Reality check:How many of you would let 100,000 children starve??

[Siete]

As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

So the war ended in 1991 and 4 years later 576,000 Iraqi children died or about 144,000 a year.
From 1995 to 2003 is 8 years at the rate of 144,000 starving children a year that would be 1,152,000 starved and dead children from 1995 to 2003

All because Saddam would NOT certify that all the WMDs his son-in-law and others had built were destroyed.
Saddam was so convincing to everyone he had WMDs because MOST sane logical rational leaders would NEVER want 144,000 children to starve each year
if Saddam didn't have WMDs.
That and Saddam's defected to the West son-in-law who was responsible for Iraq's WMDs.

So given the total apparent existence of WMDs.. again remember you are in a decision point ... do you as a leader want the starvation of 144,000 children each
year wouldn't you stop the embargo and sign the certification? Almost all leaders would..except Saddam.

And so after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks unknown at that time if they came from Saddam... and the ability to save 144,000 children a year while freeing
28 million people from a KNOWN dictator who gassed his own people...
Would you still wait? Would you still to this day NOT do anything while another 1.9 million children starved to date if Saddam wasn't removed?

Where is the compassionate liberal progressives wanting to save everyone but OK with 144,000 children starving ALL because Saddam would NOT
certify Iraq's WMDs were destroyed!

That wasn't the reason BushII gave for the loss of over 4K military members, the maiming of tens of thousands and the destruction of military families. And, no, it wouldn't have been worth that even if BushII had used that excuse.

These Democrats wanted Saddam gone!
Clinton wanted Saddam gone.
The Clinton administration therefore stoked an utterly baseless media hysteria around Iraqi WMDs and fixed its Iraq policy around the maintenance of sanctions at all costs and preparations for war.
This history shows that the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq flowed directly from the Clinton administration’s policy, whose trajectory had been unmistakably towards war.
This was confirmed during the 2004 presidential campaign by James Rubin, a former State Department official who advised Democratic candidate John Kerry on national security issues.
And this was all done before 9/11!
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/10/ekeu-o18.html

Finally what difference does it make whether it was the false premise Saddam was bluffing on i.e. he had WMDs,etc.. the Liberation of Iraq
saved nearly 2 million children from starving...
Whether it was done by Bush as an extension of the Clinton agenda to remove Saddam it DID as a fact save 2 million children and that is wrong???

certainly saving 2 million kids is the right thing to do, but you didn't ask that ... read the title of the thread

 

[NYcarbineer]

Saddam didn't have to 'certify' anything to buy food for his people.

 

[bendog]

As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

So the war ended in 1991 and 4 years later 576,000 Iraqi children died or about 144,000 a year.
From 1995 to 2003 is 8 years at the rate of 144,000 starving children a year that would be 1,152,000 starved and dead children from 1995 to 2003

All because Saddam would NOT certify that all the WMDs his son-in-law and others had built were destroyed.
Saddam was so convincing to everyone he had WMDs because MOST sane logical rational leaders would NEVER want 144,000 children to starve each year
if Saddam didn't have WMDs.
That and Saddam's defected to the West son-in-law who was responsible for Iraq's WMDs.

So given the total apparent existence of WMDs.. again remember you are in a decision point ... do you as a leader want the starvation of 144,000 children each
year wouldn't you stop the embargo and sign the certification? Almost all leaders would..except Saddam.

And so after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks unknown at that time if they came from Saddam... and the ability to save 144,000 children a year while freeing
28 million people from a KNOWN dictator who gassed his own people...
Would you still wait? Would you still to this day NOT do anything while another 1.9 million children starved to date if Saddam wasn't removed?

Where is the compassionate liberal progressives wanting to save everyone but OK with 144,000 children starving ALL because Saddam would NOT
certify Iraq's WMDs were destroyed!

That wasn't the reason BushII gave for the loss of over 4K military members, the maiming of tens of thousands and the destruction of military families. And, no, it wouldn't have been worth that even if BushII had used that excuse.

