A lap around "The Ring"

JP wrote:

>>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 ?

LOL! JP, you are a loon. Saying "proof" every time a fact you don't like
is in front of you won't make it go away. If you really, really want to
educate yourself, RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF. You will feel better for knowing.

In this case I will indulge you, but no more - I'm sure you can find
things for yourself. Here is a link to Halliday's first public speech
after his resignation, made at Harvard in 1998.

http://iraqaction.org/oldsite/harvard.html

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

Because you *are* talking horse manure. I have posted facts and
evidence, quotes and sources. You have cited only things which you
believe to be true. *You* may believe them, but that falls well short of
making them facts.

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

LOL - every one has been answered.

>
> 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.

JP, for the third time. Listen. Post proof of this utter fallacy.

There is no proof, because it did not happen. *I* have axplained to you
where all the money went, and the mechanisms under which it flowed
(controlled by the US). So in the extremely unlikely event of any
pocketing, the US was complicit.

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

So you would endure the sanctions and allow yourself and your family to
die. Okay, that's a fair answer, since that's what the Iraqis had to do.


> 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 ?

Actually the UN said it. China said it. France said it. Kofi Annan said
it. Independent journalists recorded and reported it.

I merely quoted, although I do agree with them.

> 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.

JP - are you *really* trying to say that the sanctions against Iraq were
not requested by the US, supported by the UK? Honestly? I'm trying to
help you here, I'm trying to help you salvage one tiny thread of
credibility that you have an iota of a clue what you're talking about.

You do know that Blair flew to the US to convince Bush to go this road?
You do know they had press conferences about this? You do know they
tried to spin the lie that "France would veto the sanctions no matter
what". Please tell me you know this?

> 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.

Er, no - it takes only ONE country. That's why they call it a veto.

Go read up on how the security council works (and see which of the
members has used its veto more times in the past ten years than any other ;

China : 2
France : 0
UK : 0
Russia : 1
USA : 10

What do you think was so important during the last ten years that the US
was the one doing more than 75% of the vetoing...? Hmmm, what was going
on in the last decade....

> Ah, the moonbat comes out in full force.

Quit the insults okay? You don't know me, so don't think you can judge me.


> 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.

Well, that's because they didn't.

First off, PLEASE don't take your "news" from Fox, okay? Secondly, you
post me links showing Kofi Annan being *cleared*, the US State
Department supporting this, and Kofi Annan's son looking into his
options as far as suing the people who investigated!

This is "proof" - LOL.

The US was involved in the set up of the sanctions, the controlling of
the sanctions, the sign off of any orders, and with power of veto over
everything which went on. *If* there was a problem (which has been many
times alleged and never proven), a hell of a lot of people in the US
missed it.

>>>>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 ?

Here is resolution 661 - note that medicines and humanitarian aid are
very specifically allowed ;

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0661.htm

Here are some reports on how this was simply ignored ;

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/In...oskins_WC.html
http://www.gutlesspacifist.com/coolwars.html

Even Harvard warned of the public health catastrophe which they
predicted would occur, and which was proven correct.

>>>>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 ?

Read the above reports. Oh, and search.

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

Then click back in the thread and find 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 ).

They're the UN's *proven* numbers, and accepted by your government. You
should tell them they're wrong.


> *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.

JP, you really need to shut up, it's embarrassing. How can you claims I
haven't posted "any proof at all"? I have posted a LOT, even in this
message. Cited you numbers, provided quotes and sources right to the UN
and your own government. You might not like them, but please don't claim
I've posted nothing to try to strengthen your position. If you can't
strengthen it by fact, don't bother.

> Put up or shut up. Simple concept really.

Then you should shut up - really.

Andrew MacPherson wrote:

> You mean, apart from terminally depressed at the state of world
> leadership, the future for the environment, and the fact I still prefer
> GPL to anything more recent (except maybe rFactor)? Fine John! :-)

Good to hear! I'm just getting back out and about after breaking my
wrist recently. Stopped me racing and, more tragically, stopped me
mountain biking (although I did self-inflict the break while mountain
biking, so I suppose it's wrong to complain!). Back out for a first run
today up Glen Finglas and over Meall Cala, which was superb, although
snowing on the peak still.

