Debate : 13086


Off-Topic / Debate / 13086

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Both you and Dan have bandied this number about before. Here's a piece that tries to debunk it. It is a good piece for several other reasons, IMHO. Is the author correct that this statistic is a sham? (URL) part about Iraqi children is several (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GK3Mz9.90A@lugnet.com... (...) sanctions (...) that (...) (URL) Telegraph = Right Wing Rag. I prefer independent news: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) all, since you have nothing to contribute. Doubt I'll get my wish though. Do you have any fact based debunking or is your entire critique a slur of the source with nothing else behind it? (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) ...and you have so much opinion to contribute. I note you have started *16* threads in this group over the last two weeks or so. (...) Read the page. Follow the link to UNICEF. Find this: ==+== According to a report in 1999 by the United (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Ross Crawford

(...) And I for one have got a lot out of these (and other) threads. Debate isn't about stating your opinion & defending it to the death. It's about working out what your opinion is, based on as much information as you can get from *anywhere*. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) ...and from Saturday's Guardian: ==+== In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This is a "have you stopped beating your dog" question. Shame on you. Madeline Albright is not my nominee for best Secretary of State for the 20th century, and her answer to this question is part of the reason why. I reject that 500K children (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Ross Crawford

(...) Agree with all that. (...) Don't really agree with this, however I think it's pointless debating who's at fault in such a case. Probably more important is the fact that the US let Saddam's propaganda machine continue, so there's probably a few (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) You don't agree with this then: from: (URL) OF SANCTIONS DIRECT EFFECTS (immediate) 1. Decreased Imports Medicines Food Imports Agricultural Inputs - fertilizer, pesticides, spare parts Industrial/Commercial inputs/parts Other spare parts Fuel (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <snip first two parts of rebuttal> (...) No, it is in fact quite important, else you leave things hanging and you leave things open to the chattering classes claiming that 911 was our fault, for example. Let's try an analogy. Suppose Fred (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) This is cazy logic. You talk like sanctions are good & proven weapon which always work. They are not. (...) I agree. (...) You mean they did not agree with your "grasp right and wrong". (...) Can you prove she was "booby trapped and falsely (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Scott, do you mean when he says "they are an ineffective remedy?" Is that the part that makes you think they are a good and proven weapon? I sometimes wonder if we're speaking the same language. I don't agree with Larry on lots of things, but (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) I take your point. I think that the fact that they are "ineffective" is fundamental to understanding the situation - not an incidental fact. I should spend more time on my messages. (...) Why not fix the mistakes 1st, before starting a new (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Frank Filz

(...) Because one can't afford to fix every mistake one has ever made. Do you think the UK should fix all of the mistakes it made with it's colonialism? Who is going to fix the mistakes the Romans made with their colonialism (after all, some of our (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Lawrence Wilkes

"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3BB9D390.345B@m...ing.com... (...) Perhaps not. But this doesn't stop folk in Ireland, and the world over, believing that the British should return land that was taken a long time ago. Nor (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Lawrence Wilkes

"Lawrence Wilkes" <lawrence@thewilkesf...rve.co.uk> wrote in message news:GKL3y3.Ay9@lugnet.com... (...) taken (...) And for Scott's benefit, I should have included the independance of Scotland of course Mel Gibson is not going to let us forget (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Don't worry. I'm very happy to be part of the UK *and* Europe. Scotland has 10% of the UK population, but 90% of the culture (and 95% of the tooth decay and heart disease!) :0 Scott A (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) This is a *very* interesting point. The UK, France & Holland have very suspect colonial pasts. Why is it that the people we oppressed don't hate us like so much of the world appears to hate the USA? Is the collective memory short or does the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Lawrence Wilkes

"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GKL6Lv.H9n@lugnet.com... (...) taken (...) I doubt it is very different. Extremists in some countries hate the UK. Extremists in some countries hate the USA. Majority of people in the same (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Scotland's forte is Snooker(1) and Darts (pub games)(2). Scott A (1. S. Hendry used to play in my home town – he lived about 5 miles away) (2. I went to the same school Jockie Wilson's kids!) Overseas readers : If you have never heard of these (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Ross Crawford

