Page 65 of 75 FirstFirst ... 15556364656667 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 748

Thread: Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

  1. #641
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    We killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis with war and economic sanctions.
    Saddam is solely responsible for the deaths of those killed in the first Gulf War, he is entirely responsible for the sanctions imposed and the sanctions not being lifted because he blatantly and continuiously violated the terms of the armistice, the amount of deaths attributed to the sanctions are based on statistics provided to the UN by the Baathist regime and are thus unreliable at best, food and medical supplies were not banned under the embargoe, and Saddam managed to build himself lavish palaces during the embargo so its not our fault that Saddam cared more about himself than he did about the welfare of his people. Furthermore; the second Iraq war which your article cites occurred after 9-11.

    The Iranian coup led to dictatorship under the Shah, the ex-Nazi prime minister who replaced Mossadegh, and SAVAK, which tortured and killed innocent people using German techniques from WWII. We supported this regime instead of Mossadegh’s because Iran under Mossadegh would have been a neutral power in the Cold War—not, as you claim, a Russian ally.
    A) Pahlavi was not a Nazi.

    B) We did not install the Shah he was the head of state under the Constitutional monarchy.

    C) The Shah appointed Mossadeq and only ousted him from power after Mossadeq dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum in which he garnered a 99.9% yay vote because they wouldn't give him direct control over the military and then took direct control over the military and granted himself authority to rule by decree. It wasn't a coup it was a counter-coup.

    D) The support of the counter-coup occurred 50 years before 9-11, the perpetrators of 9-11 were Wahhabists who consider the Shia to be takfir and sure as hell had no love for Mossadeq, so even if support for the counter-coup could be seen as a provocation it was not a provocation against the perpetrators of 9-11.

    There is in fact no evidence that Mossadegh was aligned with the Soviets. The accusation is an ancient myth promoted by the CIA as part of the effort to depose him.
    The evidence is that Mossadeq turned to the Soviets for support after the U.S. refused to grant him hundreds of millions of dollars in loans.

    Everything was banned unless it was imported as part of the Oil for Food program. Iraq was able to import less than $200 worth of food per person per year, around half the per capita income of Haiti, which led to significant malnutrition.
    Infant mortality rates dropped in the North where the UN was in charge of the program and increased in the south where the Baathist government was in charge of the program, it is not difficult to ascertain that it was the failure of the Iraqi regime not the sanctions themselves. Both the North and the South were under the same sanctions the only difference was who was in charge of managing the aid provided. It's not our fault that Saddam decided to resell the food provided under the oil for food program to finance the building of lavish palaces and invest in military spending rather than providing that food and medical supplies to his people.

    The US also placed holds on medical supplies,
    Saddam has a long history of weaponizing materials intended for civilian use.

    destroyed water and sewage facilities,
    The U.S. specifically avoided water and sewage facilities during the first Gulf War.

    and withheld the chlorine needed to provide clean water.
    Gee I wonder why.
    [/quote]


    Obviously, it was not simply a matter of our refusing to trade with Iraq. The sanctions prohibited Iraq from trading with anyone.
    Anyone who wanted to trade with Iraq could have but then they would have suffered from those member states who supported the sanctions refusing to trade with them.

    Wrong yet again. They were confirmed by multiple sources, including an extensive survey conducted by UNICEF and the World Health Organization.
    Wrong the statistics provided came directly from the Baathist regime. And once again infant mortality dropped in the north and rose in the south proving conclusively who was to blame, the UN sanctions weren't starving the Iraqi people, Saddam was starving the Iraqi people.

    Actually, Saddam is credited with bringing Iraq some of the highest living standards and best civilian infrastructure in the region, particularly in the area of health care. Iraq was close to being a First World country at that time.
    Actually Saddam is credited with engaging into a disasterous war against Iran which put his country deeply into debt and destroyed his economy prompting him to enter into yet another war of aggression this time against Kuwait which precipitated the sanctions.

    Everything changed with the sanctions, which devastated Iraq’s economy beyond the point where Saddam could have repaired it.
    Saddam had already destroyed the economy during the Iran-Iraq war. Likewise Saddam is directly responsible for the sanctions being implemented and the sanctions not being lifted.

    Indeed, they were calculated to do so in order to make the Iraqis revolt against him. This is the definition of terrorism—an attack on civilians for political ends.
    Infant mortality dropped in the North and rose in the South proving conclusively that it was not the sanctions that hurt the Iraqi's but rather it was the fact that Saddam cared about living in the lap of luxury more than he cared about the welfare of his own people.

    And, again, they did block food and medical supplies.
    They blocked some medical and food supplies, they did not block all medical and food supplies and they did not block enough medical and food supplies to cause this as demonstrated that the North where the UN managed the program and the Kurds managed the money and food supplies no such things occurred and infant mortality actually decreased. Saddam resold the food and medical supplies while the masses starved.

    Unlikely. US officials under both Bush 41 and Clinton stated that the purpose of the sanctions was to remove Saddam and that they would be in place until he was gone. Nothing he did with regard to UN resolutions would have changed that.
    The point is mute since Saddam did not abide by the sanctions; bottom line is there was a requisite number of things that Saddam needed to do to have the sanctions lifted, he did not do these things so whether or not they would have been lifted is pure conjecture on your part the only thing we know for sure is that he violated the terms of the armistice.

