"We have no fear" - Vote turnout in Iraq HIGH

[Sgt_Shellback]

meh, I feel vindicated ..not one of you can stand toe to toe with me in a debate

anyways Sgt please do ignore me, I dont take kindly to people who play the race card when they're backed into a corner

Pot-Kettle-Black....

 

[seinfeldrules]

so does that mean you're willing to answer my questions? you seem so sure of yourself ..come on seinfeldrules you and I, mano a mono

I have. Time and time again.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Hey....

Did you hear about the one where 10 million Iraqi's went to the polls and the Liberals and Terrorists got their panties in a wad?

No? Start at page one... LOL

 

[CptStern]

Pot-Kettle-Black....

hah, i havent made any racist comments ..you on the other hand have

so stop tipping toeing around the issues ..answer the question. How is it that out of the 4-5 of you none of you can even attempt a semblance of an answer? what's wrong? cant come up with some paltry excuse to defend your countries actions?


either put your money where your mouth is and debate the issues or stfu ..not wasting my time with you dunderheads

 

[Top Secret]

hah, i havent made any racist comments ..you on the other hand have

so stop tipping toeing around the issues ..answer the question. How is it that out of the 4-5 of you none of you can even attempt a semblance of an answer? what's wrong? cant come up with some paltry excuse to defend your countries actions?


either put your money where your mouth is and debate the issues or stfu ..not wasting my time with you dunderheads

Please, state the question in clarity, and I will answer the best I can Stern. I await on you.

 

[CptStern]

in a nutshell answer this:



Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.


so was it worth it?

 

[Top Secret]

Well, sure. No problem. But one point first:

500,000 children haven't died in the Iraq war. I could argue that the total death toll is less than 1/2th that, men and women included. But I won't.

Is it worth it?

Yep.

Next question.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

Its funny how her response to this incident was never reported.

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations…. As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy and wrong. Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people. I had fallen into the trap and said something I simply did not mean. That was no one’s fault but my own [page 275].

 

[gh0st]

Its funny how her response to this incident was never reported.

Especially by stern. The truth be damned, selective quoting is the way of the future. :upstare: Tragically that same canned Madeline Albright quote is the basis of his entire philosophy on life.

 

[Bodacious]

Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations….

I have said that exact same thing in response to stern's "questioning" on the sanction thing and he ignores it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

It's 'fun' to see how so many people's first reaction to this good news is apparently "how can I rub this in the liberal's faces?"

And although I see where Stern is coming from, considering America's history in these sorts of events, I will remain more hopeful and disagree with him for now. Any existing 'pulled strings' will not be clear until well after this fact.
These elections are good, to be certain, but they don't outweigh the bad for me. It's like silver lining on a mushroom cloud.

So much more could have instead been done to fight Al Qaeda, which is currently much more of a threat to human life than Saddam could have hoped to have been in the last few years. Poor post-war planning has caused many to die unecessarily, and much of those 30-40% that did not vote are probably abstaining due to a new hatred for western society, rather than voter apathy.

The ends just don't justify the means in this case. The means could have, and should have been much better. But since one can't turn back the clock, I, like many of those voters, am going to make the best of things and appreciate this silver lining while it lasts.

 

[seinfeldrules]

those 30-40% that did not vote are probably abstaining due to a new hatred for western society, rather than voter apathy.

That is quite the speculation. I bet a good % of the 30-40% were scared of potential terrorist actions.

 

[Top Secret]

It's 'fun' to see how so many people's first reaction to this good news is apparently "how can I rub this in the liberal's faces?"

And although I see where Stern is coming from, considering America's history in these sorts of events, I will remain more hopeful and disagree with him for now. Any existing 'pulled strings' will not be clear until well after this fact.
These elections are good, to be certain, but they don't outweigh the bad for me. It's like silver lining on a mushroom cloud.

So much more could have instead been done to fight Al Qaeda, which is currently much more of a threat to human life than Saddam could have hoped to have been in the last few years. Poor post-war planning has caused many to die unecessarily, and much of those 30-40% that did not vote are probably abstaining due to a new hatred for western society, rather than voter apathy.

