Nearly Twice as Many Iraqi Children Going Hungry Since Saddam's Ouster

[Sprafa]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBRJLPTX6E.html


Surprised, anyone ?

I guess we should just blame it on the insurgents!!

 

[CptStern]

not surprised at all ..during the sanctions 60% iraqis were on saddam's ration progam, since the invasion 100% of iraqis are now on food rations

 

[Bodacious]

I like this line:

a hunger specialist told the U.N. human rights body

UN Human rights body? What are they going to do about anything?

I guess we should just blame it on the insurgents!!

I agree that the US should share the blame, but the insurgents/terrorists are not without fault. Had these militants taken part in the government instead of taking up arms they could have helped build their society instead of tearing it down.


Overall I guess this is another reason to have kept Saddam in power, huh? Nevermind his support of terror regimes, nevermind his willingness to reconstitute his WMD programs, nevermind his hostility toward the US. Yah forget all that, we should have let saddam fill his mass graves so the children could be fed.



Oh and as for this:

not surprised at all ..during the sanctions 60% iraqis were on saddam's ration progam, since the invasion 100% of iraqis are now on food rations

Stern, you can't even keep your figures straight. You said it was a different percentage in another thread where I disected your argument about who gets rations. I don't recall ever getting a respnse, either.

 

[CptStern]

I like this line:



UN Human rights body? What are they going to do about anything?

as long as america is a member: nothing

I agree that the US should share the blame, but the insurgents/terrorists are not without fault. Had these militants taken part in the government instead of taking up arms they could have helped build their society instead of tearing it down.

share the blame? they are solely responsible ...why did the US have to resume Saddam's ration program? and why are 100% of iraqis relying on the program? all the billions pouring into iraq you'd think some of it would be for food ...but I guess someone's gotta make a profit

Overall I guess this is another reason to have kept Saddam in power, huh? Nevermind his support of terror regimes,

the US has supported terrorist regimes, should that be a basis for invasion? or did you forget the contras, or how about the mujahideen? How about Orlando Bosch? SAVAK, honduras, Bolivia etc etc etc

nevermind his willingness to reconstitute his WMD programs,

bull

nevermind his hostility toward the US.

name one american killed by a terrorist attack orchestrated by saddam

Yah forget all that, we should have let saddam fill his mass graves so the children could be fed.

you managed to thin out the children of iraq quite efficiently

Stern, you can't even keep your figures straight. You said it was a different percentage in another thread where I disected your argument about who gets rations. I don't recall ever getting a respnse, either.

nope my figures are correct:

”Today, the lives of 100 percent of the Iraqi population, 27 million people, depend on the provision of monthly food rations,” UNICEF chief representative in Iraq Carel de Roy

...Before the war that the U.S. and Britain launched March 20 to remove the Saddam Hussein regime, 60 percent of the population had depended entirely on food aid."

 

[Bodacious]

as long as america is a member: nothing

Uhhuh, so the UN is powerless with the US? yah right. If that is the case it just proves the UN is in need of reform.

share the blame? they are solely responsible ...why did the US have to resume Saddam's ration program? and why are 100% of iraqis relying on the program? all the billions pouring into iraq you'd think some of it would be for food ...but I guess someone's gotta make a profit

You are dillusional if you fail to see that if the insurgents and terrorists participated in the government that malnutrition would be less of a problem.

As stated in the article:

Ziegler did not mention the role of Iraq's insurgency in the nutrition problem, something often cited by aid groups.

Late last year, Carol Bellamy, head of UNICEF, said the violence hampers the delivery of adequate supplies of food.

Your hate is extremely evident stern. You need to step back and take a look at yourself.

the US has supported terrorist regimes, should that be a basis for invasion? or did you forget the contras, or how about the mujahideen? How about Orlando Bosch? SAVAK, honduras, Bolivia etc etc etc

If someone else wants to challenge the US then let them do so.

bull

So the Duelfer report is a lie? Yah right. I thought you wanted to argue facts, stern? So why ignore the Duelfer report? Oh yah, thats right...hater. Whatever fits your agenda, huh?

name one american killed by a terrorist attack orchestrated by saddam

I'll do you one better. Why did Clinton launch more bombs against iraq, in '98 I think it was, than the entire duration of the first guld war? How many times did Iraq violate the no fly zone? Do you disagree there was a plot by Iraq to assasinate HW Bush?

