Re: The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

[RobbelothE]

Ted Kennedy. What a hoot! This guy talks a good game but that's about it.

He's a documented adulterer, major league alcoholic, and not much of a driver
(one of his dates never got home alive).

It appears his moral outrage is selective. He now opposes the use of force to
remove a dictator (and his regime) responsible for hundreds of thousands of
murders. Yet, regarding the Balkans, his voting record shows a different moral
stripe:
Voted YES on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo. (May
1999)
Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999).

As Arsenio Hall used to say, "It's enough to make you go 'Hmmmmm.'"

Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[Goomba38]

"Werner J. Severin" wrote:

>
> I may agree with your evaluation of the communicator, but how about the content?

That it doesn't belong on a cooking group, nor crossposted

[None]

Ya know - some day very very soon republican supporters of the demon seed
that is Shrub&Co will understand that he hasn't a ****ing clue what he's
saying!!!

It's scripted people, Shrub is clueless!!!!



"Goomba38" > wrote in message
...
> "Werner J. Severin" wrote:
>
> >
> > I may agree with your evaluation of the communicator, but how about the
content?
>
> That it doesn't belong on a cooking group, nor crossposted
>
>

[B2431]

>From: "Hush, Hush Sweet Icebreaker" Hush,Hush Sweet
>Date: 1/18/2004 6:33 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Polybus" > wrote in message
om...
>> A Dishonest War
>>
>> By Edward M. Kennedy
>> Sunday, January 18, 2004; WP Page B07
>
>Wow! Edward "Teddy" Kennedy, a serial adulterer, alcoholic, and Mary Jo
>Kopechne killer giving me lessons on dishonesty. How rich.
>
>----------------------------------
>ICEBREAKER

He was also expelled from Harvard for cheating IIRC.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Hush, Hush Sweet Icebreaker" Hush,Hush Sweet

> >Date: 1/18/2004 6:33 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >"Polybus" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> A Dishonest War
> >>
> >> By Edward M. Kennedy
> >> Sunday, January 18, 2004; WP Page B07
> >
> >Wow! Edward "Teddy" Kennedy, a serial adulterer, alcoholic, and Mary Jo
> >Kopechne killer giving me lessons on dishonesty. How rich.
> >
> >----------------------------------
> >ICEBREAKER
>
> He was also expelled from Harvard for cheating IIRC.

Yep, he was--paid someone else to take an exam in his place and got caught.
But hey, his big brother jack had hired a ghostwriter to pen his thesis, so
maybe it just runs in the family...

Brooks

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dick Locke]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:19:12 GMT, "Fred" >
wrote:

>I'm apolitical

OK...

[Tank Fixer]

In article et>,
on Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:25:00 GMT,
None attempted to say .....

>
> "Hush, Hush Sweet Icebreaker" <Hush, Hush Sweet >
> wrote in message ...
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >
> > > Cool, Teddy Kennedy lecturing people on honesty.
> >
> > Ted Kennedy lecturing people on honesty is like...well, it's like Ted
> > Kennedy lecturing people on sobriety. Or lecturing people on weight loss.
> Or
> > lecturing people on fidelity in marriage.
>
> Or YOU lecturing people on which side of your mobile home the license plate
> goes on

especially when you very well know it goes in the center rear......


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[None]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "None" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Put the shoe on the other foot . . . . prove they weren't!
> >
>
> How does one prove a negative? And if I can't prove 10,000 Iraqis weren't
> killed by the USA, does that prove that 10,000 Iraqis were killed by the
> USA? Does no burden of proof fall on those that claim 10,000 Iraqis were
> killed by the USA?
>
Absolutely not. Nor does any burden fall on you or anyone else who either
claims 10,000 weren't killed, or questions the number.

The underlying fact remains, that be it one, or be it ten thousand killed,
its too many. It is the duty of every American citizen to question it's
government's motives. In the case of the Iraqi overthrow, even you must
admit that there have been many more questions than there have been answers.
It's that lack of answers that leads so many to believe that the overthrow
of the Iraqi government was nothing more than Bush Jr.'s payback for
Hussein's alleged contract hit put out on Bush the Senior. Whether it was
or not, when the answers to such serious questions go unanswered, what
remains is what the majority will subscribe to.

My personal opinion is that, just like the Gulf conflict, of which I was a
part, it was all about the oil and nothing more. The fact remains that
there have been no WMDs found in Iraq, but we overthrew Iraq's government,
ousted it's president, took him into custody, and handed the operation of
it's oil fields over to a Texas corporation. We have no choice but to view
that action for exactly what it looks like.

10,000 is a very high number. Personally, I hope to think it is nowhere
near that number. Statistically, with what our bombs are capable of doing,
and since they were unleashed upon Iraq with a fervor, 10,000 is a distinct
possibility.

But sleep well. We have the oil now. OPEC can go to hell, and the Taliban
has been given a reprieve and ample time to regroup - because simply put,
now that we have the oil, we've lost our focus.

Greed my friend, not only starts wars, but causes the combatants to loose
focus with historical accuracy.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Absolutely not. Nor does any burden fall on you or anyone else who either
> claims 10,000 weren't killed, or questions the number.
>

Wrong. The burden of proof always falls on those making the claim. In this
case, "Nobody" has claimed 10,000 Iraqis have been killed by the USA, so the
burden of proof falls on "Nobody" to support that claim.

[Werner J. Severin]

Arming Iraq and the Path to War

A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no
exception. Below are some relevant dates.

September,1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. (8)

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan
removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. (1)

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. (9)

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for
Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for
air strikes and bomb damage assessments. (4)

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would
do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its
war with Iran. (1) (15)

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in
Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq,
with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased
computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments,
special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods
for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
(14)

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States
weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These
shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. (16)

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given
intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical
weapons against the Iranians. (1)

December 20, 1983 Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense
Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and
materials support. (1) (15)

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate
its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. (19)

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States
shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items
are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and
communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a
military application. (2)

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security
Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on
March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security
Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. (10)

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports
to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of
lethal strains of anthrax. (3)

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade
botulin poison to Iraq. (7)

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower
Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages.
Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in
Nicaragua. (17)

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against
Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. (1)

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the
Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against
the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200
Kurdish villages. (8)

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals
used in manufacture of mustard gas. (7)

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988,
in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to
defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas
are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily
involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence
gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of
the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of
chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.
(6) (13)

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. (8)

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his
planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical
attacks against the Kurds. (8)

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons
grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)

September 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The
US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and
economic objectives." (15)

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq
despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. (1)

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him
that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe
this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded
Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. (12)

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. (8)

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical
company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a
special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.
(11)

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale
del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the
purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony.
Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any
knowledge of his crime. (14)

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming
increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the
scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the
financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into
[an aggressive power]." (5)

July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently,
helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi
military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the
Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses
to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite
ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons."
Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. (18)

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate
Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US
shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may
have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the
cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. (7)

August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle
field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We
were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter
Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York
Times. (4)

This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming
of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods
both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most
powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical
and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using
chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and
technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when
it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish
citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning
information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide,
mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of
Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in
this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but
England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms
and technology.

So what do these events have to do with the current conflict? Just this:
If we do go to war with Iraq, it is important to know why. War will not
really be about terrorism. Twenty years ago the United States threw its
support behind Saddam Hussein in a geopolitical bid for enhanced access
to oil. The trajectory given him by our support lead directly to the
Gulf War and to the current crises. War, after all, will be about a
history of misdeeds and miscalculations. And war will not be about
morality. War will be about cynicism, deceit and a thirst for oil that
knows no boundaries.

John King
Long Prairie, MN

1. Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4. Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5. ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25,
1994
8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly
Arsenal
16. Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15
December, 1986
20. WWW.gendercide.com http://www.gendercide.com . Case Study: The Anfal
Campaign

[Werner J. Severin]

washingtonpost.com

America Cluster Bombs Iraq

By William M. Arkin
Special to Washingtonpost.com
Monday, February 26, 2001; 12:00 AM


News media reports last week that 50 percent of the weapons fired at Iraqi
military installations missed their so-called aimpoints obscures a more
disturbing facet of the Feb. 16 attack: The U.S. jets used cluster bombs
that have no real aimpoint and that kill and wound innocent civilians for
years to come.

This is not merely some insider detail. The choice of cluster bombs, still
unnoticed by the American media, is likely to prove controversial. The
weapon that was used in Iraq is formally known as Joint Stand-off Weapon
(JSOW,pronounced jay-sow). It was first used in combat in Iraq on January
25, 1999, when Marine Corps F-18 Hornet's fired three weapons at an air
defense site.

The missile is described by the Navy, its primary developer, and Raytheon
Systems, its manufacturer, as a long-range glide bomb. Acting Pentagon
spokesman, Navy Rear Admiral Crag Quigley primly calls it an "area
munition," doggedly avoiding the scattershot reality conveyed by the term
³cluster bomb.²
Weapon of Choice


Twenty eight JSOWs were fired by Navy aircraft in the in the Feb. 16
attack, along with guided missiles and laser-guided bombs. Pentagon
sources say that 26 of the 28 JSOWs missed their aimpoints.

The 1,000 pound, 14-foot-long weapon carries 145 anti-armor and
anti-personnel incendiary bomblets which disperse over an area that is
approximately 100 feet long and 200 feet wide. In short, this weapon,
which Quigley describes as a "long-range, precision-guided, stand-off
weapon," rains down deadly bomblets on an area the size of a football
field with six bombs falling in every 1,000 square feet. So much for
precision.

The JSOW has quickly become a top weapon of choice for Navy and Marine
Corps airplanes in the no fly zone mission for at least four reasons. It
has as a range of more than 40 nautical miles when delivered from high
altitude (20,000 feet about ground level). The dispersal of bomblets
inflicts more lasting damage than a small warhead on an anti-radiation
missile. Pilots can reprogram target coordinates right up to the moment of
launch. And because the JSOW is guided by satellite, the delivering
aircraft can "launch and leave.²

"With JSOW we can attack SAMs [surface-to-air missiles] from well outside
the threat rings and destroy rather than suppress" the target, a Navy
document notes. In other words, years of bombing in Iraq have had less
than spectacular results of Iraq¹s air defenses and the U.S. military is
looking for some way of causing more permanent damage to the country's
military capabilities.
Launch and Leave


Pilots may launch and leave, but the JSOW, like other cluster bombs, is
unforgiving once aircraft deliver them. The JSOW releases its
sub-munitions about 400 feet above its target. These bomblets are also
used in the most prevalent modern U.S. cluster bomb, the CBU-87. But
unlike the CBU-87, the JSOW does not spin to disperse its bomblets. Rather
the JSOW uses a gasbag to propel the sub-munitions outward from the sides.
Once ejected, the bomblets, each the size of soda can, simply fall freely
at the mercy of local winds. A few almost always land outside of the
center point of the football field size main concentration. On average 5
percent do not detonate. These unexploded bomblets then become highly
volatile on the ground.

Recently, U.S. Air Force engineers in Kuwait found an entire unexploded
CBU-87 at an airbase that had been attacked during the Gulf War. The
weapon had apparently malfunctioned and ripped open upon impact, burying
bomblets up to six feet deep in the vicinity. To destroy them in place, a
series of 10-foot high barriers had to be built inside a 700-foot wide
safety cordon.

Already this month, there has been one Iraqi civilian death and nine
injuries from unexploded cluster bomblets, presumably all left over from
the 1991 Gulf War. On Feb. 20, Agence France Press (AFP) reported that a
shepherd was wounded near Nasiriyah in southern Iraq when an unexploded
bomblet detonated. On Feb. 15, Reuters said two Iraqi boys in western
Iraq, also tending sheep, were injured by a cluster bomblet. On Feb. 9,
AFP reported a child was killed and six others were wounded by
sub-munitions near Basra.

February, it seems, is a fairly typical month for cluster bombs inflicting
damage on innocent civilians.
A Degrading Policy


"What we have to do is make sure we continue to tell the world that we are
not after the Iraqi people," Secretary of State Colin Powell told CNN on
Feb. 12. That is a tough task given the use of a weapon which has unique
civilian impact.

Saddam Hussein relishes the cat and mouse game in and around the "no-fly"
zones, almost welcoming bombing and civilian casualties if they will
contribute to Baghdad's strategy of breaking the international consensus
on sanctions and inspections. The use of cluster bombs against minor
out-of-the-way targets, far from doing anything to ³degrade his capacity
to harm our pilots,² as President Bush said at his Feb. 22 press
conference, actually helps Iraq to achieve its foreign policy goals.

"We think we've accomplished what we were looking for in the sense to
degrade, disrupt the ability of the Iraqi air defenses to coordinate
attacks against our aircraft," Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold,
director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff said at the Pentagon
on the day of the strikes.

The vague objective "to degrade" is straight out of the go-nowhere Clinton
playbook. We bomb, and even if virtually all of the JSOWs miss their
aimpoints, the United States proclaims: "mission accomplished." After all,
some level of degrading of Iraqi capabilities occurred.

[Werner J. Severin]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=432201

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
10 August 2003

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on
Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive
fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and
their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of
the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a
distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an
enemy.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of
napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks
to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of
the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed
notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam
war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used
in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near
bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James
Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were
people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were
Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It
has a big psychological effect."

A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm
attack on 21 March on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close
to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: "Safwan Hill went up
in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. 'I pity
anyone who is in there,' a Marine sergeant said. 'We told them to
surrender.'"

At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. "We
completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on 4 April, 2001,"
it said.

The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the
Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

"Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a
horrible, horrible weapon," said Robert Musil, director of the
organisation Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It takes up an
awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds." Mr Musil
said denial of its use "fits a pattern of deception [by the US
administration]".

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction
between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons
dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs. They weigh 510lbs,
and consist of 44lbs of polystyrene-like gel and 63 gallons of jet
fuel.

Officials said that if journalists had asked about the firebombs their
use would have been confirmed. A spokesman admitted they were
"remarkably similar" to napalm but said they caused less environmental
damage.

But John Pike, director of the military studies group
GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "You can call it something other than napalm
but it is still napalm. It has been reformulated in the sense that
they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it. The US
is the only country that has used napalm for a long time. I am not
aware of any other country that uses it." Marines returning from Iraq
chose to call the firebombs "napalm".

Mr Musil said the Pentagon's effort to draw a distinction between the
weapons was outrageous. He said: "It's Orwellian. They do not want the
public to know. It's a lie."

In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen
Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the
war.

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:24:27 -0500, Cub Driver > wrote:

>
>>Social psychologists have for years known that when people are confronted
>>with a message that challenges their beliefs they suffer dissonance which
>>causes psychological discomfort
>
>Psychological discomfort! That's Teddy Kennedy, all right!
>
>There are a number of people who give me that kind of psychological
>discomfort, including Richard Nixon.
>
>It's not the message that causes the discomfort, my friend. It's the
>messenger. Some people could recite the Ten Commandments, and I would
>dismiss everything they say, including Richard Nixon and Teddy
>Kennedy, and Adolf Hitler and Richard Dahlmer, and ...
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Not to mention the fact that "social psychologists" read tea leaves,
consult the intestines of goats, etc. They are, by any reasonable
measure, not scientists and anything that they "know" is derived
from PFM. (Pure F******* Magic).

Al Minyard

[DALing]

gee, ain't it interesting that the object of war is to KILL PEOPLE

What's your point? End war? Nice ideal, but not possible in the current
political situation. (sorry, I'm less than sympathetic)

"Werner J. Severin" > wrote in message

t...
> Arming Iraq and the Path to War
>
> A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no
> exception. Below are some relevant dates.
>
> September,1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war.
(8)
>
> February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan
> removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. (1)
>
> December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.
(9)
>
> 1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for
> Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for
> air strikes and bomb damage assessments. (4)
>
> November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would
> do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its
> war with Iran. (1) (15)
>
> November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in
> Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq,
> with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased
> computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments,
> special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods
> for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
> (14)
>
> October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing
> Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States
> weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These
> shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. (16)
>
> November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given
> intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical
> weapons against the Iranians. (1)
>
> December 20, 1983 Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense
> Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and
> materials support. (1) (15)
>
> July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate
> its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. (19)
>
> January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States
> shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items
> are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and
> communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a
> military application. (2)
>
> March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security
> Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on
> March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security
> Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. (10)
>
> May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports
> to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of
> lethal strains of anthrax. (3)
>
> May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade
> botulin poison to Iraq. (7)
>
> March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower
> Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages.
> Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in
> Nicaragua. (17)
>
> Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against
> Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. (1)
>
> February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the
> Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against
> the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200
> Kurdish villages. (8)
>
> April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals
> used in manufacture of mustard gas. (7)
>
> August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988,
> in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to
> defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas
> are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily
> involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence
> gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of
> the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of
> chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.
> (6) (13)
>
> August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. (8)
>
> August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his
> planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical
> attacks against the Kurds. (8)
>
> September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons
> grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)
>
> September 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The
> US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and
> economic objectives." (15)
>
> December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq
> despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. (1)
>
> July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him
> that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe
> this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded
> Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. (12)
>
> August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. (8)
>
> July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical
> company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a
> special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.
> (11)
>
> August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale
> del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the
> purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony.
> Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any
> knowledge of his crime. (14)
>
> June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming
> increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the
> scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the
> financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into
> [an aggressive power]." (5)
>
> July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently,
> helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi
> military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the
> Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses
> to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite
> ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons."
> Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. (18)
>
> February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate
> Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US
> shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may
> have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the
> cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. (7)
>
> August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle
> field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We
> were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter
> Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York
> Times. (4)
>
> This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming
> of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods
> both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most
> powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical
> and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using
> chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and
> technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when
> it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish
> citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning
> information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide,
> mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of
> Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in
> this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but
> England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms
> and technology.
>
> So what do these events have to do with the current conflict? Just this:
> If we do go to war with Iraq, it is important to know why. War will not
> really be about terrorism. Twenty years ago the United States threw its
> support behind Saddam Hussein in a geopolitical bid for enhanced access
> to oil. The trajectory given him by our support lead directly to the
> Gulf War and to the current crises. War, after all, will be about a
> history of misdeeds and miscalculations. And war will not be about
> morality. War will be about cynicism, deceit and a thirst for oil that
> knows no boundaries.
>
> John King
> Long Prairie, MN
>
> 1. Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
> 2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
> 3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
> 4. Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
> 5. ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
> 6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
> 7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25,
> 1994
> 8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
> 9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
> 10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
> 11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
> 12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
> 13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
> 14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
> 15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly
> Arsenal
> 16. Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
> 17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
> 18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
> 19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15
> December, 1986
> 20. WWW.gendercide.com http://www.gendercide.com . Case Study: The Anfal
> Campaign

[Dick Locke]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:36:55 GMT, "DALing"
<daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote:

>gee, ain't it interesting that the object of war is to KILL PEOPLE

Err, no. That's a tactic or strategy. The object is to accomplish
whatever got you into the war in the first place. And "people" is not
an undifferentiated mass.

[Werner J. Severin]

In article >, "DALing"
<daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote:

> gee, ain't it interesting that the object of war is to KILL PEOPLE
>
> What's your point? End war? Nice ideal, but not possible in the current
> political situation. (sorry, I'm less than sympathetic)
>
> "Werner J. Severin" > wrote in message
>
> t...
> > Arming Iraq and the Path to War
> >
> > A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no
> > exception. Below are some relevant dates.


You need not lecture me on the object of war. More than half a century
ago I soldiered my way across half of Europe (probably long before you
were born).

Served 45 months in the Army, 39 consecutive months overseas. Shipped over
on a troopship at age 18 and returned to be discharged as a Staff Sgt. six
weeks before my 22 birthday. I have seen what war does to people and
cities.

We do have the Geneva conventions and other international treaties. Too
bad we ignore them.

And the point of my post was that we were highly involved in providing
Iraq with the weapons we now condemn them for having used. And we knew
they were using them.

[Bill]

In article >,
Goomba38 > wrote:

> "Werner J. Severin" wrote:
>
> >
> > I may agree with your evaluation of the communicator, but how about the
> > content?
>
> That it doesn't belong on a cooking group, nor crossposted

So why continue to cross-post it?

[DALing]

OK, so HOW do you accomplish the objective? You kill people. (ever hear of
a "bloodless war?")

Some "collateral damages" are essentially inevitable. Tough - that's the
nature of the beast.

"Dick Locke" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:36:55 GMT, "DALing"
> <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >gee, ain't it interesting that the object of war is to KILL PEOPLE
>
> Err, no. That's a tactic or strategy. The object is to accomplish
> whatever got you into the war in the first place. And "people" is not
> an undifferentiated mass.

[DALing]

True, US supplying of Iraq was more the issue of "my enemy's enemy is my
friend" than anything else. Politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn't it?

(oh, and I got out of the army myself about 40 years ago - VietNam and all
that)

"Werner J. Severin" > wrote in message

....
> In article >, "DALing"
> <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > gee, ain't it interesting that the object of war is to KILL PEOPLE
> >
> > What's your point? End war? Nice ideal, but not possible in the
current
> > political situation. (sorry, I'm less than sympathetic)
> >
> > "Werner J. Severin" > wrote in message
> >

> > t...
> > > Arming Iraq and the Path to War
> > >
> > > A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no
> > > exception. Below are some relevant dates.
>
>
> You need not lecture me on the object of war. More than half a century
> ago I soldiered my way across half of Europe (probably long before you
> were born).
>
> Served 45 months in the Army, 39 consecutive months overseas. Shipped over
> on a troopship at age 18 and returned to be discharged as a Staff Sgt. six
> weeks before my 22 birthday. I have seen what war does to people and
> cities.
>
> We do have the Geneva conventions and other international treaties. Too
> bad we ignore them.
>
> And the point of my post was that we were highly involved in providing
> Iraq with the weapons we now condemn them for having used. And we knew
> they were using them.

[None]

"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message
...
> True, US supplying of Iraq was more the issue of "my enemy's enemy is my
> friend" than anything else. Politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn't it?
>
> (oh, and I got out of the army myself about 40 years ago - VietNam and all
> that)

As an american citizen, I humbly apologize for what our country did to our
VietNam veterans and their families. I shudder to think what we will be
doing to our Iraqi Invasion vets.

[Go Fig]

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "Werner J. Severin" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >
> > Their fair share for ALL programs is the same as everyone else.
> > If they are "unconstitutional, unworkable,immoral programs" then convince
> > the majority and have them repealed. It's called democracy.
> >
> >
> > The Constitution of the United States of America
> >
> > We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
> > establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
> > defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
> > to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
> > for the United States of America.
> >
> > Note: "promote the general welfare"
> >
>
> The phrase "promote the general welfare" does not mean what you think it
> does.


President Franklin Pierce was confronted with this situation, this is
what he said years and years ago... he is still correct today:

"I readily and, I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us
all as men and citizens, and as among the highest and holiest of our
duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of
Providence, are subject to want and to disease of mind; but I cannot
find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal
Government the great almoner [one who gives something to the poor] of
public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my
judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and
subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is
founded...'the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the
States respectively or to the people."

jay
Mon Jan 19, 2004

[DALing]

particularly since there aren't so MANY of them (but remember, they are all
"volunteers")

"None" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ...
> > True, US supplying of Iraq was more the issue of "my enemy's enemy is my
> > friend" than anything else. Politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn't
it?
> >
> > (oh, and I got out of the army myself about 40 years ago - VietNam and
all
> > that)
>
> As an american citizen, I humbly apologize for what our country did to our
> VietNam veterans and their families. I shudder to think what we will be
> doing to our Iraqi Invasion vets.
>
>

[Fly Guy]

None wrote:

> > > Put the shoe on the other foot . . . . prove they weren't!
> >
> > How does one prove a negative?

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
course for this white house? Yes.

[Fly Guy]

DALing wrote:

> True, US supplying of Iraq was more the issue of "my enemy's
> enemy is my friend" than anything else.

The new rule of thumb:

The enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.

[Pete]

"Fly Guy" > wrote in message ...
> None wrote:
>
> > > > Put the shoe on the other foot . . . . prove they weren't!
> > >
> > > How does one prove a negative?
>
> Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
> to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
> course for this white house? Yes.

How soon we forget. The issue was not to prove they didn't, it was to prove
they got rid of the stuff they admitted having in the first place.

Pete

[George Z. Bush]

"Kal Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> devil wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:32:43 -0500, Gwen Saylor wrote:
> >
> >> =Sara wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Yeah, just as there's no financial situation where the Democrat
> >>>> doesn't scream for higher spending
> >>>>
> >>> Like $87 billion for Iraq and a few billoion more for NASA?
> >>> Suuurre. This is one fiscally conservative admin we've got here.
> >>
> >> You conveniently forget to recall how many billions and billions
> >> were already spent on Iraq for the 12 years before Bush took office
> >> due to the presence and moves by Hussein. And the $ number was
> >> getting higher and higher with no end in sight due to the failure of
> >> the "containment." . Did you think all of those daily no-fly zone
> >> sorties were free? When Clinton bombed Baghdad in 1998 with more
> >> missiles than the entire 1991 Gulf War, did you think that was free?
> >> Or the 1994 bombings? Or the 1996 bombings? Did you think the
> >> constant built up troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were free? Did
> >> you think the aircraft carriers that needed to be in the Gulf
> >> constantly were free? Today all of that is changing. And it will
> >> only get better going forward as things wind down in Iraq.
> >
> > Drop in a bucket. Insignificant. Meanwhile this administration has
> > been borrowing on future generations like there is no tomorrow.
>
> Just how big a drop in the bucket? What is the dollar amount on
> all of the above?
>
> Just curious.

Isn't it odd that, when the Democrats run up the deficit, "pay as you go" is the
Republican mantra, but when the Republicans do it, "tax and spend" (a euphemism
for "pay as you go") becomes a terrible policy?

Or is it merely another example of hypocrisy in government?

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Stark Raven" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Paul
> Middlestat > wrote:
>
> > Ted is a primary example of the need for congressional term limits.
Someone
> > who has been in elected office too long, and is detached from those in the
> > trenches. And you are aware that he has never received a pay check which
was
> > not from the government - right? At no time has he worked in the public
> > sector. Has he ever looked at this check book at the end of the month and
> > wondered how he could find the money to send his 8th grader on the spring
> > trip? I'm guessing probably not.
>
> A Kennedy needing to work? I don't think so. I'm sure he's dedicated
> his life to public service and probably gives his congressional salary
> to charity.
>
> Also it wouldn't surprise me if some of GWB's many successful business
> endeavors hadn't cornered some of your hard-earned money. That is
> where publically-earned money comes from, you know.
>
> I for one find it strange that the current administration had rather
> give $500,000 to Charles Schwab to maintain a rice farm for duck
> hunting purposes than $300 to a welfare mom. Of course they had rather
> be invited to a duck hunt than collards and greens.

Nothing strange about it. How much does the welfare mom contribute to the
reelection coffers compared to Charlie? I believe it's spelled G R E E D or
perhaps C O R R U P T I O N.....take your pick.

George Z.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fly Guy" > wrote in message ...
>
> Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
> to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
> course for this white house? Yes.
>

The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving
a negative.

[Fly Guy]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> > Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international
> > objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd,
> > yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes.
>
> The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD
> by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has
> been done is not proving a negative.

You can't prove that something no longer exists if you've destroyed it
(especially if you're trying to prove it to those that are bent on
invading you).

If you start with an inflated estimate of the amount of WMD in the
first place, of course nothing will convince you that all of it was
destroyed.

Iraq was compelled to submit a 10,000 page report as to it's WMD
status. To date, I have yet to hear that any aspect of that report
was false. David Kay was assigned the task of finding WMD. At one
point he gloated over a room stacked to the ceiling with documents -
every page scanned into a bank of computers. I have yet to hear
anything productive come from his efforts (which I suspect were more
to discover and destroy evidence and links of the US-supplied chemical
weapons to Iraq in the 1980's). Mobile chemical manufacturing trucks
have been proven to be Brittish trucks sold to Iraq to generate Helium
for battlefield target balloons.

The US claimed to know where the WMD were, but for baffling reasons
they never told the UN inspectors on the ground.

Look. The UN had several hundred weapons inspectors in Iraq in late
2002/early 2003. They had complete access to any site they wanted to
go. While the US was massing 150k troops nearby. What the US could
have done was to slap UN arm bands on each and every US soldier and
say that they were simply more UN inspectors. They could have just
walked into IRAQ and take up the task of looking for WMD in a
peacefull way - similar to the several hundred UN weapons inspectors
already there. There would have been NO excuse that with 150k UN
inspectors that the Iraqis could play a shell game with WMD.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fly Guy" > wrote in message ...
>
> You can't prove that something no longer exists if you've destroyed it
> (especially if you're trying to prove it to those that are bent on
> invading you).
>

The Iraqis accepted the requirement to verify destruction of their WMD prior
to any destruction of them. For what reason would they destroy them but
maintain the appearance that they had not been destroyed?

[DALing]

well.. care to think about the major communist nation that was supplied with
large quantities of US produced arms during WWII? USSR, maybe? Enemy of
democracy and all that - but, certainly receptive of the help. My mother
stenciled Cyrillic onto aircraft in Buffalo in 1943.

"Fly Guy" > wrote in message ...
> DALing wrote:
>
> > True, US supplying of Iraq was more the issue of "my enemy's
> > enemy is my friend" than anything else.
>
> The new rule of thumb:
>
> The enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:56:43 GMT, (Werner J.
Severin) wrote:

>Interesting how this thread moved quickly from the contents of the message
>to a discussion of the credibility of the communicator.

We don't have time to do a thorough rebuttal of every crackpot idea
that comes along, any idiot can lie faster than they can be refuted.

>Social psychologists have for years known that when people are confronted
>with a message that challenges their beliefs they suffer dissonance which
>causes psychological discomfort.

They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein; they also laughed
at Bozo the Clown. Just because we are laughing at the messenger
doesn't mean the message is causing us any dissonance, the person
carrying the message may not have the credibility to deliver a message
we can take seriously.

