3
   

Who Lost Iraq?

 
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 10:54 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
...yeah right, it would be the same as 'talking to a rabid dog' & they hated us before we invaded, 911 proved that.


This is why :

Quote:
In 15 Years (1991-2006), the US has caused/contributed to 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths

Persian Gulf War: 150,000
Gulf War Aftermath: Many thousands
UN Sanctions: Primary cause of 600,000 deaths
Iraq War: 250,000

Important: Whether or not you believe that US foreign policy caused/contributed to all of these deaths - the death toll is a valid, conservative estimate of Iraqi deaths in the past 15 years in excess of what would have been expected if there had been peace. PLEASE TELL PEOPLE THIS NUMBER -- maybe it is big enough to shock the American public awake and cause them to realize the true devastation in Iraq:1,000,000

The Persian Gulf War did not have to happen: Hussein did not invade Kuwait until after he had received an assurance from April Gillespie that the "US had no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts." Even if he had invaded, alternatives to war were available. link

The Gulf War Aftermath Encouraged by American radio broadcasts to rise up against their 'dictator', the Kurds of northern Iraq rebelled against a nominally defeated and certainly weakened Saddam Hussein in March of 1991. Fear of being drawn into an Iraqi civil war and possible diplomatic repercussions precluded President Bush from committing US forces to support the Kurds. Within days Iraqi forces recovered and launched a ruthless counteroffensive including napalm and chemical attacks from helicopters. They quickly reclaimed lost territory and crushed the rebellion. By the first week of April, 800 to 1,000 people, mostly the very young and the very old, were dying each day. link Al Franken has said that many 100,000's of Kurds and Shia were slaughtered, but I do not have a printed source.

UN (US/UK Sanctions) The United Nations Security Council has maintained comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq from August 1990 until March 2003. Sanctions in Iraq hurt large numbers of innocent civilians not only by limiting the availability of food and medicines, but also by disrupting the whole economy, and reducing the national capacity of water treatment, electrical systems and other infrastructure critical for health and life. The oil-for-food program provided an average of $200 per year for each of 23,000,000 Iraqis - well below the international poverty level. In the UN Security Council, countries urged the US and UK to allow the sanctions to be lifted, but the US/UK would not allow this. link link

Iraq War A Johns Hopkins University study published in the British medical journal The Lancet in October, 2004. // The figure of 100,000 had been based on somewhat "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, U.S., who led the study. That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the compiled studies point to about 250,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of the U.S.-led war. // Eman Ahmad Khamas.... said: "This occupation has destroyed Iraq. Americans don't know that tens of thousands of Iraqis are in prisons. Americans don't know how many have been killed. Lancet reported 100,000 in 2004, not counting Falluja. Now it is something like double this number." link link

Source
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 11:01 am
Cycloptichorn says to the wind,

Quote:
A rose by any other name... still stinks


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 11:19 am
Monte Cargo wrote:
I think your point was something like "Impeach Bush for his illegal war."


You are confusing thought with a strong desire to demonize someone you have cast as your opponent. Even a passing familiarity with my posts in political threads would have taught you that not only have i never supported the notion of impeachment, but have consistently said that it would not happen, and that it would be a bad idea for the Democrats to pursue it now that they've won the mid-term elections. Therefore, basically, you have created a strawman with which to pursue the idiocy which follows.

Quote:
I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you probably voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.


You are out on a limb. I never voted for Clinton.

Quote:
Remember that little thing called Bosnia? Well then? Perhaps another string of profanity laced explicatives will accompany your explanation of the Constitution and that little conflict.


I don't know what you think the constitution has to do with a war in which the United States did not participate, other than as a member state of NATO. You are probably confused (a condition which your posts suggest is common for you) because the North Atlantic Treaty Organization responded to attacks on the United Nations Protection Force by launching Operation Deliberate Force, in which units of the United States Air Force participated. However, that Congress acquiesced in American participation in the Bosnian mission of NATO can be seen can be seen in this trascript of the April, 1995, Congressional Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is found at Global Security-dot-org's library of Congressional documents.

Quote:
Harry S. Truman, another democrat, led U.S. forces into the Korean conflict in the 1950s. Ooh. No Congressional declaration of war...You can't impeach him, because he was a democrat, and worse, you can't impeach him for Truman's illegal war because Truman is dead.


