Ron Paul for President!!!

[Wolf DeVoon]

A -real- man would have nuked Tehran.

Population 4 million, plus the 70 hostages held there. Indescribably dumb.

W.

[Brant Gaede]

A -real- man would have nuked Tehran.

Population 4 million, plus the 70 hostages held there. Indescribably dumb.

W.

Wolf, I never said this. Whom are you quoting? Are you quoting?

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Currently our main enemy is militant Muslims. Why? They come and crash planes into our buildings.

On its face, you're saying we're at war with 19 dead people and a handful of rich Saudis who financed and organized the WTC attack. I dispute the characterization of 9/11 as an attack on America. Jewish controlled Cantor Fitzgerald and Morgan Stanley were hit.

The 'war on terror' is a fraud. It's a war of terror, just the way Conan wants. Ask him which clan constitutes Me and Mine, loyalty to which allegedly justifies mass murder and torture of his tribal enemies.

Ron Paul is not going to win. I respect the guy for doing a good job in Congress, and I don't think ill of anyone trying to talk sense to the American people. But there's no plausible exit strategy, not from Social Security, not from Iraq.

This is my last post. I can't take any more Jewish triumphalism. So long.

DeVoon

Edited July 1, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[BaalChatzaf]

Currently our main enemy is militant Muslims. Why? They come and crash planes into our buildings.

On its face, you're saying we're at war with 19 dead people and a handful of rich Saudis who financed and organized the WTC attack. I dispute the characterization of 9/11 as an attack on America. Jewish controlled Cantor Fitzgerald and Morgan Stanley were hit.

The 'war on terror' is a fraud. It's a war of terror, just the way Conan wants. Ask him which clan constitutes Me and Mine, loyalty to which allegedly justifies mass murder and torture of his tribal enemies.

Ron Paul is not going to win. I respect the guy for doing a good job in Congress, and I don't think ill of anyone trying to talk sense to the American people. But there's no plausible exit strategy, not from Social Security, not from Iraq.

This is my last post. I can't take any more Jewish triumphalism. So long.

DeVoon

We are at war with everyone (I mean -everyone-) who believes in Jihad and Martyrdom. In short, we are at war with everyone who takes Islam seriously and devoutly. To put a point on it, we are at war with the Umah because the Umah has been at war with us over a thousand years. Now that they can get planes and bombs they really have become dangerous.

The world will not be safe until there is no more Islam.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Wolf;

I'm sorry you're not going to post any more.

Are you seriously suggesting it's alright to kill Jewish Americans who work for brokerage houses? Are you aware that Ayn Rand and the Brandens are of Jewish ancestry?

I have that Bob's post on this topic have been over the top but this last one of yours was too.

[Brant Gaede]

Currently our main enemy is militant Muslims. Why? They come and crash planes into our buildings.

On its face, you're saying we're at war with 19 dead people and a handful of rich Saudis who financed and organized the WTC attack. I dispute the characterization of 9/11 as an attack on America. Jewish controlled Cantor Fitzgerald and Morgan Stanley were hit.

The 'war on terror' is a fraud. It's a war of terror, just the way Conan wants. Ask him which clan constitutes Me and Mine, loyalty to which allegedly justifies mass murder and torture of his tribal enemies.

Ron Paul is not going to win. I respect the guy for doing a good job in Congress, and I don't think ill of anyone trying to talk sense to the American people. But there's no plausible exit strategy, not from Social Security, not from Iraq.

This is my last post. I can't take any more Jewish triumphalism. So long.

DeVoon

Next, after New York City gets blown up, are you going to say New York Jews were targeted by a few Muslims who sailed up the Hudson with a nuclear device? C'mon back, Wolf. There's only words here and I'm not even Jewish.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

Ron Paul is not going to win. I respect the guy for doing a good job in Congress, and I don't think ill of anyone trying to talk sense to the American people. But there's no plausible exit strategy, not from Social Security, not from Iraq.

To get this back to Ron Paul for president, why don't you think he can win. Right now his chances are not as good as others. But as his ideas (not really his, but the ideas of the founding fathers, Austrian economist and the likes of Ayn Rand) people are getting excited, people are deciding to vote that have never voted before. Democrats are changing party affiliation to vote in the Republican primary. It is really incredible

Yesterday, the Iowan's for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance held a presidential forum in Des Moines and invited everyone who was a Repbulican candidate except Ron Paul. He asked to be invited and they still said no. So he rented the hall right next to theirs and held a forum of his own after the ITR/ICA forum. The ITR/ICA forum got 600 attendees, Ron Paul all by his lonesome filled his with about 1000 people.

