am unsure as to whether or not the interview actually aired), and said she, "We think the price is worth it."

This doesn't change the fact that we were a part of the oil for food program and the food that was received was redistirubted by Saddam to his own loyalists; not the people.


    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    If you're so concerned with Humanitarian efforts, then why aren't we marching into war against Rober Mugabe and his evil regime? Oh, wait, because it's not "in the US's best interests".

Let's go get him them. I've been supporting the removal of Mugabe since early 2001, when the first reports came out of Harare. One reason the US hasn't gotten involed is because of the lack of media coverage of the situation; some people may think that this is because the Zimbabwe government is black and they are slaughtering whites, thus falling out of the Politically Correct worldview of the media.



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2747 days
Last activity: 2590 days
AIM:  
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally Posted by oldschoolhero
    More amazing selfishness. America is NOT under the thumb of murderers and dictators, especially not when compared with so many parts of the world. If you're so concerned with Humanitarian efforts, then why aren't we marching into war against Rober Mugabe and his evil regime? Oh, wait, because it's not "in the US's best interests". America will never ever be under threats even a tenth of how badly war will affect the Middle East, and your willingness to carry out such destruction just so Americans can sleep a little easier at night quite frankly disgusts me. It's just another example of the overwhelming self-importance and arrogance that pervades this entire issue


I can't believe you passed up a chance to call GWB a murderer and a dictator.
Perhaps I chose the wrong words. We're definitely not under the thumb of these people, here in the West, but if we refuse to remove them when it becomes apparent that they threaten us, then we will be capitulating. Robert Mugabe is a terrible man, but I don't think Americans have to die to get him out of there. Personally, I could not justify to a soldier why I am sending him to Africa, were I president. While Saddam may be no more evil than Mugabe, I believe he is more threatening. I also believe that it is the right of any sane nation to take action to defend itself when it determines that it is necessary. You seem to be a pacifist, believing that the taking of life is always wrong. All I'm saying is, sometimes you have to. Otherwise, al-Qaeda will continue striking us from behind civilian cover. Saddam could send whatever weapons he wants here without fear of repirsal. The bottom line, for me, is that Hussein is one of several lunatics with weapons that we can't trust him with, and he has to be dealt with. We've been trying diplomacy for 12 years, and it hasn't gotten us anywhere. Imagine if we left him alone, and he got nukes? We don't need another Jong Il.

Besides, in your yelling about arrogance, have you not noticed the list of nations lined up to support us?


    Originally Posted by oldschoolhero
    When did "infidel" become a complement? I must have missed that entry into the Oxford Dictoniary.


Look up a copy of yesterday's bin Laden audio recording, then.



Damn your eyes!
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 12 days
AIM:  
#27 Posted on
That's taking it a little bit out of context. Click Here



"Contrary to popular belief, there are no good wars, with the following exceptions: the American Revolution, World War II and the 'Star Wars' trilogy."
-Bart Simpson
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 sec.
#28 Posted on

    Originally posted by OldManChase
    Lesley Stahl confronted Madeleine Albright about these numbers on 60 minutes and Albright did replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." What she should have said is “these numbers are wrong”. They are based on numbers provided by the IRAQI government and then greatly INFLATED by an interest group. But, then again, we are talking about Madeleine Albright.

As I said in my last post, three seperate organizations (UN, UNICEF, and a Columbia University ) that sponsored studies found the deaths to be in the hundreds of thousands (between 200 and 500 thousand in 1995), and were directly related to the sanctions. You say that's an exaggeration, but I'd like to know where those numbers are disputed.


    Originally posted by OldManChase
    This doesn't change the fact that we were a part of the oil for food program and the food that was received was redistirubted by Saddam to his own loyalists; not the people.

Of course - and what did you expect? Look, if you lock Jeffery Dalmer in a room with someone handcuffed and shackled, and give him a knife and fork, should you be suprised when he tortures, murders, and eats his victim? The real question would be, why the hell did you lock him in a room with a someone who could not defend themselves?

