Obama: Conceder in Chief

JC29856

he's got a loooong way to go before he even comes close to catching clinton!

cincybearcat

JC29856 wrote:

he's got a loooong way to go before he even comes close to catching clinton!

Right, he'd need a republican congress and a dot com boom (before bust).

JC29856

JimmyV wrote:

Best President since Clinton.

Clinton killed 500,000 Iraqi children, Obama probably only killed say about 2,000 children worldwide, not counting (indirectly) of course Palestinian children killed by Israel. Even if they counted (which they don't) the number would still only be say 5,000 worldwide children killed. Obama will never catch him, only time will tell how many Iranian children will be killed due to sanctions, but I doubt it will be near 500,000.

JimmyV

JC29856 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Best President since Clinton.

Clinton killed 500,000 Iraqi children, Obama probably only killed say about 2,000 children worldwide, not counting (indirectly) of course Palestinian children killed by Israel. Even if they counted (which they don't) the number would still only be say 5,000 worldwide children killed. Obama will never catch him, only time will tell how many Iranian children will be killed due to sanctions, but I doubt it will be near 500,000.

I enjoyed the part of Clinton's autobiography where he described sitting around the situation room and rejecting battle plans because they did not kill enough Iraqi children. Eventually he said, "Screw it, I'll just do it myself."

:roll:

JC29856

JimmyV wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Best President since Clinton.

Clinton killed 500,000 Iraqi children, Obama probably only killed say about 2,000 children worldwide, not counting (indirectly) of course Palestinian children killed by Israel. Even if they counted (which they don't) the number would still only be say 5,000 worldwide children killed. Obama will never catch him, only time will tell how many Iranian children will be killed due to sanctions, but I doubt it will be near 500,000.

I enjoyed the part of Clinton's autobiography where he described sitting around the situation room and rejecting battle plans because they did not kill enough Iraqi children. Eventually he said, "Screw it, I'll just do it myself."

you probably enjoyed this also...knee slapper

When Clinton was president, his secretary of state, Madeline Albright, was questioned by Lesley Stahl on 60 minutes about the effect of US inspired sanctions on 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 Albright calmly responded: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

(who is the "we" she is referring to when she says "...we think the price is worth it.”

JimmyV

JC29856 wrote:

you probably enjoyed this also...knee slapper

When Clinton was president, his secretary of state, Madeline Albright, was questioned by Lesley Stahl on 60 minutes about the effect of US inspired sanctions on 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 Albright calmly responded: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

(who is the "we" she is referring to when she says "...we think the price is worth it.”

And who is the source when Lesley Stahl says "We have heard..."?

JC29856

Estimates of deaths due to sanctions

Estimates of excess deaths during sanctions vary depending on the source. The estimates vary [28][35] due to differences in methodologies, and specific time-frames covered.[36] A short listing of estimates follows:

Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."[28][37]
Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[38]
"probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20. October 2003[39]
350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[40]
Economist Michael Spagat: "very likely to be [less than] than half a million children" because estimation efforts are unable to isolate the effects of sanctions alone due to the lack of "anything resembling a controlled experiment",[41] and "one potential explanation" for the statistics showing a decline in child mortality was that "they were not real, but rather results of manipulations by the Iraqi government."[41]
"Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[42] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[43]
Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., (1995) The Lancet British medical journal: 567,000 children.[44] A co-author (Zaidi) did a follow-up study in 1996, finding "much lower ... mortality rates ... for unknown reasons."[45]
Iraq expert Amatzia Baram compared the country’s population growth rates over several censuses and found there to be almost no difference in the rate of Iraq’s population growth between 1977 and 1987 (35.8 percent), and between 1987 and 1997 (35.1 percent), suggesting a much lower total.[46]

Infant and child death rates
Iraq's infant and child survival rates fell after sanctions were imposed.

A May 25, 2000 BBC article[47] reported that before Iraq sanctions were imposed by the UN in 1990, infant mortality had "fallen to 47 per 1,000 live births between 1984 and 1989. This compares to approximately 7 per 1,000 in the UK." The BBC article was reporting from a study of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, titled "Sanctions and childhood mortality in Iraq", that was published in the May 2000 Lancet medical journal.[48] The study concluded that in southern and central Iraq, infant mortality rate between 1994 and 1999 had risen to 108 per 1,000. Child mortality rate, which refers to children between the age of one and five years, also drastically inclined from 56 to 131 per 1,000.[47] In the autonomous northern region during the same period, infant mortality declined from 64 to 59 per 1000 and under-5 mortality fell from 80 to 72 per 1000, which was attributed to better food and resource allocation.

The Lancet publication[48] was the result of two separate surveys by UNICEF[28] between February and May 1999 in partnership with the local authorities and with technical support by the WHO. "The large sample sizes - nearly 24,000 households randomly selected from all governorates in the south and center of Iraq and 16,000 from the north - helped to ensure that the margin of error for child mortality in both surveys was low," UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said.[28]

In the spring of 2000 a U.S. Congressional letter demanding the lifting of the sanctions garnered 71 signatures, while House Democratic Whip David Bonior called the economic sanctions against Iraq "infanticide masquerading as policy."[49]

JC29856

JC29856 wrote:

Estimates of deaths due to sanctions

Estimates of excess deaths during sanctions vary depending on the source. The estimates vary [28][35] due to differences in methodologies, and specific time-frames covered.[36] A short listing of estimates follows:

Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."[28][37]
Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[38]
"probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20. October 2003[39]
350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[40]
Economist Michael Spagat: "very likely to be [less than] than half a million children" because estimation efforts are unable to isolate the effects of sanctions alone due to the lack of "anything resembling a controlled experiment",[41] and "one potential explanation" for the statistics showing a decline in child mortality was that "they were not real, but rather results of manipulations by the Iraqi government."[41]
"Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[42] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[43]
Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., (1995) The Lancet British medical journal: 567,000 children.[44] A co-author (Zaidi) did a follow-up study in 1996, finding "much lower ... mortality rates ... for unknown reasons."[45]
Iraq expert Amatzia Baram compared the country’s population growth rates over several censuses and found there to be almost no difference in the rate of Iraq’s population growth between 1977 and 1987 (35.8 percent), and between 1987 and 1997 (35.1 percent), suggesting a much lower total.[46]

Infant and child death rates
Iraq's infant and child survival rates fell after sanctions were imposed.

A May 25, 2000 BBC article[47] reported that before Iraq sanctions were imposed by the UN in 1990, infant mortality had "fallen to 47 per 1,000 live births between 1984 and 1989. This compares to approximately 7 per 1,000 in the UK." The BBC article was reporting from a study of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, titled "Sanctions and childhood mortality in Iraq", that was published in the May 2000 Lancet medical journal.[48] The study concluded that in southern and central Iraq, infant mortality rate between 1994 and 1999 had risen to 108 per 1,000. Child mortality rate, which refers to children between the age of one and five years, also drastically inclined from 56 to 131 per 1,000.[47] In the autonomous northern region during the same period, infant mortality declined from 64 to 59 per 1000 and under-5 mortality fell from 80 to 72 per 1000, which was attributed to better food and resource allocation.

The Lancet publication[48] was the result of two separate surveys by UNICEF[28] between February and May 1999 in partnership with the local authorities and with technical support by the WHO. "The large sample sizes - nearly 24,000 households randomly selected from all governorates in the south and center of Iraq and 16,000 from the north - helped to ensure that the margin of error for child mortality in both surveys was low," UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said.[28]

In the spring of 2000 a U.S. Congressional letter demanding the lifting of the sanctions garnered 71 signatures, while House Democratic Whip David Bonior called the economic sanctions against Iraq "infanticide masquerading as policy."[49]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

croc tears!!! thats some funny shit isnt it!!!
(anyway we are getting off the topic of the "Concession King") anyone who would like to further explore and discuss which president has the most "child kills" should probably start a new thread

JimmyV

So even your own source admits that estimates vary wildly, from 170,000 to 500,000? Look, however many of these deaths occurred, it is a tragedy. But settling on the high number so you can attack does not help your cause.

I think we can pick apart the foreign policy decisions of every American President if we try hard enough and look at it from enough angles. But each of them, regardless of party, has been forced to make tough decisions on a daily basis most of us cannot imagine having to make.

JC29856

JimmyV wrote:

So even your own source admits that estimates vary wildly, from 170,000 to 500,000? Look, however many of these deaths occurred, it is a tragedy. But settling on the high number so you can attack does not help your cause.

I think we can pick apart the foreign policy decisions of every American President if we try hard enough and look at it from enough angles. But each of them, regardless of party, has been forced to make tough decisions on a daily basis most of us cannot imagine having to make.