(...) of allowing them to give us a good beating (...) us at cricket and they will forget we are (...) P'haps 'cos it's too hard to play cricket in a kilt... ROSCO FUT: .o-t.fun (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Heck no - I'm talking about the current messes. Why build bases in places like Saudi-Arabia? Because of their love for democracy. Why support Israel? Why continue the current mess in Iraq. Why seek the extradition of an individuals without (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Who are you referring to here? bin Laden as has been suggested here by some before? If bin Laden... From AP ((URL) NATO (news - web sites) headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, the alliance's secretary general, Lord Robertson, said the United (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) I know little about courts in the USA, but in the UK George Robertson's (arguably a failed politician) say so is not good enough for a conviction. Would that wash in the USA? NB : I want justice not revenge. (...) OK. So we have a dispute (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

gum arabic (was Re: War) —Scott Arthur

(...) Frank, Here is an easy one to fix. Try to read the whole text, look at the claimed impact that "mess" has had on the whole country: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: gum arabic (was Re: War) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) to (...) things right rather than dragging our feet. We should have supplied the lost meds at the cost that that factory would have while we rebuilt the factory. And we should have paid for the medical expenses and of everyone who has a valid (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) So you are comfortable with fixing the past mistakes we made in supporting the thugs in Iraq and then in leaving the job undone the first time we had a chance to clean up the mess, then? The implication of that, of course, is that you support (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Have you even read my replies to Frank? Scott A (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Lawrence Wilkes

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKKrsr.651@lugnet.com... (...) Except no one is talking about x-box'es and no one expects the state to provide x-boxes on welfare. But had Fred Bloggs Jr been hungry because of the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Not necessarily "would have" in all cases, and most assuredly not "should have". It is *not* the duty of the state to ensure that everyone is cared for. That your state has chosen to do that (the will of the majority imposed on all funds it) (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Lawrence Wilkes

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKou8D.K9v@lugnet.com... (...) I don't think your argument stands one bit. You were trying to use this as justification as to why Iraqi children should suffer, because of the crimes (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Incorrect. Suffering of children is never "justified". My argument merely demonstrates that their suffering is not the *fault* of the US, just as the suffering of FB Jr (while not "justified") in not having his wants satisfied is not the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —David Eaton

(...) Such sweeping assumptions on causality. Tsk tsk. By pulling back the causal loop one step further to point the finger at FB Sr. instead of the government that imprisoned him is no better than to step back one step further and point the finger (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Tsk tsk yourself. I'm comfortable I've got the causes pegged correctly. (URL) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —David Eaton

(...) that fault != bad. Saying that the US isn't at fault is erroneous. Saying that you stand behind our actions insofar as you think things would have been *WORSE* had we acted differently or not at all is what I expect you to mean. Per your (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Nope. That cite in fact does get to the root of the assertion you make. Saying that FB Sr. has an out because he had a bad childhood is egregious bogosity. (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —David Eaton

(...) An "out"? I never said he had an "out". An "out" implies removal of responsibility perhaps, but not of fault. Perhaps a re-reading of my two posts is in order. I feel a little like I'm entering the "Scott-and-Larry show" on this one... DaveE (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Can you elaborate on what you mean by "fault !=bad" then? Maybe there's some fundamental misunderstanding here... However: I'll reiterate, FB Jr.s pain is FB Srs fault more than anyone else's. Reread the cite I gave... you're going down the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —David Eaton

(...) Acha! That's the crucial bit. "More FBS's fault than the government's". I.E. not to say that the government isn't at fault-- that would be (I think it is)misleading. But more to say that it is FBS's actions which, "should" have changed-- or (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) What I want to do is divorce causality from fault to a certain extent here. Factors in FB Sr.s environment may well have contributed to his being a bad person, ("caused it") but remember the scenario, we assume a just finding of homicide as a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: Oh, and further, in the general case, it is the parent that is at fault when the parent does not adequately provide for the minor child. Not external factors or causes that the parent could have (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Freedom vs. Wellfare (was: War) —Horst Lehner

(...) I agree with most of that, including that it is not just that the child suffer for the fault of the father. But I could imagine some other ways of ensuring that he doesn't, besides allowing adoption. Isn't there quite possibly a mother who (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare (was: War) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Potentially, if that's what the mother wants to do. (...) Where does this money come from? Taxpayers, or voluntary contributions? If the former, it is *less* just to extort funds from yet more victims (the taxpayers) to allow the father to (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare —Horst Lehner

Hello Larry, (...) Now, this is exactly where we differ. While you seem to always look at the situation from the imprisoned father's perspective, I see the child to be an innocent victim of the father. And if you feel as a victim just because you (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I would *not* want to pay. He should pay for his own incarceration to the maximum extent possible, but when he cannot we must pay to keep him there in order to protect ourselves. (...) The child starves to death. (...) No they should not. But (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare —Horst Lehner

Hello Larry, hello everybody, (...) So the goods you need to be kept alive (in a decent way, I would add) are not rights? What value does the right to live have, then, if it is OK for others to just let me starve, without any fault on my side (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare —Simon Bennett

