The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Dick Locke" wrote in message
...

Bzzzt! Too late! You challenged anyone to show where you posted
something that wasn't true and I only had to look back about two
posts.


Actually, the challenge was, "Please identify what I have written here that
is factually
incorrect and prove it to be so." Nobody has met the challenge.

How about, as recently as today, when you asked "And you didn't read the
following message?", an obvious lie since there was no following message to be
read? And you weren't referring to other or previous messages, so don't try to
use that as an excuse. You referred to "the following message" and there was
none, which means that you lied when you inferred that there was a message
following.

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

No, would you mind translating the vacant spaces for me?


I said "the following message", not "what appears below."

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

Why not?


Because they served no defensive purpose.



It theoretically had no defenses after we finished with them in the
Gulf War.


Iraq's defenses were not destroyed during the Gulf War, just it's ability to
threaten or attack it's neighbors.



We permitted Japan to raise minimal military forces to defend itself
after WWII, and did the same with what was left of Hitler's Deutchland.


We did the same with Iraq.



You're obviously in denial and have been hung out to dry by your party line.
You need to walk away from this particular discussion, because you're never
going to win it.


You're obviously uninformed.

On the contrary, I am very well informed; it's you who is in denial of the
truth. We labelled Scuds being delivered to Yemen as defensive weapons, and you
are claiming that Iraq, with or without her defensive capabilities in ruins, was
entitled to such capabilities, and yet not entitled to use a defensive weapon
(by our own definition) like the Scud missile. There's a dichotomy there that
you seem to be too stubborn to admit, but it's still there and it won't go away
even if you wish it would.

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

How about, as recently as today, when you asked "And you didn't read the
following message?", an obvious lie since there was no following message
to be
read?


You responded to my message; "You're confusing tax rates with tax revenue.
Reagan cut tax rates, tax revenue then rose, rising tax revenue does lead to
deficits." The message following that one is; "Oops, that obviously should
have been '...rising tax revenue does not lead to deficits.' Well, I guess
that isn't so obvious to some!"



And you weren't referring to other or previous messages, so don't try to
use that as an excuse. You referred to "the following message" and there
was
none, which means that you lied when you inferred that there was a message
following.


I obviously was referring to another message. Well, I guess that isn't so
obvious to some!

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

On the contrary, I am very well informed;


Actually, you are disinformed. You've bought the propaganda and ignored the
facts.

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...

"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?

Even if this were true, what is your point? Are you suggesting that past
support for Iraq means the US should not have removed the Saddam regime?

Jarg

Of course not, but neither should anyone have to put up with the bull****
lies about who built up Iraq's chemical weapons in the first place, whether
we did it directly or through the cloak of another country. We paid to
build him up, and again, we paid to tear it down, now we get to pay to
rebuild what we tore down.

It's a pathetic and vicious circle we keep jerking in.

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

On the contrary, I am very well informed; it's you who is in denial of the
truth. We labelled Scuds being delivered to Yemen as defensive weapons,
and you
are claiming that Iraq, with or without her defensive capabilities in
ruins, was
entitled to such capabilities, and yet not entitled to use a defensive
weapon
(by our own definition) like the Scud missile. There's a dichotomy there
that
you seem to be too stubborn to admit, but it's still there and it won't go
away
even if you wish it would.



What is your point? Iraq agreed not to deploy any missiles over a certain
range after losing the first Gulf War. They then proceeded to violate the
agreement.

Yemen was not subject to this agreement.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Jarg

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

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...

"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?

Even if this were true, what is your point? Are you suggesting that
past
support for Iraq means the US should not have removed the Saddam
regime?

Jarg

Of course not, but neither should anyone have to put up with the bull****
lies about who built up Iraq's chemical weapons in the first place,
whether
we did it directly or through the cloak of another country. We paid to
build him up, and again, we paid to tear it down, now we get to pay to
rebuild what we tore down.

It's a pathetic and vicious circle we keep jerking in.



But perhaps this will end it.

Jarg

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

Why not?


Because they served no defensive purpose.



It theoretically had no defenses after we finished with them in the
Gulf War.


Iraq's defenses were not destroyed during the Gulf War, just it's
ability to
threaten or attack it's neighbors.



We permitted Japan to raise minimal military forces to defend itself
after WWII, and did the same with what was left of Hitler's Deutchland.


We did the same with Iraq.



You're obviously in denial and have been hung out to dry by your party
line.
You need to walk away from this particular discussion, because you're
never
going to win it.


You're obviously uninformed.

On the contrary, I am very well informed;

You are kidding, right? Do you even know what UN Res 687 *was*?

it's you who is in denial of the
truth. We labelled Scuds being delivered to Yemen as defensive weapons,
and you
are claiming that Iraq, with or without her defensive capabilities in
ruins, was
entitled to such capabilities, and yet not entitled to use a defensive
weapon
(by our own definition) like the Scud missile.

Not a weapon with a range of over 150km. You really need to go back and
familiarize yourself with the requirements imposed upon Iraq, why they were
imposed, and how Yemen has not demosntrated any of the behaviors associated
with why those requirements were imposed upon Iraq.

There's a dichotomy there that
you seem to be too stubborn to admit, but it's still there and it won't go
away
even if you wish it would.

There is no dichotomy. We outlawed the Nazi party in Germany after WWII, but
we did nothing to outlaw facism in Spain, which had *not* conducted a war of
aggression--was that a "dichotomy"? Nope. It was a simple case of the
defeated nation having to submit to measures that are not imposed upon other
nations--just like the case you are discussing.

Brooks

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

No, would you mind translating the vacant spaces for me?


I said "the following message", not "what appears below."

So, where's "the following message"? There wasn't any....so why were you
referring to it when it obviously didn't exist? You knew it wasn't there.

Your attempts at wiggling out of admitting an error are really pathetic for
someone who's presumably an adult. They don't serve you well, and you ought to
be man enough to admit it when it's as obvious as the nose on your face that you
misspoke or, as you probably would have said if I had done that, that you lied.