|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| go give us some stuff from Jeff Rense . You creepy fascist. |
Uhhh ... Joo- HOMINEM ...
How about you try to string a single sentence together sometime that doesn't contain multiple fallacies?  |
How about the fact that your conspriacy theories are always taken down and your only answer is to come up with another conspriacy theory.
By the way just about all your info is worthless and most of it is put together by dishonest people with motive to hurt the US.
Now go kick over grave stones you creepy bigot |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| go give us some stuff from Jeff Rense . You creepy fascist. |
Uhhh ... Joo- HOMINEM ...
How about you try to string a single sentence together sometime that doesn't contain multiple fallacies? |
How about the fact that your conspriacy theories are always taken down and your only answer is to come up with another conspriacy theory.
By the way just about all your info is worthless and most of it is put together by dishonest people with motive to hurt the US.
Now go kick over grave stones you creepy bigot |
Thanks for proving my point once again. Well done! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You are still are a fascist and the info you put up is not credible. In fact considering your sources there is good reason not to believe it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cerulean808
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JooRip you avoid facing the lie in the 1999 State Department release where they flat out deny withholding medical supplies.You lamely respond with a diversion;
| Quote: |
| well the US did cut it down to smart sancitons |
Which only further undermines your argument. You neglect to mention that 'smart' sanctions weren't even tabled until around 2001 , after a decade or so of sanctions had done the damage. The sudden pulling out of the hat of new and improved 'smart' sanctions as a solution is a clear acknowledgement that sanctions were wiping out the innocent and the enforcers were finally feeling the political heat enough to want to look like they were doing something about it. Ditto with the mid 90s FO program.
You then employ a Catch 22 type logic in a desperate attempt to exculpate sanctions; it doesn't matter that sanctions blocked crucial supplies because Saddam would have blocked them anyway. Even in that twisted logic you contradict yourself with a clear acknowledgment that sanctions blocked supplies.
Again JooRip you avoid addressing the exposed lies of the Western power elite. Do you have no comment to make about the irony of a Government department justifying withholding immunisation supplies because they could be used in a WMD program? While it previously defended giving the same regime components for chemical weapons production on grounds that one of them could be used for ball point pens?
Your cut and paste articles apart from being the usual guardians of power sources only prove that Saddam's regimes hold on power remained unaffected by sanctions while the general population got hammered. It is disingeneous to cite evidence of blackmarkets and smuggling as proving the claim Saddam could have supplied the country with what it needed so he deliberately deprived the population for his own ends.
UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, Hans von Sponeck:
| Quote: |
| The failure [in preventing chronic malnutrition in 22% of the Iraqi�s young children] is not one of internal distribution. During my tenure [at the United Nations as UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq], more than 90 per cent of oil-for-food goods by the government reached their intended destinations. UN reports have consistently confirmed this success rate � one beyond expectation, given the chaotic constraints of disintegrating infrastructure, erratic communications and electrical power, and arbitrary U.S. "holds" on $5-billion worth of contracts. |
Christian Aid:
| Quote: |
| ...In an authoritarian state which continued to hold most of the levers of control, much of the burden caused by the embargo fell on the civilian population....The immediate consequence of eight years of sanctions has been a dramatic fall in living standards, the collapse of the infrastructure, and a serious decline in the availability of public services. The longer-term damage to the fabric of society has yet to be assessed but economic disruption has already led to heightened levels of crime, corruption and violence. Competition for increasingly scarce resources has allowed the Iraqi state to use clan and sectarian rivalries to maintain its control, further fragmenting Iraqi society. |
And all you can do JooRip is throw a wild, groundless accusation that ' they're all dupes of Saddam' at these organisations and individuals who have decades of experience and expertise handling corrupt regimes. You are pathetic.
