*PICTURES* - Supa91's Turbo setup
what is he giving out? is he giving out 
?
10-08-2002, 08:02 PM
#172
¿Hablas Español?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 851
Originally posted by The_Bomb
Boo F!cking Hoo . The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem. Why hate us for their situation? I guess not all of us are bleeding heart liberals.
Adam
Boo F!cking Hoo . The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem. Why hate us for their situation? I guess not all of us are bleeding heart liberals.Adam
the article.
"The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.
Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." emphasis added
Now, as for your comment, "The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem.", I would argue that it is now our problem and a problem of chiefly our creation. We are the staunchest supporter for continued sanctions. In the absence of sanctions, while the U.S. still loved Saddam and his 2nd highest in the world oil output, we left him essentially alone and the plight of women and children was nowhere near as terrible as it is now.
"Why hate us for their situation?" Well, primarily because we are the most vocal and powerful supporter of the sanctions that lead to the above conditions. If he's looking for fuel to stoke the fire of anti-Americanism, we're supplying it to him readily; just like we did with biological weapons, ammunition, planes and technology during the war with Iran and over the ensuing years. Why make it easier for him? Why doesn't the U.S. & Brittish evidence against Saddam convince China, France, Germany and Russia that a "regime change" (i.e. murder of the leader of a sovereign nation) is warranted? We have been trying for nearly 4 years to get the world's support for regime change in Iraq (read U.S. House Of Representatives Resolution HR4655, signed 10/31/1998 by President Clinton) but have yet to convince anyone but us that it's warranted. So, with the knowledge that the biggest and toughest kid on the block is out to get you and yours, wouldn't you do all you could to strengthen the resolve to resist him? Dehumanizing the enemy is at play on both sides of the board here and it's working equally as well in both camps. Saddam has fuel to foster hatred for "us" and "we" have fuel to foster hatred of "them".
As for my earlier remarks where I labelled JoesMAX a narrow-minded, racist idiot, I apologize. I should have phrased it to reflect that those comments regarding all people of the Middle East ("difference between someone being from the middle east, and living in the middle east.. I personally dont have ANY sympathy for any of them living there.. ") are narrow-minded, racist and idiotic.
Why I'm being called a "n00b" is beyond me but if it makes you feel better then so be it.
As for "kill or be killed"; obviously I have heard of this. I've also heard of people living in a land of laws where proof and evidence are required to justify retaliatory or punitive actions. I wonder if you felt the same way about all white-skinned, short-haired, 20 something American males after Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing? Were you out calling for all of those heads to be served up on a platter as well? Or is that somehow different? His attack was only against Americans and the American government. He killed little children waiting for day-care. He killed innocents doing no more than their jobs for the U.S. Government. He destroyed a pillar of our republic by taking out a substantial building and made all of us feel vulnerable. Because it's easy to label him a one-off looney so you feel more comfortable about not going after the rest of the people that look and therefore obviously think and believe like him? Or more simply, is it different because he was white and an American?
Maybe it's because they caught him, convicted him and executed him. Well, the people that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 are also all dead, in fact much more swiftly than Mr. McVeigh. Oh, but the leader of it all is still out there recruiting more fringe whackos to attack again - and you don't think the radical movement Mr. McVeigh was part of has anyone else thinking about doing the same thing somewhere else?
I'm no "bleeding-heart liberal". I'm simply asking for people to look and question and not follow with blind faith in your leaders and "200% patriotism". 500,000 children are dead. That's more than we lost in the entirety of WWII. If you want to see a possible outcome of forced "regime change" in Iraq, look no further than its neighbor, Iran. Remember when Iran was the hated evil empire of the Middle East? I don't get it - we initiated a "regime change", installed the Shah, it lasted for a few decades, fundamentalists took over, hostages were taken, lives were lost and we are no better off than before. We helped to bring Saddam to power, it lasted for a few decades...
All I'm asking is that you think, read and research before accepting the simple solution provided to you by a President seeking unheard of and unprecented powers to conduct war and foreign policy without Congressional oversight.
I applaud the people gathering information and pursuing "RoadBeast" via the FBI, embassies and other legal, rational and reasonable means. If the proof is there I hope justice will be served.
10-08-2002, 08:05 PM
#173
192.168.1.1
Thread Starter
iTrader: (50)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 17,637
Originally posted by joaquink
I am apparently asking too much when I ask others to read the information for themselves so here is the most relevant section of
the article.
"The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.
Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." emphasis added
Now, as for your comment, "The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem.", I would argue that it is now our problem and a problem of chiefly our creation. We are the staunchest supporter for continued sanctions. In the absence of sanctions, while the U.S. still loved Saddam and his 2nd highest in the world oil output, we left him essentially alone and the plight of women and children was nowhere near as terrible as it is now.
"Why hate us for their situation?" Well, primarily because we are the most vocal and powerful supporter of the sanctions that lead to the above conditions. If he's looking for fuel to stoke the fire of anti-Americanism, we're supplying it to him readily; just like we did with biological weapons, ammunition, planes and technology during the war with Iran and over the ensuing years. Why make it easier for him? Why doesn't the U.S. & Brittish evidence against Saddam convince China, France, Germany and Russia that a "regime change" (i.e. murder of the leader of a sovereign nation) is warranted? We have been trying for nearly 4 years to get the world's support for regime change in Iraq (read U.S. House Of Representatives Resolution HR4655, signed 10/31/1998 by President Clinton) but have yet to convince anyone but us that it's warranted. So, with the knowledge that the biggest and toughest kid on the block is out to get you and yours, wouldn't you do all you could to strengthen the resolve to resist him? Dehumanizing the enemy is at play on both sides of the board here and it's working equally as well in both camps. Saddam has fuel to foster hatred for "us" and "we" have fuel to foster hatred of "them".
As for my earlier remarks where I labelled JoesMAX a narrow-minded, racist idiot, I apologize. I should have phrased it to reflect that those comments regarding all people of the Middle East ("difference between someone being from the middle east, and living in the middle east.. I personally dont have ANY sympathy for any of them living there.. ") are narrow-minded, racist and idiotic.