When you eliminate all outside assistance from helping those who need it in Iraq, should you be surpised when the sociopathic dictator lets thousands of people die while using whatever resources he has to protect himself? And now his people need him more than ever, just to get things like food and water. It was a completely expected outcome.



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst








Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
#29 Posted on

    Originally posted by Leroy

    When you eliminate all outside assistance from helping those who need it in Iraq, should you be surpised when the sociopathic dictator lets thousands of people die while using whatever resources he has to protect himself? And now his people need him more than ever, just to get things like food and water. It was a completely expected outcome.



Ok, maybe I bumped my head, but I'm not quite sure I understand this. The Sanctions allow for Food for Oil and humanitarian aid right? Now, Saddam doesn't give it to his people, because like you said, he's a 'sociopathic dictator'. Because of this, lots of people die. He's got the food and aid, and lets his people die. Can someone please tell me how the hell this is our fault? The guy lets his people die, and oh boo-hoo, the children starve to death, and it's OUR fault? If someone is upset about dead kids, wouldn't they want Saddam out of there? Man, I really, REALLY don't get the anti-war movement. Maybe it has something to do with that I've never smoked weed...



"My own personal feeling is that the Confederate flag no longer has a place flying any time, anywhere in our great nation." - Dick Gephardt, a man who apparently hates history AND the 1st Amendment

Maiden RULES!!!
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1233 days
Last activity: 32 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#30 Posted on
Na- I smoked weed and I still don't understand the anti-war movement. Especially in this case. They use the argument that we are going to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians (huh? and how exactly are they coming up with this figure?) to out Sadaam, and that is bad. But Sadaam has no problem killing millions of his own people if he needs to. So how is leaving him in power better, if more innocent civilians will end up dead in the long term if we leave him there?

They also keep forgetting that the US actively avoids any and all civilian casualties (to the best of their ability), while chaps like Sadaam will target civilians, and practice scorched earth, and any other atrocious act he can think of to maintain control of his country.

Why are we the bad guys here?



Not that restraint when posting in a "public" forum isn't a good thing...

Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst








Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
#31 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    They use the argument that we are going to kill thousands of Iraqi civilians (huh? and how exactly are they coming up with this figure?) to out Sadaam, and that is bad. But Sadaam has no problem killing millions of his own people if he needs to. So how is leaving him in power better, if more innocent civilians will end up dead in the long term if we leave him there?


It's really best not to think about it. Trying to understand leftwing "logic" might make you burst a blood vessel in your brain. You certainly don't need to suffer a stroke at your young age.

It sounds like the left is saying this:
Americans backed sanctions, which forced Saddam to let people die, so Americans are BAD

And they also say this:
If America attacks Iraq to remove the Butcher of Baghdad, then people will die, so Americans are BAD

The common denominator is, of course, that Americans are BAD. I guess we must be the root of all evil. It doesn't matter that Saddam is the butcher who let all those (if you believe leftist propoganda) children die. Somehow, somewhere, it's our fault he did it. Well shucks, I am so ashamed I might just go let him use me as a human shield.



"My own personal feeling is that the Confederate flag no longer has a place flying any time, anywhere in our great nation." - Dick Gephardt, a man who apparently hates history AND the 1st Amendment

Maiden RULES!!!
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1904 days
Last activity: 1838 days
#32 Posted on
"It's really best not to think about it. Trying to understand leftwing "logic" might make you burst a blood vessel in your brain. You certainly don't need to suffer a stroke at your young age."

Please don't say things like this. Your rude, arrogant tone is the main reason why a lot of people ride you constantly. Strange how the lefties can formulate things without it boiling down to insults, whereas you can't.

"The common denominator is, of course, that Americans are BAD. I guess we must be the root of all evil. It doesn't matter that Saddam is the butcher who let all those (if you believe leftist propoganda) children die. Somehow, somewhere, it's our fault he did it. Well shucks, I am so ashamed I might just go let him use me as a human shield."

