The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

On 22 Jan 2004 08:04:42 -0000, Eagle Eye
] wrote:



snipped

However, I doubt there is any "evidence" that would convince you.

Is there any anti-US "evidence" you'd question?

The US government's involvement with Saddam Hussein and other
despots was shameful in many respects. But if you want to make
that case, don't overstate it with bull**** propaganda. And,
don't ignore the far worse actions of those outside the US
out of political expediency because they opposed the latest war.


No amount of "evidence will convince you that Bush's pre-emptive
invasion of Iraq was "just".

I believe one of the reasons for the invasion was to get control of
Iraq's oil.

Let me pose this question:

Why didn't Bush invade North Korea? North Korea publically announced
that it had operational nuclear weapons. Why wasn't this viewed by
Bush as a direct threat to the national security of the US?

Well, first of all, North Korea has no oil.

North Korea has a HUGE standing army and could wipe out South Korea
and Japan in a flash.

For Bush, that would be too tough a war to fight.

It is easier to go against a nation like Iraq whch had a mickey-mouse
army, no air force, and no navy.

"None" wrote in message
hlink.net...

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

"None" wrote in message
link.net...

Put the shoe on the other foot. Please show how Iraq was an immediate
threat to our national security?
Show us their ICBMs capable of reaching north american soil. Show us
their
chemical weapons ready to launch against north american soil. Show us
ANYTHING AT ALL in Iraq that was a direct and immediate threat to
north
american soil. . . .anything at all. We're ready and willing to
listen.

From Websters:

im·me·di·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-md-t)
adj.
Occurring at once; instant, in the current time frame, right away,
without
delay


I will take your response as an admission that you cannot provide a
direct
quote of the statement you're referring to and/or show how it is a lie.

And I will take yours as an admission that the Republicans have been lying
all along, and that it really was just about the oil.



Would you care to elaborate on the oil theory? I'm curious what you think
happened (this ought to be interesting)!

Jarg

"john" wrote in message
...

No amount of "evidence will convince you that Bush's pre-emptive
invasion of Iraq was "just".

I believe one of the reasons for the invasion was to get control of
Iraq's oil.


Why would Bush want to get control of Iraq's oil?

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?

Ouch. It sounds like this is something you run into on a daily basis, and
I would suggest that you consider moving to a better neighborhood. By any
chance are you getting your news from NPR?

Interesting to see that 'voting rights' is still used as an explanation
for continued civil rights intervention. Such hogwash. The political
apparatus of today pulls voters out of their homes and drags them to the
polls. (Often times staying with them in the voting booth to make sure
that the minority voter then votes correctly). Advocate-Ministers have
had polls opened on Sunday so they could deliver their entire congregation
to vote (which I have even had the opportunity to witness - and more
than once). And you are likely aware that ethnic advocates are demanding
that the voting laws be changed so that minorities will no longer be
expected to leave their subsidized housing in order to cast their vote.
Look for front page news if the press suspects that a minority might
possibly have been denied their right to vote. But the continued antics of
voting irregularities in minority areas - the ones which maintain the
proper political identity - will never be considered newsworthy.


Minority applicants are well versed in how to scream loud and long when
they are not offered the job they believe they deserve. And the EEOC office
in every state is run by a,'this business guilty until proved innocent'
mentality. In addition, there are numerous law firms in all but the smallest
towns which do nothing but pursue such cases. And I pull their flyers from
my mailbox on an all too frequent basis.
I would agree that minority hiring was questionable in the past, but the
way to correct such is not to force businesses to overlook qualified non-
minority applicants when a minority applicant is close to having the required
education and experience. Which is still discrimination in hiring. And you
may know that minority operated businesses discriminate heavily in favor of
their own racial or ethnic group, which is also suppose to be illegal but is
ignored by those who enforce such laws. Just don't let a non-minority owned
business ever try to get away with this.