And the Sweeny hatchet job on Pilger you got there:
| Quote: |
| ...They damned the health ministry under Saddam as a corrupt and brutal instrument of state oppression. They said that many medicines had been held back in warehouses. The ministry was trying to make healthcare worse in Iraq, the goal being to blacken the name of UN sanctions, which Saddam detested as a brake on his power. The fewer drugs, the worse the equipment and the more dead babies, the better it was for the regime. Any Iraqi doctors who didn't toe the line were punished... |
Yet another blatant lie by your sources JooRip. The claim medical goods were held back sitting in warehouses at the regimes behest are false.
John Pilger:
| Quote: |
| The medicines which, says Hain, �lie in warehouses� are there because, as UN officials tirelessly explain, the World Health Organisation has instructed Iraq to maintain emergency buffer stocks and actually wants these increased. Because of the delays in New York, they say, supplies arrive erratically: for example, IV fluids frequently turn up ahead of equipment, without which they are useless. |
Sweeny is lying, he has no credibility.
JooRip:
| Quote: |
| I am not looking for your friendship |
Who mentioned anything about friendship? Something Freudian going on there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Which only further undermines your argument. You neglect to mention that 'smart' sanctions weren't even tabled until around 2001 , after a decade or so of sanctions had done the damage. The sudden pulling out of the hat of new and improved 'smart' sanctions as a solution is a clear acknowledgement that sanctions were wiping out the innocent and the enforcers were finally feeling the political heat enough to want to look like they were doing something about it. Ditto with the mid 90s FO program. |
Actually Saddam could have got the stuff , he just wasn't going to allow his people to be feed.
| Quote: |
| You then employ a Catch 22 type logic in a desperate attempt to exculpate sanctions; it doesn't matter that sanctions blocked crucial supplies because Saddam would have blocked them anyway. Even in that twisted logic you contradict yourself with a clear acknowledgment that sanctions blocked supplies. |
I don't know that they did. besides Saddam would not have allowed them to get through.
And of course Lots of stuff got in to Iraq.
| Quote: |
| Again JooRip you avoid addressing the exposed lies of the Western power elite. Do you have no comment to make about the irony of a Government department justifying withholding immunisation supplies because they could be used in a WMD program? While it previously defended giving the same regime components for chemical weapons production on grounds that one of them could be used for ball point pens? |
Western power elites? The terms of left wing America haters who support anyone who is against the US.
But it is probably ture that Saddam would have diverted lots of stuff to his military programs and WMD programs.
| Quote: |
| Your cut and paste articles apart from being the usual guardians of power sources only prove that Saddam's regimes hold on power remained unaffected by sanctions while the general population got hammered. It is disingeneous to cite evidence of blackmarkets and smuggling as proving the claim Saddam could have supplied the country with what it needed so he deliberately deprived the population for his own ends. |
the guardians of power. The terms of that violent radicals like Pilgier who support anyone who is against the US use
Besides keeping Saddam under control kept other nations from being attacked by Iraq,
And they switched to smart sanctions which Saddam and his buddies at the UN refused.
UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, Hans von Sponeck:
| Quote: |
| The failure [in preventing chronic malnutrition in 22% of the Iraqi�s young children] is not one of internal distribution. During my tenure [at the United Nations as UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq], more than 90 per cent of oil-for-food goods by the government reached their intended destinations. UN reports have consistently confirmed this success rate � one beyond expectation, given the chaotic constraints of disintegrating infrastructure, erratic communications and electrical power, and arbitrary U.S. "holds" on $5-billion worth of contracts. |
Christian Aid:
| Quote: |
| ...In an authoritarian state which continued to hold most of the levers of control, much of the burden caused by the embargo fell on the civilian population....The immediate consequence of eight years of sanctions has been a dramatic fall in living standards, the collapse of the infrastructure, and a serious decline in the availability of public services. The longer-term damage to the fabric of society has yet to be assessed but economic disruption has already led to heightened levels of crime, corruption and violence. Competition for increasingly scarce resources has allowed the Iraqi state to use clan and sectarian rivalries to maintain its control, further fragmenting Iraqi society. |
| Quote: |
| And all you can do JooRip is throw a wild, groundless accusation that ' they're all dupes of Saddam' at these organisations and individuals who have decades of experience and expertise handling corrupt regimes. You are pathetic. |
Of course they were dupes of Saddam , they were in Iraq Iraq is a police state and people saw what Sadam wanted them to see.
