You just insulted the Ameican military AND the Iraq embargo policies and policy makers. We are talking about, at least, 100s of thousands of deaths, including a very high % of civilians. Is everyone just closing their eyes out there?
Islamic Extremism.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
What percentage? I don't count embargos, since we have no obligation to sell goods to our enemies.
The US is a CHristian state and saying otherwise is just NOT true .
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Treaty of Tripoli
Treaty of Tripoli
(not sure you read my post correctly) I think we have more choices then yes, no. Christianity is the dominant religion. But the church or churches, for example, are not in charge. It is not a theocracy. Presidents have to pretend they are Christians, so far. But Senators and Congressmen do not, though probably most do pretend they are Christian or Jewish. I don't think you can simply say it is a Christian country. If so we would probably not have areas that are very tolerant of gays, for example, allowing them to marry, etc. I think it makes much more sense to view it, especially in foreign policy, as a Neo-Con capitalist country. I don't think it makes decisions for the most part based on Christian ideals, but on ones related to money and access to resources, and any Christian values immediately and without hesitation get put on the backburner if they interfere with money.
The embargo, first of all, prohibited the sale of goods to Iraq. Businesses and other countries, for the most part, would not have made this decision on their own. Those who went against the embargo were punished. Which led to very large numbers of children deaths, as predicted by many and easy to follow under the duration of it.
Civilians die in any war and many, many thousands died in the Iraq wars and continue to do so.
If I invent a cure for cancer, and then refuse to sell it to Iraq, am I responsible for all the people that die of cancer in Iraq?
If you tell Spain you will fuck them up if they sell the cure to Iraq, yes.
From the references I've seen here and elsewhere, the Muslim state is usually referred to places in which Islamic law presides.
Blah...blah....Christians holidays including Christmas, Easter....etc in the US.
Christmas celebrations.....etc in the US .
All presidents Christians although Obama's father was a Muslim but he was chosen because Bush screwed the US beyond recognition .
Yes the US and all NATO are Christians expect from Turkey which is Muslim of course .
Last edited:
That was an action by the UN National Security Council in order to force Iraq to allow inspections for weapons of mass destruction, among other things. If Iraq had used weapons of mass destruction again, would we be responsible, having not established any embargo?
(Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations).
Madeleine Albright
Madeleine Albright
1) the US ignores the UN when it wants to
2) now you are arguing that the ends justified the means. My point was only that the means were what they were, and these means included the ongoing deaths of children, something that was well known and relatively easy to monitor.
As if she or the administrations cared about the children or cared about what SH did or did not do. The same people supported SH when he was using weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds. They downplayed and denied that he was doing this and continued to support his regime. I mean we have the same players in the Reagan admin, showing up later and calling him the devil, when it suited their purposes. Something Ms. Albright knows very well. We also supported him in a variety of ways while he was carrying out a war against Iran in which civilians were being killed, quite consciously, and internatinal laws were being broken.
We also knew that the use of depleted uranium in shells would damage and kill children. Nevertheless we have done this in both wars. We refuse to not use cluster bombs and other ordinance that kills children and other innocent civilians for decades after conflicts.
Get used to the idea that US policies that are not inevitable, nor would stopping them mean capitulation, lead to the deaths of children.
And that is even if you buy the BS that the Bush admin was really concerned about WOMD.
Nonsense, children did not die in the North, only the regions where Saddam ruled incompetently.
The differential between child mortality rates in northern Iraq, where the UN manages the relief program, and in the south-center, where Saddam Hussein is in charge, says a great deal about relative responsibility for the continued crisis. As noted, child mortality rates have declined in the north but have more than doubled in the south-center. ... The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are also the result of Baghdad's failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief effort.[45]
In The New Republic, 2001, Michael Rubin argued that
The difference [t]here is that local Kurdish authorities, in conjunction with the United Nations, spend the money they get from the sale of oil. Everywhere else in Iraq, Saddam does. And when local authorities are determined to get food and medicine to their people--instead of, say, reselling these supplies to finance military spending and palace construction--the current sanctions regime works just fine. Or, to put it more bluntly, the United Nations isn't starving Saddam's people. Saddam is.[46]
wikipedia
In The New Republic, 2001, Michael Rubin argued that
The difference [t]here is that local Kurdish authorities, in conjunction with the United Nations, spend the money they get from the sale of oil. Everywhere else in Iraq, Saddam does. And when local authorities are determined to get food and medicine to their people--instead of, say, reselling these supplies to finance military spending and palace construction--the current sanctions regime works just fine. Or, to put it more bluntly, the United Nations isn't starving Saddam's people. Saddam is.[46]
wikipedia
Saddam Hussein trained his people to defend their country and just look how many Americans were killed and terribly injured in Iraq !!!.
Saddam Hussein is one billion times better than Ariel Sharon and G. W. Bush .
Those two terrorists were and still are evil .
Well, if you look at the history of Saddaam Hussein then, Iraq does not pass muster. He was considered a secular leader, especially by religious leaders. And he was regularly criticised, for example for his policies around women. The Shia majority hated him precisely because he was so secular.
Nevertheless most Americans would see the wars against Iraq as a secular democracy vs. a Muslim state.
The majority of Muslims in Iraq would have disagreed.
There is no secular country in the world . They preach secular system but they are either this religion or that one . The US has Christian holidays....etc and talks about a secular state . Just another political scam to fool the sheeple as always . France pretends to be a secular state yet Christmas trees and Christmas lights are very huge in every city of France....plus Christian holidays .....etc .
The guy was a violent dictator who did not allow democracy, oppressed opposition, used torture regularly, used chemical weapons against Kurds - iow citizens in his own country.
The enemy of people you consider evil is not automatically a decent person.
He is hardly a thousand times better than anyone. The way he treated his own people is horrible, let alone Iran.
And he didn't train anyone. He gave orders.
The people killed by Bush and Sharon are NOT mosquitoes .
Saddam was one trillion times better than any Western politician dead or alive . He loved his people and those traitors deserved to be put on death penalty like the US terrorist Timothy Mcveigh .
Of course he was.
He personally handed out Easter eggs and Christmas presents.
Except for the ones he had killed. Or tortured.
But he probably cried about having to do it.
- Status