Whoa, what was that bang? Oh, just you shooting yourself in the foot. Considering America backed the Iraqi dictatorship when it suited them and happily handed over weapons to Saddam's regime, which in turn gave the man the means to do whatever the fuck he wanted with his people, I'd say it does trace back to you, "somehow, somewhere". So, how to fix this problem? I got it! Whitewash the fact that you ever gave him the weapons and launch a big ol' messy war, rather than think things through and try to come up with a more precise, effective solution. Considering that the likely outcome of war would see yet another US-backed "in our interests" regime on top in Iraq which could just as easily turn round and become the enemy again in a decade's time, I don't see HOW a war is a better solution than pouring all the effort into utilising proper inspections, using covert operations and doing things the sneaky, exact way.

Oh, and I don't believe that Americans are BAD. I do, however, find the bullish, self-centred, arrogant nature of some of you to be really rather childish, and in the end unless you actually admit that America can be, y'know, WRONG, people are going to pay less and less attention to you.





"Here's the thing: I don't give a tupenny f*ck about your moral conundrum, you meatheaded shit-sack. That's pretty much the thing." Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting, Gangs Of New York. You'd be surprised at how many statements this can be used as a response to.

Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1233 days
Last activity: 32 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#33 Posted on
oldschool- I freely admit Americans can be wrong. HOWEVER, it seems like the rest of the world is of the opinion that America can't ever be RIGHT. In this case, we are right.

What other option is left in Iraq? Lets start with your assertion that Iraq is a mess we created. Does this not obligate us to clean it up?

Let's take a look at the options that have been attempted prior to the war option, shall we?

1- 12 years of diplomatic attempts. I can't see how that this is "not enough time."

2- What is it now - THREE rounds of weapons inspections? At least. This final one backed by a UN resolution that Iraq is to DISCLOSE not only its current WoMD capacity, but how it destroyed what it had? And each time, Iraq has evaded, obstructed, lied to, and harassed the inspectors. In short, every time we have tried, it has been a miserable failure. With that in mind, can you explain to me how "more inspectors" or "giving the inspectors more time" is going to work this time, when it has NEVER worked in the past?

3- UN resolution after UN resolution ORDERING Iraq to comply.

4- Sanctions.

5- Iraq complained that the sanctions were starving the people, so we allowed "Oil or food." Iraqis still starving, Sadaam has several new palaces. Huh?

6- Offer of exile - We will spare your country war if you exile yourself. Sadaam? No dice.

7- THREAT of war. This is very different from war itself. We are massing troops at their borders saying "If you do not comply, we are going to attack you and force you out of power." I think this is a very important step for us prior to war, because it is making clear to Iraq that while we have not attacked them "yet," if they do not comply, we are going to attack. And I am sorry, Iraq does not have a snowballs chance in hell in beating America in a war.

So not you have a situation where over and over and over and over again you have tried diplomacy. You have tried pleading. You have tried ordering. You have tried threatening. You have tried pulling out the gun and placing it to Iraq's head and saying "Damn it, if you don't do what is required WE WILL FIRE!" Meanwhile Iraq smiles, counting on the rest of the worlds "hatred of America" (look, they are so damned arrogant!) to keep us in check. Hell, it worked all throughout Clinton, why not now?

oldschool - WHAT exactly is the solution here then besides attack? And how exactly do you come off claiming that the United States is arrogant in its intent to attack Iraq, when nothing else has worked? Please, I ask you, give me a solution! All 7 of the items I have listed have failed, completely and utterly. What options are left?

I really think you should think twice before blasting America for being arrogant, and take a close look in the mirror first. I will be the first to admit that we have a tendancy to be arrogant, but is it not equally as arrogant for the rest of the world to demand that we, a soverign nation, beg plead, and prostate ourselves before you before acting, that we follow YOUR lead in all international matters, that WE be at YOUR beck and call whenever you need us? Is it not arrogant to suggest that no matter the situation, THE UNITED STATES IS WRONG?