The ends just don't justify the means in this case. The means could have, and should have been much better. But since one can't turn back the clock, I, like many of those voters, am going to make the best of things and appreciate this silver lining while it lasts.

While, I don't agree with you on one or two points, that was a really good post. :thumbs:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

That is quite the speculation. I bet a good % of the 30-40% were scared of potential terrorist actions.

Hence the qualifier "much of". I never intended to imply that those percentages were exclusively consistent of terrorists.

Still, it's not unsafe to assume that a signifigant portion of that percentage consists of terrorists and/or insurgents.

Also, thanks Secret. I hope folks'll understand that no 'liberal' is sad to see Saddam gone. There's simply the wish that the process of his removal would have been undertaken in a much more careful manner.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Still, it's not unsafe to assume that a signifigant portion of that percentage consists of terrorists and/or insurgents.

It was mainly the Sunni population who boycotted the election. A rather vain attempt at civil disobediance because they basically screwed themselves over in the process.

 

[CptStern]

Its funny how her response to this incident was never reported.

she never denied the number or US culpability, just that she regretted making that statement ..after all "We think it was worth it" makes a great quote :E


but dont take my word for it, here's an interesting read:

"For Albright to say that food and medicine were not embargoed is to evade the fact that critical public-health needs could not be addressed because of the sanctions. Preventing a society from purifying its water and treating its sewage is a particularly brutal way to inflict harm, especially on its children. Disease was rampant, and infant mortality rose because of the sanctions. Let’s not forget that destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure was a deliberate aim of the U.S. bombing during the 1991 Gulf War.

No wonder two UN humanitarian coordinators quit over the sanctions. As one of them, Denis Halliday, said when he left in 1998, “I’ve been using the word ‘genocide’ because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I’m afraid I have no other view.”



"The United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country.... Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage-treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers.

Nov 2001, Harpers


oh I forgot this


here's some more


this is also very very interesting:


John Tierney wrote in the New York Times on October 12,

To Saddam Hussein, a culture of dependency was not a social problem but a political plus. Father Saddam, as he liked to be called, provided citizens with subsidized homes, cheap energy and, most important, free food. After international sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, he started a program that now uses 300 government warehouses and more than 60,000 workers to deliver a billion pounds of groceries every month — a basket of rations guaranteed to every citizen, rich or poor.



Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran observed before the war,

The handouts have kept food on the table for … most … Iraqi families, who can no longer afford to purchase wheat, rice and other staples at market prices because of debilitating U.N. economic sanctions imposed after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The ration program is regarded by the United Nations as the largest and most efficient food-distribution system of its kind in the world. It has also become what is perhaps Hussein’s most strategic tool to maintain popular support over the last decade.

source


"The United Nations' top humanitarian official in Iraq said today that civilians could face "extremely grave" conditions if U.S. forces attack, warning that at least 10 million people could run out of food within six weeks of the start of hostilities if they did not receive emergency aid.

The official, Ramiro Lopes da Silva, said the Iraqi population's near-total dependence on government food rations means the United Nations and the United States would have to mount a massive and immediate humanitarian relief operation to prevent widespread starvation."


so much for the bull that saddam starved his people ..he gave rations to all iraqis

 

[Top Secret]

so much for the bull that saddam starved his people ..he gave rations to all iraqis

Why Stern, you're absolutely right! He did give rations to the Iraqi people, that is:

After international sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990

After he was told to.

 

[CptStern]

Why Stern, you're absolutely right! He did give rations to the Iraqi people, that is:



After he was told to.

sigh, food wasnt sanctioned

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Hey Stern... What have you ever done besides bitch?

You seem like a dyed in the wool liberal who sits at home complaining about the world never moving off his ass to make difference about antyhing excpet the number of 7 years old who might trample your daffidels running across your lawn.

Well? Tell me what you've done with you meager life except use Ozone.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Shiite's win they will repress minorities, if it happens like things used to violence will just happen according to whoever wins. Totalatarianism and Terrorisms (two t's) are inevitable

 

[Top Secret]

sigh, food wasnt sanctioned

You're right, food wasn't sanctioned. I don't remember saying it was. Oil-for-Food was, however. Which grants a % of the profits in food to the Iraqi people.

I was wrong to say Hussein was ordered to give food to the Iraqi people. I should have said: He didn't have any other choice. I mean, he could have just sat there with the oil I suppose...

 

[CptStern]

oil-for-food was 1997, sanctions were imposed 1990 ..saddam implemented the program in 1990

 

[Top Secret]

oil-for-food was 1997, sanctions were imposed 1990 ..saddam implemented the program in 1990

Damnit, choose a time period. First Gulf War or after? I don't know why the topic would be about 15 years ago, this is supposed to be about the elections. The ones that started yesterday.

 

[CptStern]

in all fairness you should probably read the last 4 pages ..oh and the last 3-4 pages of this thread too

 

[Top Secret]

in all fairness you should probably read the last 4 pages ..oh and the last 3-4 pages of this thread too

Next question?

 

[CptStern]

look at your sig, and follow through :E

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yea, a quote from you CptSternRetortAlot -- it still stands to show how you cant handle change.

 

[Top Secret]

look at your sig, and follow through :E

I beg your pardon, but I can jump into any thread I choose to, at any time. It was not I who changed the threads topic from Iraqi Elections of yesterday to food contemplations 15 years ago, I believe it was you.

 

[Chris D]

Alright guys, keep it clean. This forum is getting quickly annoying with the amount of threads I have to read through with people bickering.

 

[seinfeldrules]

she never denied the number or US culpability, just that she regretted making that statement ..after all "We think it was worth it" makes a great quote

She regretted her wording, which means everything.

The official, Ramiro Lopes da Silva, said the Iraqi population's near-total dependence on government food rations means the United Nations and the United States would have to mount a massive and immediate humanitarian relief operation to prevent widespread starvation."

But you have to realize how much food Saddam could have given them. By limiting the amount of food they could eat, then he effectively gained utter control over them. Nobody foresaw that he could be that evil, to withold food and medicine from people. Again, 12 billion dollars could have bought a LOT of food and medicine needed by Iraqis. That 12 billion does not include the other profits which went towards the buildup of a new army and palaces. Instead of buying more weapons from the Russians and French he could have been buying food/medicine from the world.

Again,

Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations….

 

[seinfeldrules]

Alright guys, keep it clean. This forum is getting quickly annoying with the amount of threads I have to read through with people bickering.

You know you love us

 

[CptStern]

She regretted her wording, which means everything.

exactly ..she regretted saying "we think it was worth it" ..notice that at no time does she dispute the numbers of iraqi dead nor does she dispute culpability

But you have to realize how much food Saddam could have given them. By limiting the amount of food they could eat, then he effectively gained utter control over them. Nobody foresaw that he could be that evil, to withold food and medicine from people.

really? so is that why Iraqis are still recieving these same rations to this day? the program is exactly the same, so if you're saying saddam deliberately starved his people with the program then the coalition is guilty of the same thing ..because they use the same program ..although now instead of 60% of the populations it's 100%

"The war in Iraq has made the entire population of 27 million dependent on food aid, leaders of aid programs say. 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. ”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 told IPS in a phone interview."

source

Again, 12 billion dollars could have bought a LOT of food and medicine needed by Iraqis. That 12 billion does not include the other profits which went towards the buildup of a new army and palaces. Instead of buying more weapons from the Russians and French he could have been buying food/medicine from the world.

you mean in 1997 after the oil-for-food program was initiated? that's still 6 years without proper drinking water, unsanitary conditions after your government destroyed all civilian infrastructures essential to civilian life ..seinfeldrules read this ..also read my discussion with Scoopnfl ..it answers everything

here's the gist of it:


IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES - jan 91

FAILING TO SECURE SUPPLIES WILL RESULT IN A SHORTAGE OF
PURE DRINKING WATER FOR MUCH OF THE POPULATION. THIS COULD LEAD TO INCREASED INCIDENCES, IF NOT EPIDEMICS, OF DISEASE AND TO CERTAIN PURE-WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIES BECOMING INCAPACITATED, INCLUDING PETRO CHEMICALS, FERTILIZERS, PETROLEUM REFINING, ELECTRONICS,PHARMACEUTICALS, FOOD PROCESSING, TEXTILES, CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION,AND THERMAL POWERPLANTS.

WITH NO DOMESTIC SOURCES OF BOTH WATER TREATMENT REPLACEMENT PARTS AND SOME ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, IRAO WILL CONTINUE ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS TO IMPORT THESE VITAL COMMODITIES.



FULL DEGRADATION OF THE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROBABLY WILL TAKE AT LEAST ANOTHER 6 MONTHS.

 

[Razor]

all british people speak like the queen. lol

How i wish that was so, it would be so nice to get a decent conversation out of some idiot rather than "Go'on Leslie, twat 'em".

Anyway, this is a step in the right direction, and hopefully it does start to get better from here, which is probably wishful thinking. For the Iraqi people to fully trust their new government, whomever they maybe, the government will need to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are not Bush's puppets and can stand on their own two feet and make sure that Bush doesn't push them around.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

destroyed all civilian infrastructures essential to civilian life

Cite where we destroyed them. I've just seen you highlight information about a single water treatment plant -- not bombings, not campaigns, and most definately not a single motive.

 

[CptStern]

kerberos read the document ..it's a military assessment of the water treatment plants


there's ample proof besides that official document:

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/1f9f4383b4a0f184c1256cfc003b0436/$FILE/G0311406.pdf

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/0623strategy.htm

http://cesr.org/node/view/21

"Reporting on the 1991 US bombing of Iraq, the Washington Post wrote, “The worst civilian
suffering, senior officers say, has resulted not from bombs that went astray but from precision-guided
weapons that hit exactly where they were aimed – at electrical plants, oil refineries and transportation
networks,” “Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond
Purely Military Targets,” Washington Post, June 23, 1991."

http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/meilsem.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/08/sprj.nilaw.cholera/index.html

 

[X|Rolando]

Looks abit as if "Uncle Sam" was trying to force the Iraqi public to overthrow Saddam...

Mere speculation of course

 

[RZAL]

exactly ..she regretted saying "we think it was worth it" ..notice that at no time does she dispute the numbers of iraqi dead nor does she dispute culpability

Yes its worth it! The people who died for our freedom didn’t die in vain. Does your freedom mean anything to you, or do you just use your freedom to oppose the freedom of others? Why are you so against a free Iraq?

really? so is that why Iraqis are still recieving these same rations to this day? the program is exactly the same, so if you're saying saddam deliberately starved his people with the program then the coalition is guilty of the same thing ..because they use the same program ..although now instead of 60% of the populations it's 100%

Saddam…Saddam….Saddam!!!!! Are you on Saddam’s payroll or something?

"The war in Iraq has made the entire population of 27 million dependent on food aid, leaders of aid programs say. 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. ”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 told IPS in a phone interview."

Oh, you mean the war Saddam started when he refused to comply with the UN resolutions. Oh wait what about his long history of being a thug!

Heres the short list or do you want the long one?

1979 Ahmad Hasan Bakr was replaced by Saddam Hussein as President Bakr's health was cited as the reason for his stepping down and he was placed under house arrest?

1980 Saddam Hussein invaded Iran?

1981 Israeli jets destroyed Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor?

1984 The 40-month old war between Iran and Iraq escalated when Iran launched a major offensive; 500,000 troops engaged in battle?

1987 An Iraqi jet fired rockets at the U.S.S. Stark, killing 37 American sailors. Iraq later apologized for what it called a tragic mistake?

1988 Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to a cease fire with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. After eight years of war, the two sides entered negotiations to end a conflict that had cost the lives of over 100,000 Iraqis and about one million Iranians?