| Quote: |
| And the Sweeny hatchet job on Pilger you got there: |
| Quote: |
| ...They damned the health ministry under Saddam as a corrupt and brutal instrument of state oppression. They said that many medicines had been held back in warehouses. The ministry was trying to make healthcare worse in Iraq, the goal being to blacken the name of UN sanctions, which Saddam detested as a brake on his power. The fewer drugs, the worse the equipment and the more dead babies, the better it was for the regime. Any Iraqi doctors who didn't toe the line were punished... |
| Quote: |
| Yet another blatant lie by your sources JooRip. The claim medical goods were held back sitting in warehouses at the regimes behest are false. |
How you know?
John Pilger:
| Quote: |
| The medicines which, says Hain, �lie in warehouses� are there because, as UN officials tirelessly explain, the World Health Organisation has instructed Iraq to maintain emergency buffer stocks and actually wants these increased. Because of the delays in New York, they say, supplies arrive erratically: for example, IV fluids frequently turn up ahead of equipment, without which they are useless. |
Pilger is a liar and he distorts stuff. Why ought anyone believe him?
Sweeny is lying, he has no credibility.
Pilger is a liar and he has no credibility.
He will always side with anyone who is against the US.
| Quote: |
| Who mentioned anything about friendship? Something Freudian going on there... |
No just that your opinion or approval is not important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
LOS ANGELES - The headline in this Sunday's Albany Times Union was a sobering slap in the face to those armchair strategists breezily debating a new invasion of Iraq:
"Sanctions killing Iraq civilians, UN says 1 million -- half children under 5 -- have died for want of food and safe water."
The article was from the Gannett News Service, a wire that feeds a chain of 94 newspapers across the United States.
Coming as it did during a week in which plans concerning Iraq dominated political discussion, the news could not have been more timely. Too bad it was wrong.
Because Saddam Hussein's government blocks any real independent inquiry, no one really knows how many civilians have died as a direct result of United Nations sanctions, which were originally imposed 12 years ago this past Tuesday in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
But it is possible to declare, with some precision, that the UN has never said sanctions have killed 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five.
This may surprise readers of just about every newspaper in North America, who are long accustomed to letters to the editor and left-of-centre columnists claiming, in the words of the Hartford Courant's Susan Campbell on June 30, "According to UNICEF, a half-million children and toddlers have died since 1990 as a direct result of the sanctions."
That 500,000 number -- and its corollary, the 5,000 Iraqi children who are said to be dying from sanctions each month -- have proven to be remarkably resilient since first appearing on the scene in 1995. As Washington prepares for a war based on Baghdad's flouting of this very same sanctions regime (which was high on Osama Bin Laden's list of grievances aired after the Sept. 11 massacre), it's worth trying to figure out who is closer to the truth: critics, such as former UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator Denis Haliday, who characterize the policy as "genocide"; or supporters, such as The New Republic magazine, who argue that claims of the sanctions' terrible effects are false.
When people calculate child mortality among the under-fives in Iraq, the measuring unit is the gruesome euphemism of "excess deaths" -- the number of children who died "in excess" of what could be expected in "normal" times.
This immediately begs two questions that are seldom asked: What is "normal," and how can you assign specific responsibility for the excess deaths? (A list of candidates for the latter would include: sanctions, drought, hospital policy, breast-feeding education, destruction from the Iran-Iraq and Persian Gulf wars, Saddam's misgovernance, depressed oil prices, farm policy, overdependence on oil exports, differences in conditions between the autonomous north and the Saddam-controlled south, and so on.)
