Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Why not?


Because they served no defensive purpose.



It theoretically had no defenses after we finished with them in the
Gulf War.


Iraq's defenses were not destroyed during the Gulf War, just it's ability to
threaten or attack it's neighbors.



We permitted Japan to raise minimal military forces to defend itself
after WWII, and did the same with what was left of Hitler's Deutchland.


We did the same with Iraq.



You're obviously in denial and have been hung out to dry by your party line.
You need to walk away from this particular discussion, because you're never
going to win it.


You're obviously uninformed.

On the contrary, I am very well informed; it's you who is in denial of the
truth. We labelled Scuds being delivered to Yemen as defensive weapons, and you
are claiming that Iraq, with or without her defensive capabilities in ruins, was
entitled to such capabilities, and yet not entitled to use a defensive weapon
(by our own definition) like the Scud missile. There's a dichotomy there that
you seem to be too stubborn to admit, but it's still there and it won't go away
even if you wish it would.