I think it is monumental what is going on. But you are not going to hear about it on Fox News or CNN. Google Ron Paul, go to youtube.com, meetup.com, facebook.com, myspace.com, or eventful.com, see what is happening. Two months ago he was polling at 1% or less, after the first two debates he was at 2%, now it is going close to 3. In a Utah straw poll he got second behind Romney who is Mormon. In a recent California straw poll he got 6%. His donations keep going up and so does his supporters and his donations.

If you are an objectivist or a fan of Ayn Rand, read his speeches and papers at ronpaullibrary.com, if someone told you Rand wrote those words, most of the time would probably believe it. He is an obejectivist's dream candidate.

here is a video of some of his ideas and stances:

--Dustan

[Chris Grieb]

I hope Ron Paul has success and if there is GOP primary in DC I will register and vote in it for him. I go he gets a lot of people to actually read and understand the Constitution.

[Aggrad02]

I hope Ron Paul has success and if there is GOP primary in DC I will register and vote in it for him. I go he gets a lot of people to actually read and understand the Constitution.

That is really great to hear Chris. I know you are probably a very busy person but here is a link to a meetup group in Washington D.C. that meets to talk about and support Rep. Paul.

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/366/?gj=sj6 in DC 7 members

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/30/?gj=sj6 in Alexandria/Arlington 111 members

Here is the link about your primary. It is on Jan 8 and you have to register Republican.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/DC-R.phtml

--Dustan

[Chris Grieb]

I will do that although I will hate myself. Thanks for the info.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Martin Radwin]

Michael Radwin: "They impose brutal sanctions against Iraq which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, including huge numbers of Iraqi children."

"Hundreds of thousands"? Nonsense! These are Michael Moore figures. And our sanctions were an attempt to save lives. Ours.

Michael Radwin: "They send weapons to Israel which are used to kill, enslave, and humiliate thousands of Palestinians."

This is worse than nonsense. It is a wanton disregard of facts, of history, and of morality.

Barbara

Like hell they are "Michael Moore figures". You are attempting to discredit the figures by equating them with Moore, when there are many independent sources who have researched this issue. The exact number of Iraqis who died as a result of these sanctions can never be known, but estimates vary conservatively from over a hundred thousand to over a million. And the idea that imposing sanctions killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was necessary to save our lives as Americans is absurd. Iraq was never a threat to the United States. Here we are, the most powerful nation the world has ever known, with a military that spends more money than the militaries of the rest of the world put together, with a nuclear arsenal of over 2000 nuclear warheads, with at least 800 military bases spread all over the world. And we are somehow so threatened by a third world country torn by ethnic divisions, ruled by a tinpot dictator that we previously supported in the Iran/Iraq war, that we just have no choice but to impose these brutal murderous sanctions, which caused unspeakable suffering for the Iraqi people but did nothing to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

From Wikipedia, which itself links to many independent sources:

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

Introduction

On August 6, 1990 the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 661 which imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq, providing for a full trade embargo, excluding medical supplies, food and other items of humanitarian necessity, these to be determined by the Security Council sanctions committee. After the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi sanctions were linked to removal of Weapons of mass destruction by Resolution 687.[1].

The United Nations economic sanctions were imposed at the urging of the U.S. to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The New York Times stated: "By making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, [sanctions] would eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power" (Seattle-Post Intelligencer August 7, 2003, archived at: [2]). In as much as the economic sanctions were designed to topple Saddam they were a failure, however the sanctions caused the death of between 400 000 and 800 000 Iraqi children (Seatlle-Post Intelligencer August 7, 2003, archived at: [3]; Hartford Courant, October 23, 2000, [4]).

Effects of the sanctions

The sanctions crippled the Iraqi economy during the time they were imposed; much of Iraq’s infrastructure ran into disrepair from lack of materials and Iraq's capacity for aggression was all but destroyed. The initial purpose of the sanctions, and of all diplomatic sanctions, was to force Iraq's hand in cooperation with the United Nations and possibly cause a change in its previously aggressive foreign policy and abuses of human rights.