Saddam has not wasted any time on such interpretative nuance: Every death, "excess" or otherwise, is the embargo's fault. According to the Iraqi government, in the 10-year period from 1991-2001, UN policy has killed 670,000 children under five, and 1.6 million Iraqis overall (5,550 and 13,300 per month, respectively). Curiously, those numbers have grown over time (the alleged under-five death toll this June was 7,337), despite the introduction of the oil-for-food program, which has brought approximately US$20-billion of food and supplies into the country since 1997.
If the dictatorial Iraqi government itself can only come up with 670,000 under-five deaths in 10 years, how on earth did elite North American reporters get to a "half-million" as early as 1996? Through a comedy of error-filled science, activism and journalism.
In August, 1995, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) gave officials from the Iraqi Ministry of Health a questionnaire on child mortality, and asked them to conduct a survey in the capital city of Baghdad. On the basis of this five-day, 693-household, Iraq-controlled study, the FAO announced in November that "child mortality had increased nearly fivefold" since the era before sanctions. As embargo critic Richard Garfield, a public health specialist at Columbia University, noted in his own 1999 survey of under-five deaths, "The 1995 study's conclusions were subsequently withdrawn by the authors.... [Yet] their estimate of more than 500,000 excess child deaths due to the embargo is still often repeated by sanctions critics."
In March, 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) published its own report on the humanitarian crisis. It reprinted figures -- provided solely by the Iraqi Ministry of Health -- showing that a total of 186,000 children under the age of five died between 1990 and 1994 in the 15 Saddam-governed provinces. According to these government figures, the number of deaths jumped from 8,903 in 1990 to 52,905 in 1994.
Then, a New York-based advocacy outfit called the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) took a look at the Iraqi government's highest numbers and promptly tripled them. In May, 1996, CESR concluded "these mortality rates translate into a figure of over half a million excess child deaths as a result of sanctions."
That report might well have ended up in the dustbin of bad partisan mathematics had a CESR "fact-finding" tour of Iraq not been filmed by Lesley Stahl of CBS's 60 Minutes. Instead, in a May 12, 1996, broadcast that would later, ironically, win several journalism awards, Stahl threw CESR's bogus numbers at Madeleine Albright, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
"We have heard that a half million children have died," Stahl said. "I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?"
Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
It was the non-denial heard round the world. In the hands of sanctions opponents and U.S. foreign policy critics, it was portrayed as a confession of fact, even though neither Albright nor the U.S. government has ever admitted to such a ghastly number (nor had anybody aside from CESR and Stahl ever suggested such a thing as of May, 1996).
An interesting new perspective on Stahl's reporting emerged earlier this year when a former 60 Minutes producer colleague of hers, Maurice Murad, wrote in the new book Into the Buzzsaw about trying to track down the sanctions-deaths story in late 1995. Murad, whose parents were born and raised in Baghdad, travelled to his ancestral home to see how sanctions were "killing my people."
Instead, after weeks of visiting various cities and literally begging the government and everyone he met to show him starving people, Murad concluded "there was no food crisis in Iraq." He prepared a "detailed rendering of what was wrong with all the other stories" about sanctions, and left it at that. "The last thing I wanted to do was get into a pissing match with broadcasts in my own news division. Even now I am loath to do it because most of the people involved are first-rate journalists who seldom get snookered. And anyway, they know who they are."
Albright's inhumane response actually helped motivate the nascent anti-sanctions campaign, which began gathering steam in 1997 and 1998. The new movement internalized the two main numbers -- the 500,000 under-five deaths from 60 Minutes and the 5,000-dead-children-a-month from the Iraqi government -- and regurgitated them in college dailies, liberal journals of opinion and on the letters pages of daily newspapers. Ironically, this happened just after Saddam finally agreed to the UN's six-year-old proposal to permit oil exports in exchange for humanitarian products and oil-equipment supplies.
But before anyone thought to recalculate the numbers, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) seemed to confirm them. In 1999, UNICEF released a pair of studies -- one on the autonomous north, the other on the Saddam-controlled south -- that concluded, after interviewing 40,000 households: "If the substantial reduction in the under-five mortality rate during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under five in the country as a whole during the eight-year period 1991 to 1998."
But the "substantial reduction" was historic; if the rate had merely held firm at 1989 levels, the number of "excess deaths" would have been 420,000. And there is a huge gap between UNICEF's "if" and the Gannett article's claim that the agency (along with the WHO) had attributed "1 million deaths, half of which are children younger than five," to "the ongoing collateral damage of the war and sanctions on Iraqi civilians."
In November of last year, after sanctions critics and journalists responded to Sept. 11 with misquotations in dozens of major publications, UNICEF felt compelled to send out a corrective press release. The surveys, UNICEF reiterated, were never intended to produce an "absolute figure" of deaths, and the half-million number was based on false assumptions: "In other words, if there hadn't been two wars, if sanctions hadn't been introduced and if investment in social services had been maintained -- there would have been 500,000 fewer deaths of children under five."
The UNICEF studies also produced fodder for the pro-sanctions crowd: namely, that child mortality actually decreased in the no-fly-zone north (from 80 per 1,000 in 1984-89 to 71 in 1994-9 while more than doubling in Saddam's south (from 56 per 1,000 to 131).
When the report was released, UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy attributed this discrepancy to "the large amount of international aid pumped into northern Iraq at the end of the [Persian Gulf] war." Increased mortality in the south, UNICEF concluded, was due to several factors including a dramatic decrease in the breast-feeding of infants in favour of bottle-only feeding. "It's very important not to just say that everything rests on sanctions," Bellamy said in one interview. "It is also the result of wars and the reduction in investment in resources for primary health care."
From the standpoint of on-the-ground research, the UNICEF report is by far the best we have. For interpretation of the scores of other studies, I have been impressed with the aforementioned Richard Garfield, whose major work (available at www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/garfield/dr-garfield.html) picked apart others' methodologies and freely admitted which of his data points were weakest.
Garfield's conclusion: Between August, 1991, and March, 1998, there were between 106,000 and 227,000 excess deaths of children under five. Recently, he has estimated the latter, less conservative number at 500,000 plus between 1990 and 2002.
The chief causes? "Contaminated water, lack of high-quality foods, inadequate breast-feeding, poor weaning practices and inadequate supplies in the curative health care system. This was the product of both a lack of some essential goods, and inadequate or inefficient use of existing essential goods."
And, of course, sanctions. "Even a small number of documentable excess deaths is an expression of a humanitarian disaster, and this number is not small," he concluded.
Garfield believes that during the last few years of oil-for-food, most of the blame for poor child mortality figures can be laid on the government of Iraq. And he also believes that if the country is bombed heavily, "it will be a terrible blow."
Which brings us back to the current debate, or lack thereof. After Sept. 11, when people (mostly from the political left) brought up Iraq, it was frequently to suggest that the sanctions-influenced humanitarian crisis may be contributing to the wellspring of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. Last week, in two full days of hearings in the U.S. Senate, the subject of humanitarian effects barely came up.
The centre of the discussion has shifted from the concept of "smart sanctions" to the doctrine of "anticipatory self-defence." With the focus on plotting "regime change" and guessing about weapons programs, sorting through disputed mortality statistics is just not a priority.
The United States is in an expansive, pre-emptive mood. Awkward diplomatic arrangements -- such as the country's bizarre "friendship" with terrorist-producing Saudi Arabia -- feel vulnerable to restless public opinion and the alliance-shifting War on Terror. Punitive sanctions without weapons inspections will no longer do. As the embargo turns 12, only one bet seems safe: It won't see 13. � Copyright 2002 National Post |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/731556/posts
One more thing
Hans von Sponeck
| Quote: |
| medicine necessary to prevent millions of easily preventable deaths. Former program heads such as Hans von Sponeck questioned whether the sanctions should exist at all. Von Sponeck, speaking in Berkeley in late 2001, decried the proposed "Smart Sanctions", stating "What is proposed at this point in fact amounts to a tightening of the rope around the neck of the average Iraqi citizen"; claimed that the sanctions were causing the death of 150 Iraqi children per day; and accused the US and Britain of arrogance toward Iraq, such as refusing to let it pay its UN and OPEC dues and blocking Iraqi attempts at negotiation |
| Quote: |
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Published on Sunday, June 17, 2001 by Reuters
Ex-U.N. Officials Attack U.S.-British Plan on Iraq
by Hassan Hafidh
BAGHDAD - Two former U.N. officials Sunday condemned a U.S.-British proposal to revamp 11-year-old U.N. sanctions on Baghdad as a move which amounted to increased punishment for the Iraqi people.
Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, who have both headed the U.N. humanitarian program or oil-for-food deal, told reporters the proposed ``smart'' sanctions were designed to extend an embargo imposed on Iraq for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Former top U.N. official Hans von Sponeck speaks during a news conference in Baghdad Sunday, June 17, 2001. Sponeck along with former U.N. officer Dennis Halliday called Sunday on an end to sanctions against Iraq, calling them "genocidal" and "a crime against humanity." Portrait of President Saddam Hussein is seen in the background. (AP Photo/Jassim Mohammed)
``They (smart sanctions) are intended to create an open-ended opportunity to sustain an embargo,'' said Halliday, who quit as head of the oil-for-food program in 1998 and has since been a vocal critic of the sanctions.
``We have very carefully studied the draft resolution. We find it a provocation and an intensified punishment of a people for a crime they have never committed,'' said von Sponeck, a German career U.N. official. He resigned from the same post last year, criticizing the sanctions' effects on ordinary Iraqis.
The U.N. Security Council is debating an Anglo-American draft resolution that would ease sanctions on civilian imports to Iraq and tighten the ban on military goods.
DEADLINE APPROACHES
The council is working toward a self-imposed deadline of July 3 to adopt the new resolution. Russia, Iraq's closest ally in the Security Council, has signaled its objections.
The resolution also seeks to stop smuggling, worth about $1 billion a year, and have the monies paid to a separate account rather than to Baghdad directly.
``If the Americans and the British were able to close down (Iraq's) borders with Turkey, Syria and Jordan, that will deny Iraq a source of hard currency outside the so-called oil-for- food program. And it is that extra money which is being used to begin the process of getting people back to work,'' Halliday said.
Iraq sells oil to neighboring Jordan, Syria and Turkey outside the oil-for-food deal, providing funds directly to Baghdad. Iraqi sales under the oil pact go to a U.N. escrow account to pay for food, medicine and other humanitarian needs.
Baghdad fears the new proposals would solidify rather than ease the sanctions. It cut off oil supplies on June 4 in protest and threatened to stop selling oil to its neighbors if they cooperated with the new plan.
In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on June 14, Jordan appealed to the Security Council to drop plans to overhaul sanctions, saying its economy would be devastated if trade was halted. Iraqi media said Syria had also voiced its concern over the new resolution in a letter to Annan.
Turkey last week sent its foreign ministry under-secretary to Baghdad, where he was told by Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz that Ankara would suffer severe consequences if it implemented the new resolution.
Halliday and von Sponeck accused Washington and London of misleading public opinion by saying the new proposals would ease the plight of the Iraqi people.
``We see headlines in the media in London saying 'sanctions have been lifted on Iraq' but this, of course, is simply not true,'' Halliday said.
Both former U.N. officials are touring countries lobbying for an end to the sanctions.
``Only a full lifting of economic sanctions will let Iraqis have a chance to live a normal life again,'' von Sponeck said.
|
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0617-03.htm
These guys wanted to let Saddam Hussein go free as if he wasn't going to go right back to business.
Wait till Russia started selling Saddam more tanks and jet aircraft. Maybe even a nuclear reactor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One comment, 3 clear fallacies.
Nice work.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| You are still are a fascist .... |
AD HOMINEM.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| and the info you put up is not credible. |
POISONING THE WELL.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| In fact considering your sources there is good reason not to believe it. |
GENETIC FALLACY.
Now, where were we? Oh yes ...