How can you possibly argue that saddam wasn't hotile towards the US?

you managed to thin out the children of iraq quite efficiently

Saddam had his hand in that, too.

nope my figures are correct:

”Today, the lives of 100 percent of the Iraqi population, 27 million people, depend on the provision of monthly food rations,” UNICEF chief representative in Iraq Carel de Roy

...Before the war that the U.S. and Britain launched March 20 to remove the Saddam Hussein regime, 60 percent of the population had depended entirely on food aid."

Oh really?

So why in this post do you say 67%?



Want to talk double standards, stern? Ok... Why do you take UNICEF's word that 100% of the population is on rations, but you won't take UNICEF's word that if insurgets weren't present the malnutrion wouldn't be as bad?

 

[firemachine69]

UN is nothing more then wishful thinking.

I get the feeling Mr. Roy got his balls up a little too tight trying to grab media headlines.

Something's gotta get done though. Where the hell is my country? Oh that's right, flying in a pair of jetliners they just acquired since they felt they deserved a treat while people now have to pay a health care fee per year. Wow, you rock liberals.

And people think I'm a nut for voting Green Party... :rolling:

 

[CptStern]

Uhhuh, so the UN is powerless with the US? yah right. If that is the case it just proves the UN is in need of reform.

just look at all the vetos the US has orchestrated (hmmm the US veto of the iranian resolution to bring saddam to justice for crimes against humanity springs to mind)..or the fact that they got away with an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

You are dillusional if you fail to see that if the insurgents and terrorists participated in the government that malnutrition would be less of a problem.

why are they fighting the occupation? they cant all be fanatical ...so if the US was invaded and occupied which you be a colaborator? or would you fight for your country's freedom?

As stated in the article:

how am I avoiding it? of course the violence hampers the effort ..what the hell else would? flat tires? inclement weather?

Your hate is extremely evident stern. You need to step back and take a look at yourself.

:upstare: for waht? telling the truth as it truely is? not constantly regurgitating the virtrolic bullshit that perpetuated the war in iraq? please, for a soldier you have little backbone ..for once think for yourself and stop regurgitating the lies that are so clearly evdent to anyone who actually took the time to research it ..seriously it's as if some of you dont want to look at facts

If someone else wants to challenge the US then let them do so.

nice argument .."lets not criticise lets bully people into believing the mind**** coming out of washington"



So the Duelfer report is a lie? Yah right. I thought you wanted to argue facts, stern? So why ignore the Duelfer report? Oh yah, thats right...hater. Whatever fits your agenda, huh?[/quote]


yes it's a lie

and stop harrassing me with your tired "anti-american" bullshit

I'll do you one better. Why did Clinton launch more bombs against iraq, in '98 I think it was, than the entire duration of the first guld war? How many times did Iraq violate the no fly zone? Do you disagree there was a plot by Iraq to assasinate HW Bush?

I dont care if it was abraham lincoln, I dont play the partisan crap. Whoop-dee-do saddam tried to kill George H (I pardon wanted terrorists for fun) Bush. How about the 500,000 children killed by the US, where's your outrage?

How can you possibly argue that saddam wasn't hotile towards the US?

where do I say that? he may have been hostile (as all minor despots who have a huge ego do) but he was no threat to the US

Saddam had his hand in that, too.

saddam was a murdering tyrant and madman, what's your excuse?

Oh really?

So why in this post do you say 67%?

