| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> > news:GK3Mz9.90A@lugnet.com...
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > I hope it is a gross exaggeration, but I heard last night that the • sanctions
> > > > in Iraq had killed 500,000 in total.
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=006068940062214&rtmo=qKxJMMX9&atmo=ggg
> > ggggK&pg=/01/9/23/dl01.html
> >
> > Daily Telegraph = Right Wing Rag. I prefer independent news:
> > http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_35000/35065.stm
>
> Great. Thanks for sharing your preferences. I prefer you not post here at
> 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?
...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 replied that it was "a
very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is
worth it".
==+==
Do you agree with her?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) 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)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