Why I'm being called a "n00b" is beyond me but if it makes you feel better then so be it.
As for "kill or be killed"; obviously I have heard of this. I've also heard of people living in a land of laws where proof and evidence are required to justify retaliatory or punitive actions. I wonder if you felt the same way about all white-skinned, short-haired, 20 something American males after Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing? Were you out calling for all of those heads to be served up on a platter as well? Or is that somehow different? His attack was only against Americans and the American government. He killed little children waiting for day-care. He killed innocents doing no more than their jobs for the U.S. Government. He destroyed a pillar of our republic by taking out a substantial building and made all of us feel vulnerable. Because it's easy to label him a one-off looney so you feel more comfortable about not going after the rest of the people that look and therefore obviously think and believe like him? Or more simply, is it different because he was white and an American?
Maybe it's because they caught him, convicted him and executed him. Well, the people that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 are also all dead, in fact much more swiftly than Mr. McVeigh. Oh, but the leader of it all is still out there recruiting more fringe whackos to attack again - and you don't think the radical movement Mr. McVeigh was part of has anyone else thinking about doing the same thing somewhere else?
I'm no "bleeding-heart liberal". I'm simply asking for people to look and question and not follow with blind faith in your leaders and "200% patriotism". 500,000 children are dead. That's more than we lost in the entirety of WWII. If you want to see a possible outcome of forced "regime change" in Iraq, look no further than its neighbor, Iran. Remember when Iran was the hated evil empire of the Middle East? I don't get it - we initiated a "regime change", installed the Shah, it lasted for a few decades, fundamentalists took over, hostages were taken, lives were lost and we are no better off than before. We helped to bring Saddam to power, it lasted for a few decades...
All I'm asking is that you think, read and research before accepting the simple solution provided to you by a President seeking unheard of and unprecented powers to conduct war and foreign policy without Congressional oversight.
I applaud the people gathering information and pursuing "RoadBeast" via the FBI, embassies and other legal, rational and reasonable means. If the proof is there I hope justice will be served.
I am apparently asking too much when I ask others to read the information for themselves so here is the most relevant section of
the article.
"The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.
Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." emphasis added
Now, as for your comment, "The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem.", I would argue that it is now our problem and a problem of chiefly our creation. We are the staunchest supporter for continued sanctions. In the absence of sanctions, while the U.S. still loved Saddam and his 2nd highest in the world oil output, we left him essentially alone and the plight of women and children was nowhere near as terrible as it is now.
"Why hate us for their situation?" Well, primarily because we are the most vocal and powerful supporter of the sanctions that lead to the above conditions. If he's looking for fuel to stoke the fire of anti-Americanism, we're supplying it to him readily; just like we did with biological weapons, ammunition, planes and technology during the war with Iran and over the ensuing years. Why make it easier for him? Why doesn't the U.S. & Brittish evidence against Saddam convince China, France, Germany and Russia that a "regime change" (i.e. murder of the leader of a sovereign nation) is warranted? We have been trying for nearly 4 years to get the world's support for regime change in Iraq (read U.S. House Of Representatives Resolution HR4655, signed 10/31/1998 by President Clinton) but have yet to convince anyone but us that it's warranted. So, with the knowledge that the biggest and toughest kid on the block is out to get you and yours, wouldn't you do all you could to strengthen the resolve to resist him? Dehumanizing the enemy is at play on both sides of the board here and it's working equally as well in both camps. Saddam has fuel to foster hatred for "us" and "we" have fuel to foster hatred of "them".
As for my earlier remarks where I labelled JoesMAX a narrow-minded, racist idiot, I apologize. I should have phrased it to reflect that those comments regarding all people of the Middle East ("difference between someone being from the middle east, and living in the middle east.. I personally dont have ANY sympathy for any of them living there.. ") are narrow-minded, racist and idiotic.
Why I'm being called a "n00b" is beyond me but if it makes you feel better then so be it.
As for "kill or be killed"; obviously I have heard of this. I've also heard of people living in a land of laws where proof and evidence are required to justify retaliatory or punitive actions. I wonder if you felt the same way about all white-skinned, short-haired, 20 something American males after Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing? Were you out calling for all of those heads to be served up on a platter as well? Or is that somehow different? His attack was only against Americans and the American government. He killed little children waiting for day-care. He killed innocents doing no more than their jobs for the U.S. Government. He destroyed a pillar of our republic by taking out a substantial building and made all of us feel vulnerable. Because it's easy to label him a one-off looney so you feel more comfortable about not going after the rest of the people that look and therefore obviously think and believe like him? Or more simply, is it different because he was white and an American?
Maybe it's because they caught him, convicted him and executed him. Well, the people that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 are also all dead, in fact much more swiftly than Mr. McVeigh. Oh, but the leader of it all is still out there recruiting more fringe whackos to attack again - and you don't think the radical movement Mr. McVeigh was part of has anyone else thinking about doing the same thing somewhere else?
I'm no "bleeding-heart liberal". I'm simply asking for people to look and question and not follow with blind faith in your leaders and "200% patriotism". 500,000 children are dead. That's more than we lost in the entirety of WWII. If you want to see a possible outcome of forced "regime change" in Iraq, look no further than its neighbor, Iran. Remember when Iran was the hated evil empire of the Middle East? I don't get it - we initiated a "regime change", installed the Shah, it lasted for a few decades, fundamentalists took over, hostages were taken, lives were lost and we are no better off than before. We helped to bring Saddam to power, it lasted for a few decades...
All I'm asking is that you think, read and research before accepting the simple solution provided to you by a President seeking unheard of and unprecented powers to conduct war and foreign policy without Congressional oversight.
I applaud the people gathering information and pursuing "RoadBeast" via the FBI, embassies and other legal, rational and reasonable means. If the proof is there I hope justice will be served.
10-08-2002, 08:06 PM
#174
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,087
Originally posted by gtr_rider
footnotes?
footnotes?
