Subject:
|
Re: "The Propaganda War" from the Economist
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:58:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
184 times
|
| |
|
|
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. Who are you to question me this way? What informs
your opinion of anything for that matter? Foamer.
> Why the sudden change of heart in
> justifying yourself?
No change of heart.
> 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. 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.
Cited to support my contention that I am not the only person who feels it is
Saddam's fault...
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?
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.
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 has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: "The Propaganda War" from the Economist
|
| an important PS... (...) impoverishment != 500,000 children starving. (...) So do I. *some impoverishment*, after all was the *point* of the sanctions. My beef with them is that they're not impoverishing the *right things* (his palaces and his (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "The Propaganda War" from the Economist
|
| Larry that was your opinion before the 10th October (the date on the text). What informed your opinion before then? Why the sudden change of heart in justifying yourself? Lets look again at your words: ==+== I reject that the sanctions are the (...) (23 years ago, 10-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
