Bush knew detainees were innocent

[bush_cheney2004]

It was your song, an American song. Of needless mass killings, officially objected to by everyone. Including Canada.

Oh...you mean like the same "objections" in Rwanda. Canada supported and enforced sanctions against Iraq...oh the humanity! (sobbing)

Not "never." Just not in this particular case. You guys were the mass murderers, occasionally with the UK's help.

Don't forget Australia and Poland....take them off your human rights Christmas card list too.

Yeah, that's entirelly irrelevant to any of the points I made. Even your efforts at distraction are weak.

Your points are always irrelvant.

Murder one, exactly so.

Please arrest and indict at once...still waiting for those crippling trade sanctions from righteous Canadians.....waiting...waiting...waiting.....

[Sir Bandelot]

Madelaine Albright, when asked during an interview if she thought the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children by the sanctions was justified simply said yes.

When asked by Stahl, "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "we think the price is worth it."

Hopefully there is a special place in hell for people like her.

[bloodyminded]

Oh...you mean like the same "objections" in Rwanda. Canada supported and enforced sanctions against Iraq...oh the humanity! (sobbing)

You made a factual error (yet again) and I corrected it. We weren't talking about the sanctions, but about the breaking of the sanctions rules. That's it. Nice attempt at distraction, though.

Your points are always irrelvant.

Please arrest and indict at once...still waiting for those crippling trade sanctions from righteous Canadians.....waiting...waiting...waiting.....

I'm not making a case for Canadian moral superiority. You made a factual error. I corrected it.

The thing is, you agree with me that the US commmitted a terrible crime here, intentionally causing the deaths of untold numbers of people without decent justification.

You're letting your personal animosity (as well as your shopworn patriotic cowardice) override your basic sense of morality, which I have no doubt exists.

Edited April 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

You made a factual error (yet again) and I corrected it. We weren't talking about the sanctions, but about the breaking of the sanctions rules. That's it. Nice attempt at distraction, though.

Sorry...you don't get to parse it that way...and neither did Canada. Moaning about 50,000 deths per month due to sanctions and Gulf War I damage to infrastructure has apparently escaped your attention.

I'm not making a case for Canadian moral superiority. You made a factual error. I corrected it.

You have corrected nothing.

The thing is, you agree with me that the US commmitted a terrible crime here, intentionally causing the deaths of untold numbers of people without decent justification.

You mean it would be OK to cause "untold" deaths if "decently justified"? That's mighty white of you!

You're letting your personal animosity (as well as your shopworn patriotic cowardice) override your basic sense of morality, which I have no doubt exists.

No, it's much simpler than that. I respect reality more than your fantasies.

[bloodyminded]

Sorry...you don't get to parse it that way...and neither did Canada. Moaning about 50,000 deths per month due to sanctions and Gulf War I damage to infrastructure has apparently escaped your attention.

No, it was not the point. That's it.

You have corrected nothing.

your factual error.

You mean it would be OK to cause "untold" deaths if "decently justified"? That's mighty white of you!

Everybody thinks so, except for hardcore pacifists. Everybody.

No, it's much simpler than that. I respect reality more than your fantasies.

It would be awesome if illegal American interference in the sanctions, resulting in the stoppage of allowable and necessary items, were a fantasy. But you know full well it isn't; which is why you deflect in order to avoid the uncomfortable matter.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, it was not the point. That's it.

If the point was dead Iraqis, you have a curious way of ignoring the obvious.

your factual error.

Error...error...must sterilize....must sterilize.

Everybody thinks so, except for hardcore pacifists. Everybody.

Now you speak for everybody...my, aren't we full of ourself.

It would be awesome if illegal American interference in the sanctions, resulting in the stoppage of allowable and necessary items, were a fantasy. But you know full well it isn't; which is why you deflect in order to avoid the uncomfortable matter.

It is not uncomfortable. The purposeful actions of my country and several others caused death and misery for Iraqis by design. What is missing is your own acknowledgement of Canada's role in such actions, and deflection to US/UK singular culpability.

[sharkman]

Madelaine Albright, when asked during an interview if she thought the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children by the sanctions was justified simply said yes.

When asked by Stahl, "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "we think the price is worth it."

Hopefully there is a special place in hell for people like her.

500,000, eh? Wow, I mean that's pretty bad. Kudos on those who dug through and came up with 500,000 names and bodies, that's quite impressive. Although somehow I'm not quite confident that they found 500,000 actual bodies, did they? This sounds kind of like that cooked up number they came up with for total Iraqis killed or something like that. Probably the same people behind both numbers, but I'm just guessing.

They need to get off this death wish thing, however. Why not try their hand at something else, like lives saved or something like that? Yeah, total Iraqi lives saved by the liberation of Iraq, kind of like Obama's 'jobs saved' number. Turn the thing on it's head.

[Shady]

baseless noise from the library of inconsequential Shady ramblings... your cut&paste links don't mention, as do you, the foundations for that missing legality.

Complete nonsense. You're either unaware of what a ceasefire agreement means, or simply being purposely obtuse. I've clearly illustrated the reality of Iraq breaking its ceasefire agreement. Under military law, action taken by the opposite party is completely legal. As usual, you refuse to acknowledge reality. Move along.

True, it wasn't actual foodstuffs.

Exactly. So you lied in order to defend a mass-murdering dictator. Congratulations. You must be proud.

We are responsible for the terrible actions we commit, not for those that others commit.

I completely agree. That's why its beyond retarded to attach responsiblity of starving Iraqis to us, when it was Saddam Hussein that purposely refused to participate in programs designed to feed the Iraqi people. For 5 f'ing years he refused, and you have the nerve to blame us for that misery and starvation? Shame on you.

now that you're aware of the facts of American-led mass murder of Iraqis (mostly children)

You didn't present any facts, just incorrect and over-emotional opinions. The facts are that no food was ever not permitted from entering Iraq. You even admit to that. And the facts are that for 5 years Saddam Hussein refused to participate in the programs to feed the people of Iraq. I'm not sure why you're purposely ignoring factual history. Has ideology so blinded you?

Madelaine Albright, when asked during an interview if she thought the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children by the sanctions was justified simply said yes.

When asked by Stahl, "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "we think the price is worth it."

Hopefully there is a special place in hell for people like her.

Why for her? It was Saddam Hussein that refused to participate in the designed programs to feed the people of Iraq. But she gets the blame?

[bloodyminded]

If the point was dead Iraqis, you have a curious way of ignoring the obvious.

The point, which you didn't follow (as you jumped into a discussion partway through to troll, upset as always by criticisms of your country) was my response to someone else, about how breaking the rules of the sanctions meant Iraq was a legitimate military target. I responded that if that were justification, then the US and UK were also legtimiate military targets.

If you weren't so knee-jerk in your responses, and learned to follow arguments, you'd already know this.

It has nothing to do with Canada's culpability in any number of horrific circumstances. I have never and will never deny Canada's terrible actions.

Of us two, you're the only one who is defensive about such things, which is why you always deflect everything on to Canada.

So to be crystal clear: I don't mind people holding Canada to account; I welcome it. I'm not the pantywaisted nationalist here, with no identity beyond my country. That's you. But honest criticism isn't your point: your point, as an oversensitive patriot, is to shift blame away from your rogue, criminal nation.

Error...error...must sterilize....must sterilize.

A capital idea. I suggest a rusty knife.

Now you speak for everybody...my, aren't we full of ourself.

Everybody except for hardcore pacifists believes that war can be sometimes neccessary. That's a truism...unless you can provide me with one single example which suggests otherwise.

No? Didn't think so. You can thank me for correcting you yet again (I think that's the 3rd time in as many days.)

It is not uncomfortable. The purposeful actions of my country and several others caused death and misery for Iraqis by design.

Really? And yet you mocked the idea, laughing about it. Are you some sort of moral degenerate? I mean, if you get even a whiff of somebody insufficiently "supporting the troops," you throw a sanctimonious tantrum. Perhaps you should examine your priorities.

Edited April 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[waldo]

Under military law, action taken by the opposite party is completely legal.

:lol:

classic Shady post! Hee Haw... gitty-up now.

[Sir Bandelot]

500,000, eh? Wow, I mean that's pretty bad. Kudos on those who dug through and came up with 500,000 names and bodies, that's quite impressive. Although somehow I'm not quite confident that they found 500,000 actual bodies, did they? This sounds kind of like that cooked up number they came up with for total Iraqis killed or something like that. Probably the same people behind both numbers, but I'm just guessing.

Interestingly, Albright herself did not dispute the number when it was quoted to her in the interview. So I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

[Sir Bandelot]

Why for her? It was Saddam Hussein that refused to participate in the designed programs to feed the people of Iraq. But she gets the blame?

No need to reiterate what has already been said. You have not been reading the thread.

But thanks for dropping by...

[M.Dancer]

Interestingly, Albright herself did not dispute the number when it was quoted to her in the interview. So I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Lets see what she said later...

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. […] As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy, and wrong. […] I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean. That is no one’s fault but my own.[47]

This "trap" has been identified as a loaded question.[50][51] Her failure to "refram[e the question] and point[] out [its] inherent flaws"[47] has been called "the non-denial heard 'round the world"[49] because "by not challenging the statistic, Albright inadvertently lent credence to it."[50] When asked about her response in 2005, Albright said "I never should have made it, it was stupid," and that she still supported the concept of tailored sanctions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright

[Shady]

:lol:

classic Shady post! Hee Haw... gitty-up now.

Actually, what I meant to say is that under international law, military action taken by the opposite party is completely legal.

[bush_cheney2004]

The point, which you didn't follow (as you jumped into a discussion partway through to troll, upset as always by criticisms of your country) was my response to someone else, about how breaking the rules of the sanctions meant Iraq was a legitimate military target. I responded that if that were justification, then the US and UK were also legtimiate military targets.

So what? They are/were legitimate military targets. Your response to someone else is no excuse for ignorance of this fact.

If you weren't so knee-jerk in your responses, and learned to follow arguments, you'd already know this.

No...I challenged your basic premise, regardless of how many starving Iraqis can dance on the head of a pin.

It has nothing to do with Canada's culpability in any number of horrific circumstances. I have never and will never deny Canada's terrible actions.

Of course not....you are not a "Canadian" after all...that would slobber of "nationalism".

Of us two, you're the only one who is defensive about such things, which is why you always deflect everything on to Canada.

Correct....I am often reminded it is a Canadian forum, but it's very hard to tell that based on the posts! LOL!

So to be crystal clear: I don't mind people holding Canada to account; I welcome it. I'm not the pantywaisted nationalist here, with no identity beyond my country. That's you. But honest criticism isn't your point: your point, as an oversensitive patriot, is to shift blame away from your rogue, criminal nation.

Wrong...I embrace the blame as long as it means more sweet crude. If you continue to bloviate about starving Iraqis and flawed sanctions, then you damn well better take your part of the "blame".

Everybody except for hardcore pacifists believes that war can be sometimes neccessary. That's a truism...unless you can provide me with one single example which suggests otherwise.

Indeed...a "war" was necessary to topple Saddam. Shazzam! It worked!

Really? And yet you mocked the idea, laughing about it. Are you some sort of moral degenerate? I mean, if you get even a whiff of somebody insufficiently "supporting the troops," you throw a sanctimonious tantrum. Perhaps you should examine your priorities.

Why, my priorities are fine, especially if they are different from yours....a man without a country.

Edited April 13, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

Lets see what she said later...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright

Well, it's odd, this "mistake." How doe someone ask you about the death of 500 000 children...without your quite noticing what's been said?

It's difficult to buy.

Imagine someone asking you that question.

[bloodyminded]

So what? They are/were legitimate military targets. Your response to someone else is no excuse for ignorance of this fact.

Ignorance of what fact?

No...I challenged your basic premise, regardless of how many starving Iraqis can dance on the head of a pin.

