I don't totally agree with everything he said there -not that everybody cares about my opinion but still- yet he gives me the impression of a guy who had more ideas within one speach than another guy in 5 years whose name I won't reveal in a last minute Christian gesture...
Clinton got elected in 1992 on anti-Bush votes. Maybe another Clinton will get elected this time in 2008, again on anti-Bush votes.
1. Your numbers are ****************. 2. It wasn't the Clinton's embargo, it was the world's embargo. 3. It wasn't the world's fault, Iraq could have fed its children and given them medicine. But Saddam had to divert the money to his Swiss bank accounts and palace construction project.
Where do these people come up with those **************** numbers? Guess some people missed the whole Oil for Food scandals that have been going on. Or that the UN Resolutions that started in 91 during HW Bush Administration. I was never a Clinton fan, so I am not coming to his defense here, but the issues with Iraq started in 90 with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a country the US has long protected. Hell during the Iraq-Iran war the US had to defend Kuwati tankers from both Iran and Iraq in the Gulf. Incidents regarding US protection of these tankers actually led to the Vincennes incident. Will have to find the link to this from another thread. Clinton did not waver on anything concerning Iraq that HW Bush put in place. I agree with those who feel there is some logic to W taking those policies to the next step with his invasion of Iraq. The problem is that he took the WMD line and was unable to back it up with real evidence. I really think if he had stuck to the policy that Saddam was a threat to the region and the World's oil, that he was still committing genocide, ala Serbia's regime, that support for this war would have remained higher then what it is now. Just my thoughts though. I said it before and will say it again, the US should have gone into Iraq in the mid 90's when the consenus was that Saddam was rebuilding his WMD's and when he was not complying with inspections. The war in Iraq should have happened earlier then it did. But hindsight is 20/20.
1) maybe not "millions", but the number "million" wouldn't be too far off 2) & 3) You are still in a denial state. Without US' strong demanding, UN wouldn't be doing this terrible thing. But that's really a shame - see below: Items Banned by the Sanctions agricultural pesticides all electrical equipment all other building materials ambulances baby food badminton rackets bandages blankets boots cannulas for intravenous drips catheters for babies children's bicycles children's clothes chlorine and other water purification chemicals cleaning agents cobalt sources for X-ray machines deodorants dialysis equipment disposable surgical gloves drugs for angina ECG monitors erasers glue for textbooks incubators leather material for shoes lipsticks medical gauze medical journals medical swabs medical syringes medication for epilepsy nail polish nasogastric tubes notebooks nylon cloth for filtering flour other adult clothes oxygen tents paper pencil sharpeners pencils ping-pong balls polyester & acrylic yarn rice rubber tubes school books school handicraft equipment shampoo shirts shoe laces shroud material soap sanitary towels specific granite shipments specific umbilical catheters steel plate stethoscopes suction catheters for blockages surgical instruments textile plant equipment thread for children's clothes tissues toilet paper tooth brushes toothpaste various other foodstuffs wool felt for thermal insulation X-ray equipment X-ray film source: The Scourging of Iraq : Sanctions, Law and Natural Justice by Geoff Simons, St. Martins Press http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/sanctions/sanctions.html
And the poor suffered for years in South Africa due to sanctions. Was that wrong? And, the use of the word "millions" makes you something of a drama queen.
President Clinton is responsible for the death of millions of Iraqi children? Thanks for the revelation! I think it is imperative that you go right now to Iraq and tell the people over there that they have an innocent man going to trial! Tell them that it is a case of mistaken identity and they are trying the wrong man for crimes against humanity! Tell them that they should release Saddam Hussein immediately, and instead they should try the true villian, the true killer of millions of Iraqis, none other than our former president Bill Clinton! But go quick, before it is too late! Book your ticket to Iraq this very moment!Save the inocent Hussein, who was obviously framed. Iraq and the world will owe you a debt of gratitude. I see a Nobel Price in your future.
Yes. Why not? At least indirectly. It's his policy of supporting of embargo led to the death of millions of Iraqi children. Of course he's responsible for that. There's no escape here. Just like current war in Iraq has killed 100,000+ Iraqis since the invasion, we can also say it's G. W. Bush who killed them, at least indectly, because it is his policy of invading Iraq led to such unfortunate event to happen. There's no escape here either. History doesn't forget.
Yes...he failed to act! In Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere! And make a do-it-yourself blamer: President Clinton is responsible for ____________. Just fill-in and submit...works everytime!
An interesting point. What if BushCo were more forthcoming about Iraq to the American public? Would public support remain higher today? Possibly. However, I think that BushCo had to play to 'war fervor' card to the hilt. I mean, who really gave a rat's ass if Saddam was the world's biggest a-hole? I just don't think there would have been enough public support to warrant launching a major war initiative given a.) Saddam would love to gas us w/ WMD given the chance, b.) Saddam was gassing and killing and dismembering his own, c.) Saddam would team up with AQ, probably, eventually, and d.) (BushCo saying with a straight face) Give democracy a chance. Still, being a lot more honest and sober about the need to take Saddam out (for what amounts to a bunch of sort-of, might-be pretty good reasons), we probably wouldn't be wondering if the bottom is dropping out on BushCo as it is today. BushCo cried, "Wolf"; I just don't see the public rising to 'war fervor' again - at least not with flimsy evidence.
Millions at the hands of Clinton, eh? LMAO! Why let facts get in the way of trying to score points? Aside from the fact that the UN imposed sanctions multi-laterally -- not the US alone -- feel free to post a source to back up your claim of "millions", and please be sure it doesn't use child mortality numbers provided by Hussein's government (take a guess where both UNESCO and UNICEF got their numbers). While you're at it, please explain why mortality rates increased in Shia-dominated areas, but not Sunni.
Why not use numbers provided by his government? If someone said "don't use the number of US soldier casualties provided by DoD", what would you say? http://www.redcross.org/news/archives/2000/2-7-00.html Let's say they lied, it had only 50% of that number. Hey that's still more than half million deaths caused by Clinton's Iraq policy. As to the last question, isn't it obvious?
Bush not being forthcoming with the reasons for the war is going to hurt the Reeps in the future. The longer we stay in Iraq will also factor into how the public perceives the war there as well. The war fever against Iraq was strongest in the early 90's and it was then that we should have fought this war. I think deep down Clinton knew, hell Bush I knew that we should have taken the issue with Saddam to its only conclusion then. Hopefully the US Public will learn from this and not let war fever get the better of us in the near future where I am sure we will hear the drums beating again.
One of my few regrets on an otherwise fantastic Sunday is that I can't neg rep you again. Yes, I know it's relatively meaningless, but, since I can't hock a big slimy one in your lying face, it's the only satisfaction I can take. Actually, no, that's not quite accurate; I also enjoy exposing your lies and exageration publicly. So, nevermind. No complaints whatsoever.
I would say that the US DOD's death numbers have more integrity than Saddam's government. And I'm having a hard time believing anyone would really disagree with that.
Lying? Is that what you gave me neg rep for? What did I lie? I didn't know you are so chidish. Can someone help me give superdave a red nibble?
No, I don't disagree with you. That's why I discounted their number 50%. Still, There were half of million Iraqi kids killed by the Clinton policy.