Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Monday, June 27, 2005

    Tribunal says US caused more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussein

    This from Infowars: US caused more deaths in Iraq than Saddam, says anti-war tribunal

    "With two wars and 13 years of criminal sanctions, the United States have been responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussein," Larry Everest, a journalist, told hundreds of anti-war activists gathered in Istanbul. Founded in 2003, the WTI is modelled on the 1960s Russell Tribunal, created by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell to denounce the war in Vietnam. It has held about 20 sessions so far in different locations around the world.
    See all recent "A Logical Voice" posts


    At 6/27/2005 04:34:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Then it's about as credible as the Russell effort.

    At 6/28/2005 12:18:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    An estimated 250,000 killed as a result of the 1991 Gulf war, over 1,000,000 dead as a result of sanctions that the U.S. led in maintaining and publicly said that it would hold in place not until Iraq complied with UN resolutions, but until there was regime change in Iraq - in violation of paragraph 22 of UN Security Council Resolution 687, and an estimated 100,000 killed as a result the ongoing war. But naturally, we expect the warmongers to be naysayers regarding the tribunal.

    At 6/28/2005 05:01:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    So you think Saddam should have been allowed to "keep" Kuwait ?
    He sure as hell wasn't going to give it up voluntarily.

    At 6/28/2005 09:23:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    And what in my post said that it was ok for Saddam to commit a war crime? Nothing. Read it again. If that doesn't do the trick, read it again. If that doedsn't do it, read it again. Or perhaps you are making the unjustifiable position that because Saddam invaded Kuwait (you never said "Boo!" at the time he attacked Iran or gassed his own people, did you), we are justified in killing Iraqi citizens.

    As for him not giving up Kuwait, no one on this planet can say for sure, but there were promising possibilities. Read some history.

    At 6/30/2005 04:07:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    I love the way you people put everything in nice separate compartments so that each can be expounded upon regardless if the connection to any other. You mentioned Gulf War 1 casualties so it was legitimate to raise that subject.

    As for your rudeness, I guess that's the normal outcome from challenging the all-so-knowing oh-so-perfect left these days.

    Yes, I read history from many sides, not just revisionist leftist garbage.

    At 7/01/2005 02:19:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    So, you still can't read. Scroll up and read it again. If that doesn't do it, keep reading it until you understand.

    Saying that the U.S. could have waited for the peace process to take longer (there were promising possibilities), or that the U.S. should not have been carpet bombing Iraq in the 91 Gulf War (they were), or that they were wrong to bomb the clearly marked al Ameriyya bomb shelter, or that the U.S. was wrong in targetting power and water systems in Iraq, or that daytime U.S. bombing put civilians at risk, or criticising event like the Battle of Rumaila is not the same as saying that "Saddam should have been allowed to "keep" Kuwait".

    Don't get pissy with me if you can't stop making straw man arguments.

    At 7/05/2005 07:12:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Don't get pissy with me

    Yes teacher, you know everything, I'm sorry I dared to doubt your wisdom.

    At 7/05/2005 11:41:00 pm, Blogger DJEB said...

    Again, don't get pissy. It's not my fault that you can't put together a fallacy-free argument.


    Post a Comment

    << Home