I don't believe it is. Do you honestly think we should have left the sanctions in place and Saddam in power? The oil sanctions were killing 5000-6000 children a month due to starvation from the sanctions.

A. Prove that the sanctions were the cause of 5000 - 6000 childhood deaths a year.

Population in 2004 according to the CIA - 25,374,691 Link

Geograpic.com - 18,781,770 (July 1990), Link

More Bush Spin to make it seem like a good thing to do.

Are "a million innocent children...dying at this time...in Iraq" because of U.S. sanctions, as Osama bin Laden claimed in his October 7 videotaped message to the world? Has the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) discovered that "at least 200 children are dying every day...as a direct result of sanctions," as advocacy journalist John Pilger maintains on his Web site? Is it official U.N. belief that 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 are dying each month due to its own policy, as writers of letters to virtually every U.S. newspaper have stated repeatedly during the past three years?

So, by killing innocent women and children, the terrorists hope to avoid killing? When you think about it, the terrorists from the Middle East are completely justified. After all, the founding fathers (and even Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to a certain extent) are terrorists. I like this broad definition of terrorist we use.

terrorism is derived from which word?  name a war in which both sides didnt employ it.  bringing ghandi and mlk in as examples in this case is a good demonstration of why your invert-and-convolute strategy sometimes falls short of making your point or making sense. 

First of all the deaths are horrible. I am saddened by them. As I sit here looking at a picture of my own child on my desk, i think it's important to say that even one death is too many when it is your own child. These are not statistics we are tossing around but the deaths of innocents. May God hold them dear.

As far as the sanctions go, it is impossible to lay the blame of all those deaths soley and squarely on them. The country was destroyed by the first gulf war, and that attributed greatly to the suffering of the Iraqi people and the infant mortality rates. Also the Oil for Food Program was started in order to aid the Iraqi People, the program was at first limited, but those restrictions were soon lifted. This help some what, however greed soon ate up much of that aide as Saddam and others skimmed off the top, dipping deeper and deeper. Saddam also had huge reserves of money, and he did nothing to help his people. I think this is one aspect we can all agree on, Saddam had it in his power to help his people and chose not to. He could have met the worlds demands and ended the suffering, he did not. It was one of the reasons I supported the invasion. However, I don't think the situation has improved much, for the Iraqi people, I think it will in the future, if it is handled correctly. It hasn't been handled too effectively to date though.

Reply #49 By: Cappy1507 - 11/18/2004 12:28:04 AM First of all the deaths are horrible. I am saddened by them. As I sit here looking at a picture of my own child on my desk, i think it's important to say that even one death is too many when it is your own child. These are not statistics we are tossing around but the deaths of innocents. May God hold them dear. As far as the sanctions go, it is impossible to lay the blame of all those deaths soley and squarely on them. The country was destroyed by the first gulf war, and that attributed greatly to the suffering of the Iraqi people and the infant mortality rates. Also the Oil for Food Program was started in order to aid the Iraqi People, the program was at first limited, but those restrictions were soon lifted. This help some what, however greed soon ate up much of that aide as Saddam and others skimmed off the top, dipping deeper and deeper. Saddam also had huge reserves of money, and he did nothing to help his people. I think this is one aspect we can all agree on, Saddam had it in his power to help his people and chose not to. He could have met the worlds demands and ended the suffering, he did not. It was one of the reasons I supported the invasion. However, I don't think the situation has improved much, for the Iraqi people, I think it will in the future, if it is handled correctly. It hasn't been handled too effectively to date though.

I would have to agree with you 110% on that! Even 1 is to many. He should suffer the same fate that he consigned his people to.

oaky, i just briefly checked out americannaziparty.com, and i have to agree with Mitch...it's kinda creepy. probably even waaay creepy. however, i did notice one item to ponder...if you read the "Who We Are" section, you'll notice that the writer/Chairman's name is Rocky J. Suhayda. yeah, that sounds real American (??)!

check the following link out...definitely some interesting reading. it's entitled, "Timeline of Treason: The Bush Family Connections to the Nazis"

Link

Terrorism is not new. We used it in our own Revolutionary War, and it wasn't new then.

----ChristianDog

This is true, but I doubt that General Washington advocated the use of terror as a weapon against innocent civilians. The terror was directed against the British troops.
Don't don't confuse military tactics and the acts of a desperately sociopathic mind.

Reply #52 By: JenPie - 11/29/2004 10:45:29 PM check the following link out...definitely some interesting reading. it's entitled, "Timeline of Treason: The Bush Family Connections to the Nazis" Link

Weak at best. Using their logic the Rockefellers were guilty also. I don't hear anyone saying *anything* about them.

ChristianDog -

I am embarrissed, being a christian, that you would represent yourself as a christian, and speak with such a lack of intelligence. You think that we implemented terrosistic tactics during the american revolutionary war, absolutely not. Do you recall us ever attacking British civillian's, or even touching English soil? Exactly. I suggest that you do more research on the topics that you decide to discuss.

Bush and the Nazis are a long way off from each other. Bush is a poor and overly-violent leader, but to try to compare killing millions of Jews with capturing a brutal dictator is off the mark. It also is an insult to the families of the Jews who died in the gas chambers. BY the way there is no need for that apostrophe in Nazis.