(...) Please don't move it to email, Horst. Your contributions have been extremely well thought out and useful and you are now getting to a point that I have been looking for a reasonable way to raise to hear Larry's 'total free market' view on. (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

not sure what to call this —Larry Pieniazek

Hmm... not sure if you are referring to whence resource property rights, or is it the luck factor that you are wondering about. (...) Chris has alluded to this problem in the past. Asserting labor mixin as a mechanism to getting title to previously (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The value of environmental assets (was Re: not sure what to call this) —Simon Bennett

(...) I think it's both actually: (...) Yes, this is exactly the problem. It was solved in Antarctica by dividing up among nations that were close or had 'discovered' it and this has worked mainly because they also all agreed to leave the natural (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The value of environmental assets (was Re: not sure what to call this) —Steven Lane

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes: If you had placed Aboriginal Australians in (...) Although this is wrong from a human point of view, genetically it is of course correct. The genes of the conqueror's thrive more than those of the (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The value of environmental assets (was Re: not sure what to call this) —Simon Bennett

Re: not sure what to call this —Horst Lehner

(...) I agree. (...) I agree. (...) I don't agree. Not that I have to offer a better system, but how can you prove it's impossible? (...) I agree on freedom, but then, isn't there also a price others in the world have to pay for our freedom? If so, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare —Ross Crawford

(...) I think the issue here is the fact that the state collects taxes, and uses them as *it* sees fit. In a free market, everyone would still have the right to help the abandoned child as they see fit, without the state "forcing" them to. Where (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare —Horst Lehner

(...) This is probably the best statement I have read here on the topic ... Thanks for it, Ross, and greetings Horst (who is a bit behind in reading news ...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That is a correct restatement of what I said, yes. There are no rights to free goods. This is a fundamental tenet of my belief system. It is not held by all americans (witness those who feel a tithe to their church is a mandatory moral (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare —Horst Lehner

(...) And you would hold that even if what they take away from you is pure luxury, whereas they need it to survive? Well, a humanistic attitude IMO goes a bit more towards enabling a decent life for everybody. It also does not contain a right to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) What if passers by cut themselves on the barbs? (...) ...only if the punishment is just. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That's easy. Either the fence builder built a hazardous obstruction on land not his own, or the passer by was trespassing. (...) There's no such thing. The punisher is at fault, in my opinon (but it can only _be_ opinion...there is no right (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree with you to very large extent. But when one is faced with grieving relatives it is very difficult to argue against the retribution argument. On a macro scale this was what was happening in the US in the days after the 11th; a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) suffer. (...) only (...) if (...) still (...) Tough. I'd do it. We must be better than that. (...) I agree. I think I was nearly assaulted at work when an argument became heated and when I was called unamerican, I responded that they (the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Ross Crawford

(...) So to clarify, are you saying that FB jr should pay for FB sr's mistake? In that case, shouldn't you extend your definition to be something like "society is set up to allow people (and their families) to reap ..."? ROSCO (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, I'm not. (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) This is a joke coming from you, in the last weeks you have shown me that you don't understand (amongst other this): Freedom Liberty Freedom of Speech Freedom & liberty From (URL) > As for "first principles", I have become convinced that you (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Let's be clear here. I am just NOT going to get into an open ended debate with you on whether I understand freedom or not. That is so laughable an allegation that it's not worth responding to. Further you don't get to dictate where the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes, let's. (...) I'm not asking for a debate, just that you justify your comments. It is that simple. (...) Or one you can't respond to? (...) Larry. I don't try to dictate the "conversation" here. Go check how many threads I have started in (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Tom Stangl

(...) Riiiiight. I think you need to read the last day or two in here - he asked a simple yes/no question, and you dodged it with "is this a question?". -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Riiiiight. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Have you stopped beating your wife? Chris (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) I would not dare hit her.. You've never seen my wife's mother. How about you? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) one. (...) I presumed that the second 'question' above was supposed to be 'answer.' And so I assumed that you meant you would answer with a 'yes' or a 'no.' Is that not what you meant, or did you fail to do so? (...) I have not stopped beating (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Dave Schuler

(...) Then you're going to have to deal with Scott's mother-in-law. Dave! (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I could sell her some LEGO, but I'd expect that were she in the market, she would buy from Scott. Chris (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Ross Crawford

(...) Whoa! You're starting to get a bit on-topic (Lugnet)! Maybe you should've set follow-ups to .market.b-s-t???? ROSCO (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Well spotted. (...) I shall be clearer : Ask me a question to which I can qive a yes/no answer, and I'll give it one. (...) Because you never started? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You could have. You simply did not like the connotations that doing so implied. It's not like I asked what the value of pi is. (That would have been unfair.) (...) Of course. And presumably that's your answer too. So you could have just (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Horst Lehner

