From your own words, your level of knowledge on the topic does not extend any deeper than a 60-second search using google. Wow -- you must be an absolute expert on this stuff. Unicef is not a credible link. Try again, rookie.
His link is irrelevant, since any deaths are to be blamed on Saddam. While children were dying, Saddam built over 50 palaces, a new army, and a WMD program. He is arguing that our nation is responsible for the welfare of the Iraqi people.
It's amazing that Saddam would basically kill all of those babies just to try and convince the fools of the world that he is good and the US is bad.
60 seconds is greater than 1 second you spent thinking about this issue. Give me a break. UNICEF is not credible? TJ, you really live in a fantasy world that can not have any of its "truths" disproved or you might to be forced to actually think for yourself Baaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa.
You conveniently sidestep t465's point, why is it America's fault that Iraqi children died while Saddam's government got richer and richer?
Hammer, Leave him alone for a bit. He's experiencing a psychological meltdown. His emotions have overcome him.
Ahhh....now I understand where you are coming from, No Worries. You just need some sleep. I suggest you take three Tylenol PM's tonight. Tomorrow morning, after a good night's rest.....everything will be much clearer to you.
do you disagree that saddam spends billions on palaces and his lavish life there...while his subjects starve.
No Worries, You do know that Iraq is able to sell oil in order to buy approved food and medical supplies under the embargo, don't you? I suggest next time you search for Iraq food aid.
dammit all! You guys have ruined the best mustache joke I have ever made! Blah blah blah. Dead kids. blah blah blah. Embargo. ... blah blah blah. everyone pile on No Worries for ever, ever questioning what-the-hell-good our sanctions ever did anyone. blah blah blah... come ON! Look at Sean Penn's pathetic 'stache!
B-Bob, I have noticed that you have been on a humor spree of late. Have you become politically indifferent?
Yeah, we saw it B-Bob. I just knew after my last post that you'd chime in with an attempt to best the unintentional hilarity of Glynch's post. Keep at it, slugger.
This portion of the thread started off by Hammer755 and Trader_Jorge questioning the validity of the 350,000 children deaths attributed to the emabrgo. I posted a UNICEF link that gave an even higher credible number. As a diversion, t4651965 and Hammer755 (who now accepts the number of deaths???) try to shift the blame from the embargo to Saddam in totality. Unfortunately, the US crazed desire for an Iraqi regime change is also partly responsible. As yet another diversion, StupidMoniker mentions that Iraq can now sell oil for food and other US approved medical supplies. The US track record here is not beyond reproach. The US has blocked many medical supplies that they claimed were dual purpose. I am sure by now that the brainless readers here will think in their delusional mind that in some way I am pro-Saddam and anti-USA (or even anti-Bush by the most brainless of the lot). The main point of my posts on this thread is that this is not a black and white issue. Both Saddam and the US have behaved badly here (albeit not equally). If this in inconvenient for you to believe, so be it.
No Worries, It was not a diversion and this is not a new development. We have never blocked food from getting to Iraq, yet there are children who die from starvation. If Saddam wants to take out his anger at the US on his own people, America can hardly be held responsible. I don't think anyone was ever disputing the number of deaths, only where the responsibility is placed. Saddam is a bad guy, and most if not all of the problems of the Iraqi people can be traced back to him (although it is a hell of a mustache ). Try not to be so open minded that your brain falls out.
