A lap around "The Ring"

Mitch_A wrote:
> Somehow you can just blind yourself of anything good the US has ever
done.
> Do we make mistakes? Of course we do. But we also contribute much more
> than weve taken unlike a majority of the free world.

Sorry Mitch, that just isn't true

The UN set a target of 0.7% of GDP should be given as aid - this target
was recently increased in response to public demands to resolve the
tragedies occurring daily in Africa.

Top of the foreign aid league is Denmark (1.01% of GDP), and Sweden,
Norway and the Netherlands also meet the target. The US gives 0.1% of
GDP as aid, as former President Carter described, "we are the stingiest
nation of all". We're little better, Britain gives just 0.34%.

In the last foreign aid bill passed in the US, 75 million was passed for
aif to poor countries (this amounts to one tenth the cost of a B-52!).
In the same budget, 1.3 *BILLION* was approved to support the Colombian
military (who have one of the world's worst records for human rights
violations).

> Im not saying this in
> an egotistical way Im saying this in defensive way. The US (despite
your
> clouded nonsense) is a great country and a great collection of people
that
> want the best for the World and everyone in it.

Mitch, I *truly* believe that is what you and most US people want, and
it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening.

JP wrote:

> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes, it
> was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc.

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....

JP wrote:

> Only a Euro could twist facts about any subject into being a
> "philosophical question."

Only you could fail to see that EVERYTHING revolves around your
philosophy on life.

Your world has clearly not yet evolved into colour.

JP wrote:

> Suggest you do some research into history too. I don't buy the "when oil
> runs out, etc." moonbat theories you mention, but history has shown people
> don't "come together" when times are bad, as you suggest will happen when
> oil runs out.
> The opposite in fact.

So you believe everyone will reach for their Colt 45 "the gun that won
the West", slaughter each other....and that will....make the oil come
back? Protect you from the 1 billion Chinese who will slaughter you? Or
the 1.3 billion Indians who will slaughter them?

For your own sake you better start singing kumbaya and praying you're
wrong. Nuclear missiles go nowhere without oil.

Time to wipe that foam off your mouth now John. You sound quite delusional.
Yea those MILLIONS of innocent victims of the evil USA... <rolls eyes>

Mitch

..
"John Wallace" > wrote in message
...
> JP wrote:
>
>> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes, it
>> was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc.
>
> 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....

The world is a difficult confusing place full of liars and con men that only
have their own interest in mind. These people exist in EVERY government in
every corner of the world not just the US gov as you insinuate.

You can tell yourself all you want that Saddam was a grreat guy but anyone
with any common sense knows better.

Despite the doom and gloom of you and your party affiliates Iraq is a better
place now and freedom is infectious throughout the ME. Its still to early
to know how it will turn out but right now things look pretty good, which
makes your argument seem even more marginal.

Mitch


"John Wallace" > wrote in > Mitch, I *truly* believe
that is what you and most US people want, and
> it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening.

OK. I was in shock after reading that

>
> Mitch, you have *NO* idea what I said, so how can your response even begin
> to make sense?
>
> My comment was in no means any form of endorsement of Stalin - it simply
> alluded to a very famous quote of his. If you don't understand what I
> write, at least give me the respect of not turning my words into what you
> wished they meant.

So your argument is that Clinton was at fault because he didnt oust Saddam
as he should have?

Which is it? Illegal invasion or a million kids? You cant have it every
way. Either way Sadddam should have been gone long before GW came into
office.

If it was up to Europe Saddam would still be in power thumbing his nose.
Somehow to you thats a better option?

Mitch


"John Wallace" > wrote in message
...
> rmagruder wrote:
>> Where do you get "half a million children" from?
>
> The WHO, the UN, the CIA - it's very widely known. Do a google search on
> Albright and iraqi kids - even she didn't deny it.

Google does not a *FACT* make....

Mitch


"John Wallace" > wrote in > It takes two seconds on
Google to find anything - you could have easily
> found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice that
> they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge mine,
> and despair for the human race if we ever give that up.

Your interpretation of the Patriot Act is completely wrong.

Mitch


"John Wallace" > wrote in message
...
> rmagruder wrote:
>>>>Should it be any surprise that Dick Cheney stated the war on terror
>>
>> could last fifty years or more?>>
>>
>> I wasn't aware that Dick Cheney launched the attacks on 9/11 (or is
>> that a conspiracy you also hold?)
>
> Sorry, Randy, straw man argument.
>
> Cheney said it - do you agree or disagree? I made no allegation about him
> and 9/11, so why are you trying to put down an argument I never made?
>
>> I realize you don't live in the USA, but I'm wondering just what civil
>> liberties you claim we've lost? Can you name even a single case where
>> some innocent American has lost any civil rights because of this
>> administration?
>
> Well, far be it from me to comment on your laws, but Amendment IV says;
>
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
> by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
> searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
>
> The Patriot Act (LOL, well named) allows the police to come into your
> home, search, leave without telling you. The Federal Intelligence
> Surveillance Act allows warrants from special courts, looking into such
> ridiculous items as what library books were read, again without
> notification.
>
> Just a couple of example of new laws trampling all over just one amendment
> to your bill of rights. We're no better off over here unfortunately.
>
> >>>Our own corporations kill more every year in the name of profit,
>>
>> peddling tobacco and fat/sugar laden crap for the populace to later die
>> from.
>>
>> And undboutedly they are over here forcing our mouths open and making
>> us eat every bite. They are just coming into our homes at dinner times
>> and prying open our mouths and murdering us. Every seller needs a
>> buyer. Not sure why you remove free choice from the equation. You're
>> not one of those victim mentality types who think that we aren't
>> responsible for anything we do, that we're all just victims of
>> corporations? Sounds kinda like you are...
>
> I have no victim mentality - I make sure I'm not a victim. The point is
> that "free choice" is a myth for the most part.
>
> Okay, let's take just an example. I show you succulent chicken, couple of
> bucks, "special offer" tasty chicken breast. You might buy it. If I told
> you the chicken came from Indonesia, was shipped via Holland where it was
> injected with 50% water to make it bigger, injected with collagen to hold
> the water, injected with pig DNA to retain the collagen, and processed in
> filthy water to remove feathers etc, and had a high probability to be
> infected with campylobacter....would you still buy it? How about if you
> were moslem, and hadn't been given the information you were actually
> eating pig?
>
> Fact is that it probably is (more than 80% of the world's chicken comes
> from three companies, much of it processed in this way). You have the
> "free choice" to buy this, but you are usually not furnished with the full
> facts with which to properly exercise that free choice.
>
>> What left wing web site did you get those figures from? And what did
>> you do to ensure that the figures were indeed accurate?
>
> The "left wing" website of the United Nations. From your government. From
> my government. From journalist reports. From news. It's almost 11 million
> children per year, and a very widely known statistic. I suggest you
> contact those organisations and let them know you dispute it.
>
>>>>Iraqi children are dying from cancers caused by OUR depleted uranium
>> shells
>>
>> I'll be looking for your objective citation backing this up as well.
>
> I know you can use Google....
>
> http://www.google.co.uk/search?compl...e+Search&meta=
>
>> Hey Saddam managed to buy weaponry from the French and Russians during
>> the embargo...why didn't he buy medicine if the 'evil' US and Britain
>> were stopping him.
>
> You may say he bought weapons, but since we failed to find any I don't
> think we can say this with any certainty. Or do you think he just let his
> children die to teach us a lesson? Or to boost his popularity?
>
> > I'm sure the French and Russians would have happily
>> sold some to him for the proper oil-for-food profits to corrupt
>> individuals (why is it that the left never acknowledges that the
>> French, Russians and Germans were on the take from Saddam, and that
>> Saddam's oil-for-food money was not getting to his own population - but
>> I suppose you'll just deny that, too).
>
> The oil-for-food "profits" went first of all to Kuwait (one of the richest
> countries in the world) as compensation for war damage. A third of the
> money went to pay UN "expenses" (I thought we paid out of tax, but there
> you go), further money goes to Kuwait as mentioned, further money goes as
> compensation to oil and other companies. and with the remainder Iraq would
> tender on the international markets for food, medical supplies etc - every
> contract then had to be approved by the UN sanctions committee. From
> August 1990, for eight months, ALL IMPORTS were banned, including food and
> medicine, despite these being explicitly allowed under resolution 661.
>
> Have you heard of Denis Halliday? He was the Assistant Secretary-General
> of the UN, and resigned over the sanctions. He said "I had been instructed
> to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a
> deliberate policy that has deliberately killed over a million
> individuals".
>
> His successor, Hans von Spooneck, calculated the oil-for-food money, and
> after paying Kuwait, the UN, oil companies etc, Iraq was left with $100
> for each citizen....per YEAR. That money has to pay also for
> infrastructure including oil, water, electricity etc. After that he also
> called the sanctions "genocide".
>
> But hey, it's a million Iraqis dying, so it doesn't matter...right?