The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

with plstic of course
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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?

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:55:58 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"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.

???

"Good ten," twelve? That's the best argument you could come up with?

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


The true reasons were given by George Bush.

Just a tad naive, aren't we?

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:55:58 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

snip


The true reasons were given by George Bush.

Just a tad naive, aren't we?

You need to take out the plural "we" and replace it with "I"; Steven seems
to be quite worldly in this case, which is more than can be said for your
knee-jerk responses.

Brooks

"devil" wrote in message
news

Just a tad naive, aren't we?


Nope, just well-informed and driven by logic. Since you are neither, and
obviously don't intend to be, there's nothing for me to gain by continuing
this discussion.

most here seem to forget that had it not been for Sodomy's incursion into
Kuwait, he would still be in power and fully capable of gassing his own
people and oppressing them AT WILL (no particular reason would have made it
_possible_ to render him and his cronies "ineffective" - INTERNAL activities
are a matter of national sovereignty).

The "excuse" (if that is the term people want to use) was that given his
tendency to want to fight with (ostensively for "religious" reasons with
Iran - but that wasn't REALLY an issue with the rest (as in "non-Muslim")
of the world) or "posess" (as in Kuwait) neighbours was that when it became
EXTERNAL to Iraq and potentially disruptive of that highly economic driving
force (OIL) intervention was "justified". BTW - How many other _countries_
have attacked with the intention of "attaching" neighbors since WWII?
(Argentina? perhaps the noteable exception and they summarily got their
behinds KICKED by the Brits) So... it wasn't "those bad vibrations" or
"O-MY-GOD he's attacking and killing his OWN PEOPLE" that roused to action
(although it makes a good "justification" if you please) it was violation of
territorial sovereignty (particulary that "little" invasion) and the
subsequent UN mandate to "put things right".

Historical perspective - Of course, had Bush1 not thrown in the towel and
prevented the entire subjugation of Iraq in 1991 this would not have been
necessary (alternately, had Sodomy not invaded Kuwait, it also would not
have happened)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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.

So by your logic, it would have been a fiscal windfall for us to sit back,
mind our own business and let Saddam pick off the ragheads for us. Then,
when the time was ripe, move in and clean up the very few that would be left
over, including him.

Tsk Tsk. We always like to day we're doing it for the people, but when we
literally **** all over our own citizens on a daily basis, letting them go
uneducated, homeless, hungry and denied basic human services such as
healthcare, it is rather difficult for the rest of the world to take us
seriously.

Bush is a dangerous puppet, he has been polled as the most dangerous man on
the planet in the last 200 years!

That says nothing good about the USA, or it's citizens who will for
generations be the targets made to pay for what this coke sniffing, drunk
driving sawed off fradulent election stealing little prick has done not only
to you, but to your great great great grandchildren! That's right . . .
count the generations that this evil republican is making sure will never
forget his name.

Come election day, it is very clear that the winning democrat will have to
spend their entire term in office just undoing the mess that Shrub&Co has
created - there will be no time for doing anything else.


"DALing" daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com wrote in message
...
most here seem to forget that had it not been for Sodomy's incursion into
Kuwait, he would still be in power and fully capable of gassing his own
people and oppressing them AT WILL (no particular reason would have made
it
_possible_ to render him and his cronies "ineffective" - INTERNAL
activities
are a matter of national sovereignty).

The "excuse" (if that is the term people want to use) was that given his
tendency to want to fight with (ostensively for "religious" reasons with
Iran - but that wasn't REALLY an issue with the rest (as in "non-Muslim")
of the world) or "posess" (as in Kuwait) neighbours was that when it
became
EXTERNAL to Iraq and potentially disruptive of that highly economic
driving
force (OIL) intervention was "justified". BTW - How many other
_countries_
have attacked with the intention of "attaching" neighbors since WWII?
(Argentina? perhaps the noteable exception and they summarily got their
behinds KICKED by the Brits) So... it wasn't "those bad vibrations" or
"O-MY-GOD he's attacking and killing his OWN PEOPLE" that roused to action
(although it makes a good "justification" if you please) it was violation
of
territorial sovereignty (particulary that "little" invasion) and the
subsequent UN mandate to "put things right".

Historical perspective - Of course, had Bush1 not thrown in the towel and
prevented the entire subjugation of Iraq in 1991 this would not have been
necessary (alternately, had Sodomy not invaded Kuwait, it also would not
have happened)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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.

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.

"john" wrote in message
...

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


There were several reasons given, which were lies?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"john" wrote in message
...

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


There were several reasons given, which were lies?

If memory serves . . . ALL OF THEM!

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:47:34 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Ya think? Please identify what I have written here that is factually
incorrect and prove it to be so.

"fiscal responsibility has not been associated with Democrats for a very long time."

I associate fiscal responsibility with Democrats. QED.