Critics of the sanctions say that over a million Iraqis, disproportionately children, died as a result of them, [5] although other researchers concluded that the total was lower. [6] [7] [8] UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000.[9] The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture. On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it", [10] though she later rued the comment as "stupid."[11]

Here is a description of the effects of the sanctions from one of the reference papers listed in the Wiki article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

The two most reliable scientific studies on sanctions in Iraq are the 1999 report "Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children," by Columbia University's Richard Garfield, and "Sanctions and Childhood Mortality in Iraq," a May 2000 article by Mohamed Ali and Iqbal Shah in The Lancet. Garfield, an expert on the public-health impact of sanctions, conducted a comparative analysis of the more than two dozen major studies that have analyzed malnutrition and mortality figures in Iraq during the past decade. He estimated the most likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000. Garfield's analysis showed child mortality rates double those of the previous decade.

Ali, a researcher at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Shah, an analyst for the World Health Organization in Geneva, conducted a demographic survey for UNICEF in cooperation with the government of Iraq. In early 1999 their study surveyed 40,000 households in south-central Iraq and in the northern Kurdish zone. In south-central Iraq, child mortality rates rose from 56 per 1,000 births for the period 1984-89 to 131 per 1,000 for the period 1994-99. In the autonomous Kurdish region in the north, Ali and Shah found that child mortality rates actually fell during the same period, from 80 per 1,000 births to 72 per 1,000.

Garfield has recently recalculated his numbers, based on the additional findings of the Ali and Shah study, to arrive at an estimate of approximately 350,000 through 2000. Most of these deaths are associated with sanctions, according to Garfield, but some are also attributable to destruction caused by the Gulf War air campaign, which dropped 90,000 tons of bombs in forty-three days, a far more intensive attack than the current strikes against Afghanistan. The bombing devastated Iraq's civilian infrastructure, destroying eighteen of twenty electricity-generating plants and disabling vital water-pumping and sanitation systems. Untreated sewage flowed into rivers used for drinking water, resulting in a rapid spread of infectious disease. Comprehensive trade sanctions compounded the effects of the war, making it difficult to rebuild, and adding new horrors of hunger and malnutrition.

As you read these descriptions of what actually happened in Iraq as a result of the sanctions that our government imposed, does it make you proud to be an American?

Martin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Martin,

Establishing international trade sanctions is not the same thing as murder, nor should it ever be considered that. Iraq was left free to produce its own goods and values and trade all it wanted to among its own citizens, just like any country is. If Saddam Hussein was so incompetent a ruler that manufacturing and industry under his rule were not allowed to progress, the USA should not be blamed for that.

I do agree that USA government has been part of some bloody monkey-shines (like the military training extended to the secret service of various dictators, then maintaining presence and a blind eye while those dictators went to work on their own citizens), but even then, there is context to all this. I have seen it up close.

I have met some pretty shady Americans down in Brazil. I have yet to meet one who said that Brazilians should be massacred as policy. I did know some Brazilians who wanted to massacre parts of the population (ideological reasons, or cultural ones). I imagine the same holds true for Iraq.

I have much I can write on all this, but I am traveling. More later.

(PS - Disagreeing with Barbara is welcome on OL. Disrespect is not. It is easy to get close to the edge with strong emotions, so please be careful.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Martin, the US has probably killed upwards of 200,000 Iraqi soldiers in the two Gulf wars. We cannot know exactly because in 1991 the US buried them in the desert using bulldozers. The US has been a brutal imperial power with deep roots going back to colonial times. Early 19th C. Indian wars were followed by the Mexican War, The Civil War, the Spanish American War (followed by killing 200,000 Filipinos), etc. WWI was the worst. THE US wrote the bloody, genocidal history of the 20th C. by not staying at home and minding its own business. Africa is being decimated by malaria and AIDS. The US is responsible for the former by its war on DDT.

The world we see today is the world greatly made by the US. Now we can make a string of strong, positive statements about America, too, but inexorable history will grind on. The US is turning itself into a poorer and poorer country; that in time will lead to decline in American power. Israel is the one country at absolute risk because of its small size, population concentration and not too many people. The risk is physical and demographic.

As for the Palestinians, they voted in Hamas. What can one say about that?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Martin, the US has probably killed upwards of 200,000 Iraqi soldiers in the two Gulf wars. We cannot know exactly because in 1991 the US buried them in the desert using bulldozers. The US has been a brutal imperial power with deep roots going back to colonial times. Early 19th C. Indian wars were followed by the Mexican War, The Civil War, the Spanish American War (followed by killing 200,000 Filipinos), etc. WWI was the worst. THE US wrote the bloody, genocidal history of the 20th C. by not staying at home and minding its own business. Africa is being decimated by malaria and AIDS. The US is responsible for the former by its war on DDT.

