billy the butcher

[michael1111]

(and a reminder that the left are rapists with roses)

i get a little tired of listening to the left drone on about the war and what murdering fools republicans are. you dont need a war to murder people. bill clinton was great at doing everything on the sly, from fucking to murder. he and his cronies are responsible for 100 000s of dead people around the world. it was the foreign policy of the dems that did it.

and to be honest, i think both sides are stupid and wrong. i just want to always be around to point out to people that they are grading themselves as humans by siding with the people they think murder less...and thats why it wont ever stop. its not really the issue, now is it?

heres a post i left not long ago. you can google up facts yourself. i left two, one thats kinda conspiracy and dicey and one thats pretty legit. enjoy!

-

been having a debate on another forum about those rotten republicans. i havent been defending them, but ive been trying to show just how rotten the democrats are. clinton fans are the funniest. there are people who love that guy, but hate george bush for the evil he has done. i will bet you money that bill clinton is responsible for more deaths in iraq during his reign than both the bushs.

good cop/bad cop. there are no more parties. tell your neighbours.

here is some info on bill the butcher (such a nice guy...if you think starving people to death is better than bombs).

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-body.html


i left this post as well...

and if that was a little too conspiracy theory for ya, here is another one. and check out this quote (which im sure some of you have heard before)...

When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

— John Pilger, Squeezed to Death, Guardian, March 4, 2000


Amy Goodman: ... many say that, although president Bush led this invasion, that president Clinton laid the groundwork with the sanctions and with the previous bombing of Iraq. You were president Clinton’s U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.... the U.N. sanctions, for example ... led to the deaths of more than a half a million children, not to mention more than a million Iraqis.
Governor Richardson: Well, I stand behind the sanctions. I believe that they successfully contained Saddam Hussein. I believe that the sanctions were an instrument of our policy.
Amy Goodman: To ask a question that was asked of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright, do you think the price was worth it, 500,000 children dead?
Governor Richardson: Well, I believe our policy was correct, yes

gotta love those kind hearted dems...

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit.../Sanctions.asp

take the blinders off. what disturbs me is that i dont think people want the democrats in to make change, but to simply look better. after all...wheres the change? i think its just a matter of aesthetics- makes you feel good when those lying to you come off as being your buddy and carry an air of false concern for the rest of the world that just transfers on to those who support them.

at least bush fires people up and makes them investigate the things their govt does. im going to leave this alone now. it should be interesting to see if people will come on here and try to justify their sides acts of murder...

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by michael1111

(and a reminder that the left are rapists with roses)

i get a little tired of listening to the left drone on about the war and what murdering fools republicans are. you dont need a war to murder people. bill clinton was great at doing everything on the sly, from fucking to murder. he and his cronies are responsible for 100 000s of dead people around the world. it was the foreign policy of the dems that did it.

Cool.

Post your evidence.

[livius drusus]

How about the Iraq sanctions, Sauron? They were responsible for hundreds of thousands dead, and as Michael notes in the Amy Goodman quote, Madeleine Albright famously said they believed the price (a half million dead children) was worth it.

I think Michael's basic point about the both parties having blood on their hands is pretty undisputable.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

How about the Iraq sanctions, Sauron? They were responsible for hundreds of thousands dead, and as Michael notes in the Amy Goodman quote, Madeleine Albright famously said they believed the price (a half million dead children) was worth it.

I have never been a fan of the Iraq food/medicine sanctions. However, there's a history here that Michael is either ignorant of, or glossing over.

1. The Iraq sanctions are of several kinds, and there is a tendency to deliberately blur them:

(a) sanctions on food, medicine, etc. - this was pointless and should not have occured;
(b) sanctions on weapons, technology, etc. - this was effective, and was one key reason why Saddam's weapons programs were successfully contained;

Notice that we could have had (b) without (a), and achieved all the military goals we wanted. My objection is to (a), but I support (b).

3. Furthermore, the deaths from sanctions -- while high - are overstated -- and the responsibility of Saddam Hussein in all of this is often forgotten:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

4. Moreover, Michael forgets (or does not know) that these sanctions were in place by the UN, not the USA. It's obvious that the USA twisted a lot of arms in the UN to make this happen; I'm not trying to split hairs here. But this wasn't a US-specific action.

5. Finally, Michael's comment that it was democratic policy of sanctions at work here ignores the fact that sanctions were imposed in 1990 at the behest and the pushing of Bush's own father - a Republican.