10-08-2002, 08:13 PM
#176
Originally posted by joaquink
I am apparently asking too much when I ask others to read the information for themselves so here is the most relevant section of
the article.
"The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.
Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." emphasis added
Now, as for your comment, "The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem.", I would argue that it is now our problem and a problem of chiefly our creation. We are the staunchest supporter for continued sanctions. In the absence of sanctions, while the U.S. still loved Saddam and his 2nd highest in the world oil output, we left him essentially alone and the plight of women and children was nowhere near as terrible as it is now.
"Why hate us for their situation?" Well, primarily because we are the most vocal and powerful supporter of the sanctions that lead to the above conditions. If he's looking for fuel to stoke the fire of anti-Americanism, we're supplying it to him readily; just like we did with biological weapons, ammunition, planes and technology during the war with Iran and over the ensuing years. Why make it easier for him? Why doesn't the U.S. & Brittish evidence against Saddam convince China, France, Germany and Russia that a "regime change" (i.e. murder of the leader of a sovereign nation) is warranted? We have been trying for nearly 4 years to get the world's support for regime change in Iraq (read U.S. House Of Representatives Resolution HR4655, signed 10/31/1998 by President Clinton) but have yet to convince anyone but us that it's warranted. So, with the knowledge that the biggest and toughest kid on the block is out to get you and yours, wouldn't you do all you could to strengthen the resolve to resist him? Dehumanizing the enemy is at play on both sides of the board here and it's working equally as well in both camps. Saddam has fuel to foster hatred for "us" and "we" have fuel to foster hatred of "them".
As for my earlier remarks where I labelled JoesMAX a narrow-minded, racist idiot, I apologize. I should have phrased it to reflect that those comments regarding all people of the Middle East ("difference between someone being from the middle east, and living in the middle east.. I personally dont have ANY sympathy for any of them living there.. ") are narrow-minded, racist and idiotic.
Why I'm being called a "n00b" is beyond me but if it makes you feel better then so be it.
As for "kill or be killed"; obviously I have heard of this. I've also heard of people living in a land of laws where proof and evidence are required to justify retaliatory or punitive actions. I wonder if you felt the same way about all white-skinned, short-haired, 20 something American males after Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing? Were you out calling for all of those heads to be served up on a platter as well? Or is that somehow different? His attack was only against Americans and the American government. He killed little children waiting for day-care. He killed innocents doing no more than their jobs for the U.S. Government. He destroyed a pillar of our republic by taking out a substantial building and made all of us feel vulnerable. Because it's easy to label him a one-off looney so you feel more comfortable about not going after the rest of the people that look and therefore obviously think and believe like him? Or more simply, is it different because he was white and an American?
Maybe it's because they caught him, convicted him and executed him. Well, the people that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 are also all dead, in fact much more swiftly than Mr. McVeigh. Oh, but the leader of it all is still out there recruiting more fringe whackos to attack again - and you don't think the radical movement Mr. McVeigh was part of has anyone else thinking about doing the same thing somewhere else?
I'm no "bleeding-heart liberal". I'm simply asking for people to look and question and not follow with blind faith in your leaders and "200% patriotism". 500,000 children are dead. That's more than we lost in the entirety of WWII. If you want to see a possible outcome of forced "regime change" in Iraq, look no further than its neighbor, Iran. Remember when Iran was the hated evil empire of the Middle East? I don't get it - we initiated a "regime change", installed the Shah, it lasted for a few decades, fundamentalists took over, hostages were taken, lives were lost and we are no better off than before. We helped to bring Saddam to power, it lasted for a few decades...
All I'm asking is that you think, read and research before accepting the simple solution provided to you by a President seeking unheard of and unprecented powers to conduct war and foreign policy without Congressional oversight.
I applaud the people gathering information and pursuing "RoadBeast" via the FBI, embassies and other legal, rational and reasonable means. If the proof is there I hope justice will be served.
I am apparently asking too much when I ask others to read the information for themselves so here is the most relevant section of
the article.
"The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.
Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." emphasis added
Now, as for your comment, "The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem.", I would argue that it is now our problem and a problem of chiefly our creation. We are the staunchest supporter for continued sanctions. In the absence of sanctions, while the U.S. still loved Saddam and his 2nd highest in the world oil output, we left him essentially alone and the plight of women and children was nowhere near as terrible as it is now.
"Why hate us for their situation?" Well, primarily because we are the most vocal and powerful supporter of the sanctions that lead to the above conditions. If he's looking for fuel to stoke the fire of anti-Americanism, we're supplying it to him readily; just like we did with biological weapons, ammunition, planes and technology during the war with Iran and over the ensuing years. Why make it easier for him? Why doesn't the U.S. & Brittish evidence against Saddam convince China, France, Germany and Russia that a "regime change" (i.e. murder of the leader of a sovereign nation) is warranted? We have been trying for nearly 4 years to get the world's support for regime change in Iraq (read U.S. House Of Representatives Resolution HR4655, signed 10/31/1998 by President Clinton) but have yet to convince anyone but us that it's warranted. So, with the knowledge that the biggest and toughest kid on the block is out to get you and yours, wouldn't you do all you could to strengthen the resolve to resist him? Dehumanizing the enemy is at play on both sides of the board here and it's working equally as well in both camps. Saddam has fuel to foster hatred for "us" and "we" have fuel to foster hatred of "them".
As for my earlier remarks where I labelled JoesMAX a narrow-minded, racist idiot, I apologize. I should have phrased it to reflect that those comments regarding all people of the Middle East ("difference between someone being from the middle east, and living in the middle east.. I personally dont have ANY sympathy for any of them living there.. ") are narrow-minded, racist and idiotic.
Why I'm being called a "n00b" is beyond me but if it makes you feel better then so be it.
As for "kill or be killed"; obviously I have heard of this. I've also heard of people living in a land of laws where proof and evidence are required to justify retaliatory or punitive actions. I wonder if you felt the same way about all white-skinned, short-haired, 20 something American males after Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing? Were you out calling for all of those heads to be served up on a platter as well? Or is that somehow different? His attack was only against Americans and the American government. He killed little children waiting for day-care. He killed innocents doing no more than their jobs for the U.S. Government. He destroyed a pillar of our republic by taking out a substantial building and made all of us feel vulnerable. Because it's easy to label him a one-off looney so you feel more comfortable about not going after the rest of the people that look and therefore obviously think and believe like him? Or more simply, is it different because he was white and an American?
