Author Topic: Soldiers Choose Canada (Read 4520 times)

Sikboy · « **Reply #120 on:** July 09, 2004, 05:56:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tumor
Saddam had plenty of cash to take care of the people in Iraq, sanctions or no.

Yep. According to the Oil for Food program guidelines, there was a rigourous accounting of money generated from oil sales, and more importantly, where it was going to be spent. The money was there, but it was not spent on infrastructure. This doesn't even take into account the oil sold in violation of the sanctions.

But I'm having a hard time with the switch from how unjust the sanctions were, to the current war in Iraq? They seem to be two seperate issues, especailly as they come under the control of the United Nations, and would likely still be in place if not for the Invasion.

-Sik

SOB · « **Reply #121 on:** July 09, 2004, 05:56:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Hell I bet you guys don't replace divots.

Golfing is for homos.

SirLoin · « **Reply #122 on:** July 09, 2004, 06:11:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
So if something is illegal it is immoral?

Hundreds of thousands - LOL
Even the kookiest lefty sites aren't claiming more than 10,000 dead.

10,000 dead..Think about it...

That's the response to the killing of 3000 Americans?

And to a nation that had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack?

I'd feel a lot better about it if it was 10,000 dead Saudis.

Sikboy · « **Reply #123 on:** July 09, 2004, 09:30:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SirLoin

I'd feel a lot better about it if it was 10,000 dead Saudis.

WARMONGER!

-Sik

Habu · « **Reply #124 on:** July 09, 2004, 09:39:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by xrtoronto
this is one of the links I located this info on:

source (from US)

If you have another source plz advise habu.

-- Information taken from U.N. reports and interviews with U.N. officials

You know who the U.N. officials are don't you? Certainly not biased people with agendas to push.

Yes there is information on the web that totally discredits those figures you keep reporting. I would like you to do the research so you can see how mislead you were.

Habu · « **Reply #125 on:** July 09, 2004, 09:51:27 AM »

March 2002

The Politics of Dead Children

Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?

By Matt Welch

Are "a million innocent children...dying at this time...in Iraq" because of U.S. sanctions, as Osama bin Laden claimed in his October 7 videotaped message to the world? Has the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) discovered that "at least 200 children are dying every day...as a direct result of sanctions," as advocacy journalist John Pilger maintains on his Web site? Is it official U.N. belief that 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 are dying each month due to its own policy, as writers of letters to virtually every U.S. newspaper have stated repeatedly during the past three years?

The short answer to all of these questions is no.

You can read the rest of this insiteful analysis here:

Link

The basic premise that the UN and all those relief agencies use is that they compare infant mortality from all causes against numbers they predict as normal and then blame the difference on sanctions. That pretty much excuses Saddam and all other reasons from the blame. What is amazing to me is that so many people are willing to buy the argument.

That is like me claiming that all the extra cold weather this summer (above seasonal averages) is directly due to .............. <---put in your favorite environmental cause here.

Yeager · « **Reply #126 on:** July 09, 2004, 09:56:00 AM »

from my prespective about the best I could hope for would be that these losers stay in canada.

Pongo · « **Reply #127 on:** July 09, 2004, 10:08:32 AM »

oldest looking 64 year old I have ever seen. I would have said 90.
welcome back!

Scatcat · « **Reply #128 on:** July 09, 2004, 11:06:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
They are disserters. They should have had the balls to stand trial for thier beliefs. They swore and oath to defend the US Constitution. If they feel the war goes against the principles of their Constitution, they have a duty to take it to the Judiciary.

Roger that!

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #129 on:** July 10, 2004, 11:45:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SirLoin
That's the response to the killing of 3000 Americans?

What are you talking about? Even the Bush admin. admits Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

Tumor · « **Reply #130 on:** July 11, 2004, 12:23:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
What are you talking about? Even the Bush admin. admits Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

Now you've really done it!!!

Thrawn · « **Reply #131 on:** July 11, 2004, 02:31:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
What are you talking about? Even the Bush admin. admits Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

Sure, after he did his damnedest to muddy the waters.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Lizking · « **Reply #132 on:** July 11, 2004, 02:53:37 PM »

I suppose a person that used the lump on his shoulders might have assumed that the "linkage" was in possabilities, not fact. That is to say, Saddam would have done everything in his power to create a 9/11/01 type incident. That is what I got from the Admisitration at the time, anyway.

Of course, it is easier to "remind" people of what you want them to think after the fact, re: the whole Democratic party line at this point.

Thrawn · « **Reply #133 on:** July 11, 2004, 06:26:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizking
I suppose That is to say, Saddam would have done everything in his power to create a 9/11/01 type incident.

Do you think that he would have?

Lizking · « **Reply #134 on:** July 11, 2004, 06:29:42 PM »

I certainly think he would have tried, including aiding every terrorist group that would listen to him.

That is the reason I supported the war, not some after the fact democrat alleged "linkages".