<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Feb 15 2003, 09:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 15 2003, 09:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But should these people, and the people on the Columbia, be given precedence over the others around the world who die because of actions taken by the US? No, I don't think so. 500,000 Iraqi children killed by sanctions makes for sobering reading. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First off, this isn't a critizce American and/or other governments policies thread; this is a thread respecting the people who died in the Columbia-RIP. Anyways, space travel is very important, and as other have said it can help unify the world in a common goal. And about the 500,000 dead Iraqi babies, I cannot comprehend how anyone could believe that, it's obviously fake but those who hate the West and/or America instantly think that it's true to further their argument. Visit this website, which debunks the '500,000 dead babies because of American sanctions' myth.
The dead babies are blamed by Saddam's regime on cancers and birth defects which first appeared in 1991 and were, it says, caused by depleted uranium weapons. While no one should underestimate the lethality of these weapons and the stupidity of the US military machine, the claim does not make radiological sense. According to Dr Nick Plowman, head of clinical oncology at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, the claim 'is ridiculous. It flies in the face of everything learnt from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Cancers do not develop overnight. Bombs that fell in 1991 could not have caused cancers or birth defects in that year. Fast leukaemias might occur in four or five years, heavy tumours around now, said Plowman.
Richard Guthrie, a chemical weapons researcher at Sussex University, said: 'It's much more likely to be chemical weapons. There are serious clusters of cancers in the south of Iraq near Basra. In the late Eighties, Basra was almost taken by Iranian human-wave offensives, and Saddam stopped these by dropping chemical weapons on them and, by accident, on his own people.
I think Ryo-Ohki was talking more about the Oil-For-Food program which Saddam took and turned into Oil-For-Guns. The food was for the people who Saddam were starving but he used it and traded the food to Russia for money to buy weapons with. Thus, 500,000 people starved to death as of late.
Yes Ryo, the American gov't does some pretty s****y things. The problem is, our news stations never give it enough coverage. That's the problem with mega-capitalism. The news has to make a profit. That's why I watch the BBC and that's why I refuse to give support to Bush's foreign policy, and why (now that I can vote) I plan on voting for Vt. ex-Governor Howard Dean should he run, or Joe Lierberman.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And about the 500,000 dead Iraqi babies, I cannot comprehend how anyone could believe that, it's obviously fake<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Smokenova beat me to it. Yes, I was referring to the Oil-for-Food programs that Saddam warped. And how can it be "obviously fake" when the UN does a complete report on it and sumbits 500,000 as the figure? The UN is, if anything, more pro-US than anti-Us but it's supposed to be neutral. So this wasn't Iraq saying this, it wasn't the left wingers you so plainly dread, it was a neutral world governing agency that has a lot of experiance in these matters. World Vision and other charity aid orgainisations arn't saying the 500,000 figure is wrong. And one web-site saying it's not true is hardly a convincing arguement, I can go to 2 dozen websites that show <b>beyond doubt</b> that Kennedy was killed by the CIA, that the Russians blew up Challenger, that cigarettes have no cancer causing agents whatsoever, that Bush was sent by God from heaven to combat Satan...shall I go on? Faced with the evidence from the world one website does not a rebuttal make.
Comments
First off, this isn't a critizce American and/or other governments policies thread; this is a thread respecting the people who died in the Columbia-RIP. Anyways, space travel is very important, and as other have said it can help unify the world in a common goal. And about the 500,000 dead Iraqi babies, I cannot comprehend how anyone could believe that, it's obviously fake but those who hate the West and/or America instantly think that it's true to further their argument. Visit this website, which debunks the '500,000 dead babies because of American sanctions' myth.
<a href='http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,742303,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/...,742303,00.html</a>
The dead babies are blamed by Saddam's regime on cancers and birth defects which first appeared in 1991 and were, it says, caused by depleted uranium weapons. While no one should underestimate the lethality of these weapons and the stupidity of the US military machine, the claim does not make radiological sense. According to Dr Nick Plowman, head of clinical oncology at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, the claim 'is ridiculous. It flies in the face of everything learnt from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Cancers do not develop overnight. Bombs that fell in 1991 could not have caused cancers or birth defects in that year. Fast leukaemias might occur in four or five years, heavy tumours around now, said Plowman.
Richard Guthrie, a chemical weapons researcher at Sussex University, said: 'It's much more likely to be chemical weapons. There are serious clusters of cancers in the south of Iraq near Basra. In the late Eighties, Basra was almost taken by Iranian human-wave offensives, and Saddam stopped these by dropping chemical weapons on them and, by accident, on his own people.
Yes Ryo, the American gov't does some pretty s****y things. The problem is, our news stations never give it enough coverage. That's the problem with mega-capitalism. The news has to make a profit. That's why I watch the BBC and that's why I refuse to give support to Bush's foreign policy, and why (now that I can vote) I plan on voting for Vt. ex-Governor Howard Dean should he run, or Joe Lierberman.
Smokenova beat me to it. Yes, I was referring to the Oil-for-Food programs that Saddam warped. And how can it be "obviously fake" when the UN does a complete report on it and sumbits 500,000 as the figure? The UN is, if anything, more pro-US than anti-Us but it's supposed to be neutral. So this wasn't Iraq saying this, it wasn't the left wingers you so plainly dread, it was a neutral world governing agency that has a lot of experiance in these matters. World Vision and other charity aid orgainisations arn't saying the 500,000 figure is wrong. And one web-site saying it's not true is hardly a convincing arguement, I can go to 2 dozen websites that show <b>beyond doubt</b> that Kennedy was killed by the CIA, that the Russians blew up Challenger, that cigarettes have no cancer causing agents whatsoever, that Bush was sent by God from heaven to combat Satan...shall I go on? Faced with the evidence from the world one website does not a rebuttal make.