This is hilariously ironic, given that flannel-mouthed commie hunters like Tailgunner Joe McCarthy condemned Truman for being soft on communism. It is also a strawman, in that i have never advocated impeachment of the Shrub. Finally, it shows the depth of your confusion, in that i have pointed out to the Madam of the Lone Star Whorehouse that the Shrub obtained a Congressional resolution before invading Iraq, and my argument with the Lone Star Whorehouse's Madam has been over her idiotic contention that Congress ceded its war making powers to the Presidency since the end of the Second World War--a statement without foundation, and for which neither she nor you have provided any evidence.

Quote:
Anyone with a modicum of understanding of U.S. history can find many examples of presidents leading troops into action without first obtaining the blessing of Congress (or the United Nations).


That in no way authorizes a contention that Congress ceded its war-making powers to the Presidency after the Second World War, a claim which the Lone Star Whorehouse's Madam has made, and which neither she nor you have been able to substantiate.

Quote:
The leftist point of view is that the executive branch should be the weakest of the three branches with the judiciary the strongest, especially when a republican is in office.


This looks very much like another strawman, since you write of leftists with contempt, and it seems very likely that it is most convenient for you to characterize leftists in a manner which will make it easy for you to destroy the point of view which you attribute to them--the classic example of a strawman.

However, since i am not a "leftist," i really couldn't say for sure, and don't in fact care. My point is that the Lone Star Whorehouse's Madam claimed that Congress has ceded its war making powers to the Presidency since the Second World War, but has provided no evidence that this is the case. Neither have you.

Quote:
I submit, with some confidence, that LoneStar isn't the poster in the most danger of being taken for, now how did you put it?...a loud mouth bullshit artist.


That's a good point, now that you've posted and shown your pre-eminent qualifications for the honor.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 11:26 am
McTag wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Remaining backswoodsman? What makes you think they'll go back? The trailer trash from Arkansas didn't go back, they swindeled the US taxpayer out of funds to make their house payment in NY, now one of them is the senator from NY. lol


It's astonishing how often an attack on Bush and his supporters, even from a foreigner like me, is countered by a diatribe against the Clintons.

Illogical of course; but the well of hatred seems to be bottomless and inexhaustible.


This seems to apply as well to Monte Cargo, who may well be the most recent incarnation of Italgato/Massagato/Chiczaria/Mortkat/BernardR/MarionT/Renatus5 (and whatever the hell other aliases that clown has used. He/she/it was quick to attempt to drag Clinton in by a reference to Bosnia. He/she/it then proceeded to Truman (talk about digging up the past!)--suggesting that he/she/it considers me to be a member of the Democratic Party, and hopes to get a shot home in that manner.

The thread, of course, is about the war in Iraq. That is something which i suspect Monte Cargo is less willing to discuss. At any even, we can only hope he/she/it doesn't feel the need to post long screeds three times in a row on each of those rare occasions upon which a thought briefly flares before dying in the cold emptiness of his/her/its brain.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 11:33 am
don't believe him... Setanta is most certainly a leftist.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 11:35 am
With regard to Italgato/Massagato/Chiczaria/Mortkat/BernardR/MarionT/Renatus5

I've already had a PM which suggested that the Madam of the Lone Star Whorehouse is the latest incarnation, and that Monte Cargo may well be yet another. I hadn't yet decided that about the Madam, but as soon as i saw Monte Cargo, the thought occured to me.

What do you think folks.

Is it Lone Star Madam?

Is it Monte Cargo?

Is it both?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 11:36 am
McGentrix wrote:
don't believe him... Setanta is most certainly a leftist.


That's hilarious--ask eBeth what she thinks about that proposition.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 11:46 am
Setanta wrote:
With regard to Italgato/Massagato/Chiczaria/Mortkat/BernardR/MarionT/Renatus5

I've already had a PM which suggested that the Madam of the Lone Star Whorehouse is the latest incarnation, and that Monte Cargo may well be yet another. I hadn't yet decided that about the Madam, but as soon as i saw Monte Cargo, the thought occured to me.

What do you think folks.

Is it Lone Star Madam?

Is it Monte Cargo?

Is it both?


I think it is Lone Star Madam. It isn't the style to come in with guns blazing...

Even better would be... they both are!

We should have some IP logging here, hehee

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 11:57 am
I'm surprised, Cyclo. The use of emoticons and online jargon such as "lol" threw me off the scent when it came to the Madam of the Lone Star Whorehouse. Of course, Massagato might have grown a brain cell, and decided to make a rudimentary attempt to hide its identity.

However, when i saw the by-play between the Madam and Monte Cargo, i did immediately become suspicious.