1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. UN Security Council Resolution 660 condemned the invasion and called for full withdrawal, but Saddam Hussein ignores this?

1991 A coalition of forces led by the United States launched an attack on Iraq in order to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and prevent it from launching similar wars of aggression again in the future?

1993 The United States, France, and Britain launched several air and cruise-missile strikes against Iraq in response to provocations, including Iraqi assassination attempt against former President George H. W. Bush?

1994 Iraqi troop buildup near Kuwait in 1994 led the United States to send forces to Kuwait and nearby areas. Continued resistance to weapons inspections led to bombing raids against Iraq, and trade sanctions imposed on Iraq remained in place, albeit with an emphasis on military-related goods until the second Gulf conflict?

1995 Two of Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamil and Saddam Kamil defected to Jordan with Saddam's daughters. Hussein had been in charge of Iraqi development of Weapons of Mass Destruction and brings along with him extensive evidence of development of banned weapons?

1996 Repeatedly shunned and rejected by international Iraqi opposition groups, defectors Hussein and Saddam Kamil were enticed to return to Iraq - where they are quickly executed?

2002 During his State of the Union speech, President George Bush lists Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria as part of an "axis of evil." According to Bush, "by seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger?"

2003 The international community asked Saddam Hussein to step down from power and enter exile?

2003 Saddam Hussein refuses to step down, American and British ground forces invade Iraq via Kuwait in the second Gulf War, this time with the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein and his Baathist government once and for all?

you mean in 1997 after the oil-for-food program was initiated? that's still 6 years without proper drinking water, unsanitary conditions after your government destroyed all civilian infrastructures essential to civilian life ..seinfeldrules

Who brought this fate to Iraq!!!! Oh Oh I know Saddam Saddam Saddam, can you say Saddam? You can also look here http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm 6 years my ass. see here for more http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html#1992





The Patriot “Freedom is not Free””

 

[CptStern]

rzal you want to read a few pages back? ..I'm not going to repeat myself everytime someone new comes into this discussion

btw if you can explain away this document, we'll talk, until then all that I have to say on the subject is contained within these pages

 

[RZAL]

rzal you want to read a few pages back? ..I'm not going to repeat myself everytime someone new comes into this discussion

btw if you can explain away this document, we'll talk, until then all that I have to say on the subject is contained within these pages

Stern please excuse me for being so bold, but you repeat yourself on an average of 22 times a day. As for this being a new thread its still the same old discussion you have had for the last several hundred postings. Which basically states the US Government is bad, the Bush Administration is bad, America is bad for this or America is bad for that. Come on now, your starting to sound like a broken record being played through a propaganda machine. You come off as bias and your agenda appears to be strictly based on achieving one goal. I have yet to see one sign of objectivity, or even a hint of optimism. Instead its this constant flow of propaganda designed to excite and divide people. You realize constructive criticism goes further than flat out attacks and from where I’m standing it seems you’re on someone’s propaganda payroll. Now having said all this, I’ll be the first to criticize my government if you show an honest effort at being objective.






The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[seinfeldrules]

exactly ..she regretted saying "we think it was worth it" ..notice that at no time does she dispute the numbers of iraqi dead nor does she dispute culpability

She does though. She said no deaths would have occured if Saddam had simply met his obligations.

really? so is that why Iraqis are still recieving these same rations to this day? the program is exactly the same, so if you're saying saddam deliberately starved his people with the program then the coalition is guilty of the same thing ..because they use the same program ..although now instead of 60% of the populations it's 100%

But nobody is holding it over their heads. "Either support me, or no more food" Do you honestly think Sunnis were treated the same as the Kurds in this regard?

you mean in 1997 after the oil-for-food program was initiated? that's still 6 years without proper drinking water, unsanitary conditions after your government destroyed all civilian infrastructures essential to civilian life ..seinfeldrules read this ..also read my discussion with Scoopnfl ..it answers everything

The money spent on rebuilding his army during that time could have been spent on rebuilding the country. All he had to do was meet his obligations.