<p>Of course I count Iraqis killing each other, and the ones we’ve killed directly. The best demographic estimate of that is 400,000-900,000 over 4-1/2 years. Given the extent to which that has affected Iraqi society, I find it difficult to believe that the sanctions killed more than 50% more people in less time.</p>
<p>EDIT: Of course, not less time. 10 years +.</p>
<p>Up until Bush’s recent announcement, "Stay the Course implied continuing down a path, without regard to new information, changing envirnoments or better plans (I am not saying that anyone has come up with a better plan.) Humans have the capacity to question, evaluate, analyze and make choices and decisions based on knowledge. The Bush version of “Stay the Course” ignored higher reasoning and analytical thinking. However, apparently, now “stay the course” really means changing the course because of the impending election, and is just political rhetoric. Who are they kidding.</p>
<p>Apparently a lot of people.</p>
<p>Stay the course kind of reminds me of my husband’s insistance on finding his way when driving; refusing to ask directions, make a phone call to get help or get out a good map. He just “stays the course” no matter what! If he were to get help or info, he would have to admit he was wrong!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yep. Power vacuums have a tendency to do that. I’ve heard the argument that Saddam was killing just as many, but even if that’s true, he was killing them for free. I’d much rather have 10,000 people innocent people die without any participation from me than spend $100 squillion (or whatever it’s been) of my money so that a different set of 10,000 innocent people can die instead.</p>
<p>“Given the extent to which that has affected Iraqi society, I find it difficult to believe that the sanctions killed more than 50% more people in less time.”</p>
<p>Untreated dysentery in children (and simple childhood diseases left untreated) kill very, very quickly. But I don’t know why we have to resort to “opinions”? In the case of the Clinton/Albright genocide, the number of deaths is well-established by demographers and epidemiologists. Low-end estimate was 400,000, but that was just for children under the age of 5. There were lots of firsthand observers, ranging from Dennis Halliday (who resigned his post at the U.N. in protest at the genocide) to the American Friends Service Committee (for whom I raised money) which raised funds to repair a few of the wastewater treatment plants that Clinton bombed (rather than try to take out Saddam Hussein or his military establishment.)</p>
<p>Genocide aimed at children is a very effective strategy for weakening an entire population. The problem is they will hate you for it for a very long time, especially when there is hardly a family that wasn’t affected.</p>
<p>108 soldiers killed in October’s Iraqi mess.</p>
<p>Does anyone care?</p>
<p>It must be nice to still live in a Sept 10th world</p>
<p>We can all agree that the world is a much more dangerous place than we believed on Sept 10. Having said that, the actions of the US has not stopped or slowed terrorism around the world. Hatred of the US and western ways, has spread from those who would plan and do evil things, to many “common” folk in countries around the world. Our actions have fanned the flames not doused them. Do you honestly think the world is a safer place now than it was on Sept 12? If you do, you are deluding yourself.</p>
<p>Mini, I am curious. Why do you blame President Clinton for the deaths of children in Iraq, through the sanction. We both know that the sanctions where a retaliation to the dangers Saddam posed to the whole world. Had Saddam complied with the demands of the UN and weapons inspectors or maybe not used WMDs on Iranians and Kurds or maybe did not try to build an A-bomb, Clinton would not have needed to impose sanctions for America’s safety. Hussein knew the suffering that he was causing on the Iraqis, directly through his own policies of imprisonment, torture, and radicalism and indirectly, through the economic starvation of Iraq, yet he did nothing to alleviate the pains of his own nation. Saddam is at fault, yet you do not blame him. Saddam took the oil-for-food money and built a soccer stadium and palaces for himself, and the UN let it happen. Clinton did not do any of those things. For some reason you always talk about what Clinton did, but not about what Saddam did. So just for the record, who was worse, who was more dangerous, who was more of a killer, Clinton or Saddam? Its a simple question and I think you are fully capable of answering it. Are FDR and Truman war crimminals for accidently killing Holocaust victims while bombing some of the Nazis’ facilities? I think you have to really reasses your view of right and wrong. You are a very morally defunct person to accuse people like Clinton of war crimes, while rarely if never talking about Saddam.</p>
