To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 13682
13681  |  13683
Subject: 
Re: Asked and *not * answered ( was Re: Will Larry ever answer this?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:19:59 GMT
Viewed: 
2961 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > That's right, answer just one issue in the *hope* you score a cheap point.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > ==+==
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > ==+==
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you still stand by that?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes.
> > > 
> > > 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 sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> > > ==+==
> > > 
> > > Do you think sanctaions have not caused their to be less food in Iraq?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > This leg has nothing to do with whether the stat is right or whether
> > > > the causality link is there.
> > > 
> > > In your opionion. But I think it shows how little you understand the
> > > issue... in my opinion.
> > > 
> > > Scott A
> 
> 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 corraller.

Justification please.

> 
> You've done nothing to refute that basic moral tenet so my argument stands.
> No matter how much of a blowhard you are about it.

Larry your argument is hollow. It is empty.

Can you justify it. Come on Larry, I am almost interested.

Scott A



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Asked and *not * answered ( was Re: Will Larry ever answer this?
 
(...) Well, can you? (...) (25 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Asked and answered ( was Re: Will Larry ever answer this?
 
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Oct-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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR