Clinton MURDERED thousands--at least as many as Dubya

C'mon...in a whacked out freeper mind all the sperm that was wasted on the floor (not going to assume Monica swallowed--that's cannabalism isn't it?)were all viable humans. So that is WHY they impeached him.
Now, if we could only find out the magic number of deaths until impeachment...:silly:

hundreds and thousands of people in Iraq.


IS your subject line something that a freeper said? :shrug:

:shrug:

It works for me when I click on it in the thread that I posted above.

"Clinton Iraq Sanctions", the link you say is bad, is the third one down the list.

That has more hard-hitting facts and stats then I guess are included in that Op-Ed link I posted below.

and yes the sanctions killed hundreds of thousands, mostly children and elderly.

Hope it works

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/halliday.htm

Not news or hard statistics.

"To sum up his thinking: since the Security Council, under US/UK pressure, persists with sanctions knowing what impact the embargo is having on the Iraqi populace, one cannot but conclude that the council is responsible for the murder of 7,000 Iraqis a month, 5,000 of them children under the age of five."

"Clinton Iraq Sanctions" and you will find tons of links to stories about the Sanctions and the severity of the situation under Clinton.

You brought the argument to the table--YOU google.

You asked for a link and I gave you one. Make that two.


Your original post, I believe is something you read or heard that a freeper said. My interpretation is that you think that the freeper is just trying to bash Clinton but sadly, the freeper is right. Under the sanctions, which started under Poppa Bush, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died, probably more than those that have died since this current war started.

Sorry that the truth hurts.

Hardly a legit rebuttal.

... so the guy provided you with a jillion links, and you could take YOUR pick out of which ones you thought were "valid".

You're the one who gave the impression of an unsatisfiable burden of proof. The obvious consequence of that is to be given the whole mess and asked to pick for yourself something that satisfies you.

I see nothing wrong with that response. Rather than the other guy *guess* at what might satisfy you, you can *pick* one that satisfies you.

and you will learn that if you have an argument, you bring a LEGITIMATE link to back it up. Any legitimate news source is fine.
It is not my argument to prove. Op-eds DON'T count as proof.
But nice that you came over to help him with his argument.:popcorn:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/iraq-s28.shtml

seems to be working fine. DUer pocket above says it is working.
That link, imo, is a legitimate link. Like I said, if that link doesn't work, you can always Google.

Don't you want to know the truth???

Wish I had found it so I can post it and post it and re-post it and post it again and again.............


Thanks for posting this link.

Hopefully, the link works for Horse.

Great links.

These are the resolutions that allowed food into Iraq. If SH refused to let food in, I hardly see that it is Clinton's fault.:shrug:

Resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990 imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, including a full trade embargo barring all imports from and exports to Iraq, excepting only medical supplies, foodstuffs, and other items of humanitarian need, as determined by the Security Council sanctions committee, which was also established by Resolution 661. The sanctions committee is chaired by the Ambassador of Ghana, with the delegations of Congo and Denmark providing vice chairmen. (Note: All 15 Council Members sit on the sanctions committee).

Resolution 712 (1991) of 19 September 1991 allowed for a partial lifting of the embargo, which would have enabled Iraq to sell some oil to use the proceeds for humanitarian purposes. In return, Iraq would have been subject to strict UN monitoring of the contracts and distribution of humanitarian goods bought with the oil revenues.

Resolution 986 (1995)of 14 April 1995 enables Iraq to sell up to $1 billion of oil every 90 days and use the proceeds for humanitarian supplies to the country. On 20 May 1996, the UN and the Government of Iraq concluded the Memorandum of Understanding that codified the practical arrangements for the implementation of the oil-for-food agreement. The sanctions committee subsequently adopted on 8 August 1996 the Procedures for the implementation of Resolution 986. On 9 December 1996, the Secretary-General reported to the Security Council (S/1996/1015) that all the steps necessary to ensure the effective implementation of Resolution 986 had been concluded. As a result, Resolution 986 went into effect at 00.01 hours Eastern Standard Time on 10 December 1996. The first food shipment arrived in Iraq on 20 March 1997.

These resolutions were reviewed every 60-120 days and upheld. So, again I ask, where did Clinton REFUSE food to the Iraqi children?


Edited to add link
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm

also took huge hits from the bombing raids.
Haven't kept up too well with the oil/food controversy.

... how things look to a disinterested 3rd party, just as you disregard jillions of google links... This is still America after all, you're welcome to disregard everything you like.

I got no dog in this race - it's odd that you think I do, given a complete lack of evidence in that regard. Do you have a link to back that up?

Just a command to "google".
That's not how we do things here.