<p>What a surprise. Appeasment as the solution</p>
<p>FULL SCALE WAR by the Jihadists was declared on Sept 11th - even on a worldwide basis there have been no single acts of this magnitude</p>
<p>Correct, they’ve attacked other countries, where the weak links have been, and now of course per the lefties the United States gets the blame for that too now, however Bush gets no credit for protecting THE UNITED STATES</p>
<p>Classic left wing nonsense - blame America first, along with usually Israel too - make excuses for those that seek to destroy America and Israel</p>
<p>We know what the LEFT WING solution is: Neville Chamberlain style appeasement - and gee I guess they will just leave us alone</p>
<p>England in fact got a very clear answer to that question by July 1940</p>
<p>However, I doubt most on the left even know the history of WW2 or for that matter very little world history - so it’s no doubt a waste of words</p>
<p>golani, a little more history reseach would reveal to all, that much what Saddam got/had in war and WMD capabilities, came from the US (proxy) during the Reagan-HW administration. You were not born when Rummy visited Saddam and said that he [Saddam] was a friend of the US.</p>
<p>Likewise, Citation X, before you were born, Reagan-HW, gave much to the Taliban and to Al Kada. A host of newspeople treked to Afghanistan to report on the new weapons (Stingers, Armour Piercing Rockets) used to fight the Soviet invaders.</p>
<p>The Soviets had 15,000 nuclear warheads (ready-to-fly) pointed directly at the USA - IT WAS A COLD WAR, we had good reason to seek out allies whereever possible in our efforts to contain the Soviets</p>
<p>Your knowledge is history is very selective</p>
<p>Odd that I can even remember seeing Air Force One land on the Cape each weekend in the summer - back when Kennedy was President</p>
<p>Whats your point itstoomuch. America never gave them WMDs directly and did not sell them anything for the purpose of making WMDs. Either way, what does that have to do with Saddam being dangerous? Nothing, its just the usual blame america for everything.</p>
<p>As for Afghanistan perhaps it is you who should learn your history. Weapons were never given to Al Qaida. And then ofcourse there is the issue of these weapons being given to what is now the northern alliance in the most part, but again I am missing your point. At a certain time in history Afghanistan was our ally, then that ceased. Sort of like Britain used to be our enemy now things have changed, out of the blue I do not remind you about how British killed AMerican soldiers bc itrs irrelevant. We arent living 25 yrs ago, we are living rite now with different priorities and realities.</p>
<p>Russia and China (to the extent possible) were both United States allies against Japan and Germany and Italy in WW2 - and yet in the cold war, Japan and (west) Germany and Italy were United States allies vs Russia and China. This flip flop took place in less than a decade and was made necessary among other things by the expansion of communist states armed with nuclear weapons</p>
<p>Were democrat Presidents Truman, Kennedy and LBJ constantly bashed about the United State once being allied with China and the Soviet Union - before the cold war began?</p>
<p>This is why the constant and very tiresome refrain from the left - about the United States being allies with Afhan fighters in regards to a war from another era, fought between 1979 and 1989, (some now Jihadists) - is such nonsense. </p>
<p>It’s irrelevant and has nothing to do with the real time present day enemy we now face</p>
<p>The US has a history of propping up dictators and fascist regimes. And yes, it has enormous relevance, despite your poopooing.</p>
<p>The US has to execute foreign policy in a very bloody, ruthless, take-no-prisoners, seamy world, day-in and day-out. US liberals suppose that we can export our Judeo-Christian ethic to those with no clue what that means at the grass roots.</p>
<p>It’s just not all clean, neat and nice in the real world. :(</p>
<p>Frankly, this is what really scares me about liberals. They appear clueless as to what it takes to protect our nation and our interests. ;)</p>
<p>“The US has to execute foreign policy in a very bloody, ruthless, take-no-prisoners, seamy world, day-in and day-out.”</p>
<p>And this is what scares me about some conservatives. The ends don’t justify the means.</p>
<p>Citation, your sound bites are ridiculous. Quit parroting the party line that anyone who disagrees with current policy is an America hater. It’s offensive, and I could alert the mods for such an accusation. Cease.</p>
<p>And, for what it’s worth, all administrations have been guilty of propping up bad regimes.</p>