A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 21st 04, 02:10 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

FYI, a ballistic missile is not a WMD all by its lonesome.


How do you know that there was no weapons payload?

Even if there was no payload, what are the Yemenese using them for?
Garden planters? A year later are they still just delivery vehicles,
or do you think they are fully armed WMD's?


OK, let me say this very slowly so you might get a clue:
it...takes...a....chemical...nuclear...or...biolog ical...warhead...to...make
.....it...a...WMD. Conventional warheads carried by a Scud-wanna-be don't
meet the criteria.


Is the region better off with Yemen having them? Is Israel better
off?


I really don't know as to how it either negatively or positively affects the
region (being as the Syrians, Saudis, Israelis, and Iranians all already
have SRBM's of their own, I doubt it will have much of an effect either
way). They are certainly no threat to Israel whilst sitting in Yemen (look
at a map and calculate the range of those missiles in question). And they
are pretty lousy terroist weapons--kind of hard to smuggle one into range of
a target, then fuel it with those rather nasty fuels it requires...and even
if you could, with a conventional warhead you'd like as not do no damage
whatsovere to your intended target, since you'd most likely miss it by a
wide margin. FYI, Yemen has not been forbidden to possess SRBM's--unlike
Iraq was under 1441.

Why you brought up and are arguing this issue, especially given your obvious
complete unfamiliarity with the weapons you are discussing, is rather
baffling.

Brooks


  #2  
Old January 21st 04, 01:23 PM
Johnny Bravo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:16:35 -0500, Fly Guy wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international
objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd,
yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD
by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has
been done is not proving a negative.


You can't prove that something no longer exists if you've destroyed it
(especially if you're trying to prove it to those that are bent on
invading you).


You could prove you destroyed it. That's what they were ordered to
do, destroy their WMD programs and retain proof of same. They say
they destroyed them and didn't bother proving it; given Iraq's prior
behavior the UN was unwilling to take them at their word.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
  #3  
Old January 20th 04, 03:09 PM
devil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving
a negative.


So that was the cause of the war, eh? Wonderful reason to go to war, if
you ask me.

If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I got
a bridge to seel you.

  #4  
Old January 20th 04, 03:32 PM
AnotherDeanRampage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message

...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the

cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not

proving
a negative.


So that was the cause of the war, eh?



One of them, yes.


  #5  
Old January 20th 04, 03:48 PM
devil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message

...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the

cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not

proving
a negative.


So that was the cause of the war, eh?



One of them, yes.


I got a bridge...

BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one
of" but *the*.

Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right?

When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one.

Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie. The
White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the
elections.

As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted
to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no
excuse.


  #6  
Old January 20th 04, 03:52 PM
AnotherDeanRampage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message

...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international

objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for

the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by

the
cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not

proving
a negative.

So that was the cause of the war, eh?



One of them, yes.


I got a bridge...


Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then.


BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one
of" but *the*.

Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right?

When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one.

Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie.


You're referring to Dean's campaign, I assume?


The
White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the
elections.


Nope. Not at all.


As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted
to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no
excuse.


You're referring to Dean's supporters here, I assume?


  #7  
Old January 20th 04, 04:00 PM
devil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:52:12 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message
...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international

objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for

the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by

the
cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not
proving
a negative.

So that was the cause of the war, eh?


One of them, yes.


I got a bridge...


Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then.


Changing the topic, eh? No excuse left to serve us on the war thing?


BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one
of" but *the*.

Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right?

When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one.

Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie.


You're referring to Dean's campaign, I assume?


Right. He went to war and served BS to the world as an excuse, sure.

The
White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the
elections.


Nope. Not at all.


Care to check?

As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted
to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no
excuse.


You're referring to Dean's supporters here, I assume?


Right. They served all sorts of excuses for attacking Iraq, as we know.

Anyway, sounds like you are really running out of anything meanful to
anser?

  #8  
Old January 20th 04, 04:13 PM
AnotherDeanRampage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:52:12 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message
...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international

objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par

for
the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by

the
cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is

not
proving
a negative.

So that was the cause of the war, eh?


One of them, yes.

I got a bridge...


Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then.


Changing the topic, eh?



No, because the topic was "I got a bridge".


  #9  
Old January 20th 04, 03:32 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"devil" wrote in message
news

Wonderful reason to go to war, if you ask me.


Yes, and I didn't.



If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I got
a bridge to seel you.


How do you seel a bridge?


  #10  
Old January 20th 04, 07:26 PM
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:20 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news

Wonderful reason to go to war, if you ask me.


Yes, and I didn't.



If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I got
a bridge to seel you.


How do you seel a bridge?


Pretty immature response, isnt it?

It that the best response you can make?


Here's something you Bush apologists can reflect upon:


Bush made a pre-emptive war on a sovereign country for reasons that
were lies.

Iraq posed no immediate threat to the national security of the US.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
State Of Michigan Sales/Use Tax Rich S. Home Built 0 August 9th 04 04:41 PM
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements me Military Aviation 146 January 15th 04 10:13 PM
Soviet State Committee on Science and Technology Mike Yared Military Aviation 0 November 8th 03 10:45 PM
Homebuilts by State Ron Wanttaja Home Built 14 October 15th 03 08:30 PM
Police State Grantland Military Aviation 0 September 15th 03 12:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.