Here is an example; there is a guy over in talk.origins who has been
claiming for years to have found various human bones fossilized in
coal seams, were this true it would mean that humans are tens of
millions of years older than previously believed and would upset much
of known paleontology. This same individual has various pictures of
rocks he claims are human bones, claimed to have had them examined by
an expert (who is conviently deceased) and had them tested in a lab
(which did a kidney stone analysis on them); all these claims and more
have been completely refuted or proved to be without scientific merit
over the years. Despite this he shows up every few weeks, insults
anyone who doesn't agree with him, and repeats his original claims as
if it were his first time.

In short he's your typical net loon without a shred of credibility
about any of his claims. Last year he showed up and claimed to find
dried blood on one of his specimens, in defiance of all known data
about blood existing as blood for tens of millions of years.

Why should we have treated this new claim with anything other than
the disdain that it deserved? Was it because we were worried that he
might be right, or because he is a nutcase who can't be relied upon to
tell the truth when this subject comes up?

Everyone will do this to a greater or lesser extent, if a naked guy
covered in green paint arrived at your door and claimed he was with
the Fire Department and had to immediately search your house to make
sure no fumes from a toxic spill two streets over were building up in
your house or you could be dead within the next 60 seconds; would you
take this request seriously or just call the police to take him into
custody?

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[devil]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Fly Guy" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
>> to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
>> course for this white house? Yes.
>>
>
> The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease
> fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving
> a negative.

So that was the cause of the war, eh? Wonderful reason to go to war, if
you ask me.

If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I got
a bridge to seel you.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:58:15 GMT, devil > wrote:

>> In a related subject, today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting
>> summary of the deficit spending which would result if any of the
>> Democrat candidates tax and spending plans were enacted. Not
>> surpisingly it would increase under all of them.
>
>I seem to recall that the last democrat ran a surplus.

You need to look at it again, the Federal Debt increased by 1.4
trillion dollars under Clinton. Not once during his 8 years did the
Federal Debt go down.

I'm not saying that Bush is doing any better, but the claim that
Clinton ran a surplus is a myth. Just as much a myth as if I got an
$800 cash advance on my credit card, payed $600 in bills and then
declared a $200 surplus just because I still had $200 when I was done.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[Johnny Bravo]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:35:30 GMT, (Werner J.
Severin) wrote:

>Note: "promote the general welfare" And we do live in a country where
>majority rules.

So you would be ok with 51% of the people voting to take all the
money from everyone in the country and just distributing it equally to
promote the general welfare?

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:15:57 GMT, devil > wrote:

>I would go beyond. Close the whole thing down and start from scratch.
>This is the worse paper-pushing operation after the INS.

I'd have to say after the INS and IRS. :)


--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:13:57 GMT, devil > wrote:

>Drop in a bucket. Insignificant. Meanwhile this administration has been
>borrowing on future generations like there is no tomorrow.

Clinton didn't do any better in that regard, increasing the size of
the Federal Debt by 31% (1.4 trillion dollars).

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[AnotherDeanRampage]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> >
> > "Fly Guy" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >> Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
> >> to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
> >> course for this white house? Yes.
> >>
> >
> > The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the
cease
> > fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not
proving
> > a negative.
>
> So that was the cause of the war, eh?


One of them, yes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Wonderful reason to go to war, if you ask me.
>

Yes, and I didn't.


>
> If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I got
> a bridge to seel you.
>

How do you seel a bridge?

[devil]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:

>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Fly Guy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >>
>> >> Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
>> >> to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
>> >> course for this white house? Yes.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the
> cease
>> > fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not
> proving
>> > a negative.
>>
>> So that was the cause of the war, eh?
>
>
> One of them, yes.

I got a bridge...

BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one
of" but *the*.

Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right?

When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one.

Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie. The
White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the
elections.

As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted
to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no
excuse.

[AnotherDeanRampage]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:
>
> >
> > "devil" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Fly Guy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international
objective
> >> >> to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for
the
> >> >> course for this white house? Yes.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by
the
> > cease
> >> > fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not
> > proving
> >> > a negative.
> >>
> >> So that was the cause of the war, eh?
> >
> >
> > One of them, yes.
>
> I got a bridge...

Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then.


> BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one
> of" but *the*.
>
> Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right?
>
> When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one.
>
> Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie.

You're referring to Dean's campaign, I assume?


The
> White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the
> elections.

Nope. Not at all.


> As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted
> to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no
> excuse.

You're referring to Dean's supporters here, I assume?

[devil]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:52:12 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:

>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "devil" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> >> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Fly Guy" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international
> objective
>> >> >> to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for
> the
>> >> >> course for this white house? Yes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by
> the
>> > cease
>> >> > fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not
>> > proving
>> >> > a negative.
>> >>
>> >> So that was the cause of the war, eh?
>> >
>> >
>> > One of them, yes.
>>
>> I got a bridge...
>
> Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then.

Changing the topic, eh? No excuse left to serve us on the war thing?


>> BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one
>> of" but *the*.
>>
>> Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right?
>>
>> When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one.
>>
>> Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie.
>
> You're referring to Dean's campaign, I assume?

Right. He went to war and served BS to the world as an excuse, sure.

> The
>> White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the
>> elections.
>
> Nope. Not at all.

Care to check?

>> As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted
>> to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no
>> excuse.
>
> You're referring to Dean's supporters here, I assume?

Right. They served all sorts of excuses for attacking Iraq, as we know.

Anyway, sounds like you are really running out of anything meanful to
anser?

[Fly Guy]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> The Iraqis accepted the requirement to verify destruction of their
> WMD prior to any destruction of them.

Any such requirement would have been rammed down their throat,
probably with no supporting adendums detailing what constitutes
acceptible verification.

> For what reason would they destroy them but maintain the
> appearance that they had not been destroyed?

How about to give surrounding hostile countries the reason to think
that Iraq just might have some shread of defensive capability?

Please explain why a shipment of 14 scud missles from North Korea was
allowed to be delivered to Yemen before the Iraq invasion started?
Yemen. You know, where the USS Cole was almost sunk? The country
filled with radicals and terrorists? Why did the US allow the
Yemenese to take possession of those WMD's? The ship was boarded by
"coalition" forces. It could have been taken out to sea and sunk.
Instead the US allowed REAL WMD's to fall into the hands of REAL
terrorists.

[AnotherDeanRampage]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:52:12 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:
>
> >
> > "devil" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "devil" > wrote in message
> >> > . ..
> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Fly Guy" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international
> > objective
> >> >> >> to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par
for
> > the
> >> >> >> course for this white house? Yes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by
> > the
> >> > cease
> >> >> > fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is
not
> >> > proving
> >> >> > a negative.
> >> >>
> >> >> So that was the cause of the war, eh?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > One of them, yes.
> >>
> >> I got a bridge...
> >
> > Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then.
>
> Changing the topic, eh?


No, because the topic was "I got a bridge".

[devil]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:08:55 -0500, Fly Guy wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>>
>> The Iraqis accepted the requirement to verify destruction of their
>> WMD prior to any destruction of them.
>
> Any such requirement would have been rammed down their throat,
> probably with no supporting adendums detailing what constitutes
> acceptible verification.
>
>> For what reason would they destroy them but maintain the
>> appearance that they had not been destroyed?
>
> How about to give surrounding hostile countries the reason to think
> that Iraq just might have some shread of defensive capability?

Actually, the reason is quite simple. Just like in the US: domestic
politics.

Saddam owned his political survival on his ability to play games and make
the US look stupid. Hence this game.

(BTW, seems to me this was quite obvious all along. But eh, Rummy didn't
want to open his eyes apparently. Wishful thinking? Or maybe that's the
very reason he went to war?)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fly Guy" > wrote in message ...
>
> Any such requirement would have been rammed down their throat,
> probably with no supporting adendums detailing what constitutes
> acceptible verification.
>

Well, when you lose a war, you tend to get things rammed down your throat.


>
> How about to give surrounding hostile countries the reason to think
> that Iraq just might have some shread of defensive capability?
>

Iraq was permitted defensive capability, we are not talking about defensive
weapons.


>
> Please explain why a shipment of 14 scud missles from North Korea was
> allowed to be delivered to Yemen before the Iraq invasion started?
>

Because it was not something they were barred from posessing.


>
> Yemen. You know, where the USS Cole was almost sunk? The country
> filled with radicals and terrorists? Why did the US allow the
> Yemenese to take possession of those WMD's? The ship was boarded by
> "coalition" forces. It could have been taken out to sea and sunk.
> Instead the US allowed REAL WMD's to fall into the hands of REAL
> terrorists.
>

Scuds are a delivery vehicle, they are not WMD.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Fly Guy" > wrote in message ...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> > The Iraqis accepted the requirement to verify destruction of their
> > WMD prior to any destruction of them.
>
> Any such requirement would have been rammed down their throat,
> probably with no supporting adendums detailing what constitutes
> acceptible verification.
>
> > For what reason would they destroy them but maintain the
> > appearance that they had not been destroyed?
>
> How about to give surrounding hostile countries the reason to think
> that Iraq just might have some shread of defensive capability?
>
> Please explain why a shipment of 14 scud missles from North Korea was
> allowed to be delivered to Yemen before the Iraq invasion started?
> Yemen. You know, where the USS Cole was almost sunk? The country
> filled with radicals and terrorists? Why did the US allow the
> Yemenese to take possession of those WMD's?

FYI, a ballistic missile is not a WMD all by its lonesome. It requires the
fitting of a nuclear, biological, or chemical warhead before it meets the
generally accepted definition of "WMD". You are mistaking the effort to
control ballistic missile proliferation under the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) for WMD proliferation control, and the two ain't the same
thing.

Brooks

<snip further misdirected rant>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Actually, the reason is quite simple. Just like in the US: domestic
> politics.
>
> Saddam owned his political survival on his ability to play games and make
> the US look stupid. Hence this game.
>
> (BTW, seems to me this was quite obvious all along. But eh, Rummy didn't
> want to open his eyes apparently. Wishful thinking? Or maybe that's the
> very reason he went to war?)
>

If Saddam had complied with the cease fire agreement he'd still be in power
today. It appears destroying the WMD while maintaining the illusion that
they had not been destroyed, if that's what was done, was not very smart.

[devil]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:42:08 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Actually, the reason is quite simple. Just like in the US: domestic
>> politics.
>>
>> Saddam owned his political survival on his ability to play games and make
>> the US look stupid. Hence this game.
>>
>> (BTW, seems to me this was quite obvious all along. But eh, Rummy didn't
>> want to open his eyes apparently. Wishful thinking? Or maybe that's the
>> very reason he went to war?)
>>
>
> If Saddam had complied with the cease fire agreement he'd still be in power
> today. It appears destroying the WMD while maintaining the illusion that
> they had not been destroyed, if that's what was done, was not very smart.

Gave him ten good years. He would not have lasted one year otherwise.

Anyway, that's still talking about excuses and rhetorics, not the true
reason.

Except if we agree that the true reason for the war was that he
did make the US look stupid, that is.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Gave him ten good years. He would not have lasted one year otherwise.
>

Twelve years. It appears you do not understand logic or economics or simple
arithmetic.


>
> Anyway, that's still talking about excuses and rhetorics, not the true
> reason.
>

The true reasons were given by George Bush.

[DALing]

with plstic of course
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Wonderful reason to go to war, if you ask me.
> >
>
> Yes, and I didn't.
>
>
> >
> > If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I
got
> > a bridge to seel you.
> >
>
> How do you seel a bridge?
>
>

[devil]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:55:58 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Gave him ten good years. He would not have lasted one year otherwise.
>>
>
> Twelve years. It appears you do not understand logic or economics or simple
> arithmetic.

???

"Good ten," twelve? That's the best argument you could come up with?

>> Anyway, that's still talking about excuses and rhetorics, not the true
>> reason.
>>
>
> The true reasons were given by George Bush.

Just a tad naive, aren't we?

[Kevin Brooks]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:55:58 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

<snip>

> >
> > The true reasons were given by George Bush.
>
> Just a tad naive, aren't we?

You need to take out the plural "we" and replace it with "I"; Steven seems
to be quite worldly in this case, which is more than can be said for your
knee-jerk responses.

Brooks
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Just a tad naive, aren't we?
>

Nope, just well-informed and driven by logic. Since you are neither, and
obviously don't intend to be, there's nothing for me to gain by continuing
this discussion.

[DALing]

most here seem to forget that had it not been for Sodomy's incursion into
Kuwait, he would still be in power and fully capable of gassing his own
people and oppressing them AT WILL (no particular reason would have made it
_possible_ to render him and his cronies "ineffective" - INTERNAL activities
are a matter of national sovereignty).

The "excuse" (if that is the term people want to use) was that given his
tendency to want to fight with (ostensively for "religious" reasons with
Iran - but that wasn't REALLY an issue with the rest (as in "non-Muslim")
of the world) or "posess" (as in Kuwait) neighbours was that when it became
EXTERNAL to Iraq and potentially disruptive of that highly economic driving
force (OIL) intervention was "justified". BTW - How many other _countries_
have attacked with the intention of "attaching" neighbors since WWII?
(Argentina? perhaps the noteable exception and they summarily got their
behinds KICKED by the Brits) So... it wasn't "those bad vibrations" or
"O-MY-GOD he's attacking and killing his OWN PEOPLE" that roused to action
(although it makes a good "justification" if you please) it was violation of
territorial sovereignty (particulary that "little" invasion) and the
subsequent UN mandate to "put things right".

Historical perspective - Of course, had Bush1 not thrown in the towel and
prevented the entire subjugation of Iraq in 1991 this would not have been
necessary (alternately, had Sodomy not invaded Kuwait, it also would not
have happened)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Gave him ten good years. He would not have lasted one year otherwise.
> >
>
> Twelve years. It appears you do not understand logic or economics or
simple
> arithmetic.
>
>
> >
> > Anyway, that's still talking about excuses and rhetorics, not the true
> > reason.
> >
>
> The true reasons were given by George Bush.
>
>

[None]

So by your logic, it would have been a fiscal windfall for us to sit back,
mind our own business and let Saddam pick off the ragheads for us. Then,
when the time was ripe, move in and clean up the very few that would be left
over, including him.

Tsk Tsk. We always like to day we're doing it for the people, but when we
literally **** all over our own citizens on a daily basis, letting them go
uneducated, homeless, hungry and denied basic human services such as
healthcare, it is rather difficult for the rest of the world to take us
seriously.

Bush is a dangerous puppet, he has been polled as the most dangerous man on
the planet in the last 200 years!

That says nothing good about the USA, or it's citizens who will for
generations be the targets made to pay for what this coke sniffing, drunk
driving sawed off fradulent election stealing little prick has done not only
to you, but to your great great great grandchildren! That's right . . .
count the generations that this evil republican is making sure will never
forget his name.

Come election day, it is very clear that the winning democrat will have to
spend their entire term in office just undoing the mess that Shrub&Co has
created - there will be no time for doing anything else.


"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message
...
> most here seem to forget that had it not been for Sodomy's incursion into
> Kuwait, he would still be in power and fully capable of gassing his own
> people and oppressing them AT WILL (no particular reason would have made
it
> _possible_ to render him and his cronies "ineffective" - INTERNAL
activities
> are a matter of national sovereignty).
>
> The "excuse" (if that is the term people want to use) was that given his
> tendency to want to fight with (ostensively for "religious" reasons with
> Iran - but that wasn't REALLY an issue with the rest (as in "non-Muslim")
> of the world) or "posess" (as in Kuwait) neighbours was that when it
became
> EXTERNAL to Iraq and potentially disruptive of that highly economic
driving
> force (OIL) intervention was "justified". BTW - How many other
_countries_
> have attacked with the intention of "attaching" neighbors since WWII?
> (Argentina? perhaps the noteable exception and they summarily got their
> behinds KICKED by the Brits) So... it wasn't "those bad vibrations" or
> "O-MY-GOD he's attacking and killing his OWN PEOPLE" that roused to action
> (although it makes a good "justification" if you please) it was violation
of
> territorial sovereignty (particulary that "little" invasion) and the
> subsequent UN mandate to "put things right".
>
> Historical perspective - Of course, had Bush1 not thrown in the towel and
> prevented the entire subjugation of Iraq in 1991 this would not have been
> necessary (alternately, had Sodomy not invaded Kuwait, it also would not
> have happened)
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "devil" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > > Gave him ten good years. He would not have lasted one year
otherwise.
> > >
> >
> > Twelve years. It appears you do not understand logic or economics or
> simple
> > arithmetic.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, that's still talking about excuses and rhetorics, not the true
> > > reason.
> > >
> >
> > The true reasons were given by George Bush.
> >
> >
>

[john]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:20 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> Wonderful reason to go to war, if you ask me.
>>
>
>Yes, and I didn't.
>
>
>>
>> If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I got
>> a bridge to seel you.
>>
>
>How do you seel a bridge?

Pretty immature response, isnt it?

It that the best response you can make?
>

Here's something you Bush apologists can reflect upon:


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

Iraq posed no immediate threat to the national security of the US.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?

[None]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.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?
>
If memory serves . . . ALL OF THEM!

[Dick Locke]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:47:34 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Ya think? Please identify what I have written here that is factually
>incorrect and prove it to be so.

>>"fiscal responsibility has not been associated with Democrats for a very long time."

I associate fiscal responsibility with Democrats. QED.

[DALing]

tax-spend-tax-spend-spend-tax-spend Those democrats??

"Dick Locke" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:47:34 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> >Ya think? Please identify what I have written here that is factually
> >incorrect and prove it to be so.
>
> >>"fiscal responsibility has not been associated with Democrats for a very
long time."
>
> I associate fiscal responsibility with Democrats. QED.
>

[john]

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?

[Jarg]

"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?

Jarg

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > In recent history, fiscal irresponsibility, profligatr spending and tax
> > cuts paid out of deficit financing have been the hallmark of Republicans.
> > From Reagan to Bush II.
> >
>
> Tax cuts are not "paid", they generate revenue.

I disagree. They are paid out of deficit financing in the sense that the money
that they have returned to the taxpayer gets spent anyway even though the
government no longer has it by means of bank borrowings. In all, that is what
is called deficit financing, and is what the Republicans used to deplore when
they didn't have control of the government. It was a terrible political sin
when the Democrats were doing it, but is now palatable since the Republicans are
the ones doing it.

When you get right down to it, "tax and spend" which Republicans used to deride,
is a lot less fiscally irresponsible than "borrow and spend", which merely
shifts the repayment burden to future generations, who weren't even around when
the spending decisions were made.

George Z.

[Dick Locke]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:39:44 GMT, "DALing"
<daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote:

>tax-spend-tax-spend-spend-tax-spend Those democrats??

No, the other ones.

Anyway, that's not what I want to debate. Steve asked what he said
that was factually wrong and proof that it was so. That I might be
wrong (I'm not) is a different issue.

[john]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:54:53 GMT, "Jarg" >
wrote:

>
>"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?

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
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

>
> Jarg
>
>

[Fly Guy]

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?

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

[devil]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:28:34 +0000, DALing wrote:

> most here seem to forget that had it not been for Sodomy's incursion into
> Kuwait, he would still be in power and fully capable of gassing his own
> people and oppressing them AT WILL (no particular reason would have made it
> _possible_ to render him and his cronies "ineffective" - INTERNAL activities
> are a matter of national sovereignty).


But then, why stop there? How did he get in there? Who was behind the
coup that put him in power? (Who was his predecessor, Kassem or something
like that?)

Might as well go back to the partition of the Ottoman empire. good old
British philosophy of divide and conquer. Which left a mess behind most
everywhere, India/Pakistan, South Africa, Ireland.

Bottom line remains that the place is just too much of a mess to get
involved.

[modlibdem]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "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?

See book, 'Weapons of Mass Deception'!

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

[modlibdem]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "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/ASIN/1585422762/qid=1074651162/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-8758342-8472957

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

[George Z. Bush]

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

[Jarg]

"john" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[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

[Fly Guy]

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

[In The Darkness]

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
>
>

[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

[devil]

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

>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"None" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> If memory serves . . . ALL OF THEM!
>

Please explain how you determined them to be lies.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dick Locke" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, the other ones.
>

There are no other ones.

