American History that most Americans don't know

[jimnyc]

Well maybe if you acknowledged the sources that I did post and how they prove what I've been saying since the first post in this thread. Maybe then I could start talking instead have to prove you wrong by doing what you ask and give sources. Now please if you have nothing to say against what I said in my first post in the thread, acknowledge that the education you get in your neighorhood never told you about this history that I've been showing you. Acknowledge that this is indeed 'American History that most americas done know'. Is that too hard? Because you haven't proved me wrong about the history of America, and i have time and time again given you sources, with your only response being bad sources, and now with the only response as "i feel like im reading a page off google.com". Why don't you just acknowledge that what i showed at the first post is fact. Otherwise show me real posts and not posts based on assumptions or posts that have no meaning.

They didn't "prove" anything, at least not to me. It left A LOT open to interpretation, which I obviously interpret differently that you. Most Americans are fully aware of our history, we just didn't learn with the spin you like to put on it.

What's there to prove you wrong on, your opinion? Ok, I say I think Canada is an ugly country, prove me wrong or acknowledge that I'm correct. You are taking historical events and using wacky links to justify a warped misinterpretation.

I don't see how thats all I've proved. I've proved why america is hated. And why there are organizations like Al Qeada out there. They hate America because of they've done to ruin countries, and you haven't proved me wrong on that. And yeah i will still criticize america, as long as that means that I show people like you the real history of America, and show why america is hated. And america being the richest nation in the world, i can't stop those things i can't affect those things, all i could do is explain to you why america is hated, before you call everyone who hates america terrorists.

No, you gave your opinion on why you think America is hated. And again, opinions are just that - opinions!

I said everyone who hates America is terrorists? Please show me.

So please if you have nothing to say against what I've said, please then acknowledge it as fact.

You are laughable, how many times are you going to ask me to take your opinion as fact? Even if the events you have linked to went down exactly as you would like to have it portrayed, it's still only your opinion that it makes USA terrorists.

Apparently the UN and the international community must not agree with you, or why haven't they brought up ways to minimize the terrorist acts that the USA has committed? When has the USA ever been labeled terrorists? (other than by your warped imagination) The only place you'll find someone agreeing with you that the USA is terrorists is at i_am_bush/usa_hating_liberal.com

 

[Man of 1951]

this is very frustrating.


TELL ME WHERE I'VE PUT MY OWN OPINIONATED 'SPIN' ON THE FACTS? TELL ME WHICH ONE OF THE HISTORICAL FACTS I LISTED IN MY FIRST POST WERE WRONG. TELL ME WHICH ONE I HAVEN'T PROVED. HOW ARE THE FACTS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. FACTS ARE FACTS, AND YOU HAVEN'T SPOKEN ABOUT THE FACTS I SHOWED YOU, WHY DON'T YOU REPLY TO THEM?

No, you gave your opinion on why you think America is hated.

No this isn't based on opinion. You go to other countries of the world, and ask them why they hate america, and they'll tell you what you don't know. They'll tell you what ive said, among other things such as Israel.

tell me how what i PROVED you were opinions, maybe then we could conclude this thread.

 

[jimnyc]

TELL ME WHERE I'VE PUT MY OWN OPINIONATED 'SPIN' ON THE FACTS? TELL ME WHICH ONE OF THE HISTORICAL FACTS I LISTED IN MY FIRST POST WERE WRONG. TELL ME WHICH ONE I HAVEN'T PROVED. HOW ARE THE FACTS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. FACTS ARE FACTS, AND YOU HAVEN'T SPOKEN ABOUT THE FACTS I SHOWED YOU, WHY DON'T YOU REPLY TO THEM?

I'll just touch on a few as examples:

"1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions."

You see, we bombed targets that were hostile in nature or locking onto our planes that were doing military patrols. You make it sound as if we just bombed anywhere indiscriminately. Also, we differ in our OPINIONS as to whether or not the USA is responsible for any of the deaths you point out. I prefer to believe Saddam is to blame for refusal to listen and abide by the UN resolutions. His determination and dedication to evil in his very own country is what unfortunately cost people their lives. Either way, what we both just offered are our opinions.

