The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

FYI, a ballistic missile is not a WMD all by its lonesome.

How do you know that there was no weapons payload?

Even if there was no payload, what are the Yemenese using them for?
Garden planters? A year later are they still just delivery vehicles,
or do you think they are fully armed WMD's?

OK, let me say this very slowly so you might get a clue:
it...takes...a....chemical...nuclear...or...biolog ical...warhead...to...make
.....it...a...WMD. Conventional warheads carried by a Scud-wanna-be don't
meet the criteria.


Is the region better off with Yemen having them? Is Israel better
off?

I really don't know as to how it either negatively or positively affects the
region (being as the Syrians, Saudis, Israelis, and Iranians all already
have SRBM's of their own, I doubt it will have much of an effect either
way). They are certainly no threat to Israel whilst sitting in Yemen (look
at a map and calculate the range of those missiles in question). And they
are pretty lousy terroist weapons--kind of hard to smuggle one into range of
a target, then fuel it with those rather nasty fuels it requires...and even
if you could, with a conventional warhead you'd like as not do no damage
whatsovere to your intended target, since you'd most likely miss it by a
wide margin. FYI, Yemen has not been forbidden to possess SRBM's--unlike
Iraq was under 1441.

Why you brought up and are arguing this issue, especially given your obvious
complete unfamiliarity with the weapons you are discussing, is rather
baffling.

Brooks

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

Bush made a pre-emptive war on a sovereign country for reasons that
were lies.


There were several reasons given, which were lies?

Full title to book with link to 'Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses
of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq'
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...758342-8472957

Chapter titled, "True Lies" -- Jan 2003 speech mentioned the
"yellow-caked uranium" lie!

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

When you cut taxes without reducing spending, where does the shortfall
come from?


You're confusing tax rates with tax revenue. Reagan cut tax rates, tax
revenue then rose, rising tax revenue does lead to deficits.

You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to
deficits.That can only happen if you spend more money than you've taken in, and
the difference between the two is the deficit.
Econ. 101.

George Z.

"john" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:54:53 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:


And what proof do you have that these are lies? You seem pretty ****ed
about this. You aren't a Howard Dean fan by chance?

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

Bush, on numerous occasions, said that these weapons threatened our
national security.


Jarg



And how was that a lie exactly? It hasn't been disproven, and even if it
were it wouldn't make it a lie. You see, a lie is an INTENTIONAL untruth,
not a mistaken statement. A little reading in a dictionary might help clear
this concept up for you.

Jarg

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
t...

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...

"john" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:28:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"john" wrote in message
.. .

Bush made a pre-emptive war on a sovereign country for reasons that
were lies.


There were several reasons given, which were lies?


How about , to start with, the Bush administration lie about WMD.

How about the Bush lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
national security?

And what proof do you have that these are lies? You seem pretty ****ed
about this. You aren't a Howard Dean fan by chance?

LOL! Which would explain his poor temperament today, given Dean's abysmal
performance in the Iowa caucus last night...

Brooks


Yep, that's what I'm thinking also -a little post caucus hysteria!

Jarg

Kevin Brooks wrote:

OK, let me say this very slowly so you might get a clue:
it...takes...a....chemical...nuclear...or...biolog ical..
.warhead...to...make....it...a...WMD.
Conventional warheads carried by a Scud-wanna-be don't
meet the criteria.

Then why was Iraq prohibited from having scuds, regardless of the
payload?

Or is it a double standard?

(Iraq with empty scuds) = WMD

(Any other country with scuds with conventional warhead) =/= WMD

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

OK, let me say this very slowly so you might get a clue:
it...takes...a....chemical...nuclear...or...biolog ical..
.warhead...to...make....it...a...WMD.
Conventional warheads carried by a Scud-wanna-be don't
meet the criteria.

Then why was Iraq prohibited from having scuds, regardless of the
payload?

You must be having a bad hair day. Iraq was prohibited from having weapons
with a range of over 150 km as part of the ceasefire settlement--that was
NOT a universal prohibition against ANY nation possessing such weapons. Get
it? And by the way--Iraq violated that prohibition (see their Al Samoud
program), as the UN inspectors finally discovered on the very eve of the
commencement of OIF.


Or is it a double standard?

Nope. When you try and take over your neighboring nation as your "newest
province", and then get your clock cleaned and agree to a ceasefire with
terms, you open yourself to terms that do not apply to other nations that
did not act as you did. Iraq did exactly that--Yemen has not.


(Iraq with empty scuds) = WMD

No, again (sigh...). The ballistic missiles were indeed prohibited by the
terms of the ceasefire (UN Resolution 687)--that does not make them "WMD".
It is really quite simple to keep the two different items (WMD and ballistic
missiles) seperate if you think about it *real hard*. What is probably
tripping you up is the fact that Iraq *had* developed chemical and
biological warheads for their ballistic missiles, unlike the Yemenis who you
are so strangely fascinated with.


(Any other country with scuds with conventional warhead) =/= WMD

No, again. You are not the brightest apple in the basket, are you?

Brooks

Jarg wrote:
"john" wrote in message
Bush, on numerous occasions, said that these weapons threatened our
national security.
Jarg

And how was that a lie exactly? It hasn't been disproven, and even if it
were it wouldn't make it a lie. You see, a lie is an INTENTIONAL untruth,
not a mistaken statement.

"The onus to war was forced upon the Intelligence group from the Top
Down, to a given conclusion..." - According to O'Neil.

And you think he _didn't_ know ?


A little reading in a dictionary might help clear
this concept up for you.

Jarg

"In The Darkness" wrote in message
...
Jarg wrote:
"john" wrote in message
Bush, on numerous occasions, said that these weapons threatened our
national security.
Jarg

And how was that a lie exactly? It hasn't been disproven, and even if
it
were it wouldn't make it a lie. You see, a lie is an INTENTIONAL
untruth,
not a mistaken statement.

"The onus to war was forced upon the Intelligence group from the Top
Down, to a given conclusion..." - According to O'Neil.

And you think he _didn't_ know ?


A little reading in a dictionary might help clear
this concept up for you.

Jarg


s,

Note the remainding members of President Bush's administration have
dismissed these allegations, as well they should. They are the ramblings of
a disguntled ex-e mployee trying to sell some books.

Jarg

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:15:58 +0000, Jarg wrote:


"john" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:54:53 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:


And what proof do you have that these are lies? You seem pretty ****ed
about this. You aren't a Howard Dean fan by chance?

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

Bush, on numerous occasions, said that these weapons threatened our
national security.


Jarg



And how was that a lie exactly? It hasn't been disproven, and even if it
were it wouldn't make it a lie. You see, a lie is an INTENTIONAL untruth,
not a mistaken statement. A little reading in a dictionary might help clear
this concept up for you.

You really think GW is that stupid, to truly believe in his own lies?