[Phyl]

Mike1 wrote:

> Sara > wrote:
>
>>James Martinez wrote:
>>
>>One of the biggest objection to vouchers has been that public taxes
>>should not be used to send children to private or parochial schools.
>>Sorry, but I think public taxes should go to public school systems....
>
>
>
> Seeing as "taxes" is a euphemism for "stolen loot", it "should" go
> nowhere save straight back to the people who were ripped off, while
> those who think they should have a school that I have no use for (in the
> same way that I think I should have a new La Crosse weather-station that
> you would have no use for) should go out and buy it with their own
> money. Oh, and the thieves responsible tarred and feathered and set
> alight.


My tax dollars support the public schools, because somewhere in those
public schools is a future dentist, doctor, policeman or policewoman, or
a future biomedical engineer. I may not need any of them today, but I
sure might need them tomorrow.

My tax money is an investment in *my* future health, happiness, and
well-being as well as being an investment in the children of my country.
Not stolen loot - it's a nest egg.




--
Phyl

Alt.TV.ER Homepage & Quotes:
http://www.digiserve.com/er/erdex.html
http://www.digiserve.com/er/oped/quotes.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> How about , to start with, the Bush administration lie about WMD.
>

What lie about WMD?


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

What lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our national security?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

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

Little has been found to date, but even if none had been found, how would
that prove Bush's claim to be a lie?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> I disagree.
>

Well, then, that would make you wrong.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.


>
> Or is it a double standard?
>

Nope.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to
> deficits.
>

Rising tax revenue does not lead 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.
>

Rising tax revenue never leads to deficits.

[Kevin Brooks]

"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.

Also according to O'Neil: "O'Neill said Tuesday that he did not mean to
imply that the administration was wrong to begin contingency planning for a
regime change in Iraq..."
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3925358&p1=0 )

And from an interview on the Today Show...

O'Neil: "Yeah, and the other thing that's good, today the book is going to
be available, and this red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't
have anything except snippets -- as an example, you know, people are trying
to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in
the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been
going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to
be regime change in Iraq."

COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president
's agenda 10 days after the inauguration?
O'NEILL: Absolutely not. One of the candidates had said this confirms his
worst suspicions...But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation
of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during
the Clinton administration.

COURIC: Well, we'll get to that in a moment. But you say nowhere did you
ever see evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Well, an
intelligent person would draw the conclusion that those charges were being
trumped up by the administration as a rationale for the invasion.

O'NEILL: No, that's not what I've said...certainly there were lots of
inferences and circumstantial things that the national security assessments
pulled together in looking at this question of mass destruction. I'm not
denying or gainsaying the fact that one could make a case. What I have said
is I never saw anything that I considered to be concrete evidence of weapons
of mass destruction...That also doesn't make a point that we shouldn't have
gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. I'm not making that case.

COURIC: Well, do you think an invasion of a country should be based on
allusion and assertion?

O'NEILL: Well, I think one has to look very hard at the apparatus we have
with the national intelligence assessments. And it's why we have presidents.
At the end of the day there's one person who gets to decide is what he
considers to be convincing proof of basis for going to war, and we elected
George Bush and he decided it was good enough.

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_01_11_corner-archive.asp

>
> And you think he _didn't_ know ?

If you read *all* of what he has said, you would realize that is not what
O'Neil now claims to have been his view.

Brooks

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

[Go Fig]

In article >, devil
> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:28:34 +0000, DALing wrote:
>
> > most here seem to forget that had it not been for Sodomy's incursion into
> > Kuwait, he would still be in power and fully capable of gassing his own
> > people and oppressing them AT WILL (no particular reason would have made it
> > _possible_ to render him and his cronies "ineffective" - INTERNAL activities
> > are a matter of national sovereignty).
>
>
> But then, why stop there? How did he get in there? Who was behind the
> coup that put him in power? (Who was his predecessor, Kassem or something
> like that?)
>
> Might as well go back to the partition of the Ottoman empire. good old
> British philosophy of divide and conquer. Which left a mess behind most
> everywhere, India/Pakistan, South Africa, Ireland.
>
> Bottom line remains that the place is just too much of a mess to get
> involved.

And so is my garage... but its not gonna go away till I clean it up and
at some point that day must come.

You rightly preach for a very sound fiscal policy, one that does not
mortgage the efforts of future generations.

Is ignoring the mess of middle east not the same as mortgaging future
generations right to security and indeed prosperity ?

jay
Tue Jan 20, 2004



>

[Dick Locke]

On 20 Jan 2004 20:54:55 -0800, (James Martinez)
wrote:

>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? 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? Are you
overall glad the government did get involved?

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:16:35 -0500, Fly Guy > wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>> > Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international
>> > objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd,
>> > yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes.
>>
>> The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD
>> by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has
>> been done is not proving a negative.
>
>You can't prove that something no longer exists if you've destroyed it
>(especially if you're trying to prove it to those that are bent on
>invading you).

You could prove you destroyed it. That's what they were ordered to
do, destroy their WMD programs and retain proof of same. They say
they destroyed them and didn't bother proving it; given Iraq's prior
behavior the UN was unwilling to take them at their word.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[None]

"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?

It never ceases to amaze me that the republican infidels continue to
conveniently overlook that very important fact!

[Johnny Bravo]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:16:08 GMT, john
> wrote:

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

For several months Saddam Hussien was not found, did that mean he
didn't exist either?

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:08:01 GMT, devil > wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:07:09 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>
>> "devil" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> In recent years, record deficit has been associated mostly with
>>> Republicans, fiscal responsibility with Democrats.
>>>
>>
>> Well, the Republicans during the Bush administration have certainly taken to
>> traditional Democrat methods of retaining their offices, but fiscal
>> responsibility has not been associated with Democrats for a very long time.
>
>In recent history, fiscal irresponsibility, profligatr spending and tax
>cuts paid out of deficit financing have been the hallmark of Republicans.
>From Reagan to Bush II.

Clinton increased the Federal Debt by 1.4 trillion dollars, a 31%
increase. Don't even pretend that either party is better than the
other when it comes fo fiscal responsibility.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[George Z. Bush]

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? They were defensive weapons, weren't they? 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?

George Z.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.


>
> 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]

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

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to
>> deficits.
>>
>
> Rising tax revenue does not lead to deficits.

I was just quoting you, bright boy!
>>
>> That can only happen if you spend more money than you've taken in, and
>> the difference between the two is the deficit.
>>
>
> Rising tax revenue never leads to deficits.

[Kevin Brooks]

"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.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'd much rather be wrong than stupid.
>

But you are both.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was just quoting you, bright boy!
>

And you didn't read the following message?

[Kevin Brooks]

"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.
>
>

[Dick Locke]

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[George Z. Bush]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[George Z. Bush]

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.

[George Z. Bush]

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?

[George Z. Bush]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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."

[George Z. Bush]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[None]

"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.

[Jarg]

"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

[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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

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.

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "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.

If it makes you happier to be the pot rather than the kettle, fine. I am
disinformed. The President tells you everything that his people feed you with a
spoon, and you believe every word. Have we got it right? I know
nothing.....you know everything!

Hilarious! Total denial of reality! Too funny for words!!

[Kevin Brooks]

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

He was referring to the clarification of his obvious typo. He explained that
to you.

>
> Your attempts at wiggling out of admitting an error are really pathetic
for
> someone who's presumably an adult.

No, what is growing increasingly pathetic is your fascination with his typo.
Rather than address what he really said (in clarified form), you instead
cling to this typo as if were a lifering thrown out while you are treading
water in the middle of the ocean.

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.

For cripes sake, he did no such thing. You may be trying to twist his words
into a "lie", but you have done a rather miserable job of it so far. I had
come to the conclusion that you and I just tend to disagree on a lot of
issues, but that you are generally an honorable man--it appears now,
however, that I was wrong in that last bit. You alternatively snarl and
whine about all things allegedly Bush-related, refuse to address the
statistics that question your rants, drop the Nazi card on your opponent for
absolutely no reason, and now you have hung yourself around his admitted
typo and just can't let loose. You just graduated to the exalted level of
Kramer, Tarver, and Vkince--what a team! Hope you are proud of it.

Brooks

>
>

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to
>> deficits.
>>
>
> Rising tax revenue does not lead 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.
>>
>
> Rising tax revenue never leads to deficits.

[None]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "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.
>

It depends. If, once the new government is "installed" they decide to sell
their oil to someone other than Uncle Sam, we'll just swoop in and blow the
place up again.

[Jarg]

"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> >
> > But perhaps this will end it.
> >
>
> It depends. If, once the new government is "installed" they decide to
sell
> their oil to someone other than Uncle Sam, we'll just swoop in and blow
the
> place up again.
>
>

I don't believe oil was a factor in Iraq. For one thing that isn't the way
markets work. Whether or not the oil is available to the US, it's sale on
the world market affects the entire supply which lowers prices - basic
economics. Now if Iraq refused to sell any oil to anyone, then you might be
able to make the case. But that wasn't what happened.

The better question would be what would happen if another despot took power
and began sponsoring terrorist, shooting at US aircraft, building weapons
that threatened the region, invaded his neighbors, mass murdered his own
citizens, etc. Then it is likely the US would respond the same way again.

Jarg

Jarg

[Jerry Johnson]

> My tax dollars support the public schools, because somewhere in those
> public schools is a future dentist, doctor, policeman or policewoman, or
> a future biomedical engineer. I may not need any of them today, but I
> sure might need them tomorrow.

> My tax money is an investment in *my* future health, happiness, and
> well-being as well as being an investment in the children of my country.
> Not stolen loot - it's a nest egg.

Your tax dollars are being misused to maintain an educational monopoly.
Interesting that the political left screams loud and long about monopolies,
while selectively ignoring public education. Which should now be more
accurately referred to a public indoctrination.

