The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

devil wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:41:52 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
Anyway, it's just that the current mess is so much worse, and that there
is no clear way out.


Only in your uninformed, illogical opinion.


Whatever. When all else fails, shoot at the messenger, right?


I wouldn't worry about it. Steven never lets facts get the chance to
confuse his opinions.

John

(crossposts cut to a more reasonable level!)

nobody wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
But most of the civilized world rejected the
claims of WMD in Iraq? I don't
recall those claims. Please cite them.

Amazing how americans have been so misinformed.
It is sad.

The whole world knows that Hussein, when asked
by the UN in september 2002,
had agreed to give Blix full and unfethered
access again. Then, the USA
blocked the UN from starting inspections until
a new resolution was signed.
The USA intended to have a resolution which
granted it the right to invade,
but had to settle for 1441 which required another
resolution should the UN
decide that Iraq was not complying.

Problem is that Iraq was complying and the world
could not justify declaring
Iraq in breach, while the USA was in a hurry
to invade.

On the other side, everyone outside the Bliar
and Bush regimes knew that the
"dossiers" presented by these two cohorts were
quite questionable. (remember
that one important document was aactually just
an assignement done by some
student at university years before and was no
longer current). In fact, had
you bothered to read the Bliar documents (which
had been made available on the
british government's website, you would have
seen that all of the evidence
actually dated before the UN started the inspections
process after the Kuwait invasion.

Then came confirmation from both Blix and Baradei
that the so called USA
evidenne was fabricated in some cases or pointed
to site which had not shown
any signs of WMDs.

This is why the UN in early 2003 refused to
give the USA a resolution which
would have granted the USA the right to invade.
When 3 of 5 permanent
security council member threathen to use their
veto, it means that the USA and
Britain are really attempting to do something
which is wrong. Yes, the
citizens of the USA remained blind to the reality
and supported their regime.
At least the citizens of the UK saw through
the lies of Bliar and protested
vehemently against. (so did spanich, polish
and australian citizens who could
not understand why their governement would have
caved in to USA demands/blackmail/bribes.
If you think the UN is a government, you are unfortunately mistaken. The
UN only has as much power as its members are willing to grant (or not to,
as the case may be). Not a single government leader in any country is going
to take the political risk (let alone the risk to their lives) and give the
UN powers of government. In some countries, any politician who suggests such
a thing is voted out. In others, the masses take to the streets and toss
the *******s out. In still other countries, the military gets involved and
the tanks roll to the Presidential Palace and the Generals are now in charge
(like it or not). Bottom line: don't expect the UN to become a government
anytime soon. If you think otherwise, then I have beachfront property in
Arizona to sell you.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

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

That must surely be a comfort to the families of the 500+ dead American
heroes, as well as to the thousands of American troops now missing one or
more arms, or legs, or the ability to
see or hear.


So you really did expect a war without casualties.

When are you going to stop playing your childish word games? You know goddam
well that I am not the one who said anything about expecting a war without
casualties. I was talking about what I called a post-war mess....if you choose
to call that a war, that's your privilege.

Don't bother responding.....I really don't give a **** what you want to twist my
words into.

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

No, I don't remember the words of our President on his arrival on the
carrier, please provide a verifiable quote of them. I do recall the banner,
but I do not recall Bush saying "Mission accomplished!"

No, he didn't use those precise words. All he said was that the combat phase of
the war was over. Find the quote yourself.....you can use Google as easily as I
can.

I know it's a struggle for you to stay on topic, but we were talking about a
post-war mess. If you want to call that a war, you ought to let the
President know because he thinks it's over.

How do you know the President thinks the war is over? Did he convey this to
you directly? If not, you should be able to provide a verifiable quote to
that effect. Please do so

The press reported what he said, i.e. - "the combat phase of the war was over".
Find the quote yourself.....you can use Google as easily as I can.
..

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"devil" wrote in message
news

Anyway, it's just that the current mess is so much worse, and that there
is no clear way out.


Only in your uninformed, illogical opinion.

Goddam, the President is lucky!! Here's a guy who doesn't think the cost of an
ongoing, endless armed insurgency can be worse than a relatively brief war. He
wants us to think that he knows his way out of the mess, even though nobody in
the White House or DOD has yet been able to figure it out. I'm sure they would
if they could, it's just that they can't.....at least, not so far.