These Democrats wanted Saddam gone!
Clinton wanted Saddam gone.
The Clinton administration therefore stoked an utterly baseless media hysteria around Iraqi WMDs and fixed its Iraq policy around the maintenance of sanctions at all costs and preparations for war.
This history shows that the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq flowed directly from the Clinton administration’s policy, whose trajectory had been unmistakably towards war.
This was confirmed during the 2004 presidential campaign by James Rubin, a former State Department official who advised Democratic candidate John Kerry on national security issues.
And this was all done before 9/11!
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/10/ekeu-o18.html

Finally what difference does it make whether it was the false premise Saddam was bluffing on i.e. he had WMDs,etc.. the Liberation of Iraq
saved nearly 2 million children from starving...
Whether it was done by Bush as an extension of the Clinton agenda to remove Saddam it DID as a fact save 2 million children and that is wrong???

Regime change is not synomous with 4K AMERICAN SERVICEMEN dead, tens of thousands maimed and tens of thousands of families damaged. BushI wanted the guy gone too, as well.

 

[asterism]

Food was allowed in the oil for food program.

It was the inspectors who had to certify, not Saddam.

Saddam was forced to prove a negative, i.e., that he didn't have weapons. That was the Bush administration's can't lose trick that assured that Saddam could not comply.

NO he was to certify HIS WMDs were destroyed! Everyone (possibly except the IRS) keeps records. IF SADDAM wanted to prove he destroyed he could!
And you seem to forget Saddam's son-in-law..' I'm not saying this PBS is!!!

"He [Saddam] got preempted though, by his son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, the number-two man in Iraq, [who] chose to defect basically as a result of a whole series of bizarre circumstances. Hussein Kamel's defection threw a monkey wrench into Saddam's plans because Hussein Kamel knew everything about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs.
He had been the man responsible for building them. He was also part of the highest-level committee that Saddam had, that was responsible for hiding the weapons on mass destruction.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../frontline/shows/iraq/interviews/pollack.html

Do you understand?? With Kamel's information about WMDs there was Proof they existed. Now all Saddam had to do was show the certifications he destroyed!
HE wouldn't! That's not proving a negative because there were documents Kamel knew existed that showed WMDs existed. Now if Saddam destroyed why couldn't he show those documents?

Excuse me. OIL FOR FOOD program. You have no argument. The sanctions didn't starve anyone.

IRAQ: Oil for Food Scandal - Council on Foreign Relations

Facts about the UN Oil-for-Food Programme

The UN's oil-for-food scandal: Rolling up the culprits | The Economist

For Iraqi Children, Death by Sanctions | Solidarity

Effects of Iraq Sanctions ? Global Issues



You will of course ignore these diverse sources.

 

[NYcarbineer]

NO he was to certify HIS WMDs were destroyed! Everyone (possibly except the IRS) keeps records. IF SADDAM wanted to prove he destroyed he could!
And you seem to forget Saddam's son-in-law..' I'm not saying this PBS is!!!

"He [Saddam] got preempted though, by his son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, the number-two man in Iraq, [who] chose to defect basically as a result of a whole series of bizarre circumstances. Hussein Kamel's defection threw a monkey wrench into Saddam's plans because Hussein Kamel knew everything about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs.
He had been the man responsible for building them. He was also part of the highest-level committee that Saddam had, that was responsible for hiding the weapons on mass destruction.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../frontline/shows/iraq/interviews/pollack.html

Do you understand?? With Kamel's information about WMDs there was Proof they existed. Now all Saddam had to do was show the certifications he destroyed!
HE wouldn't! That's not proving a negative because there were documents Kamel knew existed that showed WMDs existed. Now if Saddam destroyed why couldn't he show those documents?

Excuse me. OIL FOR FOOD program. You have no argument. The sanctions didn't starve anyone.

IRAQ: Oil for Food Scandal - Council on Foreign Relations

Facts about the UN Oil-for-Food Programme

The UN's oil-for-food scandal: Rolling up the culprits | The Economist

For Iraqi Children, Death by Sanctions | Solidarity

Effects of Iraq Sanctions ? Global Issues



You will of course ignore these diverse sources.

Irrelevant.

Since it turned out that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, whoever was pretending he did in order to prevent lifting the sanctions are to blame for the sanctions being in place,

if that's supposed to be blameworthy.

 

[healthmyths]

If Republicans don't care about Iraqi Christians, they certainly don't care about Iraqi children. Especially after they want to cut food stamps and school lunches for poor children here in this country.