We obviously did not kill nearly enough. More! More!

When the U.S. is feared as a primal force of nature, it will be respected. When a tornado comes, people hide and hunker down.

As for the Palestinians, they voted in Hamas. What can one say about that?

--Brant

The German people voted in the Nazis in 1935.

It does not matter if an evil regime is voted in or takes over by force. The fact that Hamas was -voted in- makes the Palestinian adult population accessories to the crimes committed by Hamas. Sooner or later the Israelis (if the want to survive) will have to slaughter the entire population of Gaza, or pretty near.

Read the Book of Joshua to see what the Israelites did Way Back When. And this with Bronze Age weapons!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 2, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Aggrad02]

Back to Ron Paul 4 President.

Here is some video of a speech he made in Iowa on Saturday in front of 1,000.

This is part 1, part 2 through 8 can be found on the right hand side of this video.

--Dustan

[Martin Radwin]

Martin,

Establishing international trade sanctions is not the same thing as murder, nor should it ever be considered that. Iraq was left free to produce its own goods and values and trade all it wanted to among its own citizens, just like any country is. If Saddam Hussein was so incompetent a ruler that manufacturing and industry under his rule were not allowed to progress, the USA should not be blamed for that.

I do agree that USA government has been part of some bloody monkey-shines (like the military training extended to the secret service of various dictators, then maintaining presence and a blind eye while those dictators went to work on their own citizens), but even then, there is context to all this. I have seen it up close.

I have met some pretty shady Americans down in Brazil. I have yet to meet one who said that Brazilians should be massacred as policy. I did know some Brazilians who wanted to massacre parts of the population (ideological reasons, or cultural ones). I imagine the same holds true for Iraq.

I have much I can write on all this, but I am traveling. More later.

(PS - Disagreeing with Barbara is welcome on OL. Disrespect is not. It is easy to get close to the edge with strong emotions, so please be careful.)

Michael

With all due respect, Michael, I could not disagree more with your assessment of the nature of the type of international trade sanctions imposed on Iraq. Imposing an embargo on a country should rightfully be considered an act of war. From a libertarian perspective, stopping the residents of a country from trading with their neighbors from other countries is just collectively violating the right of every one of these individuals to engage in free trade. If such an embargo deprives the country of products that it needs to properly survive, and if large numbers of the country's residents die as a result of this embargo, this certainly constitutes murder on a massive scale. In one sense, it's much worse than direct murder, since the governments who impose this embargo can deny moral responsibility for the resulting deaths, as you have denied that the US government bears any responsibility for the horrors than resulted from the sanctions.

You say that "Iraq was left free to produce its own goods and values and trade all it wanted to among its own citizens, just like any country is. If Saddam Hussein was so incompetent a ruler that manufacturing and industry under his rule were not allowed to progress, the USA should not be blamed for that." So if some gang of thugs were to seize control of the neighborhood where you live, and to tell you that they were imposing sanctions on your neighborhood, such that everyone living in your neighborhood would have to exist in isolation from the surrounding community, and if many neighborhood residents, unprepared to live in such isolation, were to die, the thugs who imprisoned and forcibly isolated the residents would not be guilty of mass murder? Essentially, you are arguing that it's okay to make innocent Iraqi residents, including children, suffer and die for the sins of Saddam Hussein. Would it be equally okay to kill huge numbers of Americans as penalty for the sins committed by George W. Bush?

Regarding Barbara, she was not particularly respectful to me either. She stated, falsely, that the figures I gave for number of deaths caused by Iraqi sanctions were nothing but propoganda spread by Michael Moore.

I don't appreciate being wrongly accused of spreading false propoganda. Among other things, Barbara didn't even get my name right.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Martin, the US has probably killed upwards of 200,000 Iraqi soldiers in the two Gulf wars. We cannot know exactly because in 1991 the US buried them in the desert using bulldozers. The US has been a brutal imperial power with deep roots going back to colonial times. Early 19th C. Indian wars were followed by the Mexican War, The Civil War, the Spanish American War (followed by killing 200,000 Filipinos), etc. WWI was the worst. THE US wrote the bloody, genocidal history of the 20th C. by not staying at home and minding its own business. Africa is being decimated by malaria and AIDS. The US is responsible for the former by its war on DDT.

We obviously did not kill nearly enough. More! More!

When the U.S. is feared as a primal force of nature, it will be respected. When a tornado comes, people hide and hunker down.