I'm gonna vote for both.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 01:15 pm
Hey, you guys that believe that I am a reincarnation of some past poster, report me. Of course when it's known that I am not a reincarnation of anybody that has ever posted here, you'll owe me an apology.
What's the matter, can't debate so personal attacks are in order? lmao
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 01:16 pm
I think no, not Lone Star Madam, possibly the other.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 01:57 pm
McGentrix wrote:
don't believe him... Setanta is most certainly a leftist.[/quote
Some in my family are "leftists", however, they have the good sense to realize that not all people think alike, they also have the good graces to not make personal attacks on those that disagree with them.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 02:00 pm
We can debate you without any problem at all, LSM--just as soon as you provide the evidence for your outrageous claim that Congress ceded its war-making powers after the Second World War.

Of course, you could just admit that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, that you have no evidence, and then no debate would be necessary either.

If you want to debate that claim of yours, provide some evidence so support the claim, and we can go from there.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 02:03 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Setanta wrote:
With regard to Italgato/Massagato/Chiczaria/Mortkat/BernardR/MarionT/Renatus5

I've already had a PM which suggested that the Madam of the Lone Star Whorehouse is the latest incarnation, and that Monte Cargo may well be yet another. I hadn't yet decided that about the Madam, but as soon as i saw Monte Cargo, the thought occured to me.

What do you think folks.

Is it Lone Star Madam?

Is it Monte Cargo?

Is it both?


I think it is Lone Star Madam. It isn't the style to come in with guns blazing...

Even better would be... they both are!

We should have some IP logging here, hehee

Cycloptichorn


IP check away, or as I said before, report me if you believe that I am an imposter, or a reincarnation.
It's funny really, an old woman has some folks knickers in a knot trying to figure out who she is, why is that? hehee
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 02:06 pm
Setanta wrote:
With regard to Italgato/Massagato/Chiczaria/Mortkat/BernardR/MarionT/Renatus5

I've already had a PM which suggested that the Madam of the Lone Star Whorehouse is the latest incarnation, and that Monte Cargo may well be yet another. I hadn't yet decided that about the Madam, but as soon as i saw Monte Cargo, the thought occured to me.

What do you think folks.

Is it Lone Star Madam?

Is it Monte Cargo?

Is it both?

Possumette R FartBubble? nah, but the thought just makes me giggle.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 02:06 pm
'Old women' don't say things like LMAO for the most part, troll.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 02:20 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
'Old women' don't say things like LMAO for the most part, troll.

Cycloptichorn


No, I think she's female and genuine, kind of woolly, in a Daughters of the American Revolution kind of way.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 02:21 pm
McTag wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
'Old women' don't say things like LMAO for the most part, troll.

Cycloptichorn


No, I think she's female and genuine, kind of woolly, in a Daughters of the American Revolution kind of way.


Sure drops internet terminology left and right for an old, woolly lady. Doesn't match up.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 02:23 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
McTag wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Remaining backswoodsman? What makes you think they'll go back? The trailer trash from Arkansas didn't go back, they swindeled the US taxpayer out of funds to make their house payment in NY, now one of them is the senator from NY. lol


It's astonishing how often an attack on Bush and his supporters, even from a foreigner like me, is countered by a diatribe against the Clintons.

Illogical of course; but the well of hatred seems to be bottomless and inexhaustible.


What? You don't appreciate history in your country? If you have a sleaze bag for a "leader" you just sweep him/her under the rug & pretend he/she doesn't exist?
Now, to make this simple for you, I used the Clintons (funny you recognized them from my discription of "trailer trash" lol ) as a way of saying they don't always go back home.
I lived in your wonderful country for 10+ years. I got there in the year of "Englands winter of discontent" when you had your own bad boy , Jimmy Callahan, & he was knighted for his ineptness. Then Maggie came in & you guys had several years of decent gov't. See what remembering the good, the bad, & the ugly can do. Maybe you should look back at some of Englands follys too. Rolling Eyes


We'd have to discuss Jim Callaghan elsewhere.

I can't decide whether this is a shoal of red herrings or a field of straw men.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Nov, 2006 02:34 pm
It's a bit much when a debate about a subject like this degenerates into a petty squabble.

It's as if Iraq is just something you amuse yourselves with when you feel like it.

Isn't ceding the powers of war to the President not de-facto. President Johnson seemed to think so according to what I read. And I read Mr Kissinger's tome and Congress were noisies-off.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Who Lost Iraq?
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 01:01:36