In my opinion schools reflect their communities and the values and objectives
of those in the community. When a community no longer holds education to be
important - the schools fail. And when a school fails to educate students
this is due to racism and the failure of others. And not because the Mom (and
there never was a Dad) didn't give a damn if her kids went to school or not.
Remember that the Great Society programs held that minorities are no longer
to be held accountable for their actions - or lack thereof. And any failure
is now due to racists or because of the lack of cultural sensitivity by the
school system.
I always appreciate reading of an instance where a community decided to
correct a school system which had bottomed out. Sometimes this is involved a
community enforcing student attendance, or demanding vouchers to move students
from failing schools. Sometimes it results in school uniforms and/or a zero
tolerance for those disrupting classroom learning. Regardless, it required
that a community take control and take action. Which the political left
despises because they believe such actions should only be as a direct result
of their efforts. The universal truth in minority communities is that the
political environment will always work against a cause if they believe such
might impede their control or their status. And with school reform, often
using the threat of vouchers as the means to disrupt the process. There can
be no success in a minority community which is not driven by the proper
political action.


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?


Government is abusing and mistreating people based on their group identity.
And in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court said it was legal. If you learned of
a first year law school class with only three non-minority male students in
a class of 120, would you consider that to be discrimination? Guess what -
it's not.

No government will be successful when it recognizes a specific group for
preferential treatment. Because such requires discrimination against
others. And even the most ardent liberal must recognize that the color-
blind society of MLK is now one of just the opposite.


It would also appear to be the case that no society will be successful when
their basic unit, the family, is destroyed. Which Great Society programs did
in minority communities by making teenage pregnancy and single-Mom families
not only acceptable and profitable, but also fashionable.
When I attended high school, beginning in the mid-1960s, pregnant teenagers
were unheard of. Now this same high school has a nursery on-site. When I
was in high school almost every student was from a two parent home. Now this
number is around 20%. And dropping. When I was in high school parents were
involved and the building was packed during open house nights. An activity
which now attracts only a small number of parents. And when I started high
school there were no Great Society programs. And if you're still reading -
draw your own conclusions.


Are you overall glad the government did get involved?

No. I am convinced that those in my community would be better off if
the political left (what you call 'government') had not made failure -
followed by government intervention - our status quo. And taken action
to maintain this situation.

Dave Smith wrote:
Mike1 wrote:

Certainly his own scientists were telling him that his CW and nuke
programs were progessing swimmingly. Why should CIA analysts (or the
President they advise) intercepting communications presume they are
lying (as it turned out they were)?

Going to war is not a decision that rational and intelligent people take
lightly. Actions with severe consequences warrant a careful weighing of the
evidence. Those in the administration who claim that their "sources" lied
have their own credibility problems. There were lots of people who doubted
the proof ? of the alleged WMD programs, and that is why so many of the US's
allies opted to sit this one out. We were not convinced, and we are left
wondering how the American people got fooled.

Because they have been embarrassed into thinking that to question authority is
unpatriotic. Actually, the exact opposite is true, uncomfortable as that may be
to the administration.....to fail to question it and to demand proof of its
allegations is not only unpatriotic, but in fact treasonous.

George Z.

Eagle Eye wrote:
In article john
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:13:40 -0600, Mike1
wrote:
(Werner J. Severin) wrote:
[snip]
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?
I would be more than happy to see you provide cites to any
*credible* literature than any US company provided chemical
weapons to Hussein. And please: Don't bore the nice audience with
crank theories regarding foreknowledge that fertilizers sold
legitimately through sequences of front-groups would end up as
precursor agents in chemical weapons.

And don't think I haven't noticed your attempt to dodge away from
the *fact* that Hussein DID possess and EMPLOY chemical weapons.


(Audience note: This exchange is an example of the earnest
leftist never accepting that an anti-American tyrant is guilty of
wholesale murder *unless* he can secure the stipulation that the
US was somehow responsible for it all along. E.g., Pol Pot's
"Killing Fields" were the "result" of anti-communist struggles in
southeast Asia, etc.)
I think wseverin in many of his previous posts gave detailed,
well-written explanations and footnotes of his charges.

You might look them up if you can read.

If you read Severin's other post ( http://tinyurl.com/3ydng ),
you'd notice he didn't write the "explanations and footnotes."
He cut and pasted an article written by John King.

However, I doubt there is any "evidence" that would convince you.

Is there any anti-US "evidence" you'd question?

The US government's involvement with Saddam Hussein and other
despots was shameful in many respects. But if you want to make
that case, don't overstate it with bull**** propaganda. And,
don't ignore the far worse actions of those outside the US
out of political expediency because they opposed the latest war.


You make a good point here. There are many things about any
US President that can be criticized and debated. But when
people display such intellectual dishonesty as the Bush
hating crowd has done, one really doesn't want to hear anything
they may say. They destroy their own credibility.

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

john wrote:
On 22 Jan 2004 08:04:42 -0000, Eagle Eye
] wrote:



snipped

However, I doubt there is any "evidence" that would convince you.

Is there any anti-US "evidence" you'd question?

The US government's involvement with Saddam Hussein and other
despots was shameful in many respects. But if you want to make
that case, don't overstate it with bull**** propaganda. And,
don't ignore the far worse actions of those outside the US
out of political expediency because they opposed the latest war.


No amount of "evidence will convince you that Bush's pre-emptive
invasion of Iraq was "just".

I believe one of the reasons for the invasion was to get control of
Iraq's oil.

Not control, but definately securing access to the oil was a factor.
Do you not realize the importance of that accessibility?

Let me pose this question:

Why didn't Bush invade North Korea? North Korea publically announced
that it had operational nuclear weapons. Why wasn't this viewed by
Bush as a direct threat to the national security of the US?

If you had been reading the news reports for the last few years,
you would know. North Korea...

A) has done this on a regular basis in order to get concessions.
They have no intention of invading beyond their borders.

B) their nuclear weapon program is not an immediate threat to us
as their only delivery system does not have the capability of reaching
the US. Iraq, on the other hand, has possessed weapons that are
easily transported and were available to any terrorist group with
a cause. This was undisputed by virtually everyone in the world
until Bush did something about it.

Well, first of all, North Korea has no oil.

North Korea has a HUGE standing army and could wipe out South Korea
and Japan in a flash.

Their army is under-trained and under-equiped. South Korea has been
abiding by our wishes and has not engaged in the military strength
contest. And since WWII, Japan's army hasn't been much more than
a brigade of ****ed-off Boy Scouts.

For Bush, that would be too tough a war to fight.

Ok, so you have a sense of humor.

It is easier to go against a nation like Iraq whch had a mickey-mouse
army, no air force, and no navy.

Military analysts rated Iraq's army as 5th in the world before the first
war. This time, they felt that since we were going all the way, we
would see the elite forces of Saddam that we missed last time.
Despite the beating of the first war, Iraq still had one of the major
military forces in that region of the world. Take the nuclear capability
from North Korea, and Iraq would kick their ass.

--
Later
Kal

--

---------------------------------------------------------
/ /
/ /
/ This space for rent /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"john" wrote in message
...

If none have been found so far, there isn't any WMD.


Why? Because the entire country has been searched?

The burden of proof is on those who say that such a thing exists,
despite efforts which to date have found nothing.

"Hugh Gibbons" wrote in message
...

The burden of proof is on those who say that such a thing exists,
despite efforts which to date have found nothing.


Agree. But not finding significant WMD to date does not mean they don't
exist, though many insist that it does.

john wrote:

Why didn't Bush invade North Korea? North Korea publically announced
that it had operational nuclear weapons.


Almost certainly because North Korea announced that it had operation
nuclear weapons.

That's kinda puts the kibbosh on any conventional means of discipline.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce