BUSH ADMINISTRATION CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH - Page 5 - Video Games Forum

fatboy · #41 (**permalink**) 04-08-2004, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phunkie

Technically this is not quite the same as waging a war.

So, you're saying that the US unilaterally declared and waged war on Iraq and it alone chose the targets in the first Gulf War? I mean, I have to make that assumption when you write:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phunkie

United States' deliberate destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure during the first Gulf War

(emphasis mine)

Had you been truthful, or at least informed, you would've removed the "United States'" part or substituted "United Nations'".

Quote:

Simply put, sanctions -- with epidemic and famine -- were there to force "regime change.""

And this was solely the intention of the US, not the UN?

Quote:

Things are sure going great now that the US have set the mistakes made by the UN straight (more of that good ole sarcasm ;) )

So, you believe things are worse for Iraqis now?

Quote:

But there will also be new unrest

Did I ever write anything that would cause you to infer that I believe any place is a Utopia?

Quote:

I just wanted to be sure before I call half of the population of the USA evil. Since Bush turned out to be one evil sob for the whole world and since Bush supporters passively accept the things he's doing they must also be evil, right?

Certainly.

The point I was trying to make with the quote was that standing idly by while threats present themselves is as bad as committing the crime you were threatened with. I guess you disagree.

Grisu · #42 (**permalink**) 04-08-2004, 03:16 PM

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."

Phunkie · #43 (**permalink**) 04-08-2004, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatboy

So, you're saying that the US unilaterally declared and waged war on Iraq and it alone chose the targets in the first Gulf War? I mean, I have to make that assumption when you write: United States' deliberate destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure during the first Gulf War

I'm surprised I have to repeat myself to you, but here I go:
I was just saying that passing a resolution is not the exact same thing as waging a war. I was not talking about who started the war. I never claimed that the US unilaterally started the war. And as I urged you in the previous post, please read the post I wrote before that. The sentence you're commenting is a straight quote from the article, that's why it was in quotes, and that's why I provided the link to the original article. So feel free to make any assumptions you wish, but don't claim my posts are the reason for those assumptions. Sheesh....

Quote:

Had you been truthful, or at least informed, you would've removed the "United States'" part or substituted "United Nations'".

Again, I quoted the article. And even though the coalition forces acted under the UN mandate, do you believe the UN was in total control of the actual military operations?

Quote:

And this was solely the intention of the US, not the UN?

Again, it is the writer of the article who's responsible for this text. Of course the UN wanted the regime to change too, I never claimed otherwise. I'm repeating myself again here, but I was talking about the starvation and post war deaths you brought up. And these were also effected by the destruction of the infrastructure in addition to the other reasons.

Quote:

So, you believe things are worse for Iraqis now?

Hard to say since I haven't visited the place ever. May be better, may be worse, or for some people may be better and for some worse.

Quote:

Did I ever write anything that would cause you to infer that I believe any place is a Utopia?

I meant there is more unrest than there would be without the war.

Quote:

Certainly.

The point I was trying to make with the quote was that standing idly by while threats present themselves is as bad as committing the crime you were threatened with. I guess you disagree.

Did I say I disagree? But you are entitled to your guesses, so go ahead. But depending on the situation standing idly may not always be as worse as committing the crime yourself.

fatboy · #44 (**permalink**) 04-08-2004, 05:32 PM

@Grisu - I had a long reply to your post but, when I re-read it, I noticed that I was doing nothing but re-stating everything I said before. For some reason, you have a real inability to read and understand what I write. I don't why, but I do know that it's neither my resonsibility nor in my best interests to help you understand the written word. I've wasted time with others like you and I find no pleasure in it. So I will not reply to you, it is a pointless endeavor.

Grisu · #45 (**permalink**) 04-08-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatboy

@Grisu - I had a long reply to your post but, when I re-read it, I noticed that I was doing nothing but re-stating everything I said before..

That your numbers still don't stack up and that you still are wrong as I have proven to you!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatboy

For some reason, you have a real inability to read and understand what I write. I don't why, but I do know that it's neither my resonsibility nor in my best interests to help you understand the written word..

I guess I am just plain stupid! Teach me how to read and write as I am obviously incapable of it!!!
Please however, explain to me what Bosnia had to do with anything in the thread and how you can even remotely can bring it into the mix?! Explain further your math as far as casualties go as I can not come up with the numbers that you obviously have and whose sources you do not want to reveal!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatboy

I've wasted time with others like you and I find no pleasure in it. So I will not reply to you, it is a pointless endeavor.

Unfortunate that once hard numbers are brought on the table and you are proven wrong by numerous sources with very little effort you hightail out! Go figure...

fatboy · #46 (**permalink**) 04-08-2004, 08:36 PM

@Phunkie - first, let me say this. I realize that my initial reply to you was overly sarcastic. I had just replied to Grisu at the time and the frustration of having to, once again, educate him on how to read English colored my response to you. For that I apologize.

It's funny, because had I not been so incensed I would've realized that, in the context of this debate, you were agreeing with me.

So, please, accept my apology and allow me to continue along the vein I should have followed in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phunkie

I'm surprised I have to repeat myself to you, but here I go:
I was just saying that passing a resolution is not the exact same thing as waging a war. I was not talking about who started the war. I never claimed that the US unilaterally started the war. And as I urged you in the previous post, please read the post I wrote before that. The sentence you're commenting is a straight quote from the article, that's why it was in quotes, and that's why I provided the link to the original article. So feel free to make any assumptions you wish, but don't claim my posts are the reason for those assumptions. Sheesh....

Actually, you're right. The US ordered military strikes on Iraqi infrastructure which not only caused immediate Iraqi deaths, but the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to poor water, sewage, and electrical structures. These deaths need to be accounted for in Clinton's tally when we're discussing how many Iraqis Bush and Clinton are responsible for.

Quote:

Hard to say since I haven't visited the place ever. May be better, may be worse, or for some people may be better and for some worse.

You may find this article interesting then.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/w...ll_040314.html

56% of Iraqis polled believe their lives are better now than they were before the war; 23% believe their lives are no better off; 19% say their lives are worse.

71% of Iraqis polled believe their lives will be better a year from now; 9% believe their lives will be the same; 7% believe their lives will be worse.

Now, polls are polls, but I wonder what their honest responses would've been under Hussein.

Quote:

I meant there is more unrest than there would be without the war.

Well, of course. Without the war you had a brutal dictator who squashed all opposition and liberties. There would be no unrest there if the US took away all of those guns, took people out and shot them in the head in front of their families for saying something bad about Bush, or raped their daughters for not waving to US humvees.

Quote:

Did I say I disagree? But you are entitled to your guesses, so go ahead. But depending on the situation standing idly may not always be as worse as committing the crime yourself.

I thought I was being pretty civil there, actually. I merely pointed out why I posted the quote. After all, it is just a quote.