Subject:
|
Re: Asked and *not * answered ( was Re: Will Larry ever answer this?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:23:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
764 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:
> > > 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.
Well, can you?
>
> Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