I took it from memory, you know contrary to popular belief I dont have every fact stored in my head ...actually the 67% is more supportive of your stance ..so I was doing myself a diservice by understating the need of the iraqi people

Want to talk double standards, stern? Ok... Why do you take UNICEF's word that 100% of the population is on rations, but you won't take UNICEF's word that if insurgets weren't present the malnutrion wouldn't be as bad?

to what degree? 5%? 20%? 50%? care to take a guess, or is there not enough evidence to give any concrete numbers? doesnt change the fact that 100% of iraqis are on food rations ...Iraq is worse off for the general population than before the invasion

 

[Dynasty]

heheh loving the quoting here...

bah since america invaded and 'brought down saddam's terror', theyve caused more harm than good.
'shoot first and ask questions if there's anything left'...america to the t.

didnt realise the rations were stopped...god what the **** are those idiots doing out there!!!??

 

[Bodacious]

how am I avoiding it? of course the violence hampers the effort ..what the hell else would? flat tires? inclement weather?

So you have flip flopped I see. The US isn't solely responsible now is it?

for waht? telling the truth as it truely is? not constantly regurgitating the virtrolic bullshit that perpetuated the war in iraq? please, for a soldier you have little backbone ..for once think for yourself and stop regurgitating the lies that are so clearly evdent to anyone who actually took the time to research it ..seriously it's as if some of you dont want to look at facts

And the pot calls the kettle black. You tell me I have no backbone for repeating the words of the right, yet your entire argument is that of Choamsky, Ward Churchill, and the rest of the fanatical left wing.

Don't want to look at the facts, huh? How can you accuse me of that when you refuse to look at them youself? Read the duelfer report and stop posting left wing propaganda.

where do I say that?

So why contest what I said about Iraq being hostile to the US? That is why you quoted that and replied to it, is it not?

 

[CptStern]

So you have flip flopped I see. The US isn't solely responsible now is it?

yes it is, without the invasion 100,000 iraqis would still be alive

And the pot calls the kettle black. You tell me I have no backbone for repeating the words of the right, yet your entire argument is that of Choamsky, Ward Churchill, and the rest of the fanatical left wing.

:upstare: I've never supported churchill

oh and my sources are not from the "left". I've used the US' own declassified documents, articles from NY times, washington post etc etc ..you on the other hand have one source: bush

Don't want to look at the facts, huh? How can you accuse me of that when you refuse to look at them youself? Read the duelfer report and stop posting left wing propaganda.

since when is the US government "left-wing propaganda"?

So why contest what I said about Iraq being hostile to the US? That is why you quoted that and replied to it, is it not?

hostility in words and actions are completely different

btw stop selectively answering my post ..I've answered every last one of your points yet you conviently avoid mine

 

[Bodacious]

yes it is, without the invasion 100,000 iraqis would still be alive

I suppose 100k is fact huh? I know what survey you are talking about and that survey is flawed.

:upstare: I've never supported churchill

Yet your arguments are eerily familiar. Hmmm.

oh and my sources are not from the "left". I've used the US' own declassified documents, articles from NY times, washington post etc etc ..you on the other hand have one source: bush

I said your argument, not sources. This link might do you some good.

Funny, my sources are from the CBO, and other gov docs but I am labeled right wing and spineless. More double standards from you, stern.

since when is the US government "left-wing propaganda"?

Yah commondreams.org and information clearing house are not left wing propaganda. My bad. I guess I should start posting stuff from Free Republic, huh?

btw stop selectively answering my post .."ve answered every last one of your points yet you conviently avoid mine

See my link above you need it, here are the questions you have failed to anser in this thread alone:

Uhhuh, so the UN is powerless with the US?
So the Duelfer report is a lie?
I thought you wanted to argue facts, stern?
So why ignore the Duelfer report?
Whatever fits your agenda, huh?
Why did Clinton launch more bombs against iraq, in '98 I think it was, than the entire duration of the first guld war?
How many times did Iraq violate the no fly zone?
Do you disagree there was a plot by Iraq to assasinate HW Bush?
So why in this post do you say 67%?
Want to talk double standards, stern?
Why do you take UNICEF's word that 100% of the population is on rations, but you won't take UNICEF's word that if insurgets weren't present the malnutrion wouldn't be as bad?
UN Human rights body...What are they going to do about anything?

12 questions left unanswered, stern. Have double standards much?