No you didn't; because my premise was not what you seem to think it was.

Of course not....you are not a "Canadian" after all...that would slobber of "nationalism".

You really are unprepared to debate with anyone who does not hold nationalistic sentiments. It's beyond your understanding.

Correct....I am often reminded it is a Canadian forum, but it's very hard to tell that based on the posts! LOL!

It would appear that I don't care either way, wouldn't it?

Wrong...I embrace the blame as long as it means more sweet crude. If you continue to bloviate about starving Iraqis and flawed sanctions, then you damn well better take your part of the "blame".

I do. You're the one who doesn't care, as you yet again go to pains to underline.

Indeed...a "war" was necessary to topple Saddam. Shazzam! It worked!

Now you're contradicting other claims you've made.

Why, my priorities are fine, especially if they are different from yours....a man without a country.

Nationalists are whiny weaklings. Hence your quaint little tantrums about supporting the troops.

Edited April 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

Well, it's odd, this "mistake." How doe someone ask you about the death of 500 000 children...without your quite noticing what's been said?

Who cares? Let's say it wasn't 500,000 children but 5 million children. It still doesn't discount the fact that Saddam Hussein was responsible. It was Saddam Hussein that refused to participate for 5 years in the programs designed to aid and feed the Iraqi people. Those are facts.

[bloodyminded]

Who cares? Let's say it wasn't 500,000 children but 5 million children. It still doesn't discount the fact that Saddam Hussein was responsible. It was Saddam Hussein that refused to participate for 5 years in the programs designed to aid and feed the Iraqi people. Those are facts.

Saddam is co-responsible.

Everybody is responsible for their own actions. Blaming everything on official enemies is the coward's way out.

Edited April 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[waldo]

Under military law, action taken by the opposite party is completely legal.

:lol:

classic Shady post! Hee Haw... gitty-up now.

ah, yes - send in the marines... it's legal, don't ya know!

[waldo]

Under military law, action taken by the opposite party is completely legal.

:lol:

classic Shady post! Hee Haw... gitty-up now.

Actually, what I meant to say is that under international law, military action taken by the opposite party is completely legal.

no... international law doesn't permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN... you'll need to push the Bush Doctrine somewhere else, hey buddy. Oh wait... are you saying the U.S./UK acted in self-defense - is that your hook into international law?

somehow... you keep ignoring the several references offered to the failed attempts by the U.S./UK to secure that "2nd UN resolution". It's clear obvious timelines and related events don't fit with your brand of favoured revisionism, but answer a simple basic question: if international law supported the Dubya invasion of Iraq why did the U.S./UK need to bother with their failed pursuits in securing that "2nd UN resolution"?

[M.Dancer]

no... international law doesn't permit unilateral preemptive action without the authority of the UN...

Really? Please cite that law...

[Sir Bandelot]

Lets see what she said later...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright

Hindsight is always 20:20.

But while the number is bad enough, and perhaps debateable, one wonders what it is they feel they gained in that process, since it didn't affect Saddam or his government. Despite the starvation of his people, he saw to it that he remained in power and well fed.

[M.Dancer]

Hindsight is always 20:20.

But while the number is bad enough, and perhaps debateable, one wonders what it is they feel they gained in that process, since it didn't affect Saddam or his government. Despite the starvation of his people, he saw to it that he remained in power and well fed.

And with that, we decide if sanctions when other means are available, are the correct way to proceed.

[waldo]

Really? Please cite that law...

excellent... you never know just who will bite! Since you avoided it throughout the other thread, you can certainly take it up again, right here: what basis in international law do you favour to support the invasion of Iraq?

I've referenced 'self defense' as an out for you... is that (also) your favoured position - one based on U.S./UK self-defense? Let's have it Dancer, let's see your best side-step routine as you maneuver between the peremptory norm (based on acute and imminent actual threat) within Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter and Article 51's permission based on self defense? While you're at it, why not step up and define what acute and imminent threats the U.S./UK were under... so as to presume on self-defense actions.