"September 11, 2001: Osama Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people."

How can you be so sure that any training from the CIA went into the planning, preparation & execution of that day? It didn't take a genius to do what they did, just someone with a large set of balls. You don't need CIA training to go to flight school. You don't need CIA training to sneak into the USA. You don't need CIA training to pull out a box cutter on an airplane. Hell, they didn't even land the planes, doubtful they got CIA training in crashing them. You took prior dealings with the CIA and put that SPIN I spoke of on them and try to lay blame on the USA for the tragedy inflicted on it's people. And lastly, that is your OPINION, and certainly not one I share.

 

[eric]

You are starting to sound a little too self-righteous with statements like :

"No this isn't based on opinion. You go to other countries of the world, and ask them why they hate america, and they'll tell you what you don't know. They'll tell you what ive said, among other things such as Israel."

Well my friend, I have been to many other countries in this world, though I must admit it never occured to me to ask "why do you hate America", I had far more important business on my mind. Its funny though, in my travels I did not get the sense that the US is hated all over the world, as some would like us to believe. Are there people who hate us? It would be naive to think not, but it is a tremendous over-simplification to make statements like you have. You seem to avoid abstract thought and embrace pure simplicity. A good example is when you stated: "I dont see how thats all I've proved. I've proved why america is hated. And why there are organizations like Al Qeada out there". Answer me this then; How can you prove why a person feels a certain way? I'm sure researchers around the world would have open ears for your theory. The answer is simple; you can't. All you can do is to make an inference from the facts you have. If I am angry and you had just hit me in the head with a rock, you can infer that your action is the cause of my anger, but you cannot prove this with empirical evidence. Herein is where you cross from fact to speculation, heresay, and opinion. Even polling a small cross section of a population is not strong enough evidence to make absoulte statements about the whole. Yet it is easy to come to the conclusions as you have; America did bad things so this must be the reason people hate them. Logical, possibly, fact, unsubstantiated!

I do not dispute the historical correctness of your "bad little things America did" list, most informed Americans were well aware of them, but here is where we part company. I have no facts as to why America felt the need at the time. I have my thoughts and opinions, but that is all they are, and I would not put myself in the position of looking foolish by stating them as fact.

Another area to be addressed is the use of words. It is far too simple, again, to apply the root definition of a word to a complex situtation. The common use and meaning of a word will change with the context, and the social dynamics of the time and place, in which the word is used. To take a word such as "terrorism" and try to apply the root definition is futile, yet simple. Lets look at the word in detail; Merriam-Webster defines the word as follows:

"the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

And the word terror is defined as :

"a state of intense fear"

So following your logic in this thread, this makes most parents terrorists. Parents use fear on a regular basis to keep their children in line. According to the old testament god used fear to keep man in line. Is God a terrorist too?

Life is not always black and white, there are shades of gray. It is out of this gray area that new meanings and uses of words arise.

You either do not understand this, or choose to ignore it to serve your purpose.

 

[Jackass]

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.


Its a good thing he had " Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact." looking through this movie!! I am not sure if I would pay them though!! LOL

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I'll just touch on a few as examples:

"1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions."

You see, we bombed targets that were hostile in nature or locking onto our planes that were doing military patrols. You make it sound as if we just bombed anywhere indiscriminately. Also, we differ in our OPINIONS as to whether or not the USA is responsible for any of the deaths you point out. I prefer to believe Saddam is to blame for refusal to listen and abide by the UN resolutions. His determination and dedication to evil in his very own country is what unfortunately cost people their lives. Either way, what we both just offered are our opinions.

Perhaps America is not to blame, but the sanctions imposed on Iraq are devastating. As bad as Saddam is, those children wouldn't have died if the sanctions weren't imposed. Yeah Saddam is mostly responsible, but those children died directly from the sanctions, as in if the sanctions were lifted, 500,000 children would still be alive. It doesn't matter who you blame, those children died because of the sanctions. As ruthless as Saddam is, these extra children that died was a result of the sanctions. THe bit about the bombs, yeah perhaps that was opinionated.

"September 11, 2001: Osama Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people."

How can you be so sure that any training from the CIA went into the planning, preparation & execution of that day? It didn't take a genius to do what they did, just someone with a large set of balls. You don't need CIA training to go to flight school. You don't need CIA training to sneak into the USA. You don't need CIA training to pull out a box cutter on an airplane. Hell, they didn't even land the planes, doubtful they got CIA training in crashing them. You took prior dealings with the CIA and put that SPIN I spoke of on them and try to lay blame on the USA for the tragedy inflicted on it's people. And lastly, that is your OPINION, and certainly not one I share.

Well considering the fact that Osama used the money given to him from the CIA when the CIA trained him, to organize the things he does. Also, you probably don't need the CIA training to do the things you suggested, but it certainly helps doesn't it? Also, i think the CIA training comes even more in handy when hiding. I think i remember hearing Osama bin Laden was to be caught dead or alive. Now does the American government know where he is? NO. He's using his CIA trained skills to know where to hide where he wouldn't be detected. Therefore i would say that he did use his CIA skills to do sept. 11th.
Also, i didn't blame the US for the tragedy. I just thought it would be interesting to point out how the people who were trained to do what they do by the US turn out to do some bad things towards the US (i.e. Saddam, Osama Bin Laden). And even if i did, yeah it would be opinionated, but i what i said was they Bin Laden used his CIA training to help him do what he wanted to do.

You are starting to sound a little too self-righteous with statements like :

"No this isn't based on opinion. You go to other countries of the world, and ask them why they hate america, and they'll tell you what you don't know. They'll tell you what ive said, among other things such as Israel."

Well my friend, I have been to many other countries in this world, though I must admit it never occured to me to ask "why do you hate America", I had far more important business on my mind. Its funny though, in my travels I did not get the sense that the US is hated all over the world, as some would like us to believe. Are there people who hate us? It would be naive to think not, but it is a tremendous over-simplification to make statements like you have. You seem to avoid abstract thought and embrace pure simplicity. A good example is when you stated: "I dont see how thats all I've proved. I've proved why america is hated. And why there are organizations like Al Qeada out there". Answer me this then; How can you prove why a person feels a certain way? I'm sure researchers around the world would have open ears for your theory. The answer is simple; you can't. All you can do is to make an inference from the facts you have. If I am angry and you had just hit me in the head with a rock, you can infer that your action is the cause of my anger, but you cannot prove this with empirical evidence. Herein is where you cross from fact to speculation, heresay, and opinion. Even polling a small cross section of a population is not strong enough evidence to make absoulte statements about the whole. Yet it is easy to come to the conclusions as you have; America did bad things so this must be the reason people hate them. Logical, possibly, fact, unsubstantiated!

I didn't intend to make you believe that the US was hated all across the world, in fact most people will tell you its not america they have a problem with, its just america's government and their foreign policies. OK my statement that you quoted within your paragraph. Your arguement against it is all speculation. If you do ask the next time you go the middle east why they hate america, come back and tell me what they said. OK so if you kill one of my friends and i get angry, isn't that anger justified? Same thing, if you go to another country and over throw their democratically elected leader, would the reaction by the people not show their anger against what you did? The conclusion i came to make sense. If you actually do ask people why they hate the american government thats what they'll tell you. I dont know anyother way i could put it. They'll tell you what i've said and perhaps even more examples. As empirical as it may be, thats evidence to show why they hate america. And if you have something to prove me wrong, please present your evidence as to other reasons why america is hated.

I do not dispute the historical correctness of your "bad little things America did" list, most informed Americans were well aware of them, but here is where we part company. I have no facts as to why America felt the need at the time. I have my thoughts and opinions, but that is all they are, and I would not put myself in the position of looking foolish by stating them as fact.

Also, well considering the fact that there aren't too many informed americans, i would say americans in general aren't well aware of them. When i did post possible reasons why they did those 'bad things' i meant them as opinions. But i just started this thread to show the 'bad things' and to show the things that were done. I appreciate that you don't dispute what i said, but this entire time ive been trying to prove the historical events to Jim, who is still skeptical even after all the sources i provided. And again i didn't say the reasons why they did those things as fact, i just want it to be known that the occurance of those actions are factual.

Another area to be addressed is the use of words. It is far too simple, again, to apply the root definition of a word to a complex situtation. The common use and meaning of a word will change with the context, and the social dynamics of the time and place, in which the word is used. To take a word such as "terrorism" and try to apply the root definition is futile, yet simple. Lets look at the word in detail; Merriam-Webster defines the word as follows:

"the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

And the word terror is defined as :

"a state of intense fear"

So following your logic in this thread, this makes most parents terrorists. Parents use fear on a regular basis to keep their children in line. According to the old testament god used fear to keep man in line. Is God a terrorist too?

Life is not always black and white, there are shades of gray. It is out of this gray area that new meanings and uses of words arise.

You either do not understand this, or choose to ignore it to serve your purpose.

You're right, definitions can't be used like that. But my point was even with the definition of terrorism now, i would still say america's actions were that of terrorists. With the grey area, i would say its obvious americas actions were acts of terrorism. Please show me how i'm wrong....but the problem is with so much grey area, i could be right and so could anyone else. So with this, thats why i've been asking for Jim's definition of a terrorist/terrorism. Because then i could try to show him america's actions to be that of terrorists, with reference to HIS definition. I think if i could do that, then my points will be more effective.

Also, I'm still waiting, if anybody disputes any of the events listed in the first post, please let me know.

 

[jimnyc]

Perhaps America is not to blame, but the sanctions imposed on Iraq are devastating. As bad as Saddam is, those children wouldn't have died if the sanctions weren't imposed. Yeah Saddam is mostly responsible, but those children died directly from the sanctions, as in if the sanctions were lifted, 500,000 children would still be alive. It doesn't matter who you blame, those children died because of the sanctions. As ruthless as Saddam is, these extra children that died was a result of the sanctions. THe bit about the bombs, yeah perhaps that was opinionated.

I disagree with your line of thinking here, and will state again that I hold Saddam fully responsible. Had he complied with the UN to begin with, or after sanctions were imposed, this could all have been avoided long ago. He refused in representation of his entire country and they suffered as a result of HIS actions, or failure to act.

You don't agree with the war and claim it is illegal. You don't think sanctions should have been imposed. What should have been done then?

Also, you are technically calling the entire world terrorists as the sanctions were approved by the UN which has representatives from how many countries? The US was just very instrumental in enforcing the UN imposed sanctions.

Also, I'm still waiting, if anybody disputes any of the events listed in the first post, please let me know.

The events happened in some way, shape or form, I just disagree with the way you delivered the events. Stating "Canada contributed a little over 2000 soldiers to the war in Afghanistan" would be a factual event. Let me deliver it in your way "Canada doesn't give much of an effort towards terrorism as it refuses to put a decent amount of soldiers into Afghanistan to assist. As a result of not having enough soldiers in place, many other soldiers & civilians have lost their lives." Sounds silly, doesn't it?

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I disagree with your line of thinking here, and will state again that I hold Saddam fully responsible. Had he complied with the UN to begin with, or after sanctions were imposed, this could all have been avoided long ago. He refused in representation of his entire country and they suffered as a result of HIS actions, or failure to act.

You don't agree with the war and claim it is illegal. You don't think sanctions should have been imposed. What should have been done then?

Also, you are technically calling the entire world terrorists as the sanctions were approved by the UN which has representatives from how many countries? The US was just very instrumental in enforcing the UN imposed sanctions.



The events happened in some way, shape or form, I just disagree with the way you delivered the events. Stating "Canada contributed a little over 2000 soldiers to the war in Afghanistan" would be a factual event. Let me deliver it in your way "Canada doesn't give much of an effort towards terrorism as it refuses to put a decent amount of soldiers into Afghanistan to assist. As a result of not having enough soldiers in place, many other soldiers & civilians have lost their lives." Sounds silly, doesn't it?

About the Saddam thing: thats just a difference of opinion then. But the fact still remains that 500 000 extra children had died from 1991 to present. And extra as in they wouldn't have died were the sanctions not imposed.

"You don't agree with the war and claim it is illegal. You don't think sanctions should have been imposed. What should have been done then?" I believe that a) Saddam shouldn't have been supported by US money and equipment in the 80's. b) US should have done what they said they would do: support the people in the iraqi revolution after the gulf war (which the US said they would do, but that was said only for political reasons to make them look better (in my opinion) because nothing was done.) c) US should have let the UN inspectors do their job, and when they say it wouldn't take weeks nor years but months, they should have listened. d) Listen to the world community when they disagree with the war in Iraq, and listen to what they have to say, instead of trying to make them look like fools.

"Also, you are technically calling the entire world terrorists as the sanctions were approved by the UN which has representatives from how many countries? The US was just very instrumental in enforcing the UN imposed sanctions." You're right, except i didn't call the US terrorists because of the sanctions, i called the US terrorists for doing what they did as in removing democratically elected leaders and installed dictators. Training death squads training Osama, supporting Saddam only when it serves their purpose, but if someone else does it, they are called terrorists.

"The events happened in some way, shape or form, I just disagree with the way you delivered the events. Stating "Canada contributed a little over 2000 soldiers to the war in Afghanistan" would be a factual event. Let me deliver it in your way "Canada doesn't give much of an effort towards terrorism as it refuses to put a decent amount of soldiers into Afghanistan to assist. As a result of not having enough soldiers in place, many other soldiers & civilians have lost their lives." Sounds silly, doesn't it?"
No i dont think it sounds silly, i would think that appropriate for a public forum. And tell me how i misinformed you or mislead you by the way i said some things. The US did overthrow Mossedeq in Iran with the CIA, the CIA agent organizing the thing had the last name Roosevelt. I forget his first name, but hes the grand son of Franklin Roosevelt. The US did support the Shah's regime when the dictator was installed. And this dictator was a ruthless one (similar to Saddam). The US did do the things i said, maybe i didn't say the operation names (for the mossedeq one it was operation AJAX i think or that may be the name for another of their operations) or maybe i didn't say how many ppl were involved, but they did happen and the US made it happen. If you want the details maybe you should have paid attention to the sources i gave because they do mention these things.

 

[jimnyc]

About the Saddam thing: thats just a difference of opinion then. But the fact still remains that 500 000 extra children had died from 1991 to present. And extra as in they wouldn't have died were the sanctions not imposed.

You are correct, and why did the entire world think sanctions needed to be imposed? Saddam could have avoided this, but he chose to go against the entire world. (when I say entire world, I mean the UN council vote of record)

"Also, you are technically calling the entire world terrorists as the sanctions were approved by the UN which has representatives from how many countries? The US was just very instrumental in enforcing the UN imposed sanctions." You're right, except i didn't call the US terrorists because of the sanctions, i called the US terrorists for doing what they did as in removing democratically elected leaders and installed dictators. Training death squads training Osama, supporting Saddam only when it serves their purpose, but if someone else does it, they are called terrorists.

Ok, my fault, I'll rephrase. You were holding the USA responsible for 500,000 deaths in Iraq due to the sanctions imposed. Why just the USA, why not the rest of the countries involved in the UN, including Canada? What percentage of deaths was Canada responsible for, and why don't you mention that?

No i dont think it sounds silly, i would think that appropriate for a public forum.

I don't, and I take back my comments about Canada as they were only typed to make a point. They gave what they could at the time to the effort in the Middle East, but I won't lay blame on them for deaths that were not in their direct control. Just like I don't think they are responsible for any deaths as a result of sanctions THEY HELPED impose on Iraq.

 

[Man of 1951]

Ok, my fault, I'll rephrase. You were holding the USA responsible for 500,000 deaths in Iraq due to the sanctions imposed. Why just the USA, why not the rest of the countries involved in the UN, including Canada? What percentage of deaths was Canada responsible for, and why don't you mention that?

