|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 06/15/2001 : 12:17:19 [Permalink]
|
It seems to me that Iraq was just a question that Clinton didn't really want to deal with except to try and make himself good by bombing the bad guys once in a while. Speaking of murderous intentions, how about the attack on Sudan?
If you're against the sanctions on whatever grounds, I guess I'll take that and ask you to write a lot of letters to people about that.
However, while you're denying the brutality and criminality of the US/UK gang, you're helping to increase the number of people that would like to see people like you and me suffer the same lot as the Iraqi people.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 12:19:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(Man, if I actually get the link in here, then I'm gettin' GOOD!)
Your posts so far have been excellent, IMHO, so getting good at the formatting of them is just icing on the cake! 
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 19:41:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you're against the sanctions on whatever grounds, I guess I'll take that and ask you to write a lot of letters to people about that.
Try sending a letter to Saddam...
Dear Saddam,
Please feed your people and while you're at it comply with what you agreed to in 1991.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2001 : 00:51:12 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo:
quote:
Trish: I have extremely little say about what the U.S. does. I have no say at all about what Saddam Hussein does, or the other "allies" so it does little good to waste a lot of breath about what they do. I will say this would not be happening, millions of people would not have died, if it were not for the U.S. and the U.K. I am saying if there is scientific reasoning behind punishing some country, then let's apply it fairly. Let's bomb U.S. cities until there's nothing left. Let's bomb British cities until there's nothing left. Let's bomb Isreal's cities until there's nothing left. Then let's not allow those people to repair their infrastructure, get proper medicines, have proper sewage and water facilities.
What kind of bizarre justice is this to wail about what kind of a brutal dictator this man is then weaken his subjects to an extreme level, deny them arms, make the dictator stronger by making him the only source of sustenance, then tell them to rebel?
Here's my point of contention with your statements regarding the US and the UK. I have said that in part some responsibility lies with the UNSC and it's members. I have not, to my knowledge indicated otherwise. If it seems I have, my apologies. However, it appears you think that the US and UK are entirely responsible for the atrocities in Iraq. That is just not the case. You apply all blame to the US and UK absolving Iraq from any responsibility. I apply some responsibility to the US/UK/UN but the majority of the responsibility lies with Saddam and Iraq. That is our difference.
As for bombing the US and UK, I'm sorry but that just doesn't compute. We had treaties or agreements with Kuwait. Thus, when Iraq invaded, the US was obligated by those agreements with the governing body of Kuwait to assist in the removal of Iraqi troops. We did this.
Saddam agreed to certain resolutions of the UNSC to end the UN/NATO attack against Iraq. He has failed to comply with these resolutions. This is not speculation, this does not absolve Saddam and Iraq of its responsibility, it is just a fact.
Iraq has gone to great lengths to determine what the UNSCOM and IAEA are allowed to see, including delaying entry to buildings and facilities, refusing to allow UNSCOM and IAEA to interview certain citizens. UNSCOM and IAEA have been unable to locate a considerable about of VX (a biological agent) that they are aware of existing.
WMD and BW were to be disposed of under the eyes of the international community, Iraq was aware of this, yet they destroyed some unknown amount of munitions without the knowledge and consent of the international community of regulators. This was in direct violation of UNSC resolutions and only served to confuse the trail of evidence.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2001 : 00:53:55 [Permalink]
|
Greg:
quote:
They could escalate the situation by targeting civilian sites specifically during bombing. This however would be immoral, difficult to justify politically, and probably not work anyway.
They could rewrite the terms of surrender to make them more freindly to Iraq. This would be percieved as backing down, and the US in particular would be afraid of losing credibility in the region.
They can continue doing what they're doing and pray for some miracle to happen, which appears to be what they're doing. I think the UN/US will continue doing what they currently are doing until either they have an excuse for a massive military incursion into Iraq or the population overthrows Saddam Houssein.
This may likely be the case. However, we can only hope that more humanitarian aid is made available to the Iraqi populace at large. Whether this is Saddams doing or the doing of UN sanctions I don't know. However, I have seen nothing as regards disallowing humanitarian aid by the UN sanctions.
Garrette:
quote:
The idea of the leaders of the few nations on earth who try (sometimes ineffectively, sometimes wrongly, and sometimes for selfish reasons, but try nonetheless) to allow other nations to exist and improve to any degree and in any direction that does not threaten others' existence are in fact 'genocidal maniacs' on an order worse than those who blatantly oppress their own populace and conquer their neighbors by force--Big philosophy debate behind this, I'm afraid, boiling down to "if you won, you must be wrong."
I can agree with this concept, and would like to point out that it might make a good topic.
Gorgo:
quote:
The message that I'm getting from you is that our "free press" does not offer the answer to my question. It just spouts State Dept. propaganda about how "Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction (repeat that seven times for effect)" are wasting every dime that it takes to make a healthy society, while the U.S. is of course only acting on orders from God, and has bent over backwards to use "smart" bombs and "smart" sanctions and "smart" diplomacy to show that we care so much about every child and flower in Iraq.
Garrette: I think Gorgo may be referring to the original posting under Media Issues before this broke out into a political argument.
Gorgo: I would again like to point out, that newspapers are trying to sell their product. Unfortunately, real journalism suffers as a result. 'Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction...' sells papers. This is not necessarily 'State Department Propaganda'. I'm not saying it isn't either.
In our international society, as long as individual countries exist for whatever reason, each country must first look out for it's own well being. Is this ideal, no, not really but it is necessary to the survival of the country and its citizens. Does this make a country or government right, no, not really. However, it does permit us to live in the society we do, it does permit us to enjoy our freedoms, it does permit us to *forget* the suffering in other countries. Does give us *higher moral ground* no, the concept of *higher moral ground* is not something I agree with in part. It does not preclude any country from responsibilities to it neighbors.
Do you have a better solution to put forward in regards to relieving the suffering of the Iraqi populace? It's a large problem, hindered to some degree by both sides. Saddam could use the funds he's receiving via whatever channels to assist the populace at large or do what he's doing with it, rebuilding his military and other personal comforts. So this is a shared responsibility, both by Saddam (primarily IMO) and by the international community.
Bringing god into the issue is really irrelevent. I seriously doubt that this non-existent mythical being came down off his non-existent throne in a non-existent heaven and whispered in Bush Sr's, Clinton's or Bush Jr's respective ears telling them to destroy the Iraqi people. (However, based on his past records this would not surprise me.) Please read this with the humor that was meant...
Again, I must reiterate, these sanctions were not considered *smart*. They are considered as temporary measures to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people. Granted this is semantics, however this is the wording used in the UNSC resolutions.
The only *smart* sanctions I have heard reference to are those as regards the Afghani people and the Taliban. All humanitarian aid here is carried out through private organizations to which the US is the largest contributor of funds. (I am not using this statement to justify the situation of the Iraqi populace, please don't take it as such.)
webcom.com/peaceact/sanctions_solutions.html:
quote:
Would the military force facing such a diabolical maneuver be justified in attacking? Is the Security Council justified in maintaining comprehensive sanctions against an opponent willing to make innocent children the primary victim?
The oil for food program may be a sincere attempt to address the injustice caused by sanctions in Iraq, but it is not a sufficient answer and does not absolve the members of the Security Council of the obligation to take further steps to prevent the suffering of innocent civilians.
To say that responsibility for the humanitarian suffering rests with Saddam Hussein may be correct, but this does not solve the practical problem of overcoming injustice. Precisely because it is known that the Iraqi government is victimizing its own population, the UN incurs an obligation to adjust its policies and find a different approach to achieving its objectives in Iraq.
I can agree with this sentiment. However, I would like to see what options there are for relieving the suffering of the Iraqi populace. Do you have any suggestions? I don't, other than putting outside relief agencies into Iraq as is happening in Afghanistan. Again, I have seen nothing disallowing this avenue of relief.
Garrette:
quote:
I'm an extremely reasonable person, and I see the condition of our military as inadequate to the stated and unstated objectives constantly placed before it by our own government and the court of public opinion. And the notion that we 'let our people starve' is ludicrous. The poor in this country are as a whole better off than the poor in third world countries, or even in Iraq. The poverty rate, despite the debators who move the line defining the poverty level around, is nearly identical to what it was in the 60's when our 'war on poverty' began.
I do not claim that the U.S. is not subject to the same moral considerations as Iraq or that it is above reproach or redress. I simply find it frustrating that you keep equating the two as if our recent histories a |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2001 : 14:18:20 [Permalink]
|
I'm trying to preview this, but evidently it's too long. I don't understand why my last statement, if under someone else's is always in quotes.
quote:
This may likely be the case. However, we can only hope that more humanitarian aid is made available to the Iraqi populace at large. Whether this is Saddams doing or the doing of UN sanctions I don't know. However, I have seen nothing as regards disallowing humanitarian aid by the UN sanctions.
No. It has to be done with permission. The group that I support - Voices in the Wilderness - has been threatened with fines and imprisonment for taking medicines to Iraq.
Humanitarian aid, of course, is not the answer. It will take much more than that.
quote:
Garrette:
I can agree with this concept, and would like to point out that it might make a good topic.
I'll have to follow that one for a while, because I don't understand.
quote:
Gorgo:
Gorgo: I would again like to point out, that newspapers are trying to sell their product. Unfortunately, real journalism suffers as a result. 'Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction...' sells papers. This is not necessarily 'State Department Propaganda'. I'm not saying it isn't either.
They are selling "consumers" to advertisers. It is much easier to take the government's word for things and call that a free press, than to actually take the time to investigate anything. Fewer costs, fewer problems.
quote:
Do you have a better solution to put forward in regards to relieving the suffering of the Iraqi populace? It's a large problem, hindered to some degree by both sides. Saddam could use the funds he's receiving via whatever channels to assist the populace at large or do what he's doing with it, rebuilding his military and other personal comforts. So this is a shared responsibility, both by Saddam (primarily IMO) and by the international community.
Again, this would not be happening if it weren't for the U.S. and the U.K.
quote:
Bringing god into the issue is really irrelevent. I seriously doubt that this non-existent mythical being came down off his non-existent throne in a non-existent heaven and whispered in Bush Sr's, Clinton's or Bush Jr's respective ears telling them to destroy the Iraqi people. (However, based on his past records this would not surprise me.) Please read this with the humor that was meant...
I can only speculate what those people think.
quote:
Again, I must reiterate, these sanctions were not considered *smart*. They are considered as temporary measures to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people. Granted this is semantics, however this is the wording used in the UNSC resolutions.
I agree, but we've been told all along that there was nothing wrong with the sanctions as they were. It was all Saddam's fault. Now, they're telling us that they need to be improved so that Saddam can't blame us. I don't understand. If there was nothing wrong with them, and Saddam is irrational for blaming us, then how could changing them change Saddam?
quote:
Garrette:
quoteBack to the 'smart' sanctions. If I were trying to get the sanctions lifted, Gorgo, I'd use a different tack to convince people.
I'd say something like: "I understand why the sanctions were imposed, and I understand why you had to leave them in place so long just to make sure they would or wouldn't work. But the fact is, they haven't work and they won't work. So all the hardship that you didn't want but were willing to accept as long as it furthered your aims, is now pointless, because it isn't furthering your aims. Can't you find another way to achieve what you want?"
This is, in fact, pretty close to what Greg was saying.[/quote
Garrette, a statement of this sort may have been more constructive, IMO, than the initial post. To this statement I could have responded in an idea session mode instead of raising my hackles. Thank you.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
What I am saying is that criminal behavior is criminal behavior. If you want other countries (and individuals) not to act like criminals, then it's best to set a good example. You all have made my point for me. First, you have shown me that you're only repeating State Department propaganda. You've also said that two wrongs don't make a right. The attack on Iraq was illegal, because it did not meet U.N. rules for such things. Attacking someone without going through those rules are illegal. George Bush did not want to settle the problem, in fact, his administration probably encouraged it. He said, "No Negotations" and started destroying a captive population. It is illegal to attack a population for political reasons. That is what the sanctions, especially after the bombing are doing. If we were talking about the suffering of the Kuwaiti children, I'd say that the Iraqi leadership is responsible. We're not. We're talking about the suffering of the Iraqi people. Iraq did not attack Iraq illegally, the U.S. did.
