|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2001 : 19:38:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Those are bold words from someone that flips out terms like "daily bombings", "genocide" and "US/UK kill millions"
These are headlines for Rupert Murdoch publications.
Well I backed up what I said about the bombings, but you chose to ignore that. My question was not to give me 8 x 10 glossies with circles and arrows, but some kind of numbers. You're saying that everyone in Iraq would be healthy if Saddam wasn't building palaces and building Iraq's military. How do you know that? What kind of foreign funds is he spending on that? How much of those foreign funds would it take to put Iraq's economy on an even keel and smuggle in all the contraband that he could get to repair the infrastructure, buy kidney machines, get pencils and books for the schools? You must have some idea. I mean it's probably all in the free press that you and Greg have been getting off your ass and reading isn't it?
quote:
I think the bottom line is that Saddam lost the war and agreed to certain conditions to end the war. He has not met those conditions so the citizens of Iraq have to suffer. Now you can bring up American spies being mixed in with the UN folks but what does that even matter? Is Saddam worried that the US might finally figure out how to make anthrax or an A-bomb? All any US spies want to know are what WMD Saddam has and where they are so they can be eliminated.
quote:
It doesn't matter what crimes the US or any other country may have committed. No other wrongs make Saddam right. Call the US or other nations evil/bad/naughty till you go blue in the face. It just doesn't matter.
That's what I've been saying. It doesn't matter to you that someone does something wrong, it matters that it's someone that the U.S. has demonized.
quote:
The sanctions are supposed to make things hard on Iraqis so everything is going according to plan there.
We are in agreement. The object is murder. The charge is genocide.
quote:
Nice try making this a racial issue, but Iraq's neighbors have not been thrilled with Saddam's exploits either. The US is in the region by invitation. This is not the old Soviet style invitation written with a gun to the head, the US will leave if asked.
By invitation, much the same way that the U.S. was invited into Vietnam. With a gun to someone's head. Leave? Not for a long time.
quote:
I can only add that everyone is concerned about the plight of Iraqis but the concern over what Saddam might do(based on what he has done)is a more urgent concern.
[/quote]
Again, you must have some idea of the numbers here. How many minutes would it take for Iraq to take over any country, even Yemen, without U.S. permission? Five? Ten? He's the latest Hitler, remember? He could probably take over Europe? Hayzoos Chreestos! He's probably coming over the friggin' Mexican border now!
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 19:52:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well I backed up what I said about the bombings, but you chose to ignore that. My question was not to give me 8 x 10 glossies with circles and arrows, but some kind of numbers. You're saying that everyone in Iraq would be healthy if Saddam wasn't building palaces and building Iraq's military. How do you know that?
The truth is that Iraq was not exactly the best place in the world to live before 1990. There is no place on Earth where everyone is healthy and that includes Iraq. You never proved anything about your weekly bombings. I think it's simple to figure out that if limited resources are going to one place then they aren't going to another. Again you say that sanctions that are designed to make life hard are designed to kill every living Iraqi. That's a bit much. No one believes it.
quote:
Leave? Not for a long time.
You were due for a right answer. Yer darn right. The proverbial gun in this instance is the Iraqi military. The Saudis would probably drop to their knees and beg the US not to leave if it came to that. They have a sweet deal having the finest military force that ever existed watching out for them
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 20:00:37 [Permalink]
|
Well, my figures are backed up by the U.N., @tomic, they're a matter of public record. In 1996, Leslie Stahl told Madeleine Albright that 500,000 children had died as a result of the sanctions. She asked Madeleine Albright if the price was worth it.
Madeleine Albright said, "Yes, we think the price is worth it."
In fairness to Madeleine, she has since said that she really didn't mean that. What she meant to say was that the sanctions didn't cause the deaths of those children. That isn't what she said at the time, and it took years to retract the statement, but we'll take her word for it.
UNICEF has documented the situation as much as possible. The FAO has documented the situation as much as possible. There really isn't the best information, as there is no one to record the information. A baby dies in rural Iraq, the birth was never recorded, the death was never recorded.
There is no question that the U.S./U.K. gang have bombed "radar installations" and other places more than weekly since the Gulf War. This is not in dispute at all, and I've documented that.
I'm not asking for 8 x 10 glossies with circles and arrows. All I'm asking is for some idea of what you're talking about. How much in foreign funds has "Saddam" spent on things that he shouldn't have spent, with some idea of what those things are, and how much in foreign funds would it take to make Iraqi society a healthy place to be again? How much in foreign funds would it take to smuggle in contraband and repair the infrastructure, get needed medicines, books and pencils, get the economy on an even keel so that doctors and nurses don't leave the country or have to live by shining shoes and driving cabs. You must have those figures handy from getting off your ass and reading the "free press.?"
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 20:05:49 [Permalink]
|
Now, I'd thought I'd lost that first post, so I typed the second. Geesh!
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 20:14:07 [Permalink]
|
It depends on what you mean. I'm not a fan of the Ba'ath party certainly, and they are and were someone that you didn't want to cross. Much like most of the regimes in wartime countries, really. To be expected. Not to be excused, but to be expected.
Aside from that, which is a pretty big aside, health care was the best in the region, or close to it. Their biggest problem, like the U.S. was overweight. Education was exemplary. Iraqis loved the U.S. and many came here to study. Religion was not anywhere near as fanatical as other places, in fact, was quite open.
There is a young movement now that thinks Saddam is too soft on America. A Taliban-like mood is increasing in Iraq. Really, the U.S. is making enemies that they didn't need to make. They're doing no one any good at all by making the Iraqi on the street extremely poor (or sick, or dead), and helping to make Saddam and his buddies very wealthy.
I don't know that they're designed to kill every living Iraqi. However, the U.S./U.K gang knows the effects of the sanctions, and they keep them going.
quote:
The truth is that Iraq was not exactly the best place in the world to live before 1990. There is no place on Earth where everyone is healthy and that includes Iraq. You never proved anything about your weekly bombings. I think it's simple to figure out that if limited resources are going to one place then they aren't going to another. Again you say that sanctions that are designed to make life hard are designed to kill every living Iraqi. That's a bit much. No one believes it.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 21:46:42 [Permalink]
|
This question goes for anyone really. I'd personally like to find out that the oligarchy that runs the country in which I pay taxes and contribute to the small percentage of people that own most of the wealth are not a employing a bunch of genocidal maniacs to do their bidding. Someone must have an answer, and maybe some sources?
[/quote]
I'm not asking for 8 x 10 glossies with circles and arrows. All I'm asking is for some idea of what you're talking about. How much in foreign funds has "Saddam" spent on things that he shouldn't have spent, with some idea of what those things are, and how much in foreign funds would it take to make Iraqi society a healthy place to be again? How much in foreign funds would it take to smuggle in contraband and repair the infrastructure, get needed medicines, books and pencils, get the economy on an even keel so that doctors and nurses don't leave the country or have to live by shining shoes and driving cabs. You must have those figures handy from getting off your ass and reading the "free press.?"
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org
[/quote]
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 22:31:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I mean it's probably all in the free press that you and Greg have been getting off your ass and reading isn't it?
Gorgo,
I do not disagree with the main points of your argument. The sanctions and bombings do not however constitute genocide, just like the bombing of Hamburg in WWII was not genocide. The sanctions are designed to weaken Saddam Houssein as the leader of his own people to the point where they overthrow him.
Is it working? No, it's been 11 years and we are no further along the road to peace. I think that the UN either doesn't have a better idea or can't come to a consensus.
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.
So Gorgo, what do you think the UN should do?
I believe that the US should unilaterally work out a treaty with the Arab states. It should state that any offensive military action on the part of Iraq in the region will be met with swift and massive retaliation by the US. Then we should just walk away from the current policy. The current policy is a ridiculous and intractable situation that should be ended.
Iraqs weapons of mass destruction are actually not good for anything more than bullying their neighbors. Saddam Houssein is not stupid. If he were he'd be in exile or 6 feet under a long time ago. You want to talk about weapons of mass destruction? We got 'em. They kept the Soviet Union at bay for 40 years using MAD as policy.
I must go and play my guitars now.
Regards,
Greg
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 00:03:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, my placement of quotes was sloppy. Didn't mean to imply that you used those exact words, or that I was talking about you in particular. What I was talking about was your attitude and the attitude of most people I run into. The U.S. by definition doesn't commit crimes. If someone does pin a crime on the U.S., it's because of some bad apple in some isolated incident. On the other hand, certain others, often those of races and religions other than white Christians, are (insert whatever adjective you want here - evil, criminal, madmen, etc.).
Look I have never said nor implied that the US has never committed crimes. What I am saying is that you unilaterally expect the US to take full responsibilty for the situation of the Iraqi people. You apparently didn't read this statement of mine so I'll type it again. Does the international community bear some responsibility for the plight of the Iraqi people, yes. However, the primary responsibility lies with Saddam and the Iraqi government. Yes, there is some responsibility on the part of the US and other NATO aligned nations. Saddam and his regime must bear the brunt of the responsibility.
And for the last freakin' time I am not a xian! I am an atheist, there is no freakin' god! How much more simple can I make this point? I am one of those who while serving their country the good ol president of the United States called a non-citizen! Do you read these posts in their entirety? From some of your arguments I must draw the conclusion that you don't. Otherwise you would have been aware of this little fact. Nor would you have aligned me with Fundies!