  2. #642
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    08-02-11 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    915

    Re: Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris
    Infant mortality rates dropped in the North where the UN was in charge of the program and increased in the south where the Baathist government was in charge of the program, it is not difficult to ascertain that it was the failure of the Iraqi regime not the sanctions themselves. Both the North and the South were under the same sanctions the only difference was who was in charge of managing the aid provided.
    I've already linked sources refuting all of your relevant factual claims, but I'll highlight this one since it wasn't mentioned in any of the other posts. From the Nation article:

    The lowering of the death rate in the Kurdish areas is Cortright's final charge. He admits that northern Iraq is favored in aid and resources, but omits the fact that oil and other goods are smuggled back and forth to Turkey with a knowing wink by the sanctions authorities. He also fails to mention that the damage to infrastructure by UN bombing in 1991 was far less in the Kurdish north. In 1999 when Unicef did the study that showed differing mortality rates north and south, it explicitly refused to blame Iraqi officials for those differences.
    Last edited by Winston Smith; 07-29-10 at 04:38 PM.

  3. #643
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    08-02-11 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    915

    Re: Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

    Another point referenced in the links above, which should be emphasized again--the bombing of civilian infrastructure was fully intentional. From the Seattle PI:

    As the New England Journal of Medicine put it, "The destruction of the country's power plants had brought its entire system of water purification and distribution to a halt, leading to epidemics of cholera, typhoid fever, and gastroenteritis, particularly among children.... Although the allied bombing had caused few civilian casualties, the destruction of the infrastructure resulted in devastating long-term effects on health."

    Also missing were statements by Pentagon strategists of their intention to cause just these results. In a 1991 interview with The Washington Post, one of the planners candidly admitted: "People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage.' What were we trying to do with [United Nations-approved economic] sanctions -- help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of sanctions."

    Why did we want to accelerate the effect of the sanctions?

    Three weeks after the end of the Gulf War, The New York Times -- echoing statements of the first President Bush -- gave us a candid answer: "By making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, [sanctions] would eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power." This appeared in a front-page story covering a major United Nations report on Iraq that predicted epidemic and famine if massive life-supporting needs were not rapidly met.

  4. #644
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Why do we have to fight at all?
    Because many won't convert - by fire, sword, or voluntarily and will fight. They will live in perpetual warfare for the foreseeable future. Hundreds, if not thousands of years of intermittent warfare running the complete range of low end terrorism to outright conventional, high end warfare.

  5. #645
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Really?

    We've had exactly two nukes set off in a combat situation in the history of the world -- both of which were brought to you by the United States, not even 70 years ago.
    How did we get the Japanese to change their ways? Yes a lot of them had to die, but they eventually accepted their defeat and adopted a more western way of life. And we managed to marginalized a living God to nothing more than a curiosity and we dismantled the teaching of the country's religion, Shinto.

  6. #646
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    How did we get the Japanese to change their ways? Yes a lot of them had to die, but they eventually accepted their defeat and adopted a more western way of life. And we managed to marginalized a living God to nothing more than a curiosity and we dismantled the teaching of the country's religion, Shinto.
    Wow, you totally ignored everything I said.

    How's the weather on your planet?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  7. #647
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    I've already linked sources refuting all of your relevant factual claims, but I'll highlight this one since it wasn't mentioned in any of the other posts. From the Nation article:
    UNICEF didn't place blame but the blame is clearly that of the Iraqi's, both North and South were under the same ****ing sanctions the only difference was who was in control of the money from the oil for food program. UNICEF didn't place blame because UNICEF wanted to end the sanctions. Saddam resold food and medical supplies and built himself lavish palaces and continued spending millions on his military while the masses starved. Furtheremore; your article mentions the North conducting smuggeling, however, Saddam engaged in smuggeling as well in addittion to kickbacks in the oil for food scandal he obtained an estimated total of $21 billion in illicit funds. Where did that money go? Not to the welfare of the Iraqi people I guarantee you that.

  8. #648
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    Another point referenced in the links above, which should be emphasized again--the bombing of civilian infrastructure was fully intentional. From the Seattle PI:
    Infant mortality rates decreasing in the north and increasing in the south prove that Saddam not the sanctions were responsible for the plight of the Iraqi people. Furthermore; Saddam brought the sanctions upon himself and refused to abide by the requirements of the armistice which could have gotten the sanctions lifted. You say they wouldn't have been lifted but that is pure conjecture on your part because Saddam never abided by his requirements.

    Furthermore; the U.S. explicitly attempted as much as possible not to attack key Iraqi civilian infastructure during the Gulf War.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 07-29-10 at 09:56 PM.

  9. #649
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    08-02-11 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    915

    Re: Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

    Umm...what TED said.

  10. #650
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    Umm...what TED said.
    Wow no I ****ing didn't I explicitly addressed the points made in your articles.

Page 65 of 75 FirstFirst ... 15556364656667 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •