The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

In article , devil
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:28:34 +0000, DALing wrote:

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).


But then, why stop there? How did he get in there? Who was behind the
coup that put him in power? (Who was his predecessor, Kassem or something
like that?)

Might as well go back to the partition of the Ottoman empire. good old
British philosophy of divide and conquer. Which left a mess behind most
everywhere, India/Pakistan, South Africa, Ireland.

Bottom line remains that the place is just too much of a mess to get
involved.

And so is my garage... but its not gonna go away till I clean it up and
at some point that day must come.

You rightly preach for a very sound fiscal policy, one that does not
mortgage the efforts of future generations.

Is ignoring the mess of middle east not the same as mortgaging future
generations right to security and indeed prosperity ?

jay
Tue Jan 20, 2004

On 20 Jan 2004 20:54:55 -0800, (James Martinez)
wrote:

Thank you for
turning America into a country where ethnic identity is now paramount.

You raise an interesting point that others have raised and you do it
from an insider's perspective.

Please give some insight into how (or whether) to deal with situations
where people were being denied the right to vote based on race, or
people were put in inferior or undefunded schools based on race or
economic status, or people were denied certain jobs because of race,
religion or gender without developing a sense of racial, economic or
gender identity? In other words, how does a government stop people
from abusing or exploiting people based on group identity without
creating or expanding the idea of a group? Or should they try? Are you
overall glad the government did get involved?

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:16:35 -0500, Fly Guy wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
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.

You can't prove that something no longer exists if you've destroyed it
(especially if you're trying to prove it to those that are bent on
invading you).

You could prove you destroyed it. That's what they were ordered to
do, destroy their WMD programs and retain proof of same. They say
they destroyed them and didn't bother proving it; given Iraq's prior
behavior the UN was unwilling to take them at their word.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

"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!

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:16:08 GMT, john
wrote:

Bush claimed that Iraq had nuclear,biological,and chemical weapons
hidden away. NO SUCH WEAPONS WERE FOUND! Don't you read the freaken
newspapers?

For several months Saddam Hussien was not found, did that mean he
didn't exist either?

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:08:01 GMT, devil wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:07:09 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news

In recent years, record deficit has been associated mostly with
Republicans, fiscal responsibility with Democrats.


Well, the Republicans during the Bush administration have certainly taken to
traditional Democrat methods of retaining their offices, but fiscal
responsibility has not been associated with Democrats for a very long time.

In recent history, fiscal irresponsibility, profligatr spending and tax
cuts paid out of deficit financing have been the hallmark of Republicans.
From Reagan to Bush II.

Clinton increased the Federal Debt by 1.4 trillion dollars, a 31%
increase. Don't even pretend that either party is better than the
other when it comes fo fiscal responsibility.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

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
...

I disagree.


Well, then, that would make you wrong.

I'd much rather be wrong than stupid. Anyway, when did your Fuhrer tell you it
was wrong to disagree? Up to now, the right to disagree has always been the
American way, along with ice cream, baseball and motherhood.

George Z.

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

You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to
deficits.


Rising tax revenue does not lead to deficits.

I was just quoting you, bright boy!

That can only happen if you spend more money than you've taken in, and
the difference between the two is the deficit.


Rising tax revenue never leads to deficits.