Stand by for important communications from the highest levels of our government,
Stevie boy. They'd be fools not to invite you to share your wisdom with them.
(^-^)))

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

No, I don't remember the words of our President on his arrival on the
carrier, please provide a verifiable quote of them. I do recall the
banner,
but I do not recall Bush saying "Mission accomplished!"

No, he didn't use those precise words. All he said was that the combat
phase of
the war was over. Find the quote yourself.....you can use Google as
easily as I
can.

Apparently you can't use it at all, since you have once again lied about
what the exact wording the President used. I say lie because you have
recently been playing pretty loose with your "facts" in these arguments.
Hardly surprising given your single-minded, Pavlovian anti-Bush squawks of
late--"facts" would be inconvenient for your rants, right? His actual words
were, "Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham
Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In
the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now
our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country...We
have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that
country that remain dangerous...The transition from dictatorship to
democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will
stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind
a free Iraq..."

Gee, when you look at what he REALLY said, as opposed to your self-serving
"translation" of his remarks inot a different context", it looks like he was
pretty accurate. The "major combat phase", where our servicemembers
confronted the Iraqi regular military and tossed its leader from power,
*was* over. And the "securing and reconstructing" portion of the overall
mission has been difficult and dangerous, as he said. So just what the hell
are you differing with him about here, Georgie?


I know it's a struggle for you to stay on topic, but we were talking
about a
post-war mess. If you want to call that a war, you ought to let the
President know because he thinks it's over.

How do you know the President thinks the war is over? Did he convey
this to
you directly? If not, you should be able to provide a verifiable quote
to
that effect. Please do so

The press reported what he said, i.e. - "the combat phase of the war was
over".
Find the quote yourself.....you can use Google as easily as I can.

Another lie from Georgie, who since he claims to know how to use Google,
should have been able to come up with the accurate wording himself; had you
just been plain ignorant of the president's actual wording, we could call it
a mistake, but since you know how to find the transcript and still choose to
misquote him, that makes you a liar.

Brooks

.

In article ,
nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


He used chemical weapons against the Kurds (that we, incidentally,
taught him
how to use) years ago during or right after his war with Iran.

Last I saw, the report by the CIA said those gassed Kurds were killed by
a
chemical in the IraNian arsenal, not the IraQi arsenal. Convenient that
that
CIA report is almost never mentioned. I agree, Saddam was a pig and a
murderer, but in that one famous case that they love to show on the news,
he
was apparently not the guilty party.

Gordon

The reports I saw indicated that a nerve agent, mustard, and hydrogen
cyanide were used on the Kurds. ISTR that the Iraqis had both GA and GB,
but preferred GB. What were the differences?

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

When are you going to stop playing your childish word games? You know
goddam
well that I am not the one who said anything about expecting a war without
casualties. I was talking about what I called a post-war mess....if you
choose
to call that a war, that's your privilege.


Post-war mess?

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

No, he didn't use those precise words. All he said was that the combat
phase of
the war was over. Find the quote yourself.....you can use Google as
easily as I
can.


Probably easier. I don't need to use Google to find a quote of what he
actually said, I already know what he actually said.



The press reported what he said, i.e. - "the combat phase of the war was
over".
Find the quote yourself.....you can use Google as easily as I can.


Easier. The point is he didn't say the war was over.

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

No, he didn't use those precise words. All he said was that the combat
phase of the war was over. Find the quote yourself.....you can use Google
as easily as I can.


Probably easier. I don't need to use Google to find a quote of what he
actually said, I already know what he actually said.



The press reported what he said, i.e. - "the combat phase of the war was
over". Find the quote yourself.....you can use Google as easily as I can.


Easier. The point is he didn't say the war was over.

If you say so. In any case, I'm satisfied that the words he used meant exactly
that, and I expect that most of the English speaking world feels the same way
about it.

You must have an awful inferiority complex to get satisfaction out of twisting
the words of others. I've noticed that I'm not the only one you favor in that
manner since you seem to use that ploy with just about anybody who foolishly
exchanges words with you. It hardly generates friendly feelings or even
feelings of civility to be constantly and persistently pushed by you to explain
the meanings of commonly accepted words and/or phrases or to have you redefine
their meanings into something that wasn't intended, but if that's how you get
your jollies, I don't expect that bringing it to your attention will result in
any behavioral changes on your part. But I felt that I had to try even if it
ends up only being something akin to ****ing into the wind.