Where did ANY GOP want food stamps cut? Prove it!

Now these school systems quit Michelle's program!
New school lunch standards implemented as a result of First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign have led to more than 1 million children leaving the lunch line, according to a new report.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a wide-ranging audit of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act nutrition standards last week, finding 48 out of 50 states faced challenges complying with Mrs. Obama’s Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.
1M kids stop school lunch due to Michelle Obama?s standards - Washington Times

WHY???

 

[NYcarbineer]

That wasn't the reason BushII gave for the loss of over 4K military members, the maiming of tens of thousands and the destruction of military families. And, no, it wouldn't have been worth that even if BushII had used that excuse.

These Democrats wanted Saddam gone!
Clinton wanted Saddam gone.
The Clinton administration therefore stoked an utterly baseless media hysteria around Iraqi WMDs and fixed its Iraq policy around the maintenance of sanctions at all costs and preparations for war.
This history shows that the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq flowed directly from the Clinton administration’s policy, whose trajectory had been unmistakably towards war.
This was confirmed during the 2004 presidential campaign by James Rubin, a former State Department official who advised Democratic candidate John Kerry on national security issues.
And this was all done before 9/11!
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/10/ekeu-o18.html

Finally what difference does it make whether it was the false premise Saddam was bluffing on i.e. he had WMDs,etc.. the Liberation of Iraq
saved nearly 2 million children from starving...
Whether it was done by Bush as an extension of the Clinton agenda to remove Saddam it DID as a fact save 2 million children and that is wrong???

Regime change is not synomous with 4K AMERICAN SERVICEMEN dead, tens of thousands maimed and tens of thousands of families damaged. BushI wanted the guy gone too, as well.

Who's wanted the guys in North Korea gone for decades? Does that mean they want to invade North Korea?

 

[healthmyths]

Republicans have their own high-profile ally in the waiver fight: the School Nutrition Association,
a group that includes both the cafeterias that serve the food and some of the companies that produce it.
The organization was a big booster of the first lady’s campaign to push through the new standards in 2010.
But four years later the SNA, under new leadership, has switched sides.
“These overprescriptive regulations have made it really difficult for a lot of our members,” SNA president Leah Schmidt told NPR last week.
“And we are in this for our members.”
Republicans say the change of heart proves that the first batch of standards, which went into effect two years ago, were too aggressive.
House GOP wants to cut Michelle Obama?s healthy school lunches: These Republicans come from the unhealthiest states.

 

[bendog]

These Democrats wanted Saddam gone!
Clinton wanted Saddam gone.
The Clinton administration therefore stoked an utterly baseless media hysteria around Iraqi WMDs and fixed its Iraq policy around the maintenance of sanctions at all costs and preparations for war.
This history shows that the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq flowed directly from the Clinton administration’s policy, whose trajectory had been unmistakably towards war.
This was confirmed during the 2004 presidential campaign by James Rubin, a former State Department official who advised Democratic candidate John Kerry on national security issues.
And this was all done before 9/11!
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/10/ekeu-o18.html

Finally what difference does it make whether it was the false premise Saddam was bluffing on i.e. he had WMDs,etc.. the Liberation of Iraq
saved nearly 2 million children from starving...
Whether it was done by Bush as an extension of the Clinton agenda to remove Saddam it DID as a fact save 2 million children and that is wrong???

Regime change is not synomous with 4K AMERICAN SERVICEMEN dead, tens of thousands maimed and tens of thousands of families damaged. BushI wanted the guy gone too, as well.

Who's wanted the guys in North Korea gone for decades? Does that mean they want to invade North Korea?

Well, the NK dictators are pretty mean to their own people too. Maybe we should invest another 40K lives and trillions we don't have to help them out too. And who knows, we may leave a society ripe for al queda too.

 

[healthmyths]

Regime change is not synomous with 4K AMERICAN SERVICEMEN dead, tens of thousands maimed and tens of thousands of families damaged. BushI wanted the guy gone too, as well.

Who's wanted the guys in North Korea gone for decades? Does that mean they want to invade North Korea?

Well, the NK dictators are pretty mean to their own people too. Maybe we should invest another 40K lives and trillions we don't have to help them out too. And who knows, we may leave a society ripe for al queda too.