 

[CptStern]

I suppose 100k is fact huh? I know what survey you are talking about and that survey is flawed.

it's the closest thing to a respectable bodycount we're going to get because:


“We don’t do body counts” - General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

Yet your arguments are eerily familiar. Hmmm.

to a novice such as yourself, sure I can see how you could generalise

I said your argument, not sources. This link might do you some good.

my arguments come directly from my sources

Funny, my sources are from the CBO, and other gov docs but I am labeled right wing and spineless. More double standards from you, stern.

your reports dont stand up to scrutiny, most of mine are indisputable

Yah commondreams.org and information clearing house are not left wing propaganda. My bad. I guess I should start posting stuff from Free Republic, huh?

sure go ahead, but try to bring some balance and not use it exclusively ..and fox"news" isnt a "balanced" source

See my link above you need it, here are the questions you have failed to anser in this thread alone:

Uhhuh, so the UN is powerless with the US?

answered

So the Duelfer report is a lie?

yes and no

I thought you wanted to argue facts, stern?

I have

So why ignore the Duelfer report?

I havent, why do you ignore the mountain of de-classified US government documents?

Whatever fits your agenda, huh?

"the truth will set you free"

Why did Clinton launch more bombs against iraq, in '98 I think it was, than the entire duration of the first guld war?

I've answered it, clinton is just as guilty as everyone else ..no partisanship remember?

How many times did Iraq violate the no fly zone?

who cares? is that reason to invade? the Viscannes violated iranian airspace when they shot down passenger jet killing 290 innocent civilians, should we invade the US?

Do you disagree there was a plot by Iraq to assasinate HW Bush?

big freakin deal, the US tried to kill saddam on many occasions. The UUS attempted to assasinate Mugabe, should the US be invaded?

So why in this post do you say 67%?

I've answered that

Want to talk double standards, stern?
Why do you take UNICEF's word that 100% of the population is on rations, but you won't take UNICEF's word that if insurgets weren't present the malnutrion wouldn't be as bad?

I've answered that twice

UN Human rights body...What are they going to do about anything?

funny how you say "well if we're guilty what are you going to do about it" ...looks like an admission of guilt ..well I guess that's as close to an admission as I'm liable to get from you ...thanks

12 questions left unanswered, stern. Have double standards much?

so now that I've answered everything care to answer mine?

lets start with


"where's your outrage that the US killed 500,000 children?"

 

[Bodacious]

it's the closest thing to a respectable bodycount we're going to get because:


“We don’t do body counts” - General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

Hahahaha, you have made my day.

What about IBC?

You know why they don't use the Lancet survey? Because it is a poll of 998 people and when they asked the participants questions hey didn't distinguish between insurgents and civillians, yet the survey says 100k civillians were killed. The 100k figure is flawed and has no basis in fact. Have double standards much?

to a novice such as yourself, sure I can see how you could generalise

No genralizations to it. Churchill rants about 500k childred dying in Iraq due to sanctions. I wonder who else around here does that? Hmmm

my arguments come directly from my sources

And your arguments are all left wing. Coincedence? I think not.

your reports dont stand up to scrutiny, most of mine are indisputable

Uh huh, that is why I annihilated your citation of the lancet study huh? That is why you write the duelfer report off as lies huh?

yes and no

Woops! Maybe you missed my thread that proves Bush didn't lie?

I have

Umm, no you haven't. You use the lancet study as a credible source, which it isn't. You write the Duelfer report off when it says Saddam sought to reconstitute his WMD programs when sanctions were lifted. That is not arguing facts, that is ignoring them.

I havent, why do you ignore the mountain of de-classified US government documents?

Yes you have, why do you dispute that Saddam would have reconstituted his WMD programs?

I've answered it, clinton is just as guilty as everyone else ..no partisanship remember?

The question isn't about clinton, it is about clinton bombing Iraq, why did he bomb them? Was it because Iraq was hostile towards the US?

so now that I've answered everything care to answer mine?

lets start with


"where's your outrage that the US killed 500,000 children?"

No outrage exists. If saddam did give the UN reason to put sancitons on Iraq the death toll would have been far less.