SCHOOL OF AMERIKAS' FACT SHEET:
http://www.soawne.org/SOAFacts.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
One comment, 3 clear fallacies.
Nice work.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| You are still are a fascist .... |
AD HOMINEM.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| and the info you put up is not credible. |
POISONING THE WELL.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| In fact considering your sources there is good reason not to believe it. |
GENETIC FALLACY.
Now, where were we? Oh yes ...
SCHOOL OF AMERIKAS' FACT SHEET:
http://www.soawne.org/SOAFacts.html |
What you would be saying would make sense expect for that you are not someone looking for answers or trying to investigate things your are about misinforming people for your political and social agenda. So there is no fallacy . You are not credible and your sources are worthless. In fact if you put something up that is a reason not to believe it it.
You and your kind are not coming back.
But there is something good about you posting . I don't have to spend anytime showing that your kind is out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The author is John Pilger. He is a radical.
Here is his picture.
John Pilger is a supporter of the insurgents and wants the US to be defeated in Iraq.
John Pilger is not anti war- he is pro war, by anyone who is against the US.
Dishonest anti war movement. |
Joo-Hominem ...
Rather than "ATTACKING the man", why not try picking apart what he's putting forward? Y'know like rebutting, or trying to convince readers the points he raises are utter nonsense etc ... ?
Thanks for the ABC article btw. Makes for a really decent read. |
He is not only left wing he is far left wing.
Since John Pilger has an agenda why ought people just accept his opinion?
What makes that creep a reliable source?
I got'em. |
A "reliable" article from Joo's buddies ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger
Breaking the Silence:
http://100777.com.nyud.net:8090/media/cache/jp-bts.wmv
People of course can decide for themselves what they think of Pilger & his work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
He has been subjected to much criticism, with Auberon Waugh in Britain coining the verb 'to pilger' to denote 'to present information in a sensationist manner to reach a foregone conclusion'.
The verb was also added to the 1991 edition of Oxford English Dictionary of New Words ([1]), but revoked in 1994 following complaints by Pilger. It has been claimed that Pilger's writings have rarely been subjected to detailed critiques.[citation needed]
Noam Chomsky has claimed that the reason why right-wing commentators have invented verbs such as 'to pilger' and 'pilgerize' is because, when faced with the uncomfortable facts about the consequences of U.S foreign policy which Pilger presents, 'ridicule' is the only response they are capable of. |
How I chuckled! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The author is John Pilger. He is a radical.
Here is his picture.
John Pilger is a supporter of the insurgents and wants the US to be defeated in Iraq.
John Pilger is not anti war- he is pro war, by anyone who is against the US.
Dishonest anti war movement. |
Joo-Hominem ...
Rather than "ATTACKING the man", why not try picking apart what he's putting forward? Y'know like rebutting, or trying to convince readers the points he raises are utter nonsense etc ... ?
Thanks for the ABC article btw. Makes for a really decent read. |
He is not only left wing he is far left wing.
Since John Pilger has an agenda why ought people just accept his opinion?
What makes that creep a reliable source?
I got'em. |
A "reliable" article from Joo's buddies ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger
Breaking the Silence:
http://100777.com.nyud.net:8090/media/cache/jp-bts.wmv
People of course can decide for themselves what they think of Pilger & his work. |
Yes and Pilger supports the Insurgents like he supports and has supported anyone who is against the US anytime
Wikipedia is not my buddy but they are a lot better than your slime bad source
| Quote: |
Noam Chomsky has claimed that the reason why right-wing commentators have invented verbs such as 'to pilger' and 'pilgerize' is because, when faced with the uncomfortable facts about the consequences of U.S foreign policy which Pilger presents, 'ridicule' is the only response they are capable of.
How I chuckled! |
that is not what I did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: Death Squad Crackdown 'Top Priority' For U.S. |
|
|
Death Squad Crackdown 'Top Priority' For U.S.
