Job Discussion Forums

moonraven · Joined: 24 Mar 2004 Posts: 3094

Glad you're finished making a fool of yourself, Josh. Wish I could believe you....

Josh Lyman · Joined: 12 Oct 2004 Posts: 98

distiller · Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 249

AsiaTraveller · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:36 pm Post subject:

Actually, Mr Whitford, the sanctions were successful in their primary goal: disarming Iraq. All the verifying agencies confirmed that Iraq had destroyed its chemical, biological and nuclear-related weapons by 1998.

But the side-effects of the sanctions' bans on the importation of food, medicine, medical equipment, agricultural supplies and tools, and water-treatment supplies??? Mass death and a collapsed social and physical infrastructure for the entire country. This was the country that Dubya insisted was a major world threat.

*****
"American officials may quarrel with the numbers, but there is little doubt that at least several hundred thousand children who could reasonably have been expected to live died before their fifth birthdays. The damage, according to those who fought against sanctions, was terrible, medieval. It was, in the literal sense, unconscionable, since those who died had not themselves developed weapons of mass destruction or invaded Kuwait. Rather, they were the cannon fodder for Hussein's war and the victims of his repression.

Madeleine Albright was widely excoriated in 1996 for telling a television interviewer who asked her about the deaths of Iraqi children caused by sanctions, "This is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

She says now that she regrets the comment -- "It was a genuinely stupid thing to say" -- and in a recent interview seemed still to be struggling with the moral and strategic questions that underlie the sanctions debate. For Albright, the comprehensive regime of sanctions imposed on Iraq represented at best a tragic choice between unhappy alternatives -- a search for the lesser evil."

from http://www.casi.org.uk/info/reiff.html
*****

Oops... Moral relativity again...

moonraven · Joined: 24 Mar 2004 Posts: 3094

Hey, distiller, I didn't invent those conspiracy theories. More evidence trickles out daily that those of us who believe that 9/11 was another Reichstag Fire caper are right.

Incidentally, I don't see you putting forth any theories about ANYTHING. You are just trolling, apparently, as you have NOTHING to say.

As for absolutism, yes: I am absolutely right, and you are absolutely wrong. That's not new, either.

distiller · Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 249

raven,

I'm sorry you haven't read my posts carefully enough over the last few months about Bush and company. If you had, you would realize that I have said quite a bit about the state of the nation and the world at large. Once again you've resorted to condescending rather than addressing content.

As far as your tinfoilism is concerned, I am quite aware that those are not your theories but I would have hoped that you were sharp enough to process them and edit them enough so that they are not totally ridiculous and simply anti-American bile. My mistake.

I'm glad to see in your last two sentences there that you at least realize what an absolutely absurd character you have crafted yourself into on this forum.

Josh Lyman · Joined: 12 Oct 2004 Posts: 98

Who said I agreed with sanctions, or the way that they were administered AsiaTraveller? I wish people wouldn't attribute views to people that they never professed to have.

Hussein would have been released from sanctions eventually, and would have reconstituted his biological, chemical and long range ballistic missile arsenal quickly. Again, we are back to the three choices. My choice is regime change. Still you won�t say what yours is, but I can infer that it is just to leave him there and whine about the fact that the US government supports evil dictators.

moonraven · Joined: 24 Mar 2004 Posts: 3094

Josh,

It's not up to you, or to the US government, so opt for "regime changes" in other countries.

The only "regime change" that's critically necessary is that of the US--which I can promote since I am a US citizen.

When the dust finally settles in Ohio, it's very likely that there will be one--at least a partial one--one that still sucks up to multinational corporations but which is less overtly belligerent.

Josh Lyman · Joined: 12 Oct 2004 Posts: 98

AsiaTraveller · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:47 pm Post subject:

Josh Lyman · Joined: 12 Oct 2004 Posts: 98

moonraven · Joined: 24 Mar 2004 Posts: 3094

Oops, Josh: Not only did you lie about not bothering us with anymore infantile posts, I'm afraid I am going to have to evoke the end of Easy Rider here: You blew it!

Want to know how?

By your logic, Hussein lost his legitimacy when he invaded Kuwait. That means that Bush lost his legitimacy when he invaded Iraq. (Bush Padre suckered Hussein into invading Kuwait--who suckered Bush Junior ito invading Iraq?) I reiterate: Regime change needed in the US.

You go on to tell us that YOU want an autonomous, democratic Iraq. Iraq was and still should be a sovereign country, NOT an autonomous region of the US--like Tibet in regard to China! (Or like el Pais Vasco in regard to Spain.) Autonomous--what a choice of terms!

And why should anyone care what YOU want, anyway? You are not an Iraqui. It's absolutely none of your business what kind of governmental style Iraq chooses. You just don't get it....

AsiaTraveller · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:38 pm Post subject:

There you go.

Josh Lyman · Joined: 12 Oct 2004 Posts: 98