Maybe it's because they caught him, convicted him and executed him. Well, the people that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 are also all dead, in fact much more swiftly than Mr. McVeigh. Oh, but the leader of it all is still out there recruiting more fringe whackos to attack again - and you don't think the radical movement Mr. McVeigh was part of has anyone else thinking about doing the same thing somewhere else?
I'm no "bleeding-heart liberal". I'm simply asking for people to look and question and not follow with blind faith in your leaders and "200% patriotism". 500,000 children are dead. That's more than we lost in the entirety of WWII. If you want to see a possible outcome of forced "regime change" in Iraq, look no further than its neighbor, Iran. Remember when Iran was the hated evil empire of the Middle East? I don't get it - we initiated a "regime change", installed the Shah, it lasted for a few decades, fundamentalists took over, hostages were taken, lives were lost and we are no better off than before. We helped to bring Saddam to power, it lasted for a few decades...
All I'm asking is that you think, read and research before accepting the simple solution provided to you by a President seeking unheard of and unprecented powers to conduct war and foreign policy without Congressional oversight.
I applaud the people gathering information and pursuing "RoadBeast" via the FBI, embassies and other legal, rational and reasonable means. If the proof is there I hope justice will be served.
10-08-2002, 08:17 PM
#177
192.168.1.1
Thread Starter
iTrader: (50)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 17,637
Originally posted by joaquink
I am apparently asking too much when I ask others to read the information for themselves so here is the most relevant section of
the article.
"The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.
Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." emphasis added
Now, as for your comment, "The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem.", I would argue that it is now our problem and a problem of chiefly our creation. We are the staunchest supporter for continued sanctions. In the absence of sanctions, while the U.S. still loved Saddam and his 2nd highest in the world oil output, we left him essentially alone and the plight of women and children was nowhere near as terrible as it is now.
"Why hate us for their situation?" Well, primarily because we are the most vocal and powerful supporter of the sanctions that lead to the above conditions. If he's looking for fuel to stoke the fire of anti-Americanism, we're supplying it to him readily; just like we did with biological weapons, ammunition, planes and technology during the war with Iran and over the ensuing years. Why make it easier for him? Why doesn't the U.S. & Brittish evidence against Saddam convince China, France, Germany and Russia that a "regime change" (i.e. murder of the leader of a sovereign nation) is warranted? We have been trying for nearly 4 years to get the world's support for regime change in Iraq (read U.S. House Of Representatives Resolution HR4655, signed 10/31/1998 by President Clinton) but have yet to convince anyone but us that it's warranted. So, with the knowledge that the biggest and toughest kid on the block is out to get you and yours, wouldn't you do all you could to strengthen the resolve to resist him? Dehumanizing the enemy is at play on both sides of the board here and it's working equally as well in both camps. Saddam has fuel to foster hatred for "us" and "we" have fuel to foster hatred of "them".
As for my earlier remarks where I labelled JoesMAX a narrow-minded, racist idiot, I apologize. I should have phrased it to reflect that those comments regarding all people of the Middle East ("difference between someone being from the middle east, and living in the middle east.. I personally dont have ANY sympathy for any of them living there.. ") are narrow-minded, racist and idiotic.
Why I'm being called a "n00b" is beyond me but if it makes you feel better then so be it.
As for "kill or be killed"; obviously I have heard of this. I've also heard of people living in a land of laws where proof and evidence are required to justify retaliatory or punitive actions. I wonder if you felt the same way about all white-skinned, short-haired, 20 something American males after Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing? Were you out calling for all of those heads to be served up on a platter as well? Or is that somehow different? His attack was only against Americans and the American government. He killed little children waiting for day-care. He killed innocents doing no more than their jobs for the U.S. Government. He destroyed a pillar of our republic by taking out a substantial building and made all of us feel vulnerable. Because it's easy to label him a one-off looney so you feel more comfortable about not going after the rest of the people that look and therefore obviously think and believe like him? Or more simply, is it different because he was white and an American?
Maybe it's because they caught him, convicted him and executed him. Well, the people that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 are also all dead, in fact much more swiftly than Mr. McVeigh. Oh, but the leader of it all is still out there recruiting more fringe whackos to attack again - and you don't think the radical movement Mr. McVeigh was part of has anyone else thinking about doing the same thing somewhere else?
I'm no "bleeding-heart liberal". I'm simply asking for people to look and question and not follow with blind faith in your leaders and "200% patriotism". 500,000 children are dead. That's more than we lost in the entirety of WWII. If you want to see a possible outcome of forced "regime change" in Iraq, look no further than its neighbor, Iran. Remember when Iran was the hated evil empire of the Middle East? I don't get it - we initiated a "regime change", installed the Shah, it lasted for a few decades, fundamentalists took over, hostages were taken, lives were lost and we are no better off than before. We helped to bring Saddam to power, it lasted for a few decades...
All I'm asking is that you think, read and research before accepting the simple solution provided to you by a President seeking unheard of and unprecented powers to conduct war and foreign policy without Congressional oversight.
I applaud the people gathering information and pursuing "RoadBeast" via the FBI, embassies and other legal, rational and reasonable means. If the proof is there I hope justice will be served.
I am apparently asking too much when I ask others to read the information for themselves so here is the most relevant section of
the article.
"The surveys reveal that in the south and center of Iraq -- home to 85 per cent of the country's population -- under-5 mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise infant mortality -- defined as the death of children in their first year -- increased from 47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live births within the same time frame. The surveys indicate a maternal mortality ratio in the south and center of 294 deaths per 100,000 live births over the ten-year period 1989 to 1999.
Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." emphasis added
Now, as for your comment, "The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem.", I would argue that it is now our problem and a problem of chiefly our creation. We are the staunchest supporter for continued sanctions. In the absence of sanctions, while the U.S. still loved Saddam and his 2nd highest in the world oil output, we left him essentially alone and the plight of women and children was nowhere near as terrible as it is now.
"Why hate us for their situation?" Well, primarily because we are the most vocal and powerful supporter of the sanctions that lead to the above conditions. If he's looking for fuel to stoke the fire of anti-Americanism, we're supplying it to him readily; just like we did with biological weapons, ammunition, planes and technology during the war with Iran and over the ensuing years. Why make it easier for him? Why doesn't the U.S. & Brittish evidence against Saddam convince China, France, Germany and Russia that a "regime change" (i.e. murder of the leader of a sovereign nation) is warranted? We have been trying for nearly 4 years to get the world's support for regime change in Iraq (read U.S. House Of Representatives Resolution HR4655, signed 10/31/1998 by President Clinton) but have yet to convince anyone but us that it's warranted. So, with the knowledge that the biggest and toughest kid on the block is out to get you and yours, wouldn't you do all you could to strengthen the resolve to resist him? Dehumanizing the enemy is at play on both sides of the board here and it's working equally as well in both camps. Saddam has fuel to foster hatred for "us" and "we" have fuel to foster hatred of "them".
As for my earlier remarks where I labelled JoesMAX a narrow-minded, racist idiot, I apologize. I should have phrased it to reflect that those comments regarding all people of the Middle East ("difference between someone being from the middle east, and living in the middle east.. I personally dont have ANY sympathy for any of them living there.. ") are narrow-minded, racist and idiotic.
Why I'm being called a "n00b" is beyond me but if it makes you feel better then so be it.
As for "kill or be killed"; obviously I have heard of this. I've also heard of people living in a land of laws where proof and evidence are required to justify retaliatory or punitive actions. I wonder if you felt the same way about all white-skinned, short-haired, 20 something American males after Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing? Were you out calling for all of those heads to be served up on a platter as well? Or is that somehow different? His attack was only against Americans and the American government. He killed little children waiting for day-care. He killed innocents doing no more than their jobs for the U.S. Government. He destroyed a pillar of our republic by taking out a substantial building and made all of us feel vulnerable. Because it's easy to label him a one-off looney so you feel more comfortable about not going after the rest of the people that look and therefore obviously think and believe like him? Or more simply, is it different because he was white and an American?
Maybe it's because they caught him, convicted him and executed him. Well, the people that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 are also all dead, in fact much more swiftly than Mr. McVeigh. Oh, but the leader of it all is still out there recruiting more fringe whackos to attack again - and you don't think the radical movement Mr. McVeigh was part of has anyone else thinking about doing the same thing somewhere else?
I'm no "bleeding-heart liberal". I'm simply asking for people to look and question and not follow with blind faith in your leaders and "200% patriotism". 500,000 children are dead. That's more than we lost in the entirety of WWII. If you want to see a possible outcome of forced "regime change" in Iraq, look no further than its neighbor, Iran. Remember when Iran was the hated evil empire of the Middle East? I don't get it - we initiated a "regime change", installed the Shah, it lasted for a few decades, fundamentalists took over, hostages were taken, lives were lost and we are no better off than before. We helped to bring Saddam to power, it lasted for a few decades...
All I'm asking is that you think, read and research before accepting the simple solution provided to you by a President seeking unheard of and unprecented powers to conduct war and foreign policy without Congressional oversight.
I applaud the people gathering information and pursuing "RoadBeast" via the FBI, embassies and other legal, rational and reasonable means. If the proof is there I hope justice will be served.
10-08-2002, 09:23 PM
#179
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 268
Originally posted by The_Bomb
Boo F!cking Hoo . The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem.
Adam
Boo F!cking Hoo . The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem. Adam
10-08-2002, 10:58 PM
#180
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 759
Originally posted by joaquink
Now, as for your comment, "The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem.", I would argue that it is now our problem and a problem of chiefly our creation. We are the staunchest supporter for continued sanctions. In the absence of sanctions, while the U.S. still loved Saddam and his 2nd highest in the world oil output, we left him essentially alone and the plight of women and children was nowhere near as terrible as it is now.
Now, as for your comment, "The way that Saddam treats the women and children of his counrty is not our fault and/or our problem.", I would argue that it is now our problem and a problem of chiefly our creation. We are the staunchest supporter for continued sanctions. In the absence of sanctions, while the U.S. still loved Saddam and his 2nd highest in the world oil output, we left him essentially alone and the plight of women and children was nowhere near as terrible as it is now.
Originally posted by joaquink
"Why hate us for their situation?" Well, primarily because we are the most vocal and powerful supporter of the sanctions that lead to the above conditions. If he's looking for fuel to stoke the fire of anti-Americanism, we're supplying it to him readily; just like we did with biological weapons, ammunition, planes and technology during the war with Iran and over the ensuing years. Why make it easier for him? Why doesn't the U.S. & Brittish evidence against Saddam convince China, France, Germany and Russia that a "regime change" (i.e. murder of the leader of a sovereign nation) is warranted? We have been trying for nearly 4 years to get the world's support for regime change in Iraq (read U.S. House Of Representatives Resolution HR4655, signed 10/31/1998 by President Clinton) but have yet to convince anyone but us that it's warranted. So, with the knowledge that the biggest and toughest kid on the block is out to get you and yours, wouldn't you do all you could to strengthen the resolve to resist him? Dehumanizing the enemy is at play on both sides of the board here and it's working equally as well in both camps. Saddam has fuel to foster hatred for "us" and "we" have fuel to foster hatred of "them".