Hello Larry, (...) It seems to me that this discussion is getting too confrontational. Also, for me the question should be WHAT EXACTLY you understand to be freedom rather than WHETHER OR NOT you understand what freedom is. In the light of some (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) I think they do to, and that is my point. As I have said before, I think Larry has a rather selfish view of what freedom means and that is why he is unwilling to justify his comments in the context of the text I have referred him to (although (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What do you mean 'based on.' I would agree with the assertion that the freedoms we commonly claim to be self-evident and inalienable are freedoms that we are unwilling to let some others in the world live with. And that's wrong. But I don't (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Right now by typing this text in my humble little office I am enjoying my freedom of speech. My ability to do this is based on the past actions of HM Gov and UK industry. Denying the rights to others have given us the $$ to pay for the (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Disagree. You could be typing from an office in any nation in the world. I would assert (with no intent of proving it) that there are net connections into virtually every nation at this point. (...) We have exploited others wrongly and have (...) (23 years ago, 7-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) I expect there are Rolls Royce’s too. (...) What is your wealth based on then? The 'wealth' of native Americans? The slave trade? (...) If Saudi-Arabia were to democratically vote for a Government which is "bad" (as Israel already has) then (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Horst Lehner

Hello Chris, (...) Making money is not one of your freedoms? Or you don't make money a the expense of the one worldwide environment we have? You pay fair prices for the goods you import from the third world? There are no people starving in Somalia, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Horst Lehner

Hello Scott, while I agree to some thoughts of your analysis, I have to oppose this one: (...) In no way does bin Laden or the Taliban stand for more freedom. Look at Iran and, even worse, Afghanistan. Only the leaders are enjoying freedom there. (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Look at what he wants for these places, you will see it is what the public there wants. (...) That is why I said "more fredom" not "freedom". (...) I agree. (...) It depends on what you mean by freedom. The west has a lot of wealth. More than (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Shame on her. Shame on you for not answering the question. (...) I have never stated that I thought it was true. The fact that your govermnet agrees with though does give it some credance. (...) Really? From: (URL) both Iraq and Haiti, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I answered it. Not my fault if you weren't paying attention. Let's try an example. Suppose Dave! asks you, Scott Arthur, the following question: "Have you always been the complete and utterly clueless twit you are today?" and demands a "Yes" (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

Larry you pre-suppose the question I asked required yes/no answer. I do not concede it did. I don't like yes/no questions as the respondent does not have to justify their answer. I suspect you like them for that very reason. (...) That is perhaps (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Scott, what do you want? You posed a quote from Albright and asked if Larry agreed with her. He answered with, as I see it, a three paragraph answer. You claimed (foolishly or disingenously?) that he didn't answer. So he reasonably assumed (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) That is 100% opinion on his part. I offer facts/independent 3rd party opinion. Larry offers his opinion. I see a difference between the two. If it turns out that Larry has expert experience of this field, he should be able to substantiate his (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Dave Schuler

(...) It isn't necessary to have specific and detailed knowledge of international policy, nor of the workings of foreign governments and the dynamics of sanctions. All that is necessary is a critical examination (which Larry has given) of the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

It sounds like we are functioning under the assumption that blame can only be assigned to one entity. I don't think that's so. And I think that we share the blame with Hussein. But how much? (...) It sounds like you are asserting that if Hussein (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Dave Schuler

(...) As I recall, you're willing to go to great lengths to assign a measure of blame to those who do not cause the events that befall them: (URL) and elsewhere so I suppose you're willing to extend the concept of blame beyond what I would consider (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, I wouldn't call them great lengths... (...) ...but I do still think that blame is virtually always shared by manny. (...) I'm not sure it's possible unless I'm just to drop it. It seems like the meat of the point. (...) But your (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, my point has always been that even if no one is "free" of blame (or fault or responsibility, to use the language of that prior debate), someone is almost invariably demonstrably and culpably more responsible for the event. If, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

For sake of clarity in this discussion, I think that Saddam Hussein is a sick and twisted individual who has perpetrated much evil in this world and I would walk with a lighter step if I found out that he were killed. That said, I can go on and say (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Horst Lehner

Hello Dave, hello everybody, I have followed the discussion about responsibility for Iraqi people a while, and what it boils down to is: Different people have different definitions of responsibility. First, there is the humanistic definition: People (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

