The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

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

That must surely be a comfort to the families of the 500+ dead American
heroes,
as well as to the thousands of American troops now missing one or more
arms, or
legs, or the ability to
see or hear.


So you really did expect a war without casualties.

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

That must surely be a comfort to the families of the 500+ dead American
heroes, as well as to the thousands of American troops now missing one or
more arms, or legs, or the ability to
see or hear.


So you really did expect a war without casualties.

When are you going to stop playing your childish word games? You know goddam
well that I am not the one who said anything about expecting a war without
casualties. I was talking about what I called a post-war mess....if you choose
to call that a war, that's your privilege.

Don't bother responding.....I really don't give a **** what you want to twist my
words into.

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

When are you going to stop playing your childish word games? You know
goddam
well that I am not the one who said anything about expecting a war without
casualties. I was talking about what I called a post-war mess....if you
choose
to call that a war, that's your privilege.


Post-war mess?

devil wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:41:52 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
Anyway, it's just that the current mess is so much worse, and that there
is no clear way out.


Only in your uninformed, illogical opinion.


Whatever. When all else fails, shoot at the messenger, right?


I wouldn't worry about it. Steven never lets facts get the chance to
confuse his opinions.

John

(crossposts cut to a more reasonable level!)

nobody wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
But most of the civilized world rejected the
claims of WMD in Iraq? I don't
recall those claims. Please cite them.

Amazing how americans have been so misinformed.
It is sad.

The whole world knows that Hussein, when asked
by the UN in september 2002,
had agreed to give Blix full and unfethered
access again. Then, the USA
blocked the UN from starting inspections until
a new resolution was signed.
The USA intended to have a resolution which
granted it the right to invade,
but had to settle for 1441 which required another
resolution should the UN
decide that Iraq was not complying.

Problem is that Iraq was complying and the world
could not justify declaring
Iraq in breach, while the USA was in a hurry
to invade.

On the other side, everyone outside the Bliar
and Bush regimes knew that the
"dossiers" presented by these two cohorts were
quite questionable. (remember
that one important document was aactually just
an assignement done by some
student at university years before and was no
longer current). In fact, had
you bothered to read the Bliar documents (which
had been made available on the
british government's website, you would have
seen that all of the evidence
actually dated before the UN started the inspections
process after the Kuwait invasion.

Then came confirmation from both Blix and Baradei
that the so called USA
evidenne was fabricated in some cases or pointed
to site which had not shown
any signs of WMDs.

This is why the UN in early 2003 refused to
give the USA a resolution which
would have granted the USA the right to invade.
When 3 of 5 permanent
security council member threathen to use their
veto, it means that the USA and
Britain are really attempting to do something
which is wrong. Yes, the
citizens of the USA remained blind to the reality
and supported their regime.
At least the citizens of the UK saw through
the lies of Bliar and protested
vehemently against. (so did spanich, polish
and australian citizens who could
not understand why their governement would have
caved in to USA demands/blackmail/bribes.
If you think the UN is a government, you are unfortunately mistaken. The
UN only has as much power as its members are willing to grant (or not to,
as the case may be). Not a single government leader in any country is going
to take the political risk (let alone the risk to their lives) and give the
UN powers of government. In some countries, any politician who suggests such
a thing is voted out. In others, the masses take to the streets and toss
the *******s out. In still other countries, the military gets involved and
the tanks roll to the Presidential Palace and the Generals are now in charge
(like it or not). Bottom line: don't expect the UN to become a government
anytime soon. If you think otherwise, then I have beachfront property in
Arizona to sell you.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"devil" wrote in message
news

Anyway, it's just that the current mess is so much worse, and that there
is no clear way out.


Only in your uninformed, illogical opinion.

Goddam, the President is lucky!! Here's a guy who doesn't think the cost of an
ongoing, endless armed insurgency can be worse than a relatively brief war. He
wants us to think that he knows his way out of the mess, even though nobody in
the White House or DOD has yet been able to figure it out. I'm sure they would
if they could, it's just that they can't.....at least, not so far.

Stand by for important communications from the highest levels of our government,
Stevie boy. They'd be fools not to invite you to share your wisdom with them.
(^-^)))

"devil" wrote in message
news

I get it. Ran out of serious arguments, it seems?

Brace yourself, pal. You're about to enter the world of the merry-go-round
where, no matter what you say, your friend Stevie boy will never concede that
you're right or have a point about anything. He'll question every comment you
make and every word or phrase you've used in making it to avoid having to
concede anything to you. You'll find it to be a never-ending exchange in which
he'll do anything rather than have to concede that he's (gulp) mistaken or
uninformed about something. And just in case he doesn't specifically say so to
you, keep in mind that he's always right and you're always wrong, and he's
always ready to twist your words and meanings to make it happen.

Watch and see what happens, and do have fun, however you can arrange it.

Mike1 wrote:
john wrote:

Gee, your statements are SO reassuring to the families of the 500
soldiers killed and several thousand wounded and maimed in Bush's war.


I hate (...no, that's not true...) to be a hard-ass about this, but:
*What the **** were they thinking when they enlisted*? Is there a
*single* enlistee that didn't cut his teeth on John Wayne war movies?

Or did they expect to just waltz their way to fat student loans?

Bingo! Do you really think this volunteer Army is full of John Waynes? That's
why so many of them are married and single parents, or haven't you noticed?


Could you please state the reason for Bush' invasion of Iraq and why
it was a good thing.


(E.g., "Could you please state the reason why just about anything any
politician does with stolen loot is a good thing?")


Because it removed a heinous monster from power. Whether or not Bush
actually cared about that aspect is irrelevent to me -- governments
achieve good by happenstance, not design.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"devil" wrote in message
news

So? Did they rise more than they would have without the cuts?


Yes.



I think not.


Why? Please show the numbers.

Why don't you show your numbers to prove your point before you ask someone else
to show theirs? Hell, if you can prove your point with your numbers, they won't
have to bother showing theirs, unless you've been cooking the books.

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

Why don't you show your numbers to prove your point before you ask
someone else to show theirs? Hell, if you can prove your point with
your numbers, they won't have to bother showing theirs, unless you've
been cooking the books.


I showed the numbers in my previous message, Georgie.