"Why hate us for their situation?" Well, primarily because we are the most vocal and powerful supporter of the sanctions that lead to the above conditions. If he's looking for fuel to stoke the fire of anti-Americanism, we're supplying it to him readily; just like we did with biological weapons, ammunition, planes and technology during the war with Iran and over the ensuing years. Why make it easier for him? Why doesn't the U.S. & Brittish evidence against Saddam convince China, France, Germany and Russia that a "regime change" (i.e. murder of the leader of a sovereign nation) is warranted? We have been trying for nearly 4 years to get the world's support for regime change in Iraq (read U.S. House Of Representatives Resolution HR4655, signed 10/31/1998 by President Clinton) but have yet to convince anyone but us that it's warranted. So, with the knowledge that the biggest and toughest kid on the block is out to get you and yours, wouldn't you do all you could to strengthen the resolve to resist him? Dehumanizing the enemy is at play on both sides of the board here and it's working equally as well in both camps. Saddam has fuel to foster hatred for "us" and "we" have fuel to foster hatred of "them".
In case you didn't know it is illegal to have a "regime change" as you put it. Trust me we tried with Castro and the backlash from the world and the turmoil that it would send a country into would be awful. There is such a large gap between the leader and the second in command that we need the citizens of the counrty to do it so they can immediatly establish a second government. We will support them in this task but no American sniper will ever pull the trigger of the gun that kills a political leader in this world.
Originally posted by joaquink
As for my earlier remarks where I labelled JoesMAX a narrow-minded, racist idiot, I apologize. I should have phrased it to reflect that those comments regarding all people of the Middle East ("difference between someone being from the middle east, and living in the middle east.. I personally dont have ANY sympathy for any of them living there.. ") are narrow-minded, racist and idiotic.
As for my earlier remarks where I labelled JoesMAX a narrow-minded, racist idiot, I apologize. I should have phrased it to reflect that those comments regarding all people of the Middle East ("difference between someone being from the middle east, and living in the middle east.. I personally dont have ANY sympathy for any of them living there.. ") are narrow-minded, racist and idiotic.
Originally posted by joaquink
As for "kill or be killed"; obviously I have heard of this. I've also heard of people living in a land of laws where proof and evidence are required to justify retaliatory or punitive actions. I wonder if you felt the same way about all white-skinned, short-haired, 20 something American males after Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing? Were you out calling for all of those heads to be served up on a platter as well? Or is that somehow different? His attack was only against Americans and the American government. He killed little children waiting for day-care. He killed innocents doing no more than their jobs for the U.S. Government. He destroyed a pillar of our republic by taking out a substantial building and made all of us feel vulnerable. Because it's easy to label him a one-off looney so you feel more comfortable about not going after the rest of the people that look and therefore obviously think and believe like him? Or more simply, is it different because he was white and an American?
As for "kill or be killed"; obviously I have heard of this. I've also heard of people living in a land of laws where proof and evidence are required to justify retaliatory or punitive actions. I wonder if you felt the same way about all white-skinned, short-haired, 20 something American males after Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing? Were you out calling for all of those heads to be served up on a platter as well? Or is that somehow different? His attack was only against Americans and the American government. He killed little children waiting for day-care. He killed innocents doing no more than their jobs for the U.S. Government. He destroyed a pillar of our republic by taking out a substantial building and made all of us feel vulnerable. Because it's easy to label him a one-off looney so you feel more comfortable about not going after the rest of the people that look and therefore obviously think and believe like him? Or more simply, is it different because he was white and an American?
Originally posted by joaquink
Maybe it's because they caught him, convicted him and executed him. Well, the people that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 are also all dead, in fact much more swiftly than Mr. McVeigh. Oh, but the leader of it all is still out there recruiting more fringe whackos to attack again - and you don't think the radical movement Mr. McVeigh was part of has anyone else thinking about doing the same thing somewhere else?
Maybe it's because they caught him, convicted him and executed him. Well, the people that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 are also all dead, in fact much more swiftly than Mr. McVeigh. Oh, but the leader of it all is still out there recruiting more fringe whackos to attack again - and you don't think the radical movement Mr. McVeigh was part of has anyone else thinking about doing the same thing somewhere else?
Originally posted by joaquink
I'm no "bleeding-heart liberal". I'm simply asking for people to look and question and not follow with blind faith in your leaders and "200% patriotism". 500,000 children are dead. That's more than we lost in the entirety of WWII. If you want to see a possible outcome of forced "regime change" in Iraq, look no further than its neighbor, Iran. Remember when Iran was the hated evil empire of the Middle East? I don't get it - we initiated a "regime change", installed the Shah, it lasted for a few decades, fundamentalists took over, hostages were taken, lives were lost and we are no better off than before. We helped to bring Saddam to power, it lasted for a few decades...
All I'm asking is that you think, read and research before accepting the simple solution provided to you by a President seeking unheard of and unprecented powers to conduct war and foreign policy without Congressional oversight.
I'm no "bleeding-heart liberal". I'm simply asking for people to look and question and not follow with blind faith in your leaders and "200% patriotism". 500,000 children are dead. That's more than we lost in the entirety of WWII. If you want to see a possible outcome of forced "regime change" in Iraq, look no further than its neighbor, Iran. Remember when Iran was the hated evil empire of the Middle East? I don't get it - we initiated a "regime change", installed the Shah, it lasted for a few decades, fundamentalists took over, hostages were taken, lives were lost and we are no better off than before. We helped to bring Saddam to power, it lasted for a few decades...
All I'm asking is that you think, read and research before accepting the simple solution provided to you by a President seeking unheard of and unprecented powers to conduct war and foreign policy without Congressional oversight.
BTW, thanks for the disscusion, it a great workout for my political science degree, and I enjoy this.
Adam
10-08-2002, 11:04 PM
#181
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 759
Originally posted by max83
I guess you forget that we all are human? As decent human beings we should care about the plight of others.
I guess you forget that we all are human? As decent human beings we should care about the plight of others.
Adam
10-08-2002, 11:13 PM
#182
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 317
Wow... this is really good. Maybe we should open up a debating category in the forum. Seriously that was a good exchange there, without using derrogatory ****ing words, alot of people in forums use.
Seriously that was a good exchange there, without using derrogatory ****ing words, alot of people in forums use.
