"John Wallace" > wrote in message
...
> JP wrote:
>
> > Hehe. As I said, UN officials blaming the US, besides their
allegations
> > of it being the US fault being untrue, is laughable. Hate to see their
> > breadwagon cut off, is where their interests were.
>
> No, you said *I* was blaming the US. I don't expect you to admit you
> were wrong, so lucky I'm here to keep you straight :-)

And this quote of yours means what then ? Want to keep something
straight, start with your statements.

"Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide?
>>Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As
>>the saying goes, that's like f***ing for virginity...."


>
> As for being afraid their breadwagon was being cut off, can I remind you
> that these two gentlemen voluntary *resigned* in horror and protest at
> what the sanctions were forcing them to do. i.e. they were firmly on
> your "breadwagon", and they CHOSE to get off.


Proof ?


>
> So, once again, your comments are shown as a steaming pile of horse
> manure....


Explain how so ? I've posted facts. You're still posting non-confirmed
quotes, theories, and opinions. So, explain exactly how so.


>
> >>In what way is it "nothing to do with the facts"? Come on, put up or
> >>shut up, it precisely represents the situation of the UN sanctions as
> >>would be applied to yourself.
> >
> > Read my response. The answers are their. Still and again.
>
> JP, they're not. Sorry, you're not going to get out of this one by
> stating again and again that you've answered. Explain to me how that
> analogy differs from the imposition of the sanctions.


You answer my questions first, since you've been dodging them, and we'll
go from there.


p.s. But for *starters*, the US/UK didn't stop food/medicine, as in this
line from your analogy.
"Now let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even
food and medicine to you. "

Btw, what's that again about how you weren't blaming the US ?

Ok, answered yours. Once again, how about mine, for who knows how many
times I've posted it; the $ for oil/food were present. Yet, much of it was
pocketed by UN, European officials, and SH and his gang. Follow along
now...........that means all those $ that were supposed to buy food/medicine
didn't get to do so.............still with me ?.

So, since there was all this money wasted instead of used as it was
supposed to have been, how is it the US's fault ?

Or are you going to keep conviently ignoring this fact ?



>
> > Note the word "I" in my response. Don't see the words "Iraqi people"
> > anywhere in it. I responded in the same format as your analogy was
> > constructed.
>
> And my response was, if *you* were in the position of that analogy, how
> would you get out of it?

Simple. By living up to my end of the agreement. The one that I forced
upon myself.



>
> > Show me where I blamed the Iraqi people for the sanctions.
>
> You squarely blamed Iraq when you said;
>
> "And who's fault was it that the sanction existed in the first place,
> besides it being a *UN* sanction, also endorsed by Europe ?"

Exactly. Blamed Iraq. I.e., their govt. Fairly common sense to
understand that. Or, when you incorrectly say the US didn't allow
food/medicine, you mean the US people ?

Using your "reasoning" here, you would be, eh ?


>
> Or were you <s******> trying to blame the UN for a sanction demanded by
> the US and the UK?!

Ah, I see. Since you can't ignore the fact that all the sanctions were UN
sanctions, now you twist it so that they "don't really count" if you will,
because in your tin-beenied head, the US/UK demanded them.

First, proof of this latest incorrect allegation ?

Second, they were Security Council sanctions. Do some research on that
body, what countries are on it, and how it's vetoes/passing work. Hint: It
takes more than the US/UK to pass/veto a sanction via this council.



>
> > Btw, in your example (which is the first I've seen of it, so don't
know
> > where you get the idea of "As I've explained to you....") of where the $
> > went, you forgot some key players. SH and his cronies, and the various
UN
> > officials involved in the scam, all pocketing $.
>
> Sorry JP, not this time. Cite me proof, or quit flogging this dead
> horse. There is NO PROOF AT ALL that Saddam and his cronies were making
> out like bandits with any oil for food money, none at all. EVERYTHING
> was paid through the UN, and approved by the security council - that's
> the US, the UK, Europe and Canada.
>

Ah, the moonbat comes out in full force. Ok, here's a very small tip of
the iceberg start for you. Btw, you conviently left out the UN and European
officials that took $ too.

Anyway, here you go. Since you passed (your Murdoch comment was
interesting...ignored the CNN links, eh ?) over my earlier links to CNN and
FOX, I've included others this time too.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in684085.shtml

(SH part toward the end here)


http://abcnews.go.com/International/...=471455&page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=259502

Or maybe one closer to home.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4025057.stm


I had some NBC links too, but for some reason, the text was fubared upon
page loading. nbcnews.com if you're interested.



> >>Sorry JP, *YOU* need to get your facts straight. This occurred
> >>immediately after the resolution was passed. There was no time for
> >>Saddam to flaunt the sanctions, because food and medicine were not
> >>allowed from the moment the sanctions were introduced.

Not allowed ? Proof ?


> >>Utter and total rubbish. The US blocked food and medicine, both of which
> >>were allowed by the sanctions, despite the items being proven to have no

> >>possible link to any form of weapons manufacture.

Proof ?

> I have already posted this.

Then you should have no difficulty copying/pasting it. I haven't seen it.


>
> > Anyway, all SH had to do was live up to his end of the *UN* bargain,
which
> > came about because of *his* invasion of Kuwait, which was opposed by the
> > *UN*, and not corrupt the oil/food program, and the Iraqi's wouldn't
have
> > had to suffer (I won't bother addressing your non-proven numbers
listed ).
>
> You have yet to prove there was any irregularity at all in the oil for
> food, and the numbers have been proven by the UN and through
> journalistic channels.


*I* have yet to prove it ? You're the one who first claimed the US blocked
it. Proving things is on your end. Which you haven't yet btw. So put up
already. This thread has gone on long enough, without your showing any
proof at all of your myriad moonbat claims.


>
> Now if you can post me facts about oil for food (anyone locked up for
> these illegal activities) and prove to me that Madelaine Albright was
> high on drugs when she admitted half a million Iraqi children had been
> slaughtered, I'll think about responding to your foundationless
allegations.


Missed those earlier links, eh ? In this post and earlier. You're in a
serious state of delusion old boy. Denying facts, interesting.

So, I've backed up my statements with facts, links, etc. Even though
you're the one who starting making accusations, and while having been
repeatedly asked to prove them, have not, how about trying now ? So far,
all you've done is dodge every question for proof, while trying to change
subjects in each post. But I'm not surprised; the moonbat crowd always gets
nervous when facts are called for.

Put up or shut up. Simple concept really.