As for the Palestinians, they voted in Hamas. What can one say about that?

--Brant

The German people voted in the Nazis in 1935.

It does not matter if an evil regime is voted in or takes over by force. The fact that Hamas was -voted in- makes the Palestinian adult population accessories to the crimes committed by Hamas. Sooner or later the Israelis (if the want to survive) will have to slaughter the entire population of Gaza, or pretty near.

Read the Book of Joshua to see what the Israelites did Way Back When. And this with Bronze Age weapons!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Since evil (and good) is only a matter of opinion in what seems to be your "philosophy," how do you defend this genocidal nonsense? You have only presented an implicit argument that the US should leave the insane Middle East including Israel to itself. Might be best for Israel. No more socialism, for example--too expensive.

--Brant

Edited July 3, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Martin,

You drop too much context and I sense an itch to preach. I have no wish to discuss anything on those terms.

I stand by what I say.

Let's leave it at that.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

One quick question: Does the number of deaths from the sanctions match the number of deaths from Saddam?

[BaalChatzaf]

I am excited to see that Rep. Ron Paul ® of Texas, is running for President. He is a true champion of limited government and individual freedom. Ron Paul is a stickler for the Constitution and an advocate of laissez-faire Austrian economics. I think most people who agree with fundamentals of Objectivist politics will be interested in Ron Paul's message. Check out Ron Paul at:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=70183124 or,

http://ronpaul2008.com/

Your boundless admiration for our Constitution may be a trifle far-fetched and misplaced. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits government from super-surveillance with thousands of Big Brother cameras everywhere and the recording of all sorts of transactions. Once it is granted that acts made in public can be observed by the public, it is a short jump to having camerals mounted on every lamp post. Furthermore, our Constitution, however otherwise admirable it may be, permits (quite explicitly) the regulation of interstate commerce. This principle, written in black and white became the superordinate principle of the New Deal. The results? Google; Department of Agriculture v. Wychard. Subsumed under the regulation of interstate commerce is the Food and Drug act. And you know what insanity has flowed from this.

Historically our blessed Constitution permitted chattel slavery until 1865 and it took a war that killed 620,000 and maimed another million and a half to bring about a change. I have reservations on how -wonderful- our Constitution is. And yes, I appreciate the first and second amendment. Unfortunately the tenth amendment is oft ignored and the ninth amendment is not a useful as you think.

Our privacy receives scant protection under the fourth amendment. There is more to privacy than the requirement of search-warrants.

What under our Constitution will protect us from a hyperactive Supreme Court. Answer: damned little.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 3, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Aggrad02]

I am excited to see that Rep. Ron Paul ® of Texas, is running for President. He is a true champion of limited government and individual freedom. Ron Paul is a stickler for the Constitution and an advocate of laissez-faire Austrian economics. I think most people who agree with fundamentals of Objectivist politics will be interested in Ron Paul's message. Check out Ron Paul at:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=70183124 or,

http://ronpaul2008.com/

Your boundless admiration for our Constitution may be a trifle far-fetched and misplaced. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits government from super-surveillance with thousands of Big Brother cameras everywhere and the recording of all sorts of transactions. Once it is granted that acts made in public can be observed by the public, it is a short jump to having camerals mounted on every lamp post. Furthermore, our Constitution, however otherwise admirable it may be, permits (quite explicitly) the regulation of interstate commerce. This principle, written in black and white became the superordinate principle of the New Deal. The results? Google; Department of Agriculture v. Wychard. Subsumed under the regulation of interstate commerce is the Food and Drug act. And you know what insanity has flowed from this.

Historically our blessed Constitution permitted chattel slavery until 1865 and it took a war that killed 620,000 and maimed another million and a half to bring about a change. I have reservations on how -wonderful- our Constitution is. And yes, I appreciate the first and second amendment. Unfortunately the tenth amendment is oft ignored and the ninth amendment is not a useful as you think.

Our privacy receives scant protection under the fourth amendment. There is more to privacy than the requirement of search-warrants.

What under our Constitution will protect us from a hyperactive Supreme Court. Answer: damned little.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al I have a couple of responses to your post, but the first is that the Civil War was not about slavery, and every other country in the world was able to get rid of it without a war.