Seeing as fewer students are leaving public education with the skills
necessary for further study in the jobs you mentioned, I would encourage
you to look elsewhere for these services. And the long-standing response
of throwing more money after a problem has shown not to work. Student in
asia and europe continue to out perform US students, while learning in
educational settings which spend much less per student than the US. And
US students with the highest SAT and ACT test scores are often the product
of home schooling. Or private schooling.

The NEA has a tight grip on the 'nads of the democratic pary. And along
with the trail lawyers association they could play 'make a wish and pull'.
Do not look seriously for either educational or court reform from your
political preference. Although it would not hurt for you to raise your
personal liability insurance and expect much less from public education.

[Dick Locke]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:33:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Nobody has met the challenge.

Now you've done it twice.

[nobody]

None wrote:
> > 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?
>
> It never ceases to amaze me that the republican infidels continue to
> conveniently overlook that very important fact!

While it puts things in perspective to accept the fact that the USA's foreign
policy mishaps resulted in far mroe problems than they were supposed to solve,
what is at stake here is not whether Iraq had WMDs or not. There us accepted
and coumented evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

There is also documented evidence that Iraq used WMDs on both Iran and its own citizens.

That in itself should have resulted in Saddam being send an invitation to the
War Crime Trinunal or the ICC.

However, what is really at stake here is the USA fabricating evidence/stories
and knowingly lying to its citizens, knowingly insulting its allies to
discredit them even though US administration knew full well that its allies
were right.

What is really at stake here is a regime which disregarded UN resolutions and
interpreted them to mean what the regime wanted them to mean and proceeded
with an illegitimate invasion of another country which posed absolutely no
threath to the USA.

What is at stake here is the total disregard for due legal process. Both on
the international scene with the UN, as well as on the domestic scene with
police power abuses, concentration camp at Gantanamo Bay, illegal deportations
to a 3rd country when the internationally agreed procedure is to send the
passenger back to country where flight originated and the list goes on and on
and on.


The USA would not grant the UN a couple more weeks for its inspectors to do
their job. In its state of the police-state address, the Bush regime still
pretends that it will find WMDs, although this year's claims were nowehere
near as ludicrous as last year's claims (tons of saren gas for instance).
Remember the claims that Iraq was supposed to be very near to having nuclear
bombs with Condy Rice making statements that they don't want to find out about
nuclear programmes by witnessing a mushroom cloud ?

So, when will the USA admit that there are no WMDs ? If the Bush regime is
re-elected, it would still have to continue the lies otherwise admitting that
they knowingly lied might bring in impeachement proceedings. (can one impeach
a whole cabinet and force an election ?)

In the end, it will be shown that Saddam had deceptively complied with UN
resolutions and that the USA had become the belligerant regime.

France, Germany and Russia tried their best to prevent the USA from
degenerating into the belligerant regime it has become. But in the end, the
world community is also guilty of not taking strong enough actions to prevent
all the excesses that the USA has been allowed to get away with. (for instance Gantanamo).

If the UK weren't such a loyal lapdog, it would then become possible to
isolate the USA in the security council and pass resolution after resolution
condemning the USA's actions, forcing the USA to use its veto over and over
again. The difference being that by being all alone, the USA couldn't claim
some "coalition", and wouldn't be able to focus all its anger on France and
Germany since it would be the whole world against the USA.

The Bush regime would have a much harder time trying to justify its
international policies to ist media/citizens if the UK hadn't bowed to the
Bush regime demands for support.

[john]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:55:54 GMT, "Jarg"
> wrote:

>"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

Of course, they would. They would be fired if they didn't.


It wasn't O'Neil's book.

I also believe he has made his own evaluation of Bush.

You can't fault O"Neil's credentials:

CEO--ALCOA

in Ford's administration

In Nixon's administration

[john]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:41:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"john" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Bush claimed that Iraq had nuclear,biological,and chemical weapons
>> hidden away. NO SUCH WEAPONS WERE FOUND! Don't you
>> read the freaken newspapers?
>>
>
>Little has been found to date, but even if none had been found, how would
>that prove Bush's claim to be a lie?
>

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

So, in that case, how would you characterize Bush (and Powell)
statements about WMD?

Would they be:

fibs?

little white lies?

a grave misunderstanding?

exaggerations?

Because of Bush's beliefs he has plunged this nation into a war where

about 1000 US troops have been killed so far and many.many. more

maimed and wounded.

Bush has created a $400 billion deficit because of the war.

The chances of Iraq becoming a democracy are slim to none.

[devil]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:26:31 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

> In article >, devil
> > wrote:
>
>> Bottom line remains that the place is just too much of a mess to get
>> involved.
>
> And so is my garage... but its not gonna go away till I clean it up and
> at some point that day must come.
>
> You rightly preach for a very sound fiscal policy, one that does not
> mortgage the efforts of future generations.
>
> Is ignoring the mess of middle east not the same as mortgaging future
> generations right to security and indeed prosperity ?


It's just that it's not terribly smart to get into fights one
obviously cannot win. Especially if for the wrong reasons, on top of that.

You are not going to "clean up" the Middle East with substantial cultural
changes. This don't happen overnight, or on command. What's happening is
the opposite, really.

[devil]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:40:11 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> How about the Bush lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
>> national security?
>>
>
> What lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our national security?

Uh?

[Johnny Bravo]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:37:50 GMT, john
> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:41:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"john" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Bush claimed that Iraq had nuclear,biological,and chemical weapons
>>> hidden away. NO SUCH WEAPONS WERE FOUND! Don't you
>>> read the freaken newspapers?
>>>
>>
>>Little has been found to date, but even if none had been found, how would
>>that prove Bush's claim to be a lie?
>
>If none have been found so far, there isn't any WMD.

Would you have been saying the same thing a few weeks ago? Would it
also have been true of Saddam Hussein?

>Bush has created a $400 billion deficit because of the war.

What was Clinton's excuse? He increased the federal debt by 1.4
trillion dollars in 8 years of pre-9/11 peacetime.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Eagle Eye
]> wrote:

>
> Iraq did obtain anthrax from a US company.

A general comment: the smoking guns for a BW program are not the
cultures themselves. Anthrax is endemic to the area and it would be
trivial to get cultures. I was looking at one of the Riegle Committee's
list of imported microorganisms -- with the implication that these were
all going into BW -- and one order was headed by something very potent
-- Saccharomyces cervesiae -- if you plan to brew Belgian-style ale.

Equipment, and large quantities of certain supplies, are more the key.
The Australia Group and the Militarily Critical Technology Lists point
to some of these, such as large-capacity (e.g., 200 liter plus)
fermenters, low-temperature centrifuges, dryers and mills, etc.

[Sara]

Phyl wrote:

> Mike1 wrote:
>
>> Sara > wrote:
>>
>>> James Martinez wrote:
>>>
>>> One of the biggest objection to vouchers has been that public taxes
>>> should not be used to send children to private or parochial schools.
>>> Sorry, but I think public taxes should go to public school systems....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Seeing as "taxes" is a euphemism for "stolen loot", it "should" go
>> nowhere save straight back to the people who were ripped off, while
>> those who think they should have a school that I have no use for (in
>> the same way that I think I should have a new La Crosse
>> weather-station that you would have no use for) should go out and buy
>> it with their own money. Oh, and the thieves responsible tarred and
>> feathered and set alight.
>
>
>
> My tax dollars support the public schools, because somewhere in those
> public schools is a future dentist, doctor, policeman or policewoman,
> or a future biomedical engineer. I may not need any of them today, but
> I sure might need them tomorrow.
>
> My tax money is an investment in *my* future health, happiness, and
> well-being as well as being an investment in the children of my country.
> Not stolen loot - it's a nest egg.
>
>
>
>
You're directing this logic at someone who advocates having no public
school system--do you really think he will grasp the concept of
investing in society?

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Eagle Eye
blurted out:

>Why would Ted Kopple call George H. W. Bush, "George Bush Sr." in 1992?

Perhaps the quote meant to have George Bush [Sr] as a reference to the
elder, albeit not Senior per se.

The History Channel this evening was running an episode on Sadam
Hussein, it covered Reagan's support in Iraq's war with Iran.

Juvat

[George Z. Bush]

Sara wrote:
> Mike1 wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Stark Raven > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article >, Paul
>>> Middlestat > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ted is a primary example of the need for congressional term limits.
>>>> Someone
>>>> who has been in elected office too long, and is detached from those in the
>>>> trenches. And you are aware that he has never received a pay check which
>>>> was
>>>> not from the government - right? At no time has he worked in the public
>>>> sector. Has he ever looked at this check book at the end of the month and
>>>> wondered how he could find the money to send his 8th grader on the spring
>>>> trip? I'm guessing probably not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A Kennedy needing to work? I don't think so. I'm sure he's dedicated
>>> his life to public service and probably gives his congressional salary
>>> to charity.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> What a *sweet* pickled-nosed old man! -- He gives away the stolen loot
>> that comprises his salary to charity. (Or at least you imagine so.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Also it wouldn't surprise me if some of GWB's many successful business
>>> endeavors hadn't cornered some of your hard-earned money. That is
>>> where publically-earned money comes from, you know.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ...in contrast to the horrid Bush, who *earned* his like a scummy
>> merchant, selling oil to people who *wanted it*.
>>
>>
>>
> Which Bush are you talking about? GW failed miserably in the oil
> business. He did do well, though, with the help of Poppy's friends and
> their money and some nice Saudi gentlemen, flipping a baseball team.

You betcha! They got rid of Sammy Sosa on his watch! The man sure had a nose
for baseball talent, didn't he!

George Z.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

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

It's still 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.
>

I pointed out the error myself.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am disinformed.
>

You've taken the first step.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> If none have been found so far, there isn't any WMD.
>

Why? Because the entire country has been searched?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Uh?
>

I said, "What lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our national
security?"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Juvat" > wrote in message
...
>
> Perhaps the quote meant to have George Bush [Sr] as a reference to the
> elder, albeit not Senior per se.
>

Why would he make that distinction? George Bush the younger was not a
national player at that time.

[john]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:20:00 GMT, "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?
>
Yes

[john]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:21:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> Uh?
>>
>
>I said, "What lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our national
>security?"
>

The lie that Bush told about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
national security.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
john > wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:20:00 GMT, "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?
> >
> Yes

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure it has.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
john > wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:21:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>
> >> Uh?
> >>
> >
> >I said, "What lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our national
> >security?"
>
> The lie that Bush told about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
> national security.