 

[firemachine69]

Saddam and his "friends" are the problem. Quit pointing fingers where it doesn't belong. You can blame the US all you want, yes they are quite retarded in a few cases. But keep in mind, alot of these people aren't trying to re-build themselves, they want the US to do everything for them.

Better to have caused a little harm then to have not tried to do any good.

 

[CptStern]

Hahahaha, you have made my day.

What about IBC?

if you had bothered to look at IBC you'd see why:

"The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count.

Iraq Body Count only includes reports where there are feasible methods of distinguishing military from civilian deaths"

so as you can plainly see the Lancet's figures are projections whereas IBC only goes by confirable civilian deaths

You know why they don't use the Lancet survey? Because it is a poll of 998 people and when they asked the participants questions hey didn't distinguish between insurgents and civillians, yet the survey says 100k civillians were killed. The 100k figure is flawed and has no basis in fact. Have double standards much?

see above

projections Bodacious, projections

No genralizations to it. Churchill rants about 500k childred dying in Iraq due to sanctions. I wonder who else around here does that? Hmmm

hitler ranted on about the military industrial complex ..so did Eisenhower ..does that make them the same?

And your arguments are all left wing. Coincedence? I think not.

my arguments are substantiated by US government docs ...my argument is based on fact ..call it left wing if you must but I dont see it that way ..truth nothing but the whole truth

Uh huh, that is why I annihilated your citation of the lancet study huh? That is why you write the duelfer report off as lies huh?

:upstare: you annihilated nothing. I already gave you proof that the Duelfer report can be contrued to say the exact opposite of what you say

Woops! Maybe you missed my thread that proves Bush didn't lie?

I cried bullshit, what more do you want? I gave you direct proof the bush admin KNEW saddam didn t have WMD

Umm, no you haven't. You use the lancet study as a credible source, which it isn't.

which is exactly what you're doing here:

You write the Duelfer report off when it says Saddam sought to reconstitute his WMD programs when sanctions were lifted. That is not arguing facts, that is ignoring them.

btw when were the sanctions going to be lifted? where is the proof he was building an arsenal?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002826.php

"Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War."

he later "projects" that saddam would have reconstitued his program ...no evidence supports that unless he had a cyrstal ball

"Sen. Jay Rockefeller:

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

"The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

Yes you have, why do you dispute that Saddam would have reconstituted his WMD programs?

because it's pure speculation (see above)

The question isn't about clinton, it is about clinton bombing Iraq, why did he bomb them? Was it because Iraq was hostile towards the US?

in what way was saddam hostile? no fly-by zones? please, is that a justification for war?

No outrage exists. If saddam did give the UN reason to put sancitons on Iraq the death toll would have been far less.

not that I'm at all surprised that you only have sympathies for americans but that is pretty low even for you

the US KNEW full well that saddam wouldnt be affected by the sanctions, saddam was never their target, the people of iraq were you cannot dispute this as it is made very clear here ...btw Saddam was a murderous tyrant ..what's your excuse? again where's your outrage bodacious? is your child any different than the 500,000 children that died because of the US' actions?

 

[Bodacious]

if you had bothered to look at IBC you'd see why:

"The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count.

Iraq Body Count only includes reports where there are feasible methods of distinguishing military from civilian deaths"

so as you can plainly see the Lancet's figures are projections whereas IBC only goes by confirable civilian deaths

Ahh, so the lancet survey isn't fact, now it is projections!

So earlier when you mentioned 100k you didn't mean we had killed 100k, you meant that we are projected to kill 100k. I see.

This is called spin and misrepresentation of fact.

hitler ranted on about the military industrial complex ..so did Eisenhower ..does that make them the same?

Differnt contexts. Your and Churchill's goals are the same, to point out everything bad the US does.

my arguments are substantiated by US government docs ...my argument is based on fact ..call it left wing if you must but I dont see it that way ..truth nothing but the whole truth

Hey, same as my arguments, what a coincendence! Truth interpreted with a left wing perception.

:upstare: you annihilated nothing. I already gave you proof that the Duelfer report can be contrued to say the exact opposite of what you say

You changed your story on the Lancet survey, I would call that being annihilated.