10-09-2002, 04:52 PM
#184
¿Hablas Español?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 851
Originally posted by The_Bomb
Ok I respect you view, the problem is that we DO give money to the government of Iraq for food and medicine for it's people. It is just the choice of the ruling party to spend it on military or a new house for Saddam. We try, but a totalitarian ruler like Saddam will do what he pleases and it is the responsibility of the citizens of that country to choose a new leader. I'm sure the people of Iraq see that their suffereing while Saddam builds a new house every week. The reason they don't overthrow him is because they are scared of change and have no solid leader to fall back on.
Ok I respect you view, the problem is that we DO give money to the government of Iraq for food and medicine for it's people. It is just the choice of the ruling party to spend it on military or a new house for Saddam. We try, but a totalitarian ruler like Saddam will do what he pleases and it is the responsibility of the citizens of that country to choose a new leader. I'm sure the people of Iraq see that their suffereing while Saddam builds a new house every week. The reason they don't overthrow him is because they are scared of change and have no solid leader to fall back on.
You are right as far as I know the only supporter we have for our sanctions against Iraq is Britain and the only reason for that is because of the long friendship we have had with them. As for giving him weapons (none of which included biological, due to the fact that we were banned by the Geneva convention) during their war with Iran we had to chose the lesser of the evils and it was Iraq at the time. And in the gulf war we had to fight some of the same weapons we gave to them, that is why they were the 4th largest army in the world.
From: "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994."
From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:
Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA.
Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."
In case you didn't know it is illegal to have a "regime change" as you put it. Trust me we tried with Castro and the backlash from the world and the turmoil that it would send a country into would be awful. There is such a large gap between the leader and the second in command that we need the citizens of the counrty to do it so they can immediatly establish a second government. We will support them in this task but no American sniper will ever pull the trigger of the gun that kills a political leader in this world.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
We may or may not supply the actual sniper but I argue that aiding and abetting such an action by supplying the military training, weapons and ammunition to make it possible, certainly may fit with the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it. Further, it makes the decision makers complicit in the said murder. If it is a US Marksman who pulls the trigger we'll never know it anyway. As for letting the Iraqi people decide their own destiny we've done away with that idea as well. We will support the Iraqi opposition group of OUR choosing and ensure that they are the ones in power. We will give this group up to $97,000,000. President Clinton was to have named this group within 90 days of signing the bill but it oddly has not been made public, which makes me believe it did not happen. Of course, I may have simply missed it in my scouring of the Congressional Record.
Ummmm.. he was executed, we obviously wanted his head on a platter as you so put it. It had nothing to do with his nationality or the color of his skin. It's been awhile but I believe they determined he acted alone, why search for something that may not be there. We know Bin Laden is alive and kicking somewhere in this world, and we WILL find him.
Bin Laden's followers aren't going to change their ways when he's gone simply because he's gone. The principles they are fighting for are still going to be there; the United States support for Israel in the battle with the Palestinians, US imperialism and military presence in the Mid East, and so on.
I don't know if people know this, but politicians are people too and have emotions just like you and I. Do you think that they haven't thought of every possible outcome of what would happen if we went to war with Saddam? I'm sure they feel just as bad as you do when they see a child suffering but it is their responsiblity to look out for the interests of America first, we elected them to do that, it is their job.
We trained Bin Laden and supported him previously without any thought given to the idea that it could backfire on us. We supported and trained Saddam and his military and never thought that would backfire on us either.
BTW, thanks for the disscusion, it a great workout for my political science degree, and I enjoy this.
Adam
Adam
10-09-2002, 05:02 PM
#186
Originally posted by joaquink
Yes we do allow them to sell oil for food and they receive a modicum of medical support from humanitarian organizations as well. You're essentially making my point for the elimination of sanctions; as implemented, they hurt the Iraqi people and place no pressure on the leader to change his ways. In fact, the sanctions have, per the international community investigations, caused a worsening of the conditions for the Iraqi "man on the street". Saddam does divert some, not even most by nearly every credible account, of the monies sent him for his personal gain. However, if you were in his shoes and feeling threatened, needing places to hide from the impending doom, wouldn't you likely do much the same as him?
I'm sorry to have to bring to light the fact that the United States does not honor and abide by every treaty it signs. I'm not making this stuff up - the information is all available to you via public records of Congressional Committee meetings and general sessions.
From: "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994."
From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:
Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA.
Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."
"Regime change" doesn't come from me. Listen to Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and so on talk about our objectives. That is the phrase they used and that is the jist of language used in HR4655 from 1998, "SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
We may or may not supply the actual sniper but I argue that aiding and abetting such an action by supplying the military training, weapons and ammunition to make it possible, certainly may fit with the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it. Further, it makes the decision makers complicit in the said murder. If it is a US Marksman who pulls the trigger we'll never know it anyway. As for letting the Iraqi people decide their own destiny we've done away with that idea as well. We will support the Iraqi opposition group of OUR choosing and ensure that they are the ones in power. We will give this group up to $97,000,000. President Clinton was to have named this group within 90 days of signing the bill but it oddly has not been made public, which makes me believe it did not happen. Of course, I may have simply missed it in my scouring of the Congressional Record.
Terry Nichols comes to mind. He definitely did not act alone. Others were implicated but allowed prison terms or to walk in exchange for cooperation. He was inspired by William Pierce's writings and organization, "National Alliance", which has about 8,000 members. Since Mr. Pierce is now dead do you think those 8,000 people have changed their perceptions of American government and now rally for peace instead of hate? Now consider that Bin Laden dies or is otherwise eliminated. Do you think his radical followers will just turn their backs on a lifetime of hatred and mobilize for peace and love with the U.S.? If so, we have to agree to disagree.
Bin Laden's followers aren't going to change their ways when he's gone simply because he's gone. The principles they are fighting for are still going to be there; the United States support for Israel in the battle with the Palestinians, US imperialism and military presence in the Mid East, and so on.
