Subject:
|
Put up - or shut up.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:23:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
199 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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"
> Who are you to question me this way?
Scott Arthur.
> What informs
> your opinion of anything for that matter?
The truth.
> Foamer.
Is this an insult? Are you an adult?
>
> > Why the sudden change of heart in
> > justifying yourself?
>
> No change of heart.
I think there is.
>
> > 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.
You only agree with the bits you like?
> 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.
My point is not about UN statistics. You know that.
>
> Cited to support my contention that I am not the only person who feels it is
> Saddam's fault...
I never said you were? I appear to be the only person here that holds that view.
>
> 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?
More insults.
The position is here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13379
>
> 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.
That is a big if. Prove the data is wrong. Put up - or shut up. Once you
have done that you can disprove Dan’s data, disprove the words of your own
government LP part candidates & a Liberation research centre. Then there are
more:
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/sanctions.htm
==+==
Iraq had formerly imported 70% of its food needs, but now imports were
blocked and food prices were already rising beyond the purchasing reach of
most Iraqi families. The report further noted that widespread starvation
conditions were a real possibility and that sewerage and sanitation systems
had collapsed.
==+==
http://www.oneworld.org/news/reports/may96_iraq2.html
==+==
In April 1996, the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), formerly
known as the Harvard Study Team, visited Iraq to assess the effect of the
sanctions - imposed in August 1990 - on the civilian population. The team
was made up of 24 doctors, public health experts, economists, lawyers and
health surveyors from 8 countries.
The mission documented evidence of the tangible effects of sanctions on the
most vulnerable groups of Iraqi society. Living conditions are appalling in
Iraq and are getting progressively worse. Hyperinflation has led to the
average public-sector wage falling to a value of $3 - $4 per month which at
current Iraqi market prices is barely enough to buy a single meal for a
family of six.
==+==
Ramsey Clark, (former U.S. Attorney General)
==+==
"A death occurs in Iraq on the average every two to three
minutes as a direct result of the sanctions," wrote
Clark. "More than 1,500,000 human beings have died, the
vast majority infants, children and the elderly, since
August 6, 1990_ when sanctions were first voted by the
Security Council."
==+==
Get you head out of the sand.
Scott A
>
> 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 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "The Propaganda War" from the Economist
|
| (...) I've given multiple cites. Who are you to question me this way? What informs your opinion of anything for that matter? Foamer. (...) No change of heart. (...) Still feel that way. (...) Still feel that way. (...) Let's review. It is possible (...) (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
|
|
|
|