As far as the duelfer report saying the opposite I wanted to say, we know that isn't true because bush didn't lie, as illustrated in my other thread.

I cried bullshit, what more do you want? I gave you direct proof the bush admin KNEW saddam didn t have WMD

Your information clearing house movie is comments taken out of context. It doesn't hold up, especially considering the source.

which is exactly what you're doing here:



btw when were the sanctions going to be lifted? where is the proof he was building an arsenal?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002826.php

"Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War."

he later "projects" that saddam would have reconstitued his program ...no evidence supports that unless he had a cyrstal ball

"Sen. Jay Rockefeller:

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

"The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."


because it's pure speculation (see above)

I like your links.

From link 1:

The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

From link 2:

The preliminary report indicated that Saddam hoped to restart his weapons programs primarily for defense against Iran.

As for your third link, the left coaster will never be a credible source, sory.


Your own links said Saddam wanted to reconstitute his wmd programs. How can you argue against that?

As for the senator's opinion, I would take Duelfer's word over the Senator's seeing as how Duelfer actually spent time on the ground reseaching the data rather than kicking back in an office chair complaining.

in what way was saddam hostile? no fly-by zones? please, is that a justification for war?

Threats to the security of the US are a justification for war. Saddam might not have been an imminient threat, but if you had your way he would have been. Better safe than sorry.

not that I'm at all surprised that you only have sympathies for americans but that is pretty low even for you

the US KNEW full well that saddam wouldnt be affected by the sanctions, saddam was never their target, the people of iraq were you cannot dispute this as it is made very clear here ...btw Saddam was a murderous tyrant ..what's your excuse? again where's your outrage bodacious? is your child any different than the 500,000 children that died because of the US' actions?

My comments are something new? We have had this discussion over your link many times and my respnses have always been the same.

I am not going waste my time arguing your stupid "US's sanctions" diatribe. Your interpritation is riddled with misrepesented facts and poor reading comprehension. If you want to have this argument again I suggest going back over our argument's and seinfeldrules' arguments.

 

[CptStern]

Ahh, so the lancet survey isn't fact, now it is projections!

So earlier when you mentioned 100k you didn't mean we had killed 100k, you meant that we are projected to kill 100k. I see.

This is called spin and misrepresentation of fact.

you mean like this:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Differnt contexts. Your and Churchill's goals are the same, to point out everything bad the US does.

well what the hell did you expect? there's noting "good" about the rape and destruction of a nation ...over 1 million iraqis killed in 14 short years far more than saddam killed in 30 years

Hey, same as my arguments, what a coincendence! Truth interpreted with a left wing perception.

how is this an interpretation?

You changed your story on the Lancet survey, I would call that being annihilated.

no, I did not I clearly said that you are responsible for the deaths of 100,000 ..those projections are up to date ..nowhere does it say .."in 10 years time the figure will be 100,000"

As far as the duelfer report saying the opposite I wanted to say, we know that isn't true because bush didn't lie, as illustrated in my other thread.

bush doesnt lie? hahahhaahhahahahaha:

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

Your information clearing house movie is comments taken out of context. It doesn't hold up, especially considering the source.

prove it was taken out of context. How can you possibly misconstrue this?:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

I like your links.

From link 1:


From link 2:



As for your third link, the left coaster will never be a credible source, sory.


Your own links said Saddam wanted to reconstitute his wmd programs. How can you argue against that?

so then, it should be easy for you dig up the information that saddam planned to restart the weapons program? I'm waiting

As for the senator's opinion, I would take Duelfer's word over the Senator's seeing as how Duelfer actually spent time on the ground reseaching the data rather than kicking back in an office chair complaining.

really? well maybe you'll listen to this:

"The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam" - CHARLES DUELFER

Threats to the security of the US are a justification for war. Saddam might not have been an imminient threat, but if you had your way he would have been. Better safe than sorry.

so now you'll outline exactly how saddam was a threat? please provide examples of when saddam attacked america


oh btw the Duelfler report also says this:

"But after extensive interviews with Hussein and his key lieutenants, Duelfer concluded that Hussein was not motivated by a desire to strike the United States with banned weapons, but wanted them to enhance his image in the Middle East and to deter Iran, against which Iraq had fought a devastating eight-year war. Hussein believed that "WMD helped save the regime multiple times," the report said.