Thanks for rephrasing. But thats still an assumption. I don't hold the US responsible for the 500 000 deaths in Iraq. But you're right, i shouldn't have included the topic of sanctions in the forum "american history...." but i didn't intend it to be there to hold america responsible. I just wanted to say what the sanctions resulted in.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Man of 1951
Thanks for rephrasing. But thats still an assumption. I don't hold the US responsible for the 500 000 deaths in Iraq. But you're right, i shouldn't have included the topic of sanctions in the forum "american history...." but i didn't intend it to be there to hold america responsible. I just wanted to say what the sanctions resulted in.

We'll disagree in what we think caused the results.

Thank you for clearing up the previous matter.

 

[Man of 1951]

Now that that matter in particular was cleared up. What about the other matters?

 

[Aquarian]

Wow, this was a hard thread to jump into this late Not that that ever stops me...

I have to say that to the best of my knowledge, the original list is accurate. The exact placement of the blame for the deaths in Iraq due to the sanctions aside as there is no assignation of blame in the original post. Also there are other shady dealings that might have happened not on the list to be discussed separately.

But I do want to touch on the topic of those deaths. First the true number of deaths is in dispute, different studies range from 100,000 to the 500,000 mentioned with the truth probably lying somewhere in between. Second, the blame. A portion must rest on Saddam since he, as leader, is responsible for his citizens well being (tho that is obviously not the way most dictators see it). But some must also be taken by the countries of the world who imposed the sanctions. If a child misbehaves and you punish it so severely that it dies or is greiviously injured one would rightfully ascribe more blame to the punisher than the punishee. IMO the same applies to sanctions. There ought to be a better way. Not sure what that would be given the current geopolitical environment but then there are many problems with that not even involving 'rogue nations'...

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Aquarian
But some must also be taken by the countries of the world who imposed the sanctions. If a child misbehaves and you punish it so severely that it dies or is greiviously injured one would rightfully ascribe more blame to the punisher than the punishee.

I absolutely DISAGREE. The analogy of punishment is misguided. If a child misbehaves an adults duty is to discipline a child. Discipline means to teach. Punishment, on the other hand, is different. It's meant to deter and remove from society those that cannot or will not comply; it's expected that the person receiving the punishment already knows how to act. Fact is, a county is free to act any way it wants but the laws of society, as the majority of society have dictated, will always cause repercussions. Fact is, Iraq knew what they were getting into just like people who break the law and then cry and complain when they suffer the legal ramifications of their actions. Now the 500,000 dead children (or whatever the real number is) didn't die because of sanctions. They died because they weren't powerful enough to stop their nations leaders from mandating a course of action which led to their deaths. We here in America have that power (don't deny it, just vote). Don't the Iraqis deserve it the same?

 

[Aquarian]

I wasn't saying that the Iraqi's dont' deserve freedom. I'm just saying that by our direct actions (by 'our' I mean all the countries that approved and enforced the sanctions) needless deaths occurred. Period. I really don't understand how you can deny that the sanctions played a direct role in those deaths, or that those responsible for those sanctions must bear some responsibility for them. All, no, most, not sure, but some definitely. For the record, Saddam was a heinous individual. He is among some 20 (I think, there are a lot of countries to keep up with) or so national leaders that should be removed from power based on what they do to their citizens. I'm saying we have to find a way to effect that change without the 'collateral damage' caused by sanctions (as currently implemented) and war. The first thought that comes to mind is assassination, but then that leaves all leaders vulnerable to the same thing. It's kind of an understanding it would appear that you just don't take out other countries leaders, otherwise I'd have to think it would be happening all the time.... There are many things about my country, the USA, that I am extremely proud of. There are others I'm extremely ashamed of. I still stand by my statement that some of the blame is on our shoulders.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Aquarian
I really don't understand how you can deny that the sanctions played a direct role in those deaths, or that those responsible for those sanctions must bear some responsibility for them.

I didn't say, nor do I think, that the sanctions had no role in their deaths. What I said is that they didn't cause their deaths. When you catch the flu from another person, are they the cause? Seems to me the virus is the cause and the other person merely played a role? Saddam, by ignoring the majority and the well-publicized punishment for doing so, caused their deaths by instigating circumstances that led to their death. Absent his actions, the sanctions would not have been and therefore they would not have died as a result of them.