And as far as a "dog in this race"--I think you do. Just bringing up the name Bill Clinton makes the dogs crawl out of the woodwork.:hi:

because you were having trouble with the links I provided. By Googling, you would have all the info. you would need.

I've learned recently that "that's how we do things around here".

Jackals can falsely believe anything they want.

Wow! That is fun! To call someone a name without actually calling them a name - thanks for showing me how it's done! :wave:

Here is a snip from the first link I posted that you say is bad:


Clinton administration blocks easing of sanctions against Iraq
By Barry Grey
28 September 1999
Use this version to print

After two weeks of intensive negotiations within the United Nations Security Council, the United States has blocked efforts by France, Russia and China to lift sanctions against Iraq. Washington has thereby ensured the continuation of a policy which must rank as one of the great crimes against humanity of the twentieth century.

Only last month the UN children's agency, UNICEF, released a study showing that nine years of economic embargo, compounded by the devastation from two air wars, have produced a “humanitarian emergency.” UNICEF reported that mortality rates among infants and children under five in the central and southern parts of the country which are controlled by Baghdad, where 85 percent of Iraqis live, have more than doubled since 1989. The study further concluded that 20 percent of Iraqi children under five suffer from stunted growth caused by malnutrition.

UNICEF estimated that 500,000 child deaths are attributable to the sanctions.

A number of other reports and eyewitness accounts have documented the existence of a social catastrophe in Iraq, resulting from the relentless economic, political and military assault by the most powerful nation in the world. In recent years Bill Clinton and his counterparts in Europe have employed the term “genocide” with near abandon to demonize leaders and regimes targeted for attack. But if anything in the past decade approaches the level of genocide, it is the systematic destruction of an entire nation carried out by the United States against Iraq.

<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/iraq052.shtml>
<http://www.counterpunch.org/halliday09062003.html>
<http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/sanctions.htm>

Estimates of the number of dead caused by the sanctions and thrice weekly bombing runs range between 500,000-1,000,000. The vast majority of those killed were innocent children. In fact the actual number of military personell killed is somewhere between 1000-2000. The rest of the deaths were comprised of civilian casualties.

In addition, the bombing runs destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq, taking away the basics, electricity, clean water and sewage, and food from millions upon millions of Iraqis.

Yes, yes, I know, the sanctions were installed by the UN. However this was done so at the behest of the US, and if Clinton had wanted to, he could have certainly gotten those sanctions lifted. But the only thing that he wanted to do was continue to insure the flow of Iraqi oil. Gee, if he could have gotten that going, he certainly could have helped alleviate the suffering that sanctions and bombing runs were inflicting. Instead, he allowed it to continue.

Clinton is no hero, nor a good guy just because he was a Democrat. As has been proven time and again by people like LBJ and Clinton, Democrats can be bloodthirsty murdering assholes too.

so wouldn't that be Saddam's fault for not delivering those to his people?
Didn't he--in essence--use his people as hostages to get the sanctions lifted?

from those who blame Clinton for not lifting UN sanctions that did not include food, medical supplies, etc.....for all of the deaths.

DemEx

From my third link

<snip>"16. Various resolutions have been passed since 1991 with the ostensible purpose of mitigating the effects of the blockade/sanctions regime. In particular the“Oil for food” resolutions (including principally SCR 986 of 1995) have been put in place to enable the sale of a limited amount of oil in order to purchase foodstuffs and medical supplies. However, the ineffectiveness of this programme to supply even the most urgent humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people is notorious. In a report dated January 1999 to the UNSC written by a panel established for the purpose of assessing the humanitarian situation by the President of the UN Security Council (“the Panel report”), it was noted at paras 46-47 that:

“ven if all humanitarian supplies were provided in a timely manner, the humanitarian programme implemented pursuant to resolution 986 (1995) can admittedly only meet but a small fraction of the priority needs of the Iraqi people.

17. Based on figures quoted by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in January 2000 (2), during the two and a half years that the oil for food programme has operated, it has delivered only US $74 of food per annum per head of population (3). When it is recalled that, according to UN sources, Iraq was importing 70% of its food requirements even before the devastation of its agricultural sector by the Gulf War, the inadequacy of this sum is self-evident.

18. The same statement by Albright reveals that the programme only delivered $15 worth of medical supplies per annum per head of population, which is manifestly inadequate to deal with even the most urgent of medical needs. The report of the Secretary General dated 12 November 1999 (“the Secretary General’s report”) lists at paragraphs 45-47 a sample of the medical supplies which are in short supply, including antibiotics, syringes, anaesthetics, vaccines and drugs for chronic illnesses. It should be noted in this context that the US blocked a number of medical supply contracts in 1997 upon the grounds that the shipments might “illegally” include some free samples (4).

19. The total funding made available by the programme for the rebuilding of the civilian infrastructure destroyed or damaged during the Gulf War and subsequent bombing raids (schools, hospitals, sanitation, the oil industry, irrigation, power, water etc) is reported by Albright to be $500 million. The rehabilitation of the power generation industry alone (which was systematically targeted and destroyed during the Gulf War) is stated in the Panel report (para 43)to require $7 billion.

20. One reason for the ineffectiveness of the programme is the bureaucracy surrounding imports referred to below. A second reason is that all funds generated under the oil-for-food programme are channelled to the UN, which deducts approximately one third of them to meet the costs of administering the sanctions regime and to pay reparations to Kuwaiti oil companies and others deemed entitled to compensation for the Iraqi invasion. The Secretary General’s report notes in its annex one that approximately 18 billion dollars has so far been generated by the oil for food programme, of which 6 billion dollars has been deducted for compensation and administration.

21. A third reason, and one which is rapidly becoming a major problem, is that oil production capacity is insufficient to reach the targets set by the oil for food programme because the Iraqi oil industry infrastructure has not been able to be maintained and repaired due to the blockade/sanctions regime, which has until recently prevented the obtaining of spare parts for what is now seriously out dated machinery. Billions of US dollars are now needed to modernise the facilities to ensure that the industry can continue to produce oil. The Panel Report notes at para 47:

“In light of the near absolute dependence of Iraq on oil exports to generate foreign exchange, the precarious state of the oil industry infrastructure, if allowed to deteriorate further, will have disastrous effects on the country’s ability to cover the costs for basic humanitarian needs.” <snip>

As you can see, from this and other links, the oil for food program was really nothing more than a feel good fig leaf, designed to convince the world that we weren't inhumane monsters, all the while we were bombing and starving innocent men, women and children. Seventy four dollars a month for food? Fifteen dollars a year per person for medicine? And this is before the UN skimmed 1/3 of the money off the top for "administrative costs" Could you live off of such "largesse". I know I couldn't, even in a second or third world country where the cost of living is much cheaper.

And then there is the matter of destroyed infrastructure. What good is having money for food, if the food can't reach the people due to bombed out roads and lack of fuel or electricity?

Hate to break it to you, but Clinton was no humanitarian god. Under his administration people world wide died to sanctions, as in Iraq, or due to the fact that he turned his back, as in Rwanda, the Sudan, and even here in the US.

UN sanctions ?

watch out. Dont tell jokes about clinton. You'll get flamed and called names and might even get kicked out. be careful.

He didn't get us into any wars, he had the economy humming, and you know he throws one hell of a Fourth of July BBQ!

At one point it threatened to escalate into a major confrontation between the Russians and NATO.

And we still have US troops in the former Yugoslavia.

And Americans aren't killing anyone either.

And try to bomb an enemy into submission or is it something else? The US was engaged in that behavior under Clinton.

I am not judging it as right or wrong, but IMHO Clinton did have us involved in the warfare that surrounded the civil wars/ wars for independence there.

However, compared to the current fiasco, it barely even registers.

:rofl:

Check out this thread :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x691507

they whip out the Clinton dick...it is ALL his fault cause he couldn't keep that dick in his pants.:crazy:

I liked Clinton, thought he was a really good president but his refusal to lift the Sanctions against Iraq caused hundreds and thousands of deaths, mainly against innocent women and children. These are facts.

I think neither personally murdered anyone.
But that doesn't let either off the hook.

Then you may be right. Bill Clinton is responsible for the thousands of deaths - by just uttering the phrase, "I did have an inappropriate relationship with Miss Lewinski" thousands of future Freepers lost their lives due to premature ejaculation(not to mention the thousands of dollars spent on dry-cleaning for the pants worn that day).

"This is it, folks. This is the idea which has kept me virtually unknown for the past 16 years. I have watched my crowds dwindle. I am going nowhere, and nowhere quick, but, those of you who have children, I am sorry to tell you this, but they are not special. Wait! I know some of you are going: 'What, what?' Let me just clarify: I know you think they're special ... ha ha ha! I'm aware of that. I'm just here to tell you that they're not! Ha ha ha ha! Sorry.

Did you know that every time a guy comes, he comes two-hundred million sperm? One out of two-hundred million ? that load, we're only talking about one load ? connected: Gee, what are the fucking odds? Do you know what that means? I've wiped nations off've my chest with a grey gymsock. Entire civilizations have flaked and crusted in the hair around my navel! (...) I've tossed universes in my underpants while napping. Boom! A Milkyway shoots into my jockeyshorts: 'Unngh ... what's for fucking breakfast?!'"