The report also provides a one-of-a-kind look at Hussein's personality. The former Iraqi leader participated in numerous interviews with one Arabic-speaking FBI interrogator. Hussein told his questioner he felt threatened by U.S. military power, but even then, he maintained a fondness for American movies and literature. One of his favorite books was Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea." He hoped for improved relations with the United States and, over several years, sent proposals through intermediaries to open a dialogue with Washington"

My comments are something new? We have had this discussion over your link many times and my respnses have always been the same.

I am not going waste my time arguing your stupid "US's sanctions" diatribe. Your interpritation is riddled with misrepesented facts and poor reading comprehension. If you want to have this argument again I suggest going back over our argument's and seinfeldrules' arguments.

no leg to stand on, your arguments are weak at best.The documents PROVE that the US engineered for children to die on a MASSIVE scale:

"The main causes of infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily afflict the old and
young children."

"most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussi (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)."

 

[Bodacious]

you mean like this:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Sure, dodge the subject.

well what the hell did you expect? there's noting "good" about the rape and destruction of a nation ...over 1 million iraqis killed in 14 short years far more than saddam killed in 30 years

Source?

how is this an interpretation?

You spew a lot more garbage than that.

no, I did not I clearly said that you are responsible for the deaths of 100,000 ..those projections are up to date ..nowhere does it say .."in 10 years time the figure will be 100,000"

Make up your mind stern. That survey is flawed. 100k people haven't died, there is no hard evidence of that, anywhere. There is simply no way to know. How can we be responsible for thje death of people we haven't killed? Oh yah, thats right, you will believe in half-truths and misrepresented facts to support your claim.

From IBC:

Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion"

The study is flawed, stern. Your basis that we are responsible for 100k deaths is based on a flawed survery. And you claim you argue facts? Yah right.

bush doesnt lie? hahahhaahhahahahaha:

Proven in my other thread.

prove it was taken out of context. How can you possibly misconstrue this?:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

What question was he asked to warrent that response? What else did powell have to say during whatever session he was asked that? Was that his entire statement? Did he enter the room, say what you quoted and walked out? What else did Powell say?

so then, it should be easy for you dig up the information that saddam planned to restart the weapons program? I'm waiting

It is in the report.

For starters, read this here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect1

really? well maybe you'll listen to this:

"The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam" - CHARLES DUELFER

See the link above.

so now you'll outline exactly how saddam was a threat? please provide examples of when saddam attacked america

Of course no example of Saddam attacking america exists, the war was a pre-emptive strike.

Saddam was threat because he supported terror and, at the time, was believed to have WMDs.

oh btw the Duelfler report also says this:

"But after extensive interviews with Hussein and his key lieutenants, Duelfer concluded that Hussein was not motivated by a desire to strike the United States with banned weapons, but wanted them to enhance his image in the Middle East and to deter Iran, against which Iraq had fought a devastating eight-year war. Hussein believed that "WMD helped save the regime multiple times," the report said.

The report also provides a one-of-a-kind look at Hussein's personality. The former Iraqi leader participated in numerous interviews with one Arabic-speaking FBI interrogator. Hussein told his questioner he felt threatened by U.S. military power, but even then, he maintained a fondness for American movies and literature. One of his favorite books was Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea." He hoped for improved relations with the United States and, over several years, sent proposals through intermediaries to open a dialogue with Washington"

So because Saddam wouldn't have attacked the US we should have lifted sanctions and let him build all the WMDs he wanted? yah right.

See the above link.

no leg to stand on, your arguments are weak at best.The documents PROVE that the US engineered for children to die on a MASSIVE scale:

"The main causes of infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily afflict the old and
young children."

"most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussi (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)."

Like I said, I am not wasting my time on this.