Thursday, October 29, 2009

Save the wails ..By Mr. Fish

Posted by at

49 comments:

  1. ananOctober 29, 2009 at 7:57 AM

    TGIA, please post the Mustafa Barghouti on Commedy Central:
    http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2009/10/dr-mustafa-barghouti.html

    Why don't more Palestinians back him in the polls? Why did 44% and 28% back Fatah and Hamas in the August public opinion poll?

    ReplyDelete
  2. ananOctober 29, 2009 at 11:25 AM

    TGIA, V, Molly and company, it is time you returned to Iraqi Mojo:
    "Anan;

    If Americans are unsympathetic to the Palestinians, it's for cultural reasons. The American temperament has no patience for people who do nothing to improve their situation, publically celebrate acts of terrorism, steal billions of donated aid dollars, attack the interests of those donor countries because of a Danish cartoon, destroy the greenhouses left for their economic benefit, turn their young into human bombs, break ceasefires ten minutes after signing, repeatedly elect corrupt and venal thugs to power, launch a rocket war from Gaza AFTER the Israelis removed their settlements , etc etc etc

    The Israelis sure aren't saints, but that is why they are more attractive than people who repeatedly wallow in stagnation and self destructive behaviour.
    <span> Boojum | 10.29.09 - 1:08 pm | # </span>"
    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/iraqimojo/8555104770741971967/?src=hsr#527204

    Some help please!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. vOctober 29, 2009 at 2:26 PM

    Mr. Fish aleays hits it on the head,  and he is able to do it with such a small target as anan's cranium :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. ananOctober 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM

    Where is the data to suggest that this many Iraqis and Afghans have died? {In the case of Afghans, not many Afghans are dying in the violence.} Who killed the ones who died? Suicide bomber brainwashed Takfiri wackos killed many of them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. thankgodimatheistOctober 29, 2009 at 3:20 PM

    I stopped going on Mojo's because it became too much work, too many dudes with time on their hands and there's only little I could do for lack of time. Spending so much time on the 2 blogs  had a very bad impact on my working habits.

    ReplyDelete
  6. thankgodimatheistOctober 29, 2009 at 3:23 PM

    BTW, why should we worry about this Boojon is saying. He sounds very much like a fleming and a dialog with those typical brainwashed assholes is akin to a conversation with a wall.

    ReplyDelete
  7. thankgodimatheistOctober 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM

    <span>BTW, why should we worry about this Boojon is saying? He sounds very much like fleming therefore a dialog with those lobotomy material is akin to a conversation with a bowl of soup.. </span>

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousOctober 29, 2009 at 4:12 PM

    Check the Lancet study, Anan.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ananOctober 29, 2009 at 4:30 PM

    The Lancet study has sample bias.

    The Iraqi Government recently estimated 85,000 violent deaths since 2003, excluding insurgent deaths (which of course the Iraqi Government supported.)

    Who killed these 85,000 Iraqis. Who shot at the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police?

    ReplyDelete
  10. thankgodimatheistOctober 29, 2009 at 4:41 PM

    Not gonna help!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. thankgodimatheistOctober 29, 2009 at 4:44 PM

    <span>Check the Lancet study, Anan.</span>
    ----------------
    Nah! Not the lancet! It's not a US govt owned magazine!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. ananOctober 29, 2009 at 5:17 PM

    TGIA, it has nothing to do with the Academic journal. Everything to do with how the survey was conducted. There was bias in who was asked questions.

    There have been many academic articles arguing precisely this.

    In other words, a new survey is needed.

    BTW, large numbers don't make sense since the number of Shiites who died in Iraq is known, since they almost always are burried in specific sites.

    ReplyDelete
  13. thankgodimatheistOctober 29, 2009 at 6:06 PM

    Sorry anan but I've had enough...You're a text book apologist..
    Pass.

    ReplyDelete
  14. vOctober 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM

    Oh really anan - than who killed the 500,000 plus Iraqi children and infants during the US sponsored UN sanctions?  When Madeline Albright said she thought the price paid was not too much.  No anan,  you are full of shit,  and you have no idea what you are talking about.  We have gone over this ground before,  and apparently leaving you broken,  bruised and bleeding in a factual argument is not enough,  we have to put a proverbial bullet in your head (so to speak). 

    In short,  the same individuals who had no mercy for the infants durig the sanctions killed the Iraqis during the invasion massacre.

    ReplyDelete
  15. vOctober 29, 2009 at 6:45 PM

    And just in case you want to equivocate Gunga Din (anan),  here are the UN numbers.  When they did this (US at al.) they did not even blink an eyelash.  What was it anan,  did you're Takfiri pop up from out of the ground and kill the Iraqis in a clandestine way during the sanctions jackass?

    US SPONSORED SANCTIONS KILL 567,000 IRAQI CHILDREN

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

    ReplyDelete
  16. vzaOctober 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM

    Saddam Hussein killed 567,000 Iraqi children.

    ReplyDelete
  17. vzaOctober 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM

    Saddam Hussein killed 567,000 Iraqi children.

    ReplyDelete
  18. thankgodimatheistOctober 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM

    Well if this is true then he couldn't have done that without the sanctions right?

    ReplyDelete
  19. thankgodimatheistOctober 29, 2009 at 8:16 PM

    <span>Saddam Hussein killed 567,000 Iraqi children.</span>
    <span></span><span>-----------</span>
    <span>Well if this is true then he couldn't have done that without the sanctions right?</span>

    ReplyDelete
  20. vzaOctober 29, 2009 at 8:43 PM

     Oh I see. Nobody else in this world is responsible for their actions or inactions but the U.S.  Did you approve of the sanctions against apartheid South Africa? Would you approve sanctions against Israel?

    ReplyDelete
  21. vOctober 29, 2009 at 8:45 PM

    Yeah right vza,  that old retort was even deined by the ones who perpetrated the sanctions. What does that make you? Worse than the people who killed 567,00 innocent children.  In fact it was sworn NEVER to apply this type of sanction again by the very parties that called for it - and they did not blame Saddam in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  22. thankgodimatheistOctober 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM

    But how did Saddam "kill  them"?

    ReplyDelete
  23. thankgodimatheistOctober 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM

    Malnutrition, lack of medicine etc..Wasn't Saddam who imposed the restictions. The sanctions surely were for something!

    ReplyDelete
  24. vzaOctober 29, 2009 at 9:10 PM

    The sanctions did not prevent food or medicine from entering Iraq. Read them.
    Hussein stockpiled tons of things that should have been distributed to his people. They found warehouses filled with wheelchauirs that were never given to the people who needed them.
    Those poor people suffered solely because HE chose to make them suffer.

    ReplyDelete
  25. vzaOctober 29, 2009 at 9:25 PM

    <span> What does that make you? Worse than the people who killed 567,00 innocent children. </span>

    I know, I know. Only you care and only you are right and only you have all the facts. No bad guys are responsible. Nobody has the power of free will. They are all at the mercy of the great evil empire. Saddam was a mere puppet. It was really the U.S. holding back the food and the medicine. No intelligent being can seriously believe that crap.

    ReplyDelete
  26. vOctober 29, 2009 at 9:39 PM

    On the contrary vza,  only hard headed people who do not read the facts deny what I said,  or the terminally blinded by ideology,  or the plain stupid.

    <span style="">"Deprived of oil revenues and nearly all imports by the sanctions, its known assets abroad frozen, and its hidden assets apparently nearing exhaustion, Baghdad's streets and marketplaces have been hard-hit by record levels of inflation. The effects of this inflation are reflected most noticeably in free-market food prices which immediately shot up, almost doubling in some cases (Shields 47). "Food prices have risen 550-fold since the end of the war, while incomes have increased only two-to-three fold. A tin of milk powder, or a tray of eggs, now costs 1000 Iraqi dinar--about half the monthly salary of a university professor" (Platt 15). This increase in free-market food prices combined with high levels of inflation and unemployment has translated into a severe malnutrition problem. In 1990, Thomas Ekfal, representative of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in Baghdad, reported: </span>
    <span style="">Half a million children, more than 9000 a month, have died of malnutrition and disease because of sanctions and another 1.5 million are in danger of dying if the sanctions are continued. With a chicken costing half the average monthly wage 2.5 million people were suddenly vulnerable to severe hunger (Shields 47). </span>
    <span style="">As a result, the regime has had no option but to implement a policy of basic food rationing because the UN sanctions and economic embargo against Iraq have caused shortages in items needed for agriculture. In 1993, the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture reported that production for the year was only 25 to 30 percent of 1992's yield (Dulmage 1). The primary cause for this decline in production is that there is a shortage of spare parts, fertilizers, pesticides, and seed. In particular, the UN sanctions have made it extremely difficult to maintain the elaborate government greenhouse complex at Raschdiva, just outside of Baghdad, which is the center of Iraqi agriculture."
    </span>

    ReplyDelete
  27. vOctober 29, 2009 at 9:40 PM

    cont'

    <span style="">"The sanctions have made it practically impossible to replace glass broken at the Raschdiva greenhouse complex during the coalition's bombing attacks on a nearby communications outpost during the war. No longer able to import the glass required for repairs, replacement glass and parts now can only come from one source; the Iraqis have begun stripping some of the more heavily damaged greenhouses. Of course, the more they cannibalize, the fewer greenhouses are available to grow much needed crops. Additionally, machinery is breaking down and there are no spare parts to be found in Iraq to keep equipment running. The Raschdiva greenhouse system relies on the ability to electronically control the climate inside the greenhouses. As electronic components fail, more greenhouses are closed down. </span>
    <span style="">Since 1990, Iraq has also been unable to import foodstuffs and medical supplies at the volume required by its 18 million people. Before the imposition of the oil embargo in August 1990, Iraq imported food and medical products worth $3-4 billion a year. The revenue available today for those type of imports, including those arriving as contraband from Jordan, Turkey, and Iran, does not exceed a billion dollars (Rouleau 64). </span>
    <span style="">A thorough examination of the sanctions reveals that the Security Council has imposed no formal restrictions on the import of humanitarian goods (i.e. food and medical supplies). However, the ban on Iraqi oil exports has essentially done just that. Iraq relies on the revenue generated from the sale of oil to purchase such goods. Therefore, to avert wholesale starvation, in 1990 the government implemented a policy of providing all Iraqis with a basic monthly food ration at a cost of about $1 billion a year from its hidden reserves and with minimal help from UN agencies (Lewis A3). As Iraq's hidden reserves became depleted, the government was forced to economize. "Government rations were recently cut by one third, so they now provide less than half a person's nutritional requirements" (Platt 15). According to a 1994 UNICEF report: </span>
    <span style="">The caloric deficit among Iraqis is now putting at risk some 3.5 million persons, including 1.58 million children under the age of 15 and 230,000 pregnant or nursing women. Many children, it is now believed will be born mentally handicapped; the infant mortality rate, which has doubled in three years, will continue to rise (Jansen 9)."</span>

    ReplyDelete
  28. vOctober 29, 2009 at 9:41 PM

    cont'

    <span style="">"Eric Rouleau described Iraq's food shortage, stating, "For visitors who knew Iraq in happier times, it is astonishing to realize that it is possible to die of hunger in one of the world's richest countries, on land covering the largest oil reserves in the world, after those of Saudi Arabia" (Rouleau 63). </span>
    <span style="">In addition to malnutrition, disease levels have also been on the rise. This is due in part to a shortage of dire medical supplies and a breakdown in basic infrastructure resulting from the economic blockade of Iraq. In March of 1993, a United Nations investigative mission visiting Iraq reported: </span>
    <span style="">In 1994, 2,380 children died of diarrhea as compared with 121 in 1989 and 1,789 of pneumonia, as compared with 139 in 1989, and the mortality rate for people over 50 suffering from hypertension, diabetes and cancer was 10 times higher in each category than the 1989 rate (Jansen 9).</span>
    <span style="">The majority of these cases could have be treated, but Iraq's drug shortage has made this nearly impossible. </span>
    <span style="">Although drugs were explicitly exempt from the embargo, foreign producers refuse to fill orders from Baghdad. As much as $10m out of $17m worth of orders placed and paid for before the embargo was imposed have yet to be delivered (Jansen 10). As Iraq's medical crisis became more acute, Baghdad signed agreements in 1991 with Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Canada, and Sweden to grant credit against frozen Iraqi assets held by those countries. However, by the end of 1994, Britain had only sent "$22m out of an agreed $70m in drugs and food, Spain $1m, Italy a quarter of the specified amount and Canada and Sweden were still negotiating deals" (Jansen 10). </span>
    <span style="">In regard to Iraq's failing infrastructure, some 800,000 people in Southern Iraq are at risk from water bourne diseases due to the destruction of sewage treatment and water purification facilities by Allied bombers in 1991 (Jansen 10). Under the current sanctions and blockade, Iraq has been banned from importing chlorine for water purification, as well as spare parts to repair purification plants damaged during the coalition's bombing attacks." </span>

    ReplyDelete
  29. vOctober 29, 2009 at 9:43 PM

    cont'

    <span style="">"Besides chlorine, electrical components, and assorted mechanical parts, which apparently have military applications, the Sanctions Committee has also "banned more than 300 items using criteria whose logic is not always apparent" (Rouleau 63). The list of these banned items has come to be known as the "Red List." To illustrate the absurdity of the "Red List" consider the following examples of items banned: electric light bulbs, socks, wristwatches, ovens, spare parts for vehicles, sewing machines, mirrors, diskettes, nails, a wide range of textiles, refrigerators, etc. The tragedy of the Iraqi situation is that all of its import requests are subject to a vote by the Sanctions Committee's fifteen members, representing the nations of the Security Council. As such, it takes only one vote to veto an import request, even if the other fourteen members agree. </span>

    <span style="">Justifications for Continued Sanctions</span>

    <span style="">The American-British demand for total Iraqi compliance with all resolutions has as its ultimate objective to so humiliate Saddam Hussein that his own people and army will rise up and remove him from power. Most Iraqis believe that the UN sanctions will never be lifted, as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, regardless of whether or not the government complies with the resolutions. Yet, knowing this and despite the difficult conditions created by the sanctions within Iraq, Hussein's position remains secure. The everyday struggle of the Iraqi people has left them with "neither the desire nor the energy to rise up against their government, which they increasingly perceive as a victim of a superpower's agenda" (Rouleau 68). Also, the leader has simply responded by tightening control of his military and security forces, purging all opposition. </span>
    <span style="">As a result, since the summer of 1994, three of the permanent members of the Security Council (Russia, China, and France) have been advocating a relaxation of the sanctions. The primarily American-British hard-line attitude toward Iraq and its compliance with the Security Council's resolutions has come under intense scrutiny, particularly in light of the recent rash of reports highlighting the deplorable living conditions inside Iraq. One of the principle arguments against the hard-line attitude has been: Why must the resolutions pertaining to Iraq be enforced so severely when many other UN resolutions have been ignored? More often than not, the example of Israel is used to argue this point. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and Israel's 1978 invasion of Lebanon, several UN resolutions were passed to punish Israel which were largely ignored." </span>

    ReplyDelete
  30. vOctober 29, 2009 at 9:44 PM

    cont'

    <span style="">"The hypocrisy of American-British stance has led to a general feeling that the two nations care only about their oil and weapons interests in the Middle East. Iraq's return to the oil market could push prices down and make it difficult for Saudi Arabia to meet payments for its arms purchases from Washington and London. "The United States does not want to do anything that would affect Saudi Arabia's cash flow since American companies hold orders there for $30b worth of weapons and $6b worth of commercial aircraft" (Neff 3). Competition from Iraqi oil sales would have a severe impact on Saudi Arabia, forcing it to either lower its price or reduce its production output. </span>
    <span style="">There are also rumors of a secret agreement by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, guaranteeing cheap oil to the United States; "America' s economic recovery over the last three and a half years has been greatly aided by oil available at under $20 a barrel" (Neff 4). Assuming these rumors are true, Washington for its part of the deal would be required to ensure that the UN sanctions remain in effect as long as possible. Such an agreement is said to be the cornerstone of the United States "dual containment" policy whereby Tehran and Baghdad are to be squeezed into cooperation. Iran, like Iraq, could also drive the price of oil down were the US sponsored embargo of its oil industry lifted. </span>
    <span style="">The United States has countered such rumors by arguing, ironically, that the sole reason for the recent change of heart by some of the Council members is economic. "US officials hit back at France and Russia by telling reporters 'off the record' that the two countries had selfish reasons for showing a more tolerant attitude toward Saddam than the US" (Neff 3). Apparently, both countries were major arms suppliers to Iraq before the Gulf War. Also, both hold large debts from Iraq and could expect to profit once the oil embargo is lifted and Iraq begins reconstruction of its infrastructure."</span>

    ReplyDelete
  31. vOctober 29, 2009 at 9:47 PM

    cont'

    Dulmage, Mark. "Sanctions Bring Agriculture Down in Iraq." Cable News Network 16 April 1992, Transcript #6-2: 1-2.
    Hufbauer, Gary and Jeffrey J. Schott. Economic Sanctions Reconsidered. Washington D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1985.
    Jansen, Michael. "Dire medical shortages." Middle East International 2 April 1993: 9-10.
    Jensen, Godfrey. "Saddam Sees the Light?" Middle East International 18 November 1994: 8-9.
    Lewis, Paul. "War's Price: Poverty, Inflation, Crime." New York Times 31 July 1994, Section 1: A3.
    Markinson, Ronald. "British government pressed to review its policy on sanctions against Iraq." Mideast Mirror 10 February 1995, Section Iraq: A9.
    Neff, Donald. "Clinton faces down Saddam Hussein." Middle East International 21 October 1994: 3-4.
    Pipes, Daniel. "The View from Baghdad: Tariq Aziz." Middle East Quarterly June 1994: 59-63.
    Platt, Steve. "Sanctions don't harm Saddam." New Statesman & Society 4 November 1995: 10.
    Rouleau, Eric. "America's Unyielding Policy Toward Iraq." Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 1995: 59-72.
    Shields, Todd. "Misery's Downward Spiral." US News and World Report 24 October 1994: 47.
    Smeets, Martin. "Economic Sanctions Against Iraq: The Ideal Case." Journal of World Trade December 1990: 105-120.

    It gets worse,  want more?

    http://www.iraqwar.org/impossible.htm

    As I said,  you have to be really hardened to hold a position which has been abadoned by the adherents.  I am not correct,  the facts are incontrovertible.

    ReplyDelete
  32. vzaOctober 29, 2009 at 10:02 PM

    It could be this way in southern Iraq, too. But incredibly, even as Saddam's regime milks its people's suffering for international sympathy, it sells food abroad that is earmarked for Iraqi citizens. According to the U.S. State Department, in October 1999 Allied patrols in the Persian Gulf stopped three ships that were carrying food out of Iraq. Near the Iranian border, I watched smugglers load sacks of rice and grain (and whiskey) for export. When you throw in the fact that per capita income in Iraq (approximately $1,000) remains higher than in Syria ($900) and Yemen ($270), where few people go hungry, it becomes clear that there's no reason why Iraqis should be suffering--particularly when Saddam's regime has found $2 billion to build palaces, and even an amusement park for party officials, since the sanctions began. Of course, you won't see these things on the official tour: Unlike the Kurds, who allowed me to travel freely on my own, Saddam's regime insists on carefully managing visits.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20010622042633/http://www.thenewrepublic.com/061801/rubin061801.html

    ReplyDelete
  33. vzaOctober 29, 2009 at 10:13 PM

    And another view:

    <h2>The Politics of Dead Children</h2>
    <h3>Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?</h3>


    http://reason.com/archives/2002/03/01/the-politics-of-dead-children

    ReplyDelete
  34. vzaOctober 29, 2009 at 10:14 PM

    <span>And another view:</span>
    <span> 
    </span>
    <span>The Politics of Dead Children</span>
    <span>Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?
     
    http://reason.com/archives/2002/03/01/the-politics-of-dead-children</span>

    ReplyDelete
  35. vOctober 29, 2009 at 11:13 PM

    Yeah one of the New Republics hit pieces,  but I forgot that you read such trash.  I want proof,  and you have NONE,  you have fucking propaganda.  Those palaces were built long before the sanctions vza,  you can see pictures of them previous to the sanctions - only idiots believe this stuff. Most of the palaces were built before the sanctions (81 in all),  some were built in memory to wives and others to commemorate the war with Iran, etc.  As I have said about Zionists, ideology makes a person one dumb shit - hegemony hag.

    ReplyDelete
  36. vOctober 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM

    Shit vza,  now you want to quote the electronic rag "reason?"  Have you ever read his accolades to ayn rand? Or his pieces and links to Palestine? I should have known better than to try to converse with you,  you dig you're own grave with you're mouth,  and than jump in the hole and cover yourself up...forget it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. vOctober 29, 2009 at 11:23 PM

    Next you will be telling me about Adam Smith's "invisible hand,"  like fleming - never mentioning the fact that he said that the chief duty of government is to protect those with property from those who have none (Like Madison and the rest of the fucked up founding fathers wrecking crew).

    ReplyDelete
  38. vOctober 29, 2009 at 11:31 PM

    Here,  why don't you listen to something worthwhile and true for once? Do not say I never gave you anything vza -

    http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/m3u.php?mp3fil=23730

    ReplyDelete
  39. ananOctober 29, 2009 at 11:50 PM

    v, I have very mixed feelings about sanctions. Both the South African and Iraqi sanctions hurt poor people. In general sanctions should be avoided whenever possible.

    This is why I oppose sanctions against both Gaza and Israel.

    V, Saddam and the sanctions killed many Iraqis. Both factors were important. Saddam only spent $20 million on the Iraqi health care system in 2002. Saddam only spent $20 million on the Iraqi education care system in 2002.

    Compare that to what:
    -Iraqi governing council spent 2003-2004
    -Allawi spent 2004-2005
    -Jafari spent 2005-2006
    -Maliki spent 2006-present
    The Iraqi Government has increased both the education and health care budgets by more than 100 fold.

    Saddam gutted all social spending to spend on:
    -his worthless family (including Palaces)
    -his Iraqi Army
    -his Iraqi Police
    -bribing foolish politicians around the world, including India's former foreign minister, George Gallaway, French, Russian and other politicians.
    There wasn't much left over for the Iraqi people.

    VZA is right that the sanctions allowed imports of food, medicine, water and other nonmilitary civilian goods. The problem was that the sanctions discrupted Iraqi exports, and in so doing made the Iraqis too poor to afford imports.

    ReplyDelete
  40. vOctober 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM

    Listen you little liar,  the reason why saddam did not have to spend as much as these other "governments" is BECAUSE he was maintaining a structure that was ALREADY THERE.  The reason why more is spent now is not only raging inflation,  BUT THEY HAVE TO REBUILD EVERYTHING DESTROYED BY YOU BLESSED OCCUPATIONAL MURDERERS.  So why don't you try to work you're voodoo economics on some novice,  don't pull that shit on me,  because I will make you eat it 100 fold.

    ReplyDelete
  41. vOctober 30, 2009 at 12:13 AM

    In fact you're numbers are not only skewed in a utilitarian sense,  it is skewed by the portions you say it is spent on.  There is 10 times the amount spent on security now, since you're beautiful asses allowed every ass known to man in there - but also because there is still a grass roots resistance in effect.  Tap dance somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  42. vzaOctober 30, 2009 at 5:05 AM

    <span>  you have fucking propaganda. </span>

    And you don't? Funniest line I've read all day! Oh yes, YOUR sources are all pure nonbiased ideologically pure humanitarians.

    ReplyDelete
  43. vzaOctober 30, 2009 at 5:18 AM

    A defense of Sadaam Hussein. Unbelievable. I don't agree with sanctions either  but ultimately Sadaam Hussein was responsible for the welfare of his people. He chose to use that responsibilty as a weapon with his people's suffering as ammunition. For you to defend Hussein's propaganda is uncounscionable. My, my, what does that say about YOU?

    ReplyDelete
  44. vOctober 30, 2009 at 6:52 AM

    These are the FACTS and not what Saddam did,  but what was done to Iraq.  The reason why you will always and ever identify with that which is contrary to the facts is that you sid with unbridled power,  and what does it always do?  Blame the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  45. MollyOctober 30, 2009 at 1:43 PM

    Just four words for you, vza: "we think it's worth it."

    ReplyDelete
  46. vOctober 30, 2009 at 6:50 PM

    Oh,  to the contrary vza,  they are pretty far right - look at the sources at the end of my extended quote.  Which brings up another issue,  not all of those of the right are ideologial nuts like you,  they are honest and know they cannot sidestep or skew the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  47. vzaOctober 31, 2009 at 7:10 AM

    Albright admitted it was a stupid and heartless comment. That does not relieve Sadaam Hussein of HIS responsibility for what HE did to his people.

    ReplyDelete
  48. vzaOctober 31, 2009 at 7:13 AM

    <span>Which brings up another issue,  not all of those of the right are ideologial nuts like you,</span>

    The second funniest thing I have read all day. Keep them rolling! You calling anyone an ideological nut is hilarious!

    ReplyDelete
  49. flemingOctober 31, 2009 at 7:31 AM

    Count much Molly?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)