You want an example of a nation which is not arrogant? Turkey. They opposed war in Iraq. As time went on, they listened to the evidence. They offered their opinion, and waited. More evidence came to light, and they came to agree that Iraq was a threat. They basically agreed to US leadership in the matter (we were the ones initiating after all, and our troops are going to be used, it makes sense), and offered support.

Nations like France and Germany, on the other hand, furious that we are not bowing to their will in the matter, are throwing a temper tantrum and opposing us at every turn, even on topics like the defense of Turkey, which would not declare support for the war, it would just be DEFENDING YOUR ALLY! THAT is arrogance. The US's handling of this situation in particular, if anything, is leadership. And it pisses Europe off.



Not that restraint when posting in a "public" forum isn't a good thing...

Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst








Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
#34 Posted on
It always does bring a smile to my face when a Briton chastises America for being "arrogant". Have we gotten more arrogant than the Brits? Is that why they rag on us?

Anyway...

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I freely admit Americans can be wrong.

I would agree with this sometimes. I don't always agree with our military action. How many billions of dollars did we waste getting Milosevic? And all because Europe couldn't take care of their own backyard.

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    5- Iraq complained that the sanctions were starving the people, so we allowed "Oil or food." Iraqis still starving, Sadaam has several new palaces. Huh?


It's still our fault. Afterall, we helped him our against Iran. So EVERYTHING he does after that, until the end of time, is our fault. Like building big palaces. Did he have good old American union contractors over there putting them together?

Those are seven great points. But they are falling on deaf ears. With Germany and France refising to help their ally it's never been more clear that the oppostition is totally blinded by their hatred for us and just won't listen to reason. I can picture them now, holding their hands to their ears and yelling "I can't hear you, you're just ARROGANT!" while Pool-Boy reads his list.



"My own personal feeling is that the Confederate flag no longer has a place flying any time, anywhere in our great nation." - Dick Gephardt, a man who apparently hates history AND the 1st Amendment

Maiden RULES!!!
OldManChase
Cotto








Since: 9.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 4035 days
Last activity: 3716 days
#35 Posted on

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY LEROY:
As I said in my last post, three seperate organizations (UN, UNICEF, and a Columbia University ) that sponsored studies found the deaths to be in the hundreds of thousands (between 200 and 500 thousand in 1995), and were directly related to the sanctions. You say that's an exaggeration, but I'd like to know where those numbers are disputed.


I already gave you the info on the UN figures - they were taken from an IRAQI government study. The UNICEF study was based on a comparison of infant mortality rates in Iraq from the 80s to the early 90s. The increase in mortality rates would translate to about a half a million children. However, this was attributed to many factors (which keeps being pointed out by UNICEF but the anti-war folks ignore this). Iraqi was a rather modern society in the early 80s, but between then and the early 90s it started 2 wars, let it's social and infrasture programs lapse to fund its military, continued with its misguided economic policies, etc, etc. Santions obviously could be blamed for some deaths but even the much smaller number that could - isn't this the fault of Saddam. As far as I know, the Colombia University study was based on the info I have already provided. I would like YOU to prove their validity, I think I have presented a good case to dispute their accuracy.



"A dope trailer is no place for a kitty!" - quote from Bubbles on the Trailer Park Boys, best Canadian made show ever! (yes, that's not saying much I know)
Pages: Prev 1 2
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: This Might Top Headless Body Found in Topless Bar
Next thread: Ah, the Press
Previous thread: pheww!
(2296 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Geez, I can almost excuse Moe for his ignorance because he's nowhere NEAR California, but Michrome...I really thought you'd know better. IF Simon drops (highly unlikely) AND all his support decides to go to McClintock (also unlikely)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Some Nobel Laureates Oppose War with Iraq (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.133 seconds.