How many posters actually saw, in person, the aftermath of the WTC or Pentagon disasters or know anyone who could have or did perish? I did. My mentor of over a decade was the head of the WTC, my step-sister worked for a company headquartered there and frequently ate breakfast @ Windows on the World, many friends and colleagues worked there, my dad worked in the Pentagon and since I went to VA Tech, many of my classmates worked there as well. My family and most of my friends survived...some colleagues and friends of mine did not. I also went to the WTC just a few days after it happened. Being in the real estate industry in NYC, I was also part of the task force hired to find homes and offices for those affected.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone lightly. Even the Iraqis. But I don't think anyone in the United States or elsewhere took this decision lightly. If we had, perhaps more Iraqi citizens would have died. No one can say for sure. But after fleeing New York City that day, not knowing whether my good friends had survived my heart wanted revenge. Quick, painful, deadly revenge. However, our leaders, to their credit, did not listen to my heart. They may not have done what everyone in the world wanted them to do, but when all is said and done I, for my part, know that we are doing the best we can to make sure that there is no continuing threat to the majority of our people while trying to establish the fundamentals for a free-er society in those countries.

As for bearing responsible, there's a huge difference both morally and legally in having a role in versus being responsible for or causing something. I'd rather meet my judgment day with the "responsibility" for allowing sanctions and the war on terror on my shoulders than watch my fellow citizens die because Iraq's leaders decided that they are an infidel and need killing.


Let me ask you another question: Anyone heard of Qaddafi? If you have, you'll know why I'm asking. If you haven't, look up in your history books.

 

[eric]

Yes Moi, I too lost friends in the WTC. I have also been to the site and having been there many times before the destruction, it is hard to imagine what it was like that day for these people.

May they rest in peace.

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by Moi
I didn't say, nor do I think, that the sanctions had no role in their deaths. What I said is that they didn't cause their deaths. When you catch the flu from another person, are they the cause? Seems to me the virus is the cause and the other person merely played a role? Saddam, by ignoring the majority and the well-publicized punishment for doing so, caused their deaths by instigating circumstances that led to their death. Absent his actions, the sanctions would not have been and therefore they would not have died as a result of them.

How many posters actually saw, in person, the aftermath of the WTC or Pentagon disasters or know anyone who could have or did perish? I did. My mentor of over a decade was the head of the WTC, my step-sister worked for a company headquartered there and frequently ate breakfast @ Windows on the World, many friends and colleagues worked there, my dad worked in the Pentagon and since I went to VA Tech, many of my classmates worked there as well. My family and most of my friends survived...some colleagues and friends of mine did not. I also went to the WTC just a few days after it happened. Being in the real estate industry in NYC, I was also part of the task force hired to find homes and offices for those affected.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone lightly. Even the Iraqis. But I don't think anyone in the United States or elsewhere took this decision lightly. If we had, perhaps more Iraqi citizens would have died. No one can say for sure. But after fleeing New York City that day, not knowing whether my good friends had survived my heart wanted revenge. Quick, painful, deadly revenge. However, our leaders, to their credit, did not listen to my heart. They may not have done what everyone in the world wanted them to do, but when all is said and done I, for my part, know that we are doing the best we can to make sure that there is no continuing threat to the majority of our people while trying to establish the fundamentals for a free-er society in those countries.

As for bearing responsible, there's a huge difference both morally and legally in having a role in versus being responsible for or causing something. I'd rather meet my judgment day with the "responsibility" for allowing sanctions and the war on terror on my shoulders than watch my fellow citizens die because Iraq's leaders decided that they are an infidel and need killing.


Let me ask you another question: Anyone heard of Qaddafi? If you have, you'll know why I'm asking. If you haven't, look up in your history books.

You make a good point. I wouldn't necessarily say the UN holds blame, because that's all opinionated. The fact is that the UN's actions did directly or indirectly, however you wish to argue it, cause the deaths of 500,000 children.
The only problem i see is that you have merged 3 topics merged into one, you seem to talk about the Iraq war (2003), the sanctions throught the 90's and early 2000's, and september 11th. Please clarify.