1. totally off topic
2. thats not my source, thats what I believe Leslie Stahl was referring to...

JimmyV

JC29856 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

So even your own source admits that estimates vary wildly, from 170,000 to 500,000? Look, however many of these deaths occurred, it is a tragedy. But settling on the high number so you can attack does not help your cause.

I think we can pick apart the foreign policy decisions of every American President if we try hard enough and look at it from enough angles. But each of them, regardless of party, has been forced to make tough decisions on a daily basis most of us cannot imagine having to make.

1. totally off topic
2. thats not my source, thats what I believe Leslie Stahl was referring to...

You posted about the 500,000 dead kids. If you didn't want to go there, then you shouldn't have gone there. If that isn't your source then what is?

JC29856

recap:

(who is the "we" she is referring to when she says "...we think the price is worth it.”
... no reply

And who is the source when Lesley Stahl says "We have heard..."?
replied with...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

So even your own source admits that estimates vary wildly, from 170,000 to 500,000?
replies with...2. thats not my source, thats what I believe Leslie Stahl was referring to...

You posted about the 500,000 dead kids. If you didn't want to go there, then you shouldn't have gone there. If that isn't your source then what is?

explain to me my source of what? I quoted an interview where Clinton's Sec of State did NOT deny the killing of innocent Iraqi children NOR did she deny the number of children killed (500,000). Im guess the Stahl got the 500,000 number from the UNICEF report but since Im not Leslie Stahl I dont know for sure, but its my best guess. ANYWAY.........Without any estimates or fact finding from Unicef, the UN, and etc I would tend to think that hundreds of thousands of children were killed simply because Albright didn't flatly deny it, she actually justified it on national tv! "...we think the price is worth it.” "We" being Clinton and cabinet and the "price" being hundreds of thousands of Children.
NOW......
Do you want to rethink this one or are you OK with how callous and tone deaf it reads?
So you do have no second thoughts about this comparison? 100% A-OK in your mind?

JimmyV

JC29856 wrote:

recap:

(who is the "we" she is referring to when she says "...we think the price is worth it.”
... no reply

And who is the source when Lesley Stahl says "We have heard..."?
replied with...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

So even your own source admits that estimates vary wildly, from 170,000 to 500,000?
replies with...2. thats not my source, thats what I believe Leslie Stahl was referring to...

You posted about the 500,000 dead kids. If you didn't want to go there, then you shouldn't have gone there. If that isn't your source then what is?

explain to me my source of what? I quoted an interview where Clinton's Sec of State did NOT deny the killing of innocent Iraqi children NOR did she deny the number of children killed (500,000). Im guess the Stahl got the 500,000 number from the UNICEF report but since Im not Leslie Stahl I dont know for sure, but its my best guess. ANYWAY.........Without any estimates or fact finding from Unicef, the UN, and etc I would tend to think that hundreds of thousands of children were killed simply because Albright didn't flatly deny it, she actually justified it on national tv! "...we think the price is worth it.” "We" being Clinton and cabinet and the "price" being hundreds of thousands of Children.
NOW......
Do you want to rethink this one or are you OK with how callous and tone deaf it reads?
So you do have no second thoughts about this comparison? 100% A-OK in your mind?

You posted about the 500,000 dead children claim first, then pulled out the Stahl interview, then posted an article that clearly indicated the true number was unknown. And when questioned on that, THEN you played the off-topic card.

JC29856

ok, i see your point... lets at least agree on a number of children killed by the iraqi sanctions, about the same age of the 20 children killed in newtown, ct...

100,000?
150,000?
200,000?
250,000?

i will let you pick the number then i will go with it...thxs and sorry i inadvertently pulled the "off topic" card, it wasnt met as a distraction or tactic to evade

JimmyV

I don't know the number. I do think whatever the true number is it represents a tragedy. I'm not convinced Albright meant what she said there but I have not seen the interview.

JC29856

In supporting the bill, President Obama gave away the one bargaining chip – the expiring Bush tax cuts – that he could have used in the upcoming negotiations on spending cuts and the debt ceiling. Not only did Obama get little of substance in return for his only bargaining chip. He actually ceded nearly half the $1 trillion in new revenue that John Boehner agreed to, (getting only $600 billion in tax increases on the wealthy over the next decade).

http://www.jillstein.org/stein_bipartis ... _austerity

JimmyV

I like a leader that can make tough decisions and get things done. Unfortunately we live in a world where there are no perfect solutions.