If you think that the Iraqi leadership is screwing over the populace, then why allow illegal sanctions which only put the Iraqi leadership even more in charge of their well-being? Does this make sense to you? Why allow sanctions and bombing which make "Saddam" a hero to many?
I didn't call you a Christian, Trish. My intention was to state that there is often an anti-Arab, anti-Islam sentiment to all of this. That may not be the case with you.
And, your hackles are your hackles, they are based on your beliefs about yourself, and I have no power to raise them. If I've said something that appears to be attacking, I apologize. That was not my intent.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2001 : 15:24:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No. It has to be done with permission. The group that I support - Voices in the Wilderness - has been threatened with fines and imprisonment for taking medicines to Iraq.
With who's permission? The UN or Iraq? If it's Iraq you know my position. If it's the UN, then who's going to house them? I don't really see much other than a threat from a source I generally define as *THEM*. Being them that ain't us, in conspiracy theories...
quote:
Humanitarian aid, of course, is not the answer. It will take much more than that.
So what is the answer, please not a non-answer like you give later in your response.
quote:
They are selling "consumers" to advertisers. It is much easier to take the government's word for things and call that a free press, than to actually take the time to investigate anything. Fewer costs, fewer problems.
There are still those with journalistic integrity. However, I would like to point out, you can find as many journalists with and without integrity on both sides of any issue. Sometimes a journalists view point can color their regard to any issue...
quote:
Again, this would not be happening if it weren't for the U.S. and the U.K.
This is pretty defensive. You appear to not have given any thought to other solutions than it's the fault of the US and UK. This wouldn't be happening had Saddam never sent his forces across the border into Kuwait. You seem to conveniently ignore this fact in your dogmatic approach to the US and UK as the aggressor. What other solutions can you offer besides it's the US/UKs fault.
quote:
I agree, but we've been told all along that there was nothing wrong with the sanctions as they were. It was all Saddam's fault. Now, they're telling us that they need to be improved so that Saddam can't blame us. I don't understand. If there was nothing wrong with them, and Saddam is irrational for blaming us, then how could changing them change Saddam?
Saddam is the one who invaded a foreign country. Saddam is playing the same game a two-year-old plays. It was the not-me character. He has done everything he can to obstruct and defy the UN that he can. I personally don't recall hearing there's nothing wrong with the sanctions as they are. I do recall hearing that new sanctions are being enacted to help relieve the position of the Iraqi people.
quote:
What I am saying is that criminal behavior is criminal behavior. If you want other countries (and individuals) not to act like criminals, then it's best to set a good example. You all have made my point for me. First, you have shown me that you're only repeating State Department propaganda. You've also said that two wrongs don't make a right. The attack on Iraq was illegal, because it did not meet U.N. rules for such things. Attacking someone without going through those rules are illegal. George Bush did not want to settle the problem, in fact, his administration probably encouraged it. He said, "No Negotations" and started destroying a captive population. It is illegal to attack a population for political reasons. That is what the sanctions, especially after the bombing are doing. If we were talking about the suffering of the Kuwaiti children, I'd say that the Iraqi leadership is responsible. We're not. We're talking about the suffering of the Iraqi people. Iraq did not attack Iraq illegally, the U.S. did.
You are as much guilty of swallowing propoganda as you claim others who oppose your view are. We don't agree. I don't like seeing suffering, nor do I enjoy inflicting it upon others. However, you refuse to ascribe any of the blame to Saddam. Why? Your swallowing the propoganda that Saddam is completely without any fault or blood on his hands. Your supporting his defiance of UNSC sanctions. At least this is the appearance you give.
quote:
If you think that the Iraqi leadership is screwing over the populace, then why allow illegal sanctions which only put the Iraqi leadership even more in charge of their well-being? Does this make sense to you? Why allow sanctions and bombing which make "Saddam" a hero to many?