> > Still staying in that amazingly quaint village?
>
> <peers out of the window at the M25 in the near distance>. Er, no. Not
> sure I ever did :-)

Yes, the M25 could seriously put a dent on things, although it should
help your skills in GPL traffic! Mind you, even online I reckon most
simmers drive better than I tended to see on the M25.

> Nice to see you still hanging around the place. Not sure I can recommend
> getting involved in the political stuff though. It's really bad for any
> optimism you might have lurking at the back or your head.

Yes, I'm discovering that unfortunately. It's not so much the politics
that depress me here, it's people's inability to step aside for a moment
from what they believe in, and objectively look at the process of how
something came about. Thatcher said "there is no such thing as society"
- she is normally quoted badly out of context on this, but I fear the
non-contextual use is becoming the more correct.

Cheers
John

Bill Bollinger wrote:
> The FACTS a Americans contribute nearly 1 trillion every year to
> charities. You may think that is stingy, but that would be incorrect.

No, the FACTS are that the agreement made by UN participants was for
0.7% of GDP, and the US gives 0.1%.

The 0.7% is the target, the 0.1% is the result.

And that is why *Jimmy Carter* (not me) called the US the stingiest
nation on earth. I've never been your president (too Scottish to
qualify), so I'd rather you attributed Jimmy's quotes to Jimmy.

Bill Bollinger wrote:
> You are the one who has pigeon-hold himself. Not my fault that many of the
> Western European countries lean to the socialist side and wonder why they
> cannot grow their economies and are falling behind.

Bill - people *cannot* pigeon-hole themselves. Think about it.

Yes we do, but the way you make a valid point and back it up with fact
instead of spin is why Ill listen so intently even if I do disagree. I know
Im not always right and Im more than willing to listen to an intelligent
post and thats what will sway me to that view, not calling me names.

Id be happy to tilt a p[int or two with ya someday John!


Mitch

"John Wallace" > wrote in > We obviously have very
different viewpoints, but I do very much
> appreciate that you know the difference between an argument and a debate!
> It seems a rare gift on this issue!

Bill Bollinger wrote:
> Just on a side note: I treat the CEO pay no different than Sports Hero's
> pay. We as a public are the only ones to blame. We make up the owners of
> these companies and allow it to happen.

That will be the "Royal we" I guess, because I never signed up for that.

I suspect if you took a vote of all the people in the US and asked them
if Motorola's CEO should get 38 million bucks a year they'd say no.

Bill Bollinger wrote:
> "John Wallace" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The point is that in the specific case you cited, giving aid to other
>>countries, the US falls well short of the standards agreed to by the UN.
>
>
>
> Ok, this just about makes me puke. Standards and the UN said in one
> statement.

The US agreed to the standard - does that make you puke?

Then fell short by almost 90% - does that raise a little vomit?

Byron Forbes wrote:

> Question for Brits - how does the scenario of the death of the Queen and
> the crowning of a King named Charles sound?

A charlie for a king? Sounds cool :-)

I'm actually rather curious what other Brits may say - like our Scottish
so called "parliament", it's a matter of supreme indifference to me.

Byron Forbes wrote:

> American Power man - yeah, American U.S. power - ****en A baby!
> Yeeeeeehaaaaaaa! Rock n' roll. Kickn aaaaaaaaaassssss!
>
> Mumma said take you down............................................

Actually you're worryingly good at that! :-)

Were you in Apocalypse Now? I bet you do a damn good "Charlie don't
surf" :-)

Andrew MacPherson wrote:
>>the death of the Queen
>
>
> Elton John died?
>
> Oh, you mean *that* Queen. <shrug> Despite momentary lapses of
> sanity (eg when Diana died) nobody really gives a f*ck about the monarchy.
> They're just a bunch of Germans imported to attract American tourists :-)

Hmmm, the monarchy batting 0 for 2 so far.....!