--Dustan

[Brant Gaede]

I am excited to see that Rep. Ron Paul ® of Texas, is running for President. He is a true champion of limited government and individual freedom. Ron Paul is a stickler for the Constitution and an advocate of laissez-faire Austrian economics. I think most people who agree with fundamentals of Objectivist politics will be interested in Ron Paul's message. Check out Ron Paul at:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=70183124 or,

http://ronpaul2008.com/

Your boundless admiration for our Constitution may be a trifle far-fetched and misplaced. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits government from super-surveillance with thousands of Big Brother cameras everywhere and the recording of all sorts of transactions. Once it is granted that acts made in public can be observed by the public, it is a short jump to having camerals mounted on every lamp post. Furthermore, our Constitution, however otherwise admirable it may be, permits (quite explicitly) the regulation of interstate commerce. This principle, written in black and white became the superordinate principle of the New Deal. The results? Google; Department of Agriculture v. Wychard. Subsumed under the regulation of interstate commerce is the Food and Drug act. And you know what insanity has flowed from this.

Historically our blessed Constitution permitted chattel slavery until 1865 and it took a war that killed 620,000 and maimed another million and a half to bring about a change. I have reservations on how -wonderful- our Constitution is. And yes, I appreciate the first and second amendment. Unfortunately the tenth amendment is oft ignored and the ninth amendment is not a useful as you think.

Our privacy receives scant protection under the fourth amendment. There is more to privacy than the requirement of search-warrants.

What under our Constitution will protect us from a hyperactive Supreme Court. Answer: damned little.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al I have a couple of responses to your post, but the first is that the Civil War was not about slavery, and every other country in the world was able to get rid of it without a war.

--Dustan

The Civil War had a great deal to do with slavery--and other things.

--Brant

[Martin Radwin]

One quick question: Does the number of deaths from the sanctions match the number of deaths from Saddam?

Chris,

Exact numbers are not known for either deaths from the sanctions or deaths associated with the regime of Saddam Hussein, so all figures are only rough estimates. Saddam Hussein, during the years that he ruled Iraq, is estimated to have killed about 200,000 Iraqis. During the 8 years of the Iran - Iraq war, Iran is estimated to have suffered about 1 million deaths, including an estimated 100,000 killed by Iraqi chemical weapons. Some of these weapons or their precursors were provided by the United States.

As for the sanctions, as I indicated in an earlier post on this thread, estimates of deaths caused by these sanctions range between about 100,000 and 1 million. So, not counting the deaths from the Iran - Iraq war, it is quite possible that the sanctions killed more Iraqis than did Saddam Hussein. This is typical of the kind of "help" that the US government frequently provides. The sanctions, which were justified as being necessary to destroy the Hussein regime, may have killed more Iraqis than the Hussein regime itself.

Martin

[BaalChatzaf]

One quick question: Does the number of deaths from the sanctions match the number of deaths from Saddam?

Chris,

Exact numbers are not known for either deaths from the sanctions or deaths associated with the regime of Saddam Hussein, so all figures are only rough estimates. Saddam Hussein, during the years that he ruled Iraq, is estimated to have killed about 200,000 Iraqis. During the 8 years of the Iran - Iraq war, Iran is estimated to have suffered about 1 million deaths, including an estimated 100,000 killed by Iraqi chemical weapons. Some of these weapons or their precursors were provided by the United States.

As for the sanctions, as I indicated in an earlier post on this thread, estimates of deaths caused by these sanctions range between about 100,000 and 1 million. So, not counting the deaths from the Iran - Iraq war, it is quite possible that the sanctions killed more Iraqis than did Saddam Hussein. This is typical of the kind of "help" that the US government frequently provides. The sanctions, which were justified as being necessary to destroy the Hussein regime, may have killed more Iraqis than the Hussein regime itself.

Martin

But it worked! There is no more Saddam regime. If the objective was regime change, it has been achieved. All Saddam had to do was resign and no further deaths would have occurred. Clearly the blame lies with him.

If pedestrians are killed during a high speed police chase, it is clearly the fault of the one who was running away. All he had to do was stop and surrender. Then no pedestrians would have been killed. As long as we charge our police with the task of arresting the bad guys there will be collateral damage. As long as we charge our soldiers with the task of fighting wars against aggressors primarily for national defense there will be collateral damage. There will also be "friendly fire" casualties. It cannot be avoided as long as the bad guys do their evil and struggle against being removed.

The alternative to avoiding collateral damage is to let the bad guys do whatever they damn please. Is that what you want?

Ba'al Chatzaf.

[Chris Grieb]

I hate myself but I agree with Bob's last post.

This much is true sanctions fall on innocent victims more than they do on the individuals who start the wars. It is worth noting the only fat person in North Korea is the dictator.