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 01:14:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/pages/80.htm
Let me know if I've left any questions unanswered. If this doesn't answer questions, it should serve as setting the background for some of the answers.
I read this page. It consisted of the opinions of two individuals involved with the UN. The figure of 500,000 children dying as a direct result of sanctions is a figure thrown out by the authors of the article with no mention of where the figure came from. I saw no mention of millions of death, daily bombings or genocide.
Whatever is going on in Iraq is not a wonderful thing, but it is part of the price a nation sometimes has to pay sometimes because of the actins of its government.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 05:05:16 [Permalink]
|
@tomic: The bombings were documented in an earlier post. This post has some general information. You want more documentation? You're not going to believe it anyway, and if you do, you'll come up with some feeble excuse as to why it doesn't matter. No one is going to answer my question?
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?
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 06:35:42 [Permalink]
|
This is available from various sources, but this is from preventgenocide.org :
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
{a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
{c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
{d ) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide. "
For a more detailed description of the crimes described in Article II (Rome Statute Article 6) see the Elements of the Crime of Genocide agreed upon by the International Criminal Court Preparatory Commission in June 2000.
Prevent Genocide International
1804 'S' Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20009 USA
Tel. 202-483-1948, Fax 202-328-0627
info@preventgenocide.org
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 07:50:59 [Permalink]
|
I could make this easy and just say I agree with Greg almost 100%.
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.
I think this sums it up nicely. I would simply add what I've said once before: that the consequences of a U.S. backdown are in the long run worse for the Iraqi and Middle Eastern people than are the consequences if Hussein backs down.
quote:
This question goes for anyone really. I'd personally like to find out that the oligarchy that runs the country in which I pay taxes and contribute to the small percentage of people that own most of the wealth are not a employing a bunch of genocidal maniacs to do their bidding. Someone must have an answer, and maybe some sources?
I'm not sure what you're asking here, but you're touching on some points, each of which needs its own thread:
The small percentage that owns most of the wealth--I suppose we could get into economics and discuss the differences between what actually raises the standard of living for most as opposed to raising the moral smugness of a few.
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."
quote:
No one is going to answer my question?
Your 'question' is, in fact, a chimera.
You ask how much foreign funds it will take to help the Iraqi people. Okay, I'll answer:
More foreign funds than domestic. You have failed to answer my question, reiterated by others, regarding why Hussein has rebuilt his palaces and military but not spent money on the welfare of his people. When he does that and then there is still suffering, you have a case. Until then you do not.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 09:23:31 [Permalink]
|
Your point is that I do not have a case as long as Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator which spends funds on things that he shouldn't? Yes? You didn't see the first post that started all this. The United States lets its own people starve to build up the military beyond any reasonable person's comprehension. Now. We've both agreed that's wrong.
Now, imagine most of this country had 40 days of bombing of bridges, power plants, water processing plants, sewage plants, hospitals, schools, etc.
Then add the fact that repairs were not allowed for years. Add the fact that the country that is attacking you played games with what you were allowed to have in such a way that billions of dollars of supplies were in limbo (blaming that all on the victims, by the way). Add to that the fact that a large percentage of the little money you did get had to be given away. Add to that the hositility of the region, and the untrustworthiness of the U.N. that's supposed to be protecting you. Add about a thousand other little details like that, and then tell me that it's the fault of the leadership of the country that's being attacked.
I will say it again. The country was practically carpet bombed for over 40 days. The economy was wrecked due to the structure of the sanctions. There were public works projects which attempted to rebuild some of that. Some of the 'palaces' that you heard about in State Department propaganda were those buildings. Should a country not have buildings in which to run its government? Some of the 'palaces' were empty shells built mostly with local cement and local labor paid for with Iraqi Dinars.
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.
quote:
My kids love me, but I kicked them out until they had better sense.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 09:55:05 [Permalink]
|
Former Asst. Sec'y General of the U.N. and former head of the implementation of the Oil-for-Food deal in Iraq: (also new to me is the idea that the sanctions are not "U.N" imposed. They are imposed by the member states of the Security Council, an interesting distinction that I hadn't thought about. Probably should have, but didn't.
