Correction

Critiques I have read are as full of holes as the WMDs bull.

I have yet to read any analysis by a reputable qualified body or person that dismisses the Lancet Survey. Those I have read are as full of holes as the WMDs bull.

Anyone????

UNICEF was releasing figures for 2002 -2003 that were an extrapolation on pre & 1999 data. They have since up-dated their information which shows the Lancet Survey to be fairly accurate in its assessment.

People seem to forget that as there were a lot of kids died pre the No Oil No Food Program, those born as the program began to show benefits, were relatively healthy new bouncing babies. Unfortunately they are now facing the same problems as their predecessors.

Lack of food was/is not the main cause of malnutrition, but wasting diseases bought about by unsanitary conditions and poor water. No amount of food helps when it cannot be digested properly because of diseases thru bad water and lack of sanitation.

The people of Iraq were subjected to harsh sanctions which drove them into dependence upon the Hussein regime. The No Food No Oil Program, although it did help, actually drove Iraqis even futher into the Hussein regimes clutches, because they depended upon it for distribution.

This can be seen in the improvements in health in the autonomous regions as compared to the regions under full Hussein control, where it was used to curry favour or totally corrupted for their own purposes.

————–

In essence, Iraq was held under seige by US pushed and tabled UN sanctions which began at the end of Bush Snrs tenure. They poisoned the well by destroying civil infrastructure, threw the dead corpse of disease over the wall through sanctions on medical /medicines. Typical seige. Then sat back and waited until the turn around in power in the USA.

The PNAC even lobbied Clinton, encouraging him to push the button on Iraq.

Now the signatories to those letters are in power in the Whitehouse and their man has done their bidding. Allowed by US citizens, brainwashed into believing Iraq had WMDs, helped in the 9/11 attacks and were an immediate threat to the US public. None of which was true.

The result is as predicted. Chaos.

My understanding is that the UK ‘civil unions’ are not legally identical to marriages, there are still differences, like in the US.

FWIW I’m with SquanderTwo on this one, but that’s opinion, not fact. I urge anyone to read the raw data and come to their own conclusions.

That’s not marriage dopey, that’s civil union – George Bush believes in that and it occurs in some states in the US.

Also was it not the American Church of England that ordained its first openly gay bishop, this is being resisted by the C of E.

PS: I am British, born in Lancashire and living in London…

The law was passed on November 18 2004, and it takes effect from December 5 2005.

Gee Larry sounds more like a series of referendums than an election.

By the way when did gay marriage become legal in the UK ?