2007-11-25
08:48:11
·
15 answers
·
asked by
charbatch
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
2007-11-25
08:52:52 ·
update #1
this was cited by Bin Laden as a reason for 9/11 attacks. why are people asking for sources? this is common knowledge.
2007-11-25
08:54:06 ·
update #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
It's simply unbelievable that liberals are asking for sources on this. unbelievable...
wow just wow
2007-11-25
08:55:05 ·
update #3
Notice the liberal cowards have not answered the question. They just attack you.
The answer is that from albright to reno to elders the clinton administration was inept and very unqualified.
The clinton sheep are just hypocrites who ignore what king clinton did and just hate President Bush.
2007-11-25 09:02:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
5⤋
That's a very short clip, with no context. Albright should not have allowed that half a million children had died because they had not, but here is the story behind it.
"The sanctions, first imposed in 1990 after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, are administered by the U.N., not the U.S. They were first imposed on all exports from Iraq and occupied Kuwait, and all non-humanitarian imports, in an effort to persuade Saddam Hussein to retreat within his own borders. After the Gulf War, they were broadened to include a dismantling of Iraq's biological, chemical, nuclear, and missile-based weapons systems, out of fear that Hussein would otherwise lash out again. Estimates of sanctions-era "excess" child deaths -- the number above the normal mortality rate -- vary widely due to politics and inadequate data, especially concerning children older than 5. The dictatorial Iraqi government, which has blamed nearly every civilian funeral since 1991 on sanctions, claims there have been more than 600,000 deaths of under-5-year-olds these past 11 years (4,500 per month) and 1.5 million deaths overall."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html
2007-11-25 08:55:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
This is taken (typically) out of context, because she went on to tell us about the number of lives SAVED... (and gave the correct information whereas the journalist did not...)
so there!
(nice try at spamming by using a quick flick of half a statement and not allowing the context to be shown)
How can you claim In one question that Clinton was a "do nothing" President who set up the pins for Bin Laden by not doing anything to stop him, and then use a snippet of a clip discussing the fact that he did?
Do you have no conscience?
2007-11-25 09:06:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by rabble rouser 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
I surely ought to consider the Clinton administration, their parents had a decision to wrestle or stand down and their decision changed into to face down, if yet another u . s . invaded the u . s . a . i'd be dam if i could stand down and if I lost my little ones battling than so be it, yet when I lost my little ones because I ran an concealed than I must be ashame because i turned right into a coward. And the parents of Iraqi little ones were cowards!!!!!!!
2016-10-25 01:41:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by ecker 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I can't believe liberals would question this either---I AM one, and I agree that your statements are true.
Your mistake, however, is inferring that Clinton and his ilk are/were "liberals". Clinton was a real horse's @ss, a Republican masquerading as a Democrat. REAL Democrats should hang their collective heads in shame to claim him as one of their own. If Clinton was a "liberal", then Dennis Kucinich is a stark-raving-mad member of the Religious Right.
2007-11-25 09:06:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Clinton's Sec. of State did not say anything of a kind. However because of you evil Republican Neocons and your evil and criminal leaders such as Bush, Cheney and cronies over one (1) million of Iraqi men, women and children were killed. You are spreading here your poisonous lies and deliberately misleading propaganda.
2007-11-25 08:59:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
Miserable and stinking lying Neocon, you are spreading your poisonous lies around and keep brainwashing American people with your deliberately misleading propaganda. You should take your buddies and leaders such as criminal Bush and criminal Cheney and collectively go to hell.
2007-11-26 00:39:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by Dave C 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
As much as I believe that this war had to be fought (and won) I just don't remember ever hearing about any 500,000 dead Iraqi Children.. Except those made up by certain haters.
2007-11-25 08:54:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by SFC_Ollie 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
half a million children didn't die, 600 thousand people died during the current war so is that justified?
2007-11-25 08:54:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Because Clinton was evil. I have to laugh. You gave sources and a video and liberals are still denying she said it.
LOL
rabble rouser is clearly lying.
2007-11-25 09:02:10
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