"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
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;

You are kidding, right? Do you even know what UN Res 687 *was*?

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.

Not a weapon with a range of over 150km. You really need to go back and
familiarize yourself with the requirements imposed upon Iraq, why they were
imposed, and how Yemen has not demosntrated any of the behaviors associated
with why those requirements were imposed upon Iraq.

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.

There is no dichotomy. We outlawed the Nazi party in Germany after WWII, but
we did nothing to outlaw facism in Spain, which had *not* conducted a war of
aggression--was that a "dichotomy"? Nope. It was a simple case of the
defeated nation having to submit to measures that are not imposed upon other
nations--just like the case you are discussing.

Brooks