Dave I have provided support for my argument. I have never said that I think 500,000 have died due to sanctions. Never. I disagree with Larry when he says none have died. I think a great deal have, but I have no idea how many. That is my argument. I (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Dave, Have you thought this over yet? Scott A (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Dave Schuler

(...) Still pondering--Dan's statistics threw me for a loop, and I was ruminating with Chris on a connected matter. Dave! (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) imposed. (...) I agree. And _that_ is what you should complain about. You claimed that he didn't answer. He did answer. If you think his answer is made up, or simply opinion, or based on incorrect facts, or based on an incomplete understanding (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) His answer was not a valid answer. Therefore it is not an answer... and that's the best I can do to get out of that one! :) (...) Independent of me! Seriously, I tend to get news which does not follow political dogma. The BBC is independent as (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Come on Larry! Can you clear this one up? Scott A (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) A great explanation of this was given by Dave! (...) The original cite of "debunk this" deconstructs the UN statistics. Statistics have a way of getting cited and re-cited, and those cites get recited by those that want the statistics to be (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Not valid. I cited UNICEF statistics *&* opinion. Free free to debunk it. (...) You are deluded. An argument has been presented by more than just me and this is the best you can do to counter it? I would have had more respect for you if you (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. This leg has nothing to do with whether the stat is right or whether the causality link is there. (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) That's right, answer just one issue in the *hope* you score a cheap point. (...) Can you support this, or is it mere opinion. Do you think the UNICEF data and opinion I quoted was wrong? Do you still stand by this: ==+== I reject that the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Will Larry ever answer this? —Scott Arthur

(...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Asked and answered ( was Re: Will Larry ever answer this? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You can post and repost this as many times as you like, I've said what I wanted to say. I doubt the veracity of UN statistics but more importantly, the other two legs stand. Fault lies with the perpetrator, not the victim and not the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Asked and *not * answered ( was Re: Will Larry ever answer this? —Scott Arthur

(...) Justification please. (...) Larry your argument is hollow. It is empty. Can you justify it. Come on Larry, I am almost interested. Scott A (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Asked and *not * answered ( was Re: Will Larry ever answer this? —Scott Arthur

(...) Well, can you? (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Do you disagree with this comment: "Just because Saddam Hussein doesn’t care about the children doesn’t mean that it is acceptable for us to punish the innocent and helpless when he hides behind them. We should confront dictators face-to-face (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, I do not disagree with this comment. There is no inconsistency with what I am saying, either. The sanctions are ineffective, but are not a "punishment" any more than a fence is a punishment to a cow. (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Even when it is put in context (which you deleted): ==+== It was made by a Libertarian Congressional Candidate 2000. He was apparently against the "violence and economic sanctions perpetrated by our government’s policies towards Iraq". ==+== (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Tom Stangl

Scott, How bullheadedly DENSE are you going to be? You only seem to be this stupid when answering Larry's posts, I think it's time you at least try to engage your brain before answering any posts from him... (...) SO WHAT?!? Larry has repeatedly (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) I doubt that is LP policy... I may be wrong. Did I say Larry should agree with it just because it is related to the LP? (...) My skull is the normall thickness thak you! (...) I think there is. (...) Perhaps if Larry answered my point this (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Just a second. Larry states an opinion - but cannot justify it to me or others. I debunk it anyway. He still holds the same opinion - but still does not justify it. And you are calling *me* bull-headed? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Horst Lehner

Hello Larry, (...) I think the question here should not be so much "is the actual number 500k or maybe 80% less or more", but instead: "What can we do to fix the problem." One possibility would be to lift the sanctions. In terms of military buildup (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right! This is exactly what I am advocating. Disassemble the country and reassemble it correctly. (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Daniel Jassim

These are some cold statistics regarding the sanctions against Iraq, which do have a profound impact on the Iraqi people regardless of what anyone says or thinks who is to blame. The sanctions only further strengthen, not weaken, Saddam Hussein's (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Lawrence Wilkes

"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GKB7Hq.1wt@lugnet.com... (...) LOL Surely BBC=Left Wing Rag? regards lawrence (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) Ah ha! I have smoked out a daily Telegraph reader (most things are left wing to them)! ;-) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Lawrence Wilkes

"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GKBx4v.AL2@lugnet.com... (...) Is it possible to find an 'independent' source of news? I guess independent could imply unbiased, as opposed to indepenent of anything else. But doesn't unbiased (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: War —Scott Arthur

(...) I was a little bemused at the response to that. QT audiences are usually selected to represent UK political opinion. If the BBC did do that, they can hardly complain at the outcome! I agreed with a good deal of what was said – I just did not (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)