The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"Werner J. Severin" wrote in message

....
In article ,
Mike1 wrote:


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic *fact* that Saddam Hussein used
chemical weapons to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians in the course
of slaughtering nearly a million people overall?


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United States
provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement that
allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians?

It never ceases to amaze me that the republican infidels continue to
conveniently overlook that very important fact!

None wrote:
Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United States
provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement that
allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians?

It never ceases to amaze me that the republican infidels continue to
conveniently overlook that very important fact!

While it puts things in perspective to accept the fact that the USA's foreign
policy mishaps resulted in far mroe problems than they were supposed to solve,
what is at stake here is not whether Iraq had WMDs or not. There us accepted
and coumented evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

There is also documented evidence that Iraq used WMDs on both Iran and its own citizens.

That in itself should have resulted in Saddam being send an invitation to the
War Crime Trinunal or the ICC.

However, what is really at stake here is the USA fabricating evidence/stories
and knowingly lying to its citizens, knowingly insulting its allies to
discredit them even though US administration knew full well that its allies
were right.

What is really at stake here is a regime which disregarded UN resolutions and
interpreted them to mean what the regime wanted them to mean and proceeded
with an illegitimate invasion of another country which posed absolutely no
threath to the USA.

What is at stake here is the total disregard for due legal process. Both on
the international scene with the UN, as well as on the domestic scene with
police power abuses, concentration camp at Gantanamo Bay, illegal deportations
to a 3rd country when the internationally agreed procedure is to send the
passenger back to country where flight originated and the list goes on and on
and on.


The USA would not grant the UN a couple more weeks for its inspectors to do
their job. In its state of the police-state address, the Bush regime still
pretends that it will find WMDs, although this year's claims were nowehere
near as ludicrous as last year's claims (tons of saren gas for instance).
Remember the claims that Iraq was supposed to be very near to having nuclear
bombs with Condy Rice making statements that they don't want to find out about
nuclear programmes by witnessing a mushroom cloud ?

So, when will the USA admit that there are no WMDs ? If the Bush regime is
re-elected, it would still have to continue the lies otherwise admitting that
they knowingly lied might bring in impeachement proceedings. (can one impeach
a whole cabinet and force an election ?)

In the end, it will be shown that Saddam had deceptively complied with UN
resolutions and that the USA had become the belligerant regime.

France, Germany and Russia tried their best to prevent the USA from
degenerating into the belligerant regime it has become. But in the end, the
world community is also guilty of not taking strong enough actions to prevent
all the excesses that the USA has been allowed to get away with. (for instance Gantanamo).

If the UK weren't such a loyal lapdog, it would then become possible to
isolate the USA in the security council and pass resolution after resolution
condemning the USA's actions, forcing the USA to use its veto over and over
again. The difference being that by being all alone, the USA couldn't claim
some "coalition", and wouldn't be able to focus all its anger on France and
Germany since it would be the whole world against the USA.

The Bush regime would have a much harder time trying to justify its
international policies to ist media/citizens if the UK hadn't bowed to the
Bush regime demands for support.