The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

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

Because (a) unlike Yemen, Iraq had just been defeated in a war that had seen
them launch SRBM's against a non-belligerent nation, (b) Iraq, unlike Yemen,
had just proven it was more interested in offensive military power than in
its own defense, and (c) we already had intel (later confirmed) that unlike
the Yemenis, the Iraqis did indeed have chemical and/or biological warheads
for these missiles in their possession.

They were defensive weapons, weren't they?

The Iraqi's used their missiles as defensive weapons? I suspect a few
Israelis would disagree with you on that premise.

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?

Because of (a) thru (c), above.

Brooks


George Z.

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

I'd much rather be wrong than stupid.


But you are both.

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

I was just quoting you, bright boy!


And you didn't read the following message?

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

The gent did not say it was wrong to disagree--he said if you disagreed with
his view, then your position on the issue would be wrong. Not the same
thing. And George, you do realize that dropping the Nazi card, especially
just because you don't like his remark and without any evidence that
supports the claim, makes you look like a complete and utter ass? Geeze, you
sound like Vkince (who, now that I think of it, has been very quiet since
about the time ol' Saddam got rooted out of his hole). Unless of course you
are dealing with someone who actually has a demonstrated affection for
things-Nazi, like Arndt...

Brooks

Up to now, the right to disagree has always been the
American way, along with ice cream, baseball and motherhood.

George Z.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:38:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Dick Locke" wrote in message
.. .

I associate fiscal responsibility with Democrats. QED.


Let me revise my statement. Fiscal responsibility has not been associated
with Democrats for a very long time by any objective observer.



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.

Now, lest I be accused of nit-picking, and recognizing the risk that
we will both wind up saying "anyone who disagrees with me isn't
objective" here's an interesting page that addresses both the issue of
fiscal responsibility an Mr. Ling's contention that lowering tax rates
increases revenue.

http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/000038.html

"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.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"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.

Why not? It theoretically had no defenses after we finished with them in the
Gulf War. 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. Are you
inferring that Sadaam was somehow worse than Adolf and Hirohito and didn't
deserve to be allowed even minimal self defense?

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.


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.

"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.

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

I'd much rather be wrong than stupid.


But you are both.

I'm in good company as long as you keep talking.

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

I was just quoting you, bright boy!


And you didn't read the following message?

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