I'm not so sure they do think this all the way through and until I see proof that they have, I will continue to have problems with our policy. They didn't even think through the fact that military equipment provided to the Turkish army for what amounts to genocide against the Kurds in northern Iraq would mean that the Kurds would be less willing to help us out in executing an uprising and "regime change" in Iraq. Why do we support the Turks when we bombed Saddam for doing the same? Because we need their air bases to attack Iraq. That's all well and good as we need Turkish airstrips, bases and airspace for strategic reasons. However, did they really think the Kurds would desire to shake our right hand while the left gives bullets to the people shooting at them? I'm saying they don't think these things through. I'm saying that what we did in Iran is what we're trying to do here and that certainly didn't work out to well for us.
We trained Bin Laden and supported him previously without any thought given to the idea that it could backfire on us. We supported and trained Saddam and his military and never thought that would backfire on us either.
I do too. My objective isn't to get everyone to think like me on this or even to agree in whole, but rather to get everyone to actually think about these issues. Gather information, listen to different opinions and then formulate your position based on principles and data rather than rehtoric, flag waving, grandstanding and soundbites. There are other means to our desired end. The first step is alleviating the sanctions that serve only to hurt the Iraqi people and to give them a reason to foster hatred for the U.S. The second step is to explore trade with Iraq. We want what they have (oil) and we have what they want (technology, medicine, food, etc.). while continuing restrictions on importing weaponry components.
Yes we do allow them to sell oil for food and they receive a modicum of medical support from humanitarian organizations as well. You're essentially making my point for the elimination of sanctions; as implemented, they hurt the Iraqi people and place no pressure on the leader to change his ways. In fact, the sanctions have, per the international community investigations, caused a worsening of the conditions for the Iraqi "man on the street". Saddam does divert some, not even most by nearly every credible account, of the monies sent him for his personal gain. However, if you were in his shoes and feeling threatened, needing places to hide from the impending doom, wouldn't you likely do much the same as him?
I'm sorry to have to bring to light the fact that the United States does not honor and abide by every treaty it signs. I'm not making this stuff up - the information is all available to you via public records of Congressional Committee meetings and general sessions.
From: "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994."
From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:
Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA.
Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."
"Regime change" doesn't come from me. Listen to Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and so on talk about our objectives. That is the phrase they used and that is the jist of language used in HR4655 from 1998, "SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
We may or may not supply the actual sniper but I argue that aiding and abetting such an action by supplying the military training, weapons and ammunition to make it possible, certainly may fit with the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it. Further, it makes the decision makers complicit in the said murder. If it is a US Marksman who pulls the trigger we'll never know it anyway. As for letting the Iraqi people decide their own destiny we've done away with that idea as well. We will support the Iraqi opposition group of OUR choosing and ensure that they are the ones in power. We will give this group up to $97,000,000. President Clinton was to have named this group within 90 days of signing the bill but it oddly has not been made public, which makes me believe it did not happen. Of course, I may have simply missed it in my scouring of the Congressional Record.
Terry Nichols comes to mind. He definitely did not act alone. Others were implicated but allowed prison terms or to walk in exchange for cooperation. He was inspired by William Pierce's writings and organization, "National Alliance", which has about 8,000 members. Since Mr. Pierce is now dead do you think those 8,000 people have changed their perceptions of American government and now rally for peace instead of hate? Now consider that Bin Laden dies or is otherwise eliminated. Do you think his radical followers will just turn their backs on a lifetime of hatred and mobilize for peace and love with the U.S.? If so, we have to agree to disagree.
Bin Laden's followers aren't going to change their ways when he's gone simply because he's gone. The principles they are fighting for are still going to be there; the United States support for Israel in the battle with the Palestinians, US imperialism and military presence in the Mid East, and so on.
I'm not so sure they do think this all the way through and until I see proof that they have, I will continue to have problems with our policy. They didn't even think through the fact that military equipment provided to the Turkish army for what amounts to genocide against the Kurds in northern Iraq would mean that the Kurds would be less willing to help us out in executing an uprising and "regime change" in Iraq. Why do we support the Turks when we bombed Saddam for doing the same? Because we need their air bases to attack Iraq. That's all well and good as we need Turkish airstrips, bases and airspace for strategic reasons. However, did they really think the Kurds would desire to shake our right hand while the left gives bullets to the people shooting at them? I'm saying they don't think these things through. I'm saying that what we did in Iran is what we're trying to do here and that certainly didn't work out to well for us.
We trained Bin Laden and supported him previously without any thought given to the idea that it could backfire on us. We supported and trained Saddam and his military and never thought that would backfire on us either.
I do too. My objective isn't to get everyone to think like me on this or even to agree in whole, but rather to get everyone to actually think about these issues. Gather information, listen to different opinions and then formulate your position based on principles and data rather than rehtoric, flag waving, grandstanding and soundbites. There are other means to our desired end. The first step is alleviating the sanctions that serve only to hurt the Iraqi people and to give them a reason to foster hatred for the U.S. The second step is to explore trade with Iraq. We want what they have (oil) and we have what they want (technology, medicine, food, etc.). while continuing restrictions on importing weaponry components.
seen.
not read.
10-09-2002, 05:29 PM
#188
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 759
Originally posted by bags533
I'd vote for you luke
I'd vote for you luke
Adam
10-09-2002, 05:35 PM
#192
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 759
Originally posted by NickStam
this isn't maxima related anymore
this isn't maxima related anymore
Hasn't been for quite a few pages...
Adam
no **** sherlock
10-09-2002, 07:47 PM
#199
Originally posted by nismo2020
yeah and i get up in the morning and go to work everyday too. 
yeah and i get up in the morning and go to work everyday too.
your just jealous cause I still get paid.. for the past 40 days and counting..lol
but I do need a job.. I am going crazy...
we will see what happens next week
and the loudest maxima on maxima.org can hit me with a low blow every now and then
10-09-2002, 08:01 PM
#200
Originally posted by bags533
your just jealous cause I still get paid.. for the past 40 days and counting..lol
but I do need a job.. I am going crazy...
we will see what happens next week
and the loudest maxima on maxima.org can hit me with a low blow every now and then
your just jealous cause I still get paid.. for the past 40 days and counting..lol
but I do need a job.. I am going crazy...
we will see what happens next week
and the loudest maxima on maxima.org can hit me with a low blow every now and then