U.S. Bombs Hit Red Cross

[mss242]

<< Yeah, you're way off with that 200,000 number.

It's more like 2,000,000. In women, children, and elderly dead from disease and sanctions. >>



I am talking about 200,000 just with the bombings. The sanctions have killed so many more

 

[Logix]

<<Like the president said, either you're w/us or you're w/ the dirty low down camel riding, ten dollar tent living, drug producing, two bit terrorists producing, stupid rag headed US flag burning mofo that burns themselves, wannabe Allah seeking, hijacking, murderous SOB that can't even support themselves but still spawn babies (like cockroaches) faster than the a virus to be even bigger burden on the rest of the world then they already are.>>

ROFLMAO!

Does anyone really believe what the Taliban has to say anymore, especially when they have conflicting press releases?

And tonight, the Berkeley City Council is going to vote to CONDEMN our response to the attacks of 9/11. The alternative they are offering is to SUE Afghanistan for harboring terrorists. They are expected to close their meeting with a moment of silence for the victims... in AFGHANISTAN!

View the video here.

 

[mss242]

<<

<< It's more like 2,000,000. In women, children, and elderly dead from disease and sanctions. >>

While Saddam continues to find money to complete construction on more than a dozen elaborate palaces for himself and his military pals and rebuilds his military infrastructure. Saddam Hussein sacrificed his people for military capability, and Saddam thinks that was a pretty fair trade-off. Iraq is allowed to sell as much oil as it requires to meet the humanitarian needs of Iraqi people. Where is the money going? Straight into Saddam's coffers.

The United Nations Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY for the sanctions, and the United Nations Security Council continues to maintain the sanctions, though several states now oppose them. "WE" as in the United States are only ONE member of the Security Council. Though I don't think the sanctions are working and they need to be seriously re-evaluated, the blame belongs squarely on Saddam's shoulders. >>



So your point is that sadaam is an asshole and he screws over his people. I grant that. It doesn't give us a reason to disregard the innocent civilians in iraq because their leader is an asshole. Our sanctions still cause the death of civilians. We can do something to stop that but we choose not to. why? because sadaam is an asshole? that's a real good reason

 

[LethalWolfe]

<<

<< It's more like 2,000,000. In women, children, and elderly dead from disease and sanctions.

>>

While Saddam continues to find money to complete construction on more than a dozen elaborate palaces for himself and his military pals and rebuilds his military infrastructure. Saddam Hussein sacrificed his people for military capability, and Saddam thinks that was a pretty fair trade-off. Iraq is allowed to sell as much oil as it requires to meet the humanitarian needs of Iraqi people. Where is the money going? Straight into Saddam's coffers.

The United Nations Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY for the sanctions, and the United Nations Security Council continues to maintain the sanctions, though several states now oppose them. "WE" as in the United States are only ONE member of the Security Council. Though I don't think the sanctions are working and they need to be seriously re-evaluated, the blame belongs squarely on Saddam's shoulders. >>



Exactly. Saddam is keeping his civilian population in poverty, not the sanctions. If the UN lifted the sanctions tomorrow Saddam would buy bigger and better guns, not spend it on relief efforts for his people. Of course, the state run media in Iraq is saying that the poverty in Iraq is caused by the US, so the mis-informed people of Iraq continue to, unknowingly, rally behind and support the cause of their oppression.

Lethal

 

[JoeBaD]

supernova87a-

I'd add you to my SFA list but that list is just getting too long

 

[Bulk Beef]

Not to pick nits or anything, but I'm only seeing numbers in the range of 10k-50k war dead total, and 1.2 million post war dead in Iraq, and these are numbers coming from people like Greenpeace and the Iraqi government itself, so they are obviously questionable. I really hate it when people gratuitously inflate statistics to validate their points, but it just indicates that your point is not valid.
The sanctions are harsh, the sanctions have not had the desired effect, true, but the sanctions were put in place for a reason.

So are you going to tell me that Taliban claims of 200 civilian casualties are accurate, or are you going to bump it up to 400??

 

[jjones]

<< And tonight, the Berkeley City Council is going to vote to CONDEMN our response to the attacks of 9/11. The alternative they are offering is to SUE Afghanistan for harboring terrorists. They are expected to close their meeting with a moment of silence for the victims... in AFGHANISTAN! >>


Berkeley City Council should be sued for operating without a brain.

 

[JoeBaD]

Oh, mss242 too.

 

[jjones]

give me a break. the sanctions aren't what's killing iraqis, saddam is what's killing iraqis. he couldn't give a sh!t for his own people.

 

[Bulk Beef]

<< Our sanctions still cause the death of civilians. We can do something to stop that but we choose not to. why? because sadaam is an asshole? that's a real good reason >>


Uhhh, no, not b/c he's an asshole. Because we don't want him to have chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons pointed at the rest of an already volatile region. Get it??

 

[drewshin]

Big deal, so what some civilians got killed but what's the difference over there between cilvilians and the military? (cilvilians are military that isn't holding a weapon yet)
damien6

this is the kind of hypocrisy that just shows some of the idiots that we have living in our country. these kinds of statements only cheapen and insult the american civilians that died on 9/11. any civilian life is meaningful whether on our side or on their side. when you begin to say that killing civilians is ok, you begin to become like the terrorists.

 

[charrison]

supernova87a,

If Hussein wants the sanctions lifted, all he has do it let the weapons inspectors back in. Hussein chooses not to let the weapons inspectors in. He has made the decision to starve his people, not the US.

 

[tcsenter]

<< So your point is that sadaam is an asshole and he screws over his people. I grant that. It doesn't give us a reason to disregard the innocent civilians in iraq because their leader is an asshole. Our sanctions still cause the death of civilians. We can do something to stop that but we choose not to. why? because sadaam is an asshole? that's a real good reason >>

Ok, let me explain it this way. First, I am simply astounded that people have no critical reasoning skills, but I can't do anything about that. We know the following to be indisputable fact:

1. Saddam is a murderous tyrant who is willing to sacrifice the welfare of his people for military capability, capability he has a nasty habit of using against his neighbors unprovoked.

2. Saddam is allowed to sell as much oil as necessary to meet the humanitarian requirements of his people - NO LIMIT.

Either he deliberately withholds this assistance from his people, or he deliberately sells too little oil to meet the humanitarian needs of his people in order to create a humanitarian crisis which he can exploit to seize the moral high ground by claiming the 'sanctions' are hurting the Iraqi people, all while he continues building lavish pallaces and rebuilding his military whenever he gets a chance, and SUCKERS like you and UNICEF swallow this propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

So, KNOWING what we know about Saddam Hussein, do you actually believe that if we lifted the sanctions and money began pouring into Iraq, Saddam would magically become a humanitarian instead of a tyrant and stop building his military infrustructure and arsenal at the expense of his people's welfare (as he is doing right now)?

Wow, what lengths will people not go to believe a lie?

If I were making $1200 a month to feed and care for my family, but I went out and spent half that on drugs and gambling, forcing my family to live in squalor, then by your logic my employer is to blame for my family living in squalor because he isn't paying me enough to support my family? AMAZING!