Why allow Saddam free reigh? You are looking at the immediate, not ten, fifteen years down the road. I don't want to get called back (though unlikely as my MOS is in mothballs) to fight the same damned war in ten years. I don't want my kid(s) to have to fight the same damned war in fifteen or twenty. Consider the future of the international community when you consider the sanctions. Again, do you have a better solution for solving the ENTIRE problem?
quote:
I didn't call you a Christian, Trish. My intention was to state that there is often an anti-Arab, anti-Islam sentiment to all of this. That may not be the case with you.
Mea Culpa. Touchy subject. I don't (try really hard) not to judge anyone based on belief or any other stereotypical grouping. I dislike it intensely and consequently work to get over those irrational prejudices that were instilled in me when I didn't know any better.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2001 : 16:18:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
With who's permission? The UN or Iraq? If it's Iraq you know my position. If it's the UN, then who's going to house them? I don't really see much other than a threat from a source I generally define as *THEM*. Being them that ain't us, in conspiracy theories...
It's a U.S. Federal law. They have to get permission from the State Department. It's illegal to mail two bottles of aspirin to Iraq.
quote:
So what is the answer, please not a non-answer like you give later in your response.
I've given you my answers. The U.S. needs to stop its criminal behavior and allow Iraq to rebuild their country. Then we all need to look at the idea of some kind of reasonable international power that does not allow the kind of brutal behavior that the U.S. and others - have displayed.
quote:
There are still those with journalistic integrity. However, I would like to point out, you can find as many journalists with and without integrity on both sides of any issue. Sometimes a journalists view point can color their regard to any issue...
Integrity has little to do with it. Garrette still has integrity because he believes what he says. What he believes in, is a lie, but that doesn't change Garrette's integrity. You don't get into a position of much power in the Corporate media if don't agree with a certain point of view.
quote:
This is pretty defensive. You appear to not have given any thought to other solutions than it's the fault of the US and UK. This wouldn't be happening had Saddam never sent his forces across the border into Kuwait. You seem to conveniently ignore this fact in your dogmatic approach to the US and UK as the aggressor. What other solutions can you offer besides it's the US/UKs fault.
Again, if you think Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, then you don't want sanctions which do nothing but oppress the people of Iraq and make him a hero.
quote:
Saddam is the one who invaded a foreign country.
The issue in question is that the U.S. has been and is illegally attacking the people of Iraq for political reasons. This is illegal, and this is genocide.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 01:43:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's a U.S. Federal law. They have to get permission from the State Department. It's illegal to mail two bottles of aspirin to Iraq.
I was unaware of this. Can you point me specifically to which law you are referring please.
quote:
I've given you my answers. The U.S. needs to stop its criminal behavior and allow Iraq to rebuild their country. Then we all need to look at the idea of some kind of reasonable international power that does not allow the kind of brutal behavior that the U.S. and others - have displayed.
What do you propose be done without caving to the callous attitude Saddam has displayed as regards his neighbors and the international community in general. Your making a sweeping statement. Unitlaterally give in to Saddam... This doesn't fit the parameters of the question. Please, propose a viable solution to the situation that does not absolve Saddam of his responsibility for his invasion of Kuwait. One preferably designed to keep Saddam from forcibly crossing the borders of one of his neighbors.
quote:
Again, if you think Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, then you don't want sanctions which do nothing but oppress the people of Iraq and make him a hero.
Again, propose a solution for relieving the suffering of the Iraqi people without removing the responsibility from Saddam and the Iraqi government of the invasion of Kuwait. You appear to want the US and the UN to unilaterally withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula without any restrictions or sanctions against Iraq for it's part in the Gulf War. This can not happen, it will only make Saddam bolder in his next attempt. Please propose a solution that does both. If it's allowing outside humanitarian aid to reach the Iraqi people, then repeal the Federal Law about sending humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. I can go for that. But not giving Saddam free reign, no, that is irresponsible to both US interests and international interests. Your setting us up for another Gulf War in ten to fifteen years, maybe sooner. I have no desire to go to war, nor do I wish it to happen again.
quote:
The issue in question is that the U.S. has been and is illegally attacking the people of Iraq for political reasons. This is illegal, and this is genocide.
Yes, you've stated that before. But unilaterally removing the UN sanctions against Iraq is not the solution. Again, my reason for thinking this is that Saddam will become more emboldened by this backing down of the *International Community* and will turn his eyes again toward conquering his neighbors. A solution to the problem that eases the suffering of the Iraqi people without easing the hardship against Saddam is needed. Until such a solution is devised, we can not unilaterally lift the sanctions against Iraq.
Please propse a viable solution...I am at a loss as to where to begin, but allowing humanitarian aid to reach the Iraqi populace is a good start. You say it's not enough, but it is a good place to start. So push for that first, then look for better options as more of the actual situation of the Iraqi people is assessed.
Oh, and parts for ambulances could just as easily be diverted to many military vehicles and never reach the populace.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 06:29:04 [Permalink]
|
Hi again. Long weekend away with a special someone; as much as I enjoy these posts and your collective company, you don't quite compare. Then again, if I'd stayed to write some things instead, I wouldn't be as painfully sun-baked as I am.
Plus, it turns out I'm hardly needed. Bang-up job, Trish.
quote:
Saddam is the one who invaded a foreign country. Saddam is playing the same game a two-year-old plays. It was the not-me character. He has done everything he can to obstruct and defy the UN that he can. I personally don't recall hearing there's nothing wrong with the sanctions as they are. I do recall hearing that new sanctions are being enacted to help relieve the position of the Iraqi people.
Why allow Saddam free reigh? You are looking at the immediate, not ten, fifteen years down the road. I don't want to get called back (though unlikely as my MOS is in mothballs) to fight the same damned war in ten years. I don't want my kid(s) to have to fight the same damned war in fifteen or twenty. Consider the future of the international community when you consider the sanctions. Again, do you have a better solution for solving the ENTIRE problem?
This is my position in a nutshell.
quote:
Garrette still has integrity because he believes what he says. What he believes in, is a lie, but that doesn't change Garrette's integrity
I thank you for the sentiment. And I return it in full, point for point.
quote:
If you're against the sanctions on whatever grounds, I guess I'll take that and ask you to write a lot of letters to people about that.
However, while you're denying the brutality and criminality of the US/UK gang, you're helping to increase the number of people that would like to see people like you and me suffer the same lot as the Iraqi people.
First, don't be so quick to embrace me into your fold; I was telling you what kind of argument I would be more likely to lend credence to; I was not making that argument myself.
Second, you've expanded your allegations enormously here by implying that not only do the US and UK allegedly want the Iraqi people to suffer but we want to eliminate those who voice opposition. Your bugaboo is growing.
quote:
It seems to me that Iraq was just a question that Clinton didn't really want to deal with except to try and make himself good by bombing the bad guys once in a while. Speaking of murderous intentions, how about the attack on Sudan?
Agreed on Clinton. Regarding the Sudan, please be more specific. Do you mean the conflicts with Chad? (This is NOT a joke about the election, BTW).
quote:
Trish: Though I dislike admitting this, I have had occassion to use the local food bank and receive funds to help pay my rent. Being destitute is terrible, and gives me the strong desire to go from living paycheck to paycheck to being able to put money aside for the rough patches.
I can understand your dislike for admitting it, but don't worry about it. That's what they're for, and you're not alone. And from another thread: I doubt the cookies you and Lisa might bake are as bad as you imply (hey, from my point of view, anything anyone else makes is GOOD food).
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 07:30:59 [Permalink]
|
Garrette: I was referring to the pharmaceutical company which supplied a large amount of medicines to Iraq. The Clinton administration saw fit to bomb it ostensibly for revenge on Osama bin Laden, as I recall.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2001 : 07:33:39 [Permalink]
|
I don't understand how I've implied this part about voicing opposition.
Of course it is true, but I don't understand what part of what I said you were referring.
quote:
Second, you've expanded your allegations enormously here by implying that not only do the US and UK allegedly want the Iraqi people to suffer but we want to eliminate those who voice opposition. Your bugaboo is growing.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