How f...king dumb comment!
A) 4,000 lives not 40,000!
B) What "Trillions"????
Where is your f...king proof for those gross exaggerations???

Now that is TRUE! NK/SK are under a TRUCE! And guess what WHEN NK breaks the truce this would then require the resumption.
But see idiots like you totally FORGET! The 1991 CEASE FIRE was just that! Not a truce. Not a surrender.. CEASE FIRE!
So idiots don't seem to comprehend DESERT STORM was never OVER... a CEASE FIRE which was then broken by Saddam dozens of times to the point
that NOW if you are still able to comprehend.. BILL CLINTON wanted to kick Saddam out PROOF???


The Clinton administration therefore stoked an utterly baseless media hysteria around Iraqi WMDs
and fixed its Iraq policy around the maintenance of sanctions at all costs and preparations for war.
This history shows that the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq flowed directly from the Clinton administration’s policy, whose trajectory had been unmistakably towards war.
This was confirmed during the 2004 presidential campaign by James Rubin, a former State Department official who advised Democratic candidate John Kerry on national security issues.
Rubin said that if Kerry had been president during Bush’s first term, the US would “in all probability” have invaded Iraq by then.
On February 17, 1998, President Clinton declared, in a speech to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the US was preparing for military action against Iraq. He asserted that American policy was open-ended war:
“Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq’s activities with all the means at our disposal.
If [Hussein] seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.”
However, a UN team negotiated a last-minute deal whereby Hussein granted Unscom access to the presidential palace and other sensitive sites, thus averting war.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/10/ekeu-o18.html

Now tell Bill Clinton that OK???

 

[KissMy]

This history shows that the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq flowed directly from the Clinton administration’s policy.

Unfortunately the Bush Administration failed the continuity of Clinton Admin's strategy to destroy Al Qaeda & Osama Bin Laden. Instead he allowed the 9/11 attack happen & let Bin Laden go. We had to wait for Obama to get Bin Laden & attack Al Qaeda.

 

[HenryBHough]

This history shows that the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq flowed directly from the Clinton administration’s policy.

Unfortunately the Bush Administration failed the continuity of Clinton Admin's strategy to destroy Al Qaeda & Osama Bin Laden. Instead he allowed the 9/11 attack happen & let Bin Laden go. We had to wait for Obama to get Bin Laden & attack Al Qaeda.

So you personally have seen Bil Laden's body? Or is it just some wild-assed hope that Your New Messiah isn't maintaining his record by lying about that, too?

 

[rdean]

If Republicans don't care about Iraqi Christians, they certainly don't care about Iraqi children. Especially after they want to cut food stamps and school lunches for poor children here in this country.

Where did ANY GOP want food stamps cut? Prove it!

Now these school systems quit Michelle's program!
New school lunch standards implemented as a result of First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign have led to more than 1 million children leaving the lunch line, according to a new report.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a wide-ranging audit of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act nutrition standards last week, finding 48 out of 50 states faced challenges complying with Mrs. Obama’s Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.
1M kids stop school lunch due to Michelle Obama?s standards - Washington Times

WHY???

Is that a joke? Check out the recent farm bill.

These right wingers and their determined ignorance. Where do we find them? I know, it has to be damp.

 

[chikenwing]

Excuse me. OIL FOR FOOD program. You have no argument. The sanctions didn't starve anyone.

IRAQ: Oil for Food Scandal - Council on Foreign Relations

Facts about the UN Oil-for-Food Programme

The UN's oil-for-food scandal: Rolling up the culprits | The Economist

For Iraqi Children, Death by Sanctions | Solidarity

Effects of Iraq Sanctions ? Global Issues



You will of course ignore these diverse sources.

Irrelevant.

Since it turned out that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, whoever was pretending he did in order to prevent lifting the sanctions are to blame for the sanctions being in place,

if that's supposed to be blameworthy.

You have to be ether dumber than dirt or as dishonest as Al Capone,or both.

Pretending is the buzz word now,the same pretending the Clinton white house was doing??

