Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fatboy
I implied that it was questionable that more Iraqis and American soldiers died as a result of Bush's actions than as a result of Clinton's actions (or, more aptly, inaction). In order to arrive at the number of American soldiers who died as a result of Clinton, you would have to factor in the soldiers at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the soldiers who died in the Balkans (and, while we're at it, we should include all of the civilians killed by American bombs during that war into Clinton's tally), the soldiers who died on the USS Cole, and the soldiers who died in the Pentagon on 9.11. But, even after all of these American soldiers are tallied up, Bush probably has more dead on his hands. But not by much.
|
Make up the tally and prove your non-sense approach!
Kenya (19 dead) and Tanzania (258 dead) were terrorist attacks and so was the Cole (17 dead) however Bin Laden's group has declined responsibility. If you look at Al-Quaida’s track record, they have taken responsibility for all things they had done! By the way of the 254 dead people of the embassy bombings only 12 were Americans. 647 service members were killed thus far in Iraq alone. Please show me where 12+19+17=647... (links to numbers on bottom)
Please explain your math that you did and show me independent statistics on civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq for the last year!
Pentagon happened after Clinton was gone so that one is if at all only marginally to be taken into account, as it still happened und BUSH’s watch.
The Balkans is nowhere in this mix as it was a civil war not a terrorist attack and also not a war but maybe you want to familiarize yourself with the IFOR and SFOR rules and regulations and their purpose. It was also a UN peace keeping mission. This is definitely NOT what Afghanistan and Iraq are (sorry if I missed that the UN is supporting this US endeavor). It appears you can not distinguish between UN and US sanctioned action as well as you have no clue what a civil war is and what a war of invasion/aggression is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fatboy
The list of Iraqis killed as a result of Clinton's (and the UN's) appeasement of Saddam Hussein must begin with those who died as a result of the unnecessarily prolonged sanctions - conservative estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. The list would include those whom Hussein and his sons were able to kill, rape, and torture from the time it was obvious he wasn't cooperating until the time Clinton left office. How can we even estimate that number? Whatever it is, I think Clinton wins on sanctions alone.
|
Last I checked, the sanctions against Iraq started in 1990 (
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...n/indexone.htm) and until 1993 Bush Sr. was the president of this country. This is clearly not something you can hang on Clinton alone! It was something he inherited from Bush. Just like you want to hold Clinton liable for the 9/11 incident then hold Bush Sr. accountable for the sanctions would you (same rules for everyone)!
I also never disputed that Husseins rule was cruel and that he violated all kinds of human rights. Again though, with backing and or acceptance of the US.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fatboy
bin Laden the idea that he could drive a couple plane loads of civilians into some tall buildings. If you were concerned with civilian life you would stop trying to negotiate with terrorists.
|
a) Bin Laden succeeded which is way past the idea of it and the attacks were just a matter of time anyways just its method was a novelty.
b) I have never supported to negotiate with terrorists (show me a quote that I did)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fatboy
When I started proving to you that you're full of shit?
|
It is proven that the US has instigated several coup d'etats (if I have to dig up links I will), has bullied the world several times over and has supported dictators and accepted genocide when it suited its agenda (e.g. in Israel/Palestine or Iraq). You are the one that is full of crap denying that!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fatboy
Blah, blah, blah, blah. The same old anti-US bullshit. Everything's the fault of the US, Grisu. There's nothing we haven't fucked up. So just keep babbeling.
|
Anti US bullshit? Uhm... you must read some history once in a while (other than what is printed in American history books)!
Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battle field, the United States changed its less announced policy of backing Iraq to a clear direct support, supplying it with weapons and economic aid, and normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War).
But I guess it is hard to accept the truth!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...ole010111.html
Cole attack
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/newsf...anstrikes.html
Embassy bombings
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
Coalition Casualty list
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Civillian Body Count
"Although this list provides details for less than 7% of the 10,000 civilians reported killed during the same period (see
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm ), it is the closest so far to a truly comprehensive accounting and memorial for the civilian dead in Iraq. Among the 692 deaths listed there are 106 females, 421 males and 94 known to be under 18 years of age."