http://www.wakefieldcam.freeserve.co.uk/denishallidayinterview.htm
Q. Genocide is a very strong word¡¡
A. I know. For many months I refused to use the word ¡®genocide¡¯ and was criticised for
not using it. The moment I did use it, in Paris in January 1999 at a press conference
with all the major media there, it was written up in La Monde and the Herald Tribune
among others, I was then criticised for using it. But you know what I say now is that
there is no other way to describe the death of 1, possibly 1.5 million people, to describe the death of thousand of kids each month, to describe the death of almost 600,000 children since 1990¡.what else is that but genocide? And it¡¯s not a passive thing, it¡¯s not neglect, it¡¯s an act of decision making process of the member states of the Security Council. They know what they¡¯re doing. And Madeleine Albright has been on CBS Television¡¯s "60 Minutes" programme (May 12th 1996] and has justified, in a sense, the killing of 500,000 children. She claims that it¡¯s necessary, justified, to contain Saddam Hussein, the same Saddam Hussein who was an ally of the USA and the UK and others, who was bankrolled and provided military capacity by these same countries, who was provided the ¡®Seed Stock¡¯ for biological weapons, provided by a company in Maryland and approved by the Pentagon and, I think, by the Treasury Department. This is the same Saddam Hussein, and now they can¡¯t talk to him. They are going to punish the
Iraqi people because they can¡¯t deal with this man. I mean, this is all to me unjustified and unacceptable.
Q. Do you believe that the policy of sanctions is not accidental, that it is deliberate?
A. I believe the member states are sustaining, particularly London and Washington, a programme of economic sanctions which they know is responsible for the death of thousands of people every month, is responsible for sustaining malnutrition, and is under-funded to the point where they can not rebuild production of oil, or electric
power, or meet the other basic human needs, such as water and sewage, and other
such aspects of civilian life.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2001 : 11:36:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Add to that the hositility of the region, and the untrustworthiness of the U.N. that's supposed to be protecting you.
Well, I am not a big U.N. fan so I can agree in general on that.
quote:
Add about a thousand other little details like that, and then tell me that it's the fault of the leadership of the country that's being attacked.
Okay, I won't tell you it's the fault of the country being attacked. I WILL tell you it's the fault of the country that attacked another, presents a threat to still others, refuses to comply with previously agreed upon terms, and holds its own people hostage in order to gain concessions and sympathy.
That being said, I do not claim it is as clearcut or simple as I just made it out to be, but it is closer to that than not. Let me refer you to one fairly even-handed site that talks some about Iraq in particular and lots about sanctions in general (they do not spare the U.S.):
http://www.webcom.com/peaceact/sanctions_solutions.html
(Man, if I actually get the link in here, then I'm gettin' GOOD!)
Here's a quotation from this site:
quote:
The Iraqi government has adopted a strategy for resisting the UN pressure that redirects the pain of sanctions onto the most vulnerable and allows its people to die as a means of generating sympathy for the lifting of sanctions. .... The UN has been put in an untenable situation. To offer an analogy with warfare, it is as if the opposing army has brought children to the front lines and allowed them to be massacred. 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?
I think this says it well.
Now let me be fair. I left out parts of the quotation that support your argument, so here they are:
quote:
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. Iraqi officials have opposed the oil for food program as intrusive and a violation of national sovereignty. They insist that the only proper humanitarian response is to lift sanctions and allow the country to repair its oil industry, resume trade, and rebuild its shattered economy and society. ... 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.
Here's the parent website for this stuff:
http://www.webcom.com/peaceact/sanctions_content.html
Much of Halliday's claims are countered at this site (indirectly so; they do not do a point-by-point; in fact, they have a Halliday interview on the site, without rebuttal).
quote:
Your point is that I do not have a case as long as Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator which spends funds on things that he shouldn't? Yes? You didn't see the first post that started all this.
I did see the first post and just re-read it, so I don't see the implication here.
My point is the same as Greg's from an earlier post: that the fact (in dispute) that the sanctions cause hardship (you say murder) does not remove Hussein's initial and greater responsibility for the hardship.
quote:
The United States lets its own people starve to build up the military beyond any reasonable person's comprehension. Now. We've both agreed that's wrong.
Hogwash. Balderdash. Pish tosh. Piffle. And double hogwash.
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. The indigent cannot be turned away from the emergency room (consequently, headaches, backaches, mild cases of the flue, etc., betcome 'emergencies' to many of the indigent). Programs to feed the hungry are numerous and large (and, yes, not nearly as efficient as they should be). And some people are still hungry and perhaps even starving. Find me any nation that has eliminated it.
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 are identical and therefore our current treatment must be the same. They're not, and it mustn't.
quote:
Now, imagine most of this country had 40 days of bombing of bridges, power plants, water processing plants, sewage plants, hospitals, schools, etc.
I'll imagine this when you imagine that it's the response to a brutal invasion of a non-aggressive neighbor. But I do thank you for not calling it 'carpet-bombing' this time, which we have not done.
quote:
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.
I don't think the U.S. has ever acted on orders from God, nor do I think most of our presidents (especially the early ones) thought so, either. I personally am an atheist.
Regard |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