I think Michael's basic point about the both parties having blood on their hands is pretty undisputable.

Well,

1. Michael made a claim for hundreds of thousands of dead around the world - pointing out Iraq sanctions does not support that specific claim;

2. The implication is that both parties have blood, therefore both parties are equally guilty - I do not buy that, either. The question of scope is relevant. The current GOP has done more damage to international relations in five years, than was done in the preceding 20 years.

Edited to add:

Here is an excellent article from the prestigious Foreign Affairs quarterly on the sanctions. Note how under the second Bush administration, they actually seemed to "get it" - at least for awhile, anyhow:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200407...ns-worked.html

One major reason for this renewed consensus was the creation of a new "smart" sanctions regime. The goal of "smart" sanctions was to focus the system more narrowly, blocking weapons and military supplies without preventing civilian trade. This would enable the rehabilitation of Iraq's economy without allowing rearmament or a military build-up by Saddam. Secretary of State Colin Powell launched a concerted diplomatic effort to build support for reformulating sanctions, and, in the negotiations over the proposed plan, agreed to release holds that the United States had placed on oil-for-food contracts, enabling civilian trade contracts to flow to Russia, China, and France. Restrictions on civilian imports were lifted while a strict arms embargo remained in place, and a new system was created for monitoring potential dual-use items. As the purpose of sanctions narrowed to preventing weapons imports without blocking civilian trade, international support for them increased considerably: "smart" sanctions removed the controversial humanitarian issue from the debate, focusing coercive pressure in a way that everyone could agree on. The divisions within the Security Council that had surfaced in the late 1990s gave way to a new consensus in 2002. The pieces were in place for a long-term military containment system. The new sanctions resolution restored political consensus in the Security Council and created an arms-denial system that could have been sustained indefinitely.

But of course, this was under Powell and before the neocons and their PNAC got ahold of US foreign policy and created the current debacle.

[michael1111]

its the net...youll find evidence to support your side. im not going to debate murder with you. those sanctions killed people. what about the bombing at al shifa? theres lots of crap these people are guilty of.

im not taking sides. im trying to show how there is no real difference between the two parties. its all about money and corporate greed. i mean come on, youre fooling yourself to think otherwise. i digress...

michael

[michael1111]

but here ya go anyhow...who was in power for much of the time? who kept it going???

# Iraq (1990-): 350 000

* International Embargo
o According to the 21 March 1998 Times Union (Albany), the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that 1,000,000 Iraqis, incl. 560,000 children, died as a result of malnutrition and disease caused by the international embargo imposed following the invasion of Kuwait. The article mentions the use of these numbers by an official of the United Church of Christ, and also labels the figures "commonly used -- but also disputed".
o 9 Oct. 2001 Slate "Explainer" acknowledges the possibility of 350,000-500,000 excess deaths among children since 1991, but points out that Saddam blames the UN and the US blames Saddam [http://slate.msn.com/code/explainer/...idMessage=8414 or http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2001/msg00902.html; it's a moving target.]
o Ramsey Clark: 1,500,000 including 750,000 children [http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Ramsey.html]
o UNICEF: 500,000 excess child deaths (under-five) 1991 to 1998 [http://www.unicef.org.uk/index_s.asp...ews/iraq1.htm]
o 6 Aug. 1999 CNN [http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9908/06/iraq.sanctions/]
+ UN: 1M excess deaths
+ Al-Thawra newspaper: 1.5M
o Project on Defense Alternatives, 20 Oct. 2003: "[T]he sanction regime probably cost the lives of 170,000 children. (Much higher estimates for 1992-1998 sanction deaths ... are based on faulty baseline statistics for prewar childhood mortality in Iraq)." [http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html#N_93_]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm

im glad debating murder helps to shape your character. i wasnt debating those figures...i was just trying to point out something ugly. sorry i made you look..but...uh...buck the fuck up

michael

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by michael1111

im not taking sides. im trying to show how there is no real difference between the two parties.

"No real difference" is a judgement call, and one that obviously many people disagree with. What does it mean to say you're not "taking sides" when you yourself (by not identifying with the dems or republicans) are proof that there are more than two sides?

[michael1111]

lol...true but thats the weird thing about duality in general- it always needs a witness.

next thing ya know, people are building pyramids...

i see no difference between the parties in power. they all serve the same masters in my eyes. i honestly believe we are ruled by banks and corporate interests. im not even a conspiracy type guy, but it seems only logical when money can buy you a presidency, that money is more powerful. and who has lots of money?

anyhow...my opinion, of course

michael

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by michael1111

its the net

Yeah, I know.

Come back after you've read my post.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by michael1111

im trying to show how there is no real difference between the two parties.
michael

Too bad you failed.

As one looks back over the last 100 years of American history and creates a list of the social advancements - womens rights, civil rights, environmental laws, workers's rights, separation of church/state, nuclear disarmament, etc. etc. one clear picture emerges:

Republicans were opposed to all of them. Period.

Democrats were in favor of them, even if it took awhile to come around to that point of view

NOW:
tell me one more time how there is no difference between the two parties.

[michael1111]

really? and what right does a woman really have when our jobs are killing the planet and voting really doesnt matter? who gives a shit? its all just good cop/bad cop. republicans may be looking pretty shitty right now, but back in the 80s they were giving most of america a great big boner. rights? laughable...its all smoke and mirrors. if you need to be given rights, you dont have any. they are all the same.

michael

[michael1111]

and im non-partisan. im not even american! i voted for the marijuana party in the last election cuz its all bullshit, even here in canada. come on, its actually really obvious. its not even the stuff of conspiracy. you just really gotta look at it for what it is and how it operates. its been going on since the pharoahs. just giving people something to believe in to distract them from what theyre really doing to the world. its an old con...or so i think.

michael

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by michael1111

really? and what right does a woman really have when our jobs are killing the planet and voting really doesnt matter? who gives a shit?

Turn down the hysterics and focus on the claim you made. A woman has the rights I listed. Your second objection is irrelevant to the claim, or the rebuttal of that claim.

its all just good cop/bad cop. republicans may be looking pretty shitty right now, but back in the 80s they were giving most of america a great big boner.

No, they weren't. They were doing the same thing they are doing now: giving the rednecks, business owners and religious nutcakes an expensive party, paid for with the national credit card.

rights? laughable...its all smoke and mirrors. if you need to be given rights, you dont have any. they are all the same.

Women vote now. They didn't used to.
Blacks vote now. They didn't used to.
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
All this came about over the objections of Republicans.

Your response is long on drama, short on evidence. You're free to disagree, but there's this ugly reality that all groups in society - even in other countries - eventually had to be "given" rights. That does not make those rights illusory.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

How about the Iraq sanctions, Sauron? They were responsible for hundreds of thousands dead, and as Michael notes in the Amy Goodman quote, Madeleine Albright famously said they believed the price (a half million dead children) was worth it.

That number is complete and utter bull SHIT. I had to research this claim for debate. The total number of dead was 500,000, and that was almost entirely in areas in which the UN was unable to provide relief directly. It was the areas in which Saddam was responsible for distribution that mortality rates incerased (and, incidentally, infant mortality rates dropped, as did children). The extent to which blood is on the hands of the US for sanctions is not as great as is often made out. (Not that the US is free wrongdoing, or that the sanctions were generally good policy once it became clear that Saddam was stealing the food and medicine to pay for his military expenditures, or when it became obvious he was unwilling to comply with UN resolutions). I had this explained to me by someone who was actually there and was involved with the overall efforts.

I think Michael's basic point about the both parties having blood on their hands is pretty undisputable.

To a certain extent, that is correct, but murder is something else entirely. Its use is highly perjorative in this instance.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Jesus Christ

That number is complete and utter bull SHIT.

I wouldn't be surprised, as I've never seen the data used in support of it. I was paraphrasing the question and answer, though, and Madaleine Albright did not contest the number in her response.

To a certain extent, that is correct, but murder is something else entirely. Its use is highly perjorative in this instance.

Agreed. I was addressing the responsible for death clause more than the fucking to murder rhetoric.

[Jesus Christ]

Sorry, I've just had a long-ass week so I've been missing things in terms of context.

[livius drusus]

I hear you loud and clear. This is the first night I haven't worked until 10 this week.

[michael1111]

who is hyterical? thats your interpretation, sauron. i guess i what im saying makes you nervous cuz i was pretty calm when i said it.

was it the 's' word? lol...

i stand by what i said. as for womens 'rights', i wrote a post about that in the watering hole... 'duhhh dis is for da ladies duhhh'...

michael

[michael1111]

its murder. you can call it whatever you want to make yourself feel better because its your apathy (and theirs) that allowed it to happen, but those people were murdered. you can debate that all you want, but i wont ever agree with you...im a humanist.

michael

[thewantingseed]

Ok; I'm not trying to launch a personal attack at you at all Michael, so don't worry, but I just have a question: How come, in your OP, you bring evidence from the web, yet when internet evidence is presented to oppose your claim you say,

Originally Posted by Michael1111

its the net...youll find evidence to support your side.

Your evidence was logically disputed and countered with evidence found in the exact same manner you found yours, with the addition of personal knowledge. It's only fair that you treat their evidence as they treated yours, i.e. coming up with a well-thought argument instead of just writing it off as irrelevant. I don't at all think that you're a stupid guy; this is not a flame. But making really strong statements and then brushing past any dispute is not promoting Free-thought/speech, which you seem to hold sacred. In fact, it is the antithesis;

Definition of Freespeech:The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.
Suppressor: One that suppresses: a suppressor of free speech.

By blowing off a well-thought response you are leaning much more towards the second definition then the first.

I know you have ideas and thoughts about this subject; I know you can do better than:

Originally Posted by Michael

you can debate that all you want, but i wont ever agree with you...im a humanist.

This implies that the people debating you are in fact not humanist-which essentially means someone who is concerned with the plight and well-being of humanity. However, in most of your 'opponent's' posts, they too gave the impression of concern with society's welfare; how is this not humanistic? How is it apathetic?
I'd like to know, since it's extremely easy to come up with an OP such as you did, but it's more tricky to actually defend it, which I have not really seen happen.
For instance, I could easily find a link like this one: Bush Vs. Clinton (Bush Lies)
Or this: Deficit
Or countless other sites that support Clinton over Bush; but so what?
Granted these don't relate to the murder issue per se, but this is just what came up right on the top of the google list. It wouldn't be hard to spend two more seconds coming up with different sites that directly counter yours.
If I don't come up with any supporting statements for these links, they mean nothing in a reasonable and logical debate. Debate means to logically dispute an issue; to argue a point formally, etc... I've seen you support "DEBATE" over and over, yet you aren't actually living up to the very ideal you speak so highly of.
Yes, both parties have blood on their hands.
Yes, thousands have died in both administrations; I'm not disputing that claim at all.
But 'Debate' is not what you are doing.

Originally Posted by Michael1111

Really? and what right does a woman really have when our jobs are killing the planet and voting really doesnt matter? who gives a shit? its all just good cop/bad cop. republicans may be looking pretty shitty right now, but back in the 80s they were giving most of america a great big boner. rights? laughable...its all smoke and mirrors. if you need to be given rights, you dont have any. they are all the same.

Rhetoric, propaganda, etc. Lack of factual claims; plethora of emotional appeals, no appeal to logic/rationale.
No?

[michael1111]

no...i presented evidence hoping to show that ALL people in 'power' are corrupt and do rotten things, since it seems so popular and easy to always pick on the right lately. what im saying i wont debate, is who does more killing. im so tired of the left and right proving how great their side is by pointing out the faults of the others. it would be nice if it was more often a pissing contest about the good things they do. anyhow, thats what i wasnt going to debate- who murders more. i didnt present it that way and i wont debate it that way...

michael

[michael1111]

and the last thing you quoted me on...thats my pov. i base it on common sense, but im beginning to think whats common for me isnt for a majority of others...

michael

[thewantingseed]

Originally Posted by Michael1111

i presented evidence that ALL people in 'power' are corrupt and do rotten things.

Okay; we don't have to debate the murder issue if you don't want to. But where in the hell did you present evidence stating that ALL people in power are corrupt? What is your definition of someone in power? Didn't Gandhi have power? Pope John Paul II, etc? Are you implying that they too were corrupt?

[thewantingseed]

Originally Posted by Michael1111

and the last thing you quoted me on...thats my pov. i base it on common sense, but im beginning to think whats common for me isnt for a majority of others...

I respect your point of view and your opinions. I am not saying that you lack common sense.
I myself have not once said what my personal opinions are; if you are lumping me into the majority you are jumping the gun. I am simply trying to infuse logic into this "debate."

[michael1111]

no im not lumping you in. just speaking how i see things. its up to you whether you think im talking about you or not

but no...was just speaking generally. im pretty sure my thinking is in the minority. actually, thats not true...i think a lot of people feel like i do...its more about expression i guess. im the minority that expresses things from my own perspective, without quoting anybody and relying on facts ive gathered and found on my own. im one of the few actually telling my truth without really worrying about how i sound or where i fit. im comfortable just being michael...im rambling now

im at work on beheading alert. today is the deadline. what a wonderful world...

michael