Prime minister al-Maliki heads to Washington for talks with Bush
Monday, July 24, 2006; Posted: 8:35 p.m. EDT (00:35 GMT)
A wounded Iraqi waits for treatment Monday at a hospital in Samarra.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. commanders in Baghdad are focused on "cracking down" on "Iraqi death squads" responsible for killing hundreds of citizens in the capital in recent months, a military spokesman said Monday.
Most death squad killings appear to be sectarian, with Sunni Muslim gunmen targeting Shia neighborhoods, and Shiite attackers going after Sunnis. Victims are sometimes abducted by the dozens, their bodies often turning up later with signs of torture.
On Monday, three bodies were recovered across Baghdad. All had been shot in the head and showed signs of being brutalized.
Sunni leaders have accused Iraq's Shiite-dominated government of allowing gunmen from Shiite militias to infiltrate Iraq's police force, but U.S. troops have not found a "larger organization" behind the killings, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said 
"It appears it's very extremist elements from both sides out there operating, using murder and assassination as their means by which to further personal goals that they're trying to achieve," he said.
The latest push is "a top priority" of Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, Caldwell told reporters.
"It makes absolutely no difference what their religious sect is, what organizations they may claim to belong to. All we care about are those -- when we talk about death squads -- that are out conducting murders and assassinations."
The February bombing of the Askariya Mosque, a major Shiite Muslim shrine, in Samarra set off wave of communal violence that has pushed Iraq to the brink of civil war.
Last week, at least 200 Iraqis were reported to be killed across the country. The United Nations estimates that at least 14,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first half of 2006.
The increased attention on securing Baghdad came as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki headed to Washington for talks with President Bush on Tuesday. Al-Maliki's two-day visit to Washington comes on the heels of a stop in London, where he met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Snow declined Monday to give what he called "report cards" on Iraq's conditions since Bush's visit to Baghdad in June.
However, Snow acknowledged, "I think we realize that you've got some real work ahead in securing Baghdad," he said.
In a sign of progress, Iraqis were taking control of the southern province of Muthanna, near the Kuwaiti border, Snow said. "And there are several other provinces that are going to be under Iraqi control, they think, relatively soon," he added.
Meanwhile, in northern and western Iraq, U.S. troops continue to battle a persistent insurgency led mostly by Sunnis. Two American soldiers were reported dead in western Iraq's sprawling Anbar province Monday, bringing the U.S. death toll since the invasion of Iraq to 2,566.
Attacks persist against civilians
A string of three roadside bomb attacks in Baghdad killed one person and wounded six Monday morning, including two police and two Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi Emergency Police said.
Later, four mortars wounded eight civilians in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dora, police said.
In Taji, 20 miles north of Baghdad, armed men gunned down three Sunni Arabs, police said.
In Samarra, 100 kilometers north of the capital, a car bomb killed two civilians and wounded 17, including seven policemen, Reuters reported, quoting medical sources. The bomb was targeting a police patrol, the sources added.
Hussein hospitalized
As his trial resumed Monday, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was being treated in a hospital for the effects of his hunger strike, the chief prosecutor said.
Hussein was receiving "nutrition" through a feeding tube and was being monitored, the U.S. military said. He is continuing his hunger strike and his life is not in danger, said U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry.
Hussein's defense attorney has questioned whether the hunger strike was the real cause of the hospitalization, saying his client appeared to be in "very, very good health" Saturday.
Inside the court, Hussein's half-brother and former intelligence chief, Barzan Hassan, has asked Chief Judge Abdel Rahman for time to find new attorneys, since his private lawyers have boycotted the proceedings.
Like Hussein, Hassan also faces charges related to the killings of more than 140 people in the town of Dujail in 1982 after a failed assassination attempt against Hussein.
Rahman said Hassan's request seemed fine, but also blamed Hassan's lawyers, saying, "Your lawyers attended previous sessions. Their decision to not attend is for TV and publicity."
A court-appointed lawyer began closing arguments.
CNN's Jomana Karadsheh contributed to this report.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/24/iraq.main/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
