The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...

Then why was Iraq prohibited from having scuds, regardless of the
payload?


Because the 1991 cease-fire didn't permit Iraq to have them.

Why not? They were defensive weapons, weren't they? If not, why did we allow
Yemen to get theirs from NK.....at least, that's what we said when he allowed
delivery to be completed?

George Z.

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

Why not? They were defensive weapons, weren't they?


Iraq had just been defeated in a war that saw it invade one neighboring
state and threaten other states. Iraq did not need long range missiles to
defend itself.



If not, why did we allow
Yemen to get theirs from NK.....at least, that's what we said when he
allowed
delivery to be completed?


Iraq agreed to conditions in a cease fire that prohibited it from having
these weapons. The same is not true of Yemen.

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

Why not? They were defensive weapons, weren't they?


Iraq had just been defeated in a war that saw it invade one neighboring
state and threaten other states. Iraq did not need long range missiles to
defend itself.

Why not? It theoretically had no defenses after we finished with them in the
Gulf War. 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. Are you
inferring that Sadaam was somehow worse than Adolf and Hirohito and didn't
deserve to be allowed even minimal self defense?

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.


If not, why did we allow
Yemen to get theirs from NK.....at least, that's what we said when he allowed
delivery to be completed?


Iraq agreed to conditions in a cease fire that prohibited it from having
these weapons. The same is not true of Yemen.

"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.

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.

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

On the contrary, I am very well informed;


Actually, you are disinformed. You've bought the propaganda and ignored the
facts.

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

On the contrary, I am very well informed;


Actually, you are disinformed. You've bought the propaganda and ignored the
facts.

If it makes you happier to be the pot rather than the kettle, fine. I am
disinformed. The President tells you everything that his people feed you with a
spoon, and you believe every word. Have we got it right? I know
nothing.....you know everything!

Hilarious! Total denial of reality! Too funny for words!!

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

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.



What is your point? Iraq agreed not to deploy any missiles over a certain
range after losing the first Gulf War. They then proceeded to violate the
agreement.

Yemen was not subject to this agreement.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Jarg

"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

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

Then why was Iraq prohibited from having scuds, regardless of the
payload?


Because the 1991 cease-fire didn't permit Iraq to have them.

Why not?

Because (a) unlike Yemen, Iraq had just been defeated in a war that had seen
them launch SRBM's against a non-belligerent nation, (b) Iraq, unlike Yemen,
had just proven it was more interested in offensive military power than in
its own defense, and (c) we already had intel (later confirmed) that unlike
the Yemenis, the Iraqis did indeed have chemical and/or biological warheads
for these missiles in their possession.

They were defensive weapons, weren't they?

The Iraqi's used their missiles as defensive weapons? I suspect a few
Israelis would disagree with you on that premise.

If not, why did we allow
Yemen to get theirs from NK.....at least, that's what we said when he
allowed
delivery to be completed?

Because of (a) thru (c), above.

Brooks


George Z.