The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"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?

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?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

The Iraqis accepted the requirement to verify destruction of their
WMD prior to any destruction of them.

Any such requirement would have been rammed down their throat,
probably with no supporting adendums detailing what constitutes
acceptible verification.

For what reason would they destroy them but maintain the
appearance that they had not been destroyed?

How about to give surrounding hostile countries the reason to think
that Iraq just might have some shread of defensive capability?

Please explain why a shipment of 14 scud missles from North Korea was
allowed to be delivered to Yemen before the Iraq invasion started?
Yemen. You know, where the USS Cole was almost sunk? The country
filled with radicals and terrorists? Why did the US allow the
Yemenese to take possession of those WMD's? The ship was boarded by
"coalition" forces. It could have been taken out to sea and sunk.
Instead the US allowed REAL WMD's to fall into the hands of REAL
terrorists.

"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".

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:08:55 -0500, Fly Guy wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

The Iraqis accepted the requirement to verify destruction of their
WMD prior to any destruction of them.

Any such requirement would have been rammed down their throat,
probably with no supporting adendums detailing what constitutes
acceptible verification.

For what reason would they destroy them but maintain the
appearance that they had not been destroyed?

How about to give surrounding hostile countries the reason to think
that Iraq just might have some shread of defensive capability?

Actually, the reason is quite simple. Just like in the US: domestic
politics.

Saddam owned his political survival on his ability to play games and make
the US look stupid. Hence this game.

(BTW, seems to me this was quite obvious all along. But eh, Rummy didn't
want to open his eyes apparently. Wishful thinking? Or maybe that's the
very reason he went to war?)

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...

Any such requirement would have been rammed down their throat,
probably with no supporting adendums detailing what constitutes
acceptible verification.


Well, when you lose a war, you tend to get things rammed down your throat.



How about to give surrounding hostile countries the reason to think
that Iraq just might have some shread of defensive capability?


Iraq was permitted defensive capability, we are not talking about defensive
weapons.



Please explain why a shipment of 14 scud missles from North Korea was
allowed to be delivered to Yemen before the Iraq invasion started?


Because it was not something they were barred from posessing.



Yemen. You know, where the USS Cole was almost sunk? The country
filled with radicals and terrorists? Why did the US allow the
Yemenese to take possession of those WMD's? The ship was boarded by
"coalition" forces. It could have been taken out to sea and sunk.
Instead the US allowed REAL WMD's to fall into the hands of REAL
terrorists.


Scuds are a delivery vehicle, they are not WMD.

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

The Iraqis accepted the requirement to verify destruction of their
WMD prior to any destruction of them.

Any such requirement would have been rammed down their throat,
probably with no supporting adendums detailing what constitutes
acceptible verification.

For what reason would they destroy them but maintain the
appearance that they had not been destroyed?

How about to give surrounding hostile countries the reason to think
that Iraq just might have some shread of defensive capability?

Please explain why a shipment of 14 scud missles from North Korea was
allowed to be delivered to Yemen before the Iraq invasion started?
Yemen. You know, where the USS Cole was almost sunk? The country
filled with radicals and terrorists? Why did the US allow the
Yemenese to take possession of those WMD's?

FYI, a ballistic missile is not a WMD all by its lonesome. It requires the
fitting of a nuclear, biological, or chemical warhead before it meets the
generally accepted definition of "WMD". You are mistaking the effort to
control ballistic missile proliferation under the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) for WMD proliferation control, and the two ain't the same
thing.

Brooks

snip further misdirected rant

"devil" wrote in message
news

Actually, the reason is quite simple. Just like in the US: domestic
politics.

Saddam owned his political survival on his ability to play games and make
the US look stupid. Hence this game.

(BTW, seems to me this was quite obvious all along. But eh, Rummy didn't
want to open his eyes apparently. Wishful thinking? Or maybe that's the
very reason he went to war?)


If Saddam had complied with the cease fire agreement he'd still be in power
today. It appears destroying the WMD while maintaining the illusion that
they had not been destroyed, if that's what was done, was not very smart.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:42:08 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news

Actually, the reason is quite simple. Just like in the US: domestic
politics.

Saddam owned his political survival on his ability to play games and make
the US look stupid. Hence this game.

(BTW, seems to me this was quite obvious all along. But eh, Rummy didn't
want to open his eyes apparently. Wishful thinking? Or maybe that's the
very reason he went to war?)


If Saddam had complied with the cease fire agreement he'd still be in power
today. It appears destroying the WMD while maintaining the illusion that
they had not been destroyed, if that's what was done, was not very smart.

Gave him ten good years. He would not have lasted one year otherwise.

Anyway, that's still talking about excuses and rhetorics, not the true
reason.

Except if we agree that the true reason for the war was that he
did make the US look stupid, that is.

"devil" wrote in message
news

Gave him ten good years. He would not have lasted one year otherwise.


Twelve years. It appears you do not understand logic or economics or simple
arithmetic.



Anyway, that's still talking about excuses and rhetorics, not the true
reason.


The true reasons were given by George Bush.