Integrity escapes people like yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

IRAQ: Oil for Food Scandal - Council on Foreign Relations

Facts about the UN Oil-for-Food Programme

The UN's oil-for-food scandal: Rolling up the culprits | The Economist

For Iraqi Children, Death by Sanctions | Solidarity

Effects of Iraq Sanctions ? Global Issues



You will of course ignore these diverse sources.

Irrelevant.

Since it turned out that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, whoever was pretending he did in order to prevent lifting the sanctions are to blame for the sanctions being in place,

if that's supposed to be blameworthy.

You have to be ether dumber than dirt or as dishonest as Al Capone,or both.

Pretending is the buzz word now,the same pretending the Clinton white house was doing??

Integrity escapes people like yourself.

To demand that Saddam prove that he destroyed WMDs that didn't exist in the first place guarantees that he could not satisfy that requirement.

Therefore there was nothing he could do to get the sanctions lifted.

 

[rdean]

IRAQ: Oil for Food Scandal - Council on Foreign Relations

Facts about the UN Oil-for-Food Programme

The UN's oil-for-food scandal: Rolling up the culprits | The Economist

For Iraqi Children, Death by Sanctions | Solidarity

Effects of Iraq Sanctions ? Global Issues



You will of course ignore these diverse sources.

Irrelevant.

Since it turned out that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, whoever was pretending he did in order to prevent lifting the sanctions are to blame for the sanctions being in place,

if that's supposed to be blameworthy.

You have to be ether dumber than dirt or as dishonest as Al Capone,or both.

Pretending is the buzz word now,the same pretending the Clinton white house was doing??

Integrity escapes people like yourself.

George Bush said he was disappointed there were no WMD's. I believed him both times.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Now that is TRUE! NK/SK are under a TRUCE! And guess what WHEN NK breaks the truce this would then require the resumption.

According to the 5 January 2011 Korea Herald, since July 1953 North Korea has violated the armistice 221 times, including 26 military attacks.

So war with North Korea was/is necessary, correct?

lol

List of border incidents involving North Korea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bendog]

IRAQ: Oil for Food Scandal - Council on Foreign Relations

Facts about the UN Oil-for-Food Programme

The UN's oil-for-food scandal: Rolling up the culprits | The Economist

For Iraqi Children, Death by Sanctions | Solidarity

Effects of Iraq Sanctions ? Global Issues



You will of course ignore these diverse sources.

Irrelevant.

Since it turned out that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, whoever was pretending he did in order to prevent lifting the sanctions are to blame for the sanctions being in place,

if that's supposed to be blameworthy.

You have to be ether dumber than dirt or as dishonest as Al Capone,or both.

Pretending is the buzz word now,the same pretending the Clinton white house was doing??

Integrity escapes people like yourself.

But Slick specifically said he'd not have invaded in 2003.

 

[healthmyths]

Irrelevant.

Since it turned out that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, whoever was pretending he did in order to prevent lifting the sanctions are to blame for the sanctions being in place,

if that's supposed to be blameworthy.

You have to be ether dumber than dirt or as dishonest as Al Capone,or both.

Pretending is the buzz word now,the same pretending the Clinton white house was doing??

Integrity escapes people like yourself.

To demand that Saddam prove that he destroyed WMDs that didn't exist in the first place guarantees that he could not satisfy that requirement.

Therefore there was nothing he could do to get the sanctions lifted.

Sure he could! You don't think there were documentation of the destruction?
Something like that is NOT done without orders. Orders have trails.
PLUS all the idiot had to do was SHOW where the destruction took place. There had to be waste as there isn't any Waste Management companies
in Iraq!
To say there was NO evidence of the destruction is so naive! There are records for everything...except the IRS I guess!

 

[chikenwing]

Irrelevant.

Since it turned out that Saddam didn't have any WMD's, whoever was pretending he did in order to prevent lifting the sanctions are to blame for the sanctions being in place,

if that's supposed to be blameworthy.

You have to be ether dumber than dirt or as dishonest as Al Capone,or both.

Pretending is the buzz word now,the same pretending the Clinton white house was doing??

Integrity escapes people like yourself.

To demand that Saddam prove that he destroyed WMDs that didn't exist in the first place guarantees that he could not satisfy that requirement.

Therefore there was nothing he could do to get the sanctions lifted.

I am going with dumb as dirt