Subject:
|
Re: Put up - or shut up.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:39:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
206 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > Larry that was your opinion before the 10th October (the date on the text).
> > > What informed your opinion before then?
> >
> > I've given multiple cites.
>
> Where?
What, no answer?
> Show me the source which you have given that back this:
>
> "I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> child"
>
> &
>
> "The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country"
>
> > Who are you to question me this way?
>
> Scott Arthur.
>
> > What informs
> > your opinion of anything for that matter?
>
> The truth.
>
> > Foamer.
>
> Is this an insult? Are you an adult?
>
> >
> > > Why the sudden change of heart in
> > > justifying yourself?
> >
> > No change of heart.
>
> I think there is.
>
> >
> > > Lets look again at your words:
> > > ==+==
> > > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> >
> > Still feel that way.
> >
> > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> > > ==+==
> >
> > Still feel that way.
> >
> > > Now look at the *opinion* of the Economist:
> >
> > Let's review. It is possible to hold multiple opinions about various things.
> > Further it is possible that someone can agree with some opinions but not
> > with others. So this article holds multiple opinions and I cited it.
>
> You only agree with the bits you like?
>
> > But for
> > what was it cited?
> >
> > Cited to support my contention that it is Saddams FAULT, not cited to
> > repudiate my doubt of the veracity of UN statistics.
>
> My point is not about UN statistics. You know that.
>
> >
> > Cited to support my contention that I am not the only person who feels it is
> > Saddam's fault...
>
> I never said you were? I appear to be the only person here that holds that view.
>
> >
> > Remember, you reject the assignment of fault. Or at least I think you do.
> > Who can say for sure WHAT you actually hold true in your maze of foam and
> > snipes?
>
> More insults.
>
> The position is here:
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13379
>
>
>
> >
> > Remember, you say I am alone in my opinion.
> >
> > > ==+==
> > > Although sanctions contribute to his country's impoverishment, it is he who
> > > has chosen to restrict the distribution of food and medicine that is
> > > permitted by them, and facilitated by an “oil-for-food” programme, both
> > > directly and by siphoning off some of the resources for himself.
> > > ==+==
> > >
> > > Two key word groups "Although sanctions contribute to his country's
> > > impoverishment" and "it is he who has chosen to restrict the distribution of
> > > food and medicine that is permitted by them"
> > >
> > > From that we learn that the Ecomomists feels that sanctions have lead to at
> > > least some impoverishment - I agree. Further, we are told again that Saddam is
> > > restricting the distribution *of what food there is* - I agree. You are still
> > > wrong. Read the UN data and opinion I quoted, and wake up!
> >
> > UN data in this area is suspect, UN opinion is inconsequential if supported
> > by false data.
>
> That is a big if. Prove the data is wrong. Put up - or shut up. Once you
> have done that you can disprove Dan’s data, disprove the words of your own
> government LP part candidates & a Liberation research centre. Then there are
> more:
>
> http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/sanctions.htm
> ==+==
> Iraq had formerly imported 70% of its food needs, but now imports were
> blocked and food prices were already rising beyond the purchasing reach of
> most Iraqi families. The report further noted that widespread starvation
> conditions were a real possibility and that sewerage and sanitation systems
> had collapsed.
> ==+==
>
> http://www.oneworld.org/news/reports/may96_iraq2.html
>
>
> ==+==
> In April 1996, the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), formerly
> known as the Harvard Study Team, visited Iraq to assess the effect of the
> sanctions - imposed in August 1990 - on the civilian population. The team
> was made up of 24 doctors, public health experts, economists, lawyers and
> health surveyors from 8 countries.
>
> The mission documented evidence of the tangible effects of sanctions on the
> most vulnerable groups of Iraqi society. Living conditions are appalling in
> Iraq and are getting progressively worse. Hyperinflation has led to the
> average public-sector wage falling to a value of $3 - $4 per month which at
> current Iraqi market prices is barely enough to buy a single meal for a
> family of six.
> ==+==
>
> Ramsey Clark, (former U.S. Attorney General)
> ==+==
> "A death occurs in Iraq on the average every two to three
> minutes as a direct result of the sanctions," wrote
> Clark. "More than 1,500,000 human beings have died, the
> vast majority infants, children and the elderly, since
> August 6, 1990_ when sanctions were first voted by the
> Security Council."
> ==+==
>
> Get your head out of the sand.
Well, have you seen the light?
>
> Scott A
>
> >
> > yet I still say:
> >
> > > > We should lift the sanctions, but not because we are at fault for anything,
> > > > but rather because they don't work as intended.
> >
> > ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Put up - or shut up.
|
| (...) Where? Show me the source which you have given that back this: "I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1 child" & "The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country" (...) Scott Arthur. (...) The (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