I'd rather meet my judgment day with the "responsibility" for allowing sanctions and the war on terror on my shoulders than watch my fellow citizens die because Iraq's leaders decided that they are an infidel and need killing.

The problem with your statement is that you're willing to meet judgement day with the 'responsibility' for the deaths of innocents that have gone several times more than the deaths of innocents on september 11. You may not be able to watch your fellow citizen die because of iraq's leaders decisions, so instead you let other iraqi civlian citizens watch the deaths of their own fellow citizens? It seems like a double standard to me. But if thats what you're willing to accept and take responsibility for, thats you.

But all in all, your original point about the sanctions was good

 

[jimnyc]

Man of 1951, your failure to comprehend the distinction between lives lost as a result of terror attacks and lives lost during war is mind boggling. And don't tell me these fanatics attacking the WTC was an act of war. There was no enemy to speak of in those buildings. If our army and marines were holed up in there it may be more 'understandable', but their goal was to kill solely to make a point.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Man of 1951 "You make a good point. I wouldn't necessarily say the UN holds blame, because that's all opinionated. The fact is that the UN's actions did directly or indirectly, however you wish to argue it, cause the deaths of 500,000 children. "

Once again, the cause of their deaths was more likely starvation, disease and exposure. None of which was "caused" by sanctions from countries miles away. If Iraq had enough food and medicine to care for it's own, no amount of time that other countries did not provide for them would have mattered. Iraq did not have the resources to feed and care for its own people. During sanctions, not one person in the sanctioning country took anything away from Iraq that it already had.

"The only problem i see is that you have merged 3 topics merged into one, you seem to talk about the Iraq war (2003), the sanctions throught the 90's and early 2000's, and september 11th. Please clarify."

The topics, in my mind, are inextricably linked. They show a lengthy pattern of conduct.

"The problem with your statement is that you're willing to meet judgement day with the 'responsibility' for the deaths of innocents that have gone several times more than the deaths of innocents on september 11. You may not be able to watch your fellow citizen die because of iraq's leaders decisions, so instead you let other iraqi civlian citizens watch the deaths of their own fellow citizens? It seems like a double standard to me. But if thats what you're willing to accept and take responsibility for, thats you."

The problem with sanctions, as the UN so stupidly found out, is that the sanctioning countries assume that the leaders of the problematic countries actually care about the welfare of their populace. In Iraq's case, the assumption failed, tragically, to prove true. Now, however, that brings me to your assumption that I see it better to have more innocents on "their" side versus "mine" die is a double standard. Well, that's just hogwash. The owners of the WTC did not go into their country, rob their citizens, poison their medical supplies, and unleash the hounds of war. No, if memory serves, the owners of the WTC (and probably the other employees therein) were a group of people who provided employment for thousands, gave generous medical packages to their employees and their families, mentored many underprivileged people, gave millions to charity and otherwise minded their own damn business. I speak from experience. I knew them. The people who killed them took all that away from their families. There is no telling how many families that made their livelihoods from that area or the rest of the people involved, will die or be injured in some way as a result. The fact that, after repeatedly being told the consequences, the terrorists, middle eastern leaders and their populace continued to allow all these things to happen to my countrymen sealed their fate. I didn't say I was glad they were dead nor did I say that I relished the fact that more of them died. But if it's gotta be one or the other, it's going to be them every time. If I had to decide whether to kill someone or be raped, I can assure you I'd choose to kill the other person. I am not saying that I'd do it happily but yes, I'd do it and I'd be willing to live with it for the rest of my unraped life! If you have a daughter I'm sure you would want her to do the same thing.

Had I been in power, there would have been no sanctions. I think they punish those who are powerless to effect change in their own countries. They are a cowardly liberals way out. They think that because the sanctions aren't a military solution they are more humanitarian or benign in nature. Nothing could be further from the truth. A nice surgical strike would have been more efficient and resulted in decades earlier resolution. Again, I urge you to refresh your memory of Qaddafi.

"But all in all, your original point about the sanctions was good "

Why, thank you!