He didn't, john. He said there was no reason to wait until he *was* an
immediate threat.

[Johnny Bravo]

On 22 Jan 2004 02:04:20 -0800, (Kokolums) wrote:

>> How do you know that taxes were too high (which I am guessing you mean
>> they were on the right side [downward sloping part] of the Laffer
>> curve) in the 1970's?
>
>I think the answer is so obvious its staring you in the face. The
>government was running surpluses in the late 1990s with tax rates
>lower than those of the late 1970s. There is your proof.

Clinton racked up 1.4 trillion dollars in federal debt during his 8
years in office. If you get a $600 advance on your credit card to pay
$400 worth of bills, did you have a $200 surplus?

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> It's still there.

Only when you put on your magic invisible-writing restorer glasses.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> I pointed out the error myself.
>
I guess I must have missed it, but better late than never.

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I am disinformed.
> >
>
> You've taken the first step.

Naughty! Naughty! The out-of-context gambit is both obvious and disingenuous
on your part.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes
>

Cite?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> The lie that Bush told about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
> national security.
>

Please provide a direct quote of the statement you're referring to and show
how it is a lie.

[None]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The lie that Bush told about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
> > national security.
> >
>
> Please provide a direct quote of the statement you're referring to and
show
> how it is a lie.
>
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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> I guess I must have missed it, but better late than never.
>

I was the first to notice it. My correction is the first response to the
flawed message, it was posted seventeen minutes later.

[None]

"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.

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>> I guess I must have missed it, but better late than never.
>>
>
> I was the first to notice it. My correction is the first response to the
> flawed message, it was posted seventeen minutes later.

Blessings on you, my son, for you have admitted a human imperfection.

George Z.

[Go Fig]

In article .net>,
None > wrote:

> "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.

But you are the one who is wrong, Bush was very clear in his Jan. 2003
speech. He wasn't going to wait till Iraq WAS an immediate threat.

jay
Thu Jan 22, 2004


>
>

[devil]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:21:05 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Uh?
>>
>
> I said, "What lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our national
> security?"

Do you seriously believe Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US? Come
on, be real.

To the face of a couple of previous adminstrations, yes. Made then look
stupisd, yes. But since when is that a matter of "national security."
(Whatever that means, nice copout actually. Usually an excuse to
restrict consitutional liberties.)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Do you seriously believe Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US? Come
> on, be real.
>

Asking, "What lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our national
security?", is NOT saying, "Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US."

[john]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:45:03 GMT, "None" > wrote:

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>> "john" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > The lie that Bush told about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
>> > national security.
>> >
>>
>> Please provide a direct quote of the statement you're referring to and
>show
>> how it is a lie.
>>
>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
>

Good response, none.

[john]

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.

[Jarg]

"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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?

[James Martinez]

>> 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.

[George Z. Bush]

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.

[Kal Alexander]

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 /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

[Kal Alexander]

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 /
/ /
/ /
---------------------------------------------------------

[Hugh Gibbons]

In article et>,
"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Mike1]

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

[nobody]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> Agree. But not finding significant WMD to date does not mean they don't
> exist, though many insist that it does.

Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq. the Bush regime claimed to have
specific evidence of WMDs and nuclear programme. So much so that it was an
immediate threath, with Hussein capable of launching such weapons within 45 minutes.

Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, the USA was systematically discrediting
Hans Blix and the UN inspectors stating that they were incompetent and
couldn't find anything. Yet Blix has stated that every piece of evidence that
was handed to him by the USA turned out to be a total waste of time because
there were no signs of any illicit activity.

So it would seem that the USA didn't have any real evidence and just
fabricated stuff to make it appear to be a real threath. This was well known
outside the USA. Media outside the USA were quick to provide complelling
reasons why the Februiary 5th 2003 evidence prsented by Powel at the UN was
not credible. Yet in the USA, the media took Powel's speech as a bible and
never questioned the validity of the presented evidence.

When a few weeks later, ElBaradei, in front of the security council, announced
that they had obtained proof that the so called evidence on nuclear weapons
had been ***fabricated*** , neither the USA media nor the democrats pounced on
the Bush regime. That alone should have started impeachement process with a
Ken Star to investigate the activities of the Bush regime.

Finding out who fabricated the evidence should be been the top stories in the
USA media until it was resolved.

And now that it is evident that there are no WMDs left in Iraq and that 9
months of inspectiosn by thousands of americans have yielded nothing, don't
you think that the regime which made all those claims to justify its
unprovoked invasion of Iraq should be held accountable for its lies ?

This isn't some financial fraud that caused shareholders to lose money. This
is the destruction of a country's infrastructure and the loss of about 10,000
lives, 3 times more than were lost on Sept 11.

You say Bin Laden is a terrible butcher. Well, Bush killed 3 times as many for
no reason. He should be labeled a terrorrist too. His motives were just as
false as Bin Laden's motives were.

And consider this: Americans despise Bin Laden for what he has done to the
USA. Arabs despise the USA just as much as Americans despise Bin laden. And
guess what that means: more arabs will be motivated to join terrorist
organisation to fight back.

What is needed in the world now is some military balance. Either the USA's
military must be crippled, or other countries must mount a military that can
stop the americans from abusing their military power.

Why do you think Rumsfeld was ****ting in his pants when he heard thaty the EU
wants to build its own military that is separate from NATO and thus not
controlled by the USA ?

[Mike1]

"Kal Alexander" > wrote:

>> 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?


If oil were really that high on the agenda, the sludge would be drowning
the caribou up in Alaska right now....unless you're going to insist that
Iraq is an easier thing to swallow than environmentalist websites
drawing mustaches on W jpegs.

--

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

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eagle Eye" ]> wrote in message
...

>
> I think taking out Saddam's regime was a good thing. And, because
> Saddam failed to live up to his part of the agreement made at the
> end of Desert Storm, it was not a preemptive strike. Rather, it
> was something which should have been done sooner.
>

I saw a nice quote from the new Iraqi Foreign Minister
recently appointed by the Iraqi Governing council,
a gentleman by the name of Hoshyar Zebari.

On his first visit to the UN he was introduced to a meeting
of the UN security Council by Kofi Annan
and said the following.


" Look beyond your differences over the decision to go to
war over Iraq. Settling scores with the United States coalition
will not help bring stability to the Iraqi people.

The United Nations failed to help rescue the Iraqi people
from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years.
The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again."

Keith

[RogerM]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> "Eagle Eye" ]> wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > I think taking out Saddam's regime was a good thing. And, because
> > Saddam failed to live up to his part of the agreement made at the
> > end of Desert Storm, it was not a preemptive strike. Rather, it
> > was something which should have been done sooner.
> >
>
> I saw a nice quote from the new Iraqi Foreign Minister
> recently appointed by the Iraqi Governing council,
> a gentleman by the name of Hoshyar Zebari.
>
> On his first visit to the UN he was introduced to a meeting
> of the UN security Council by Kofi Annan
> and said the following.
>
> " Look beyond your differences over the decision to go to
> war over Iraq. Settling scores with the United States coalition
> will not help bring stability to the Iraqi people.
>
> The United Nations failed to help rescue the Iraqi people
> from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years.
> The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again."
>
> Keith

Not a big surprise to hear such noises coming from a puppet of the US.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who care: it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

[Kevin Brooks]

"RogerM" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > "Eagle Eye" ]> wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > I think taking out Saddam's regime was a good thing. And, because
> > > Saddam failed to live up to his part of the agreement made at the
> > > end of Desert Storm, it was not a preemptive strike. Rather, it
> > > was something which should have been done sooner.
> > >
> >
> > I saw a nice quote from the new Iraqi Foreign Minister
> > recently appointed by the Iraqi Governing council,
> > a gentleman by the name of Hoshyar Zebari.
> >
> > On his first visit to the UN he was introduced to a meeting
> > of the UN security Council by Kofi Annan
> > and said the following.
> >
> > " Look beyond your differences over the decision to go to
> > war over Iraq. Settling scores with the United States coalition
> > will not help bring stability to the Iraqi people.
> >
> > The United Nations failed to help rescue the Iraqi people
> > from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years.
> > The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again."
> >
> > Keith
>
> Not a big surprise to hear such noises coming from a puppet of the US.

Even if you do think that, it is much better than the noises that came from
the former Iraqi leader's puppets, which were more often than not screams or
mumbled prayers as they were shot and dumped into all of those mass graves
we have been finding--or do you think those were all fabricated, too?

Brooks

[Keith Willshaw]

"RogerM" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >

>
> Not a big surprise to hear such noises coming from a puppet of the US.
>

Hoshyar Zebari is no puppet

He is a member of the KDP (Kurdistan Democratic Party) who was
fighting the regime of Saddam Hussein long before they were perceived
as a threat to the USA. Having seen his own people gassed and bombed
by the Iraqi regime is apt to colour his views a little and he has been
VERY critical of the US from time to time. In fat he has been calling
for the UN to take command of the situation rather than have a
US military governor calling the shots.

I'd suggest that calling a man who spent 15 years as a guerilla
fighter in the mountains of Kurdistan a puppet was a cheap shot
but that's just too much of an understatement.


Keith

[Mike1]

RogerM > wrote:

>> The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again."
>
>Not a big surprise to hear such noises coming from a puppet of the US.


The UN in my dimension has Libya heading its "Human Rights Commission".
Who heads it in your dimension?


(Sounds like we oughta swap, so we both get what we want.)

--

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

[RogerM]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> Even if you do think that, it is much better than the noises that came from
> the former Iraqi leader's puppets, which were more often than not screams or
> mumbled prayers as they were shot and dumped into all of those mass graves
> we have been finding--or do you think those were all fabricated, too?
>
> Brooks

A lot of that was probably true. Once again, I am not saying Saddam was
anything other than a brutal tryant.

If a civil war breaks out, however, there will likely be more deaths
than Saddam caused.

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who care: it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.

[stephen]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

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

How do you feel about fairies dancing on your front lawn?

What I don't understand is why the US has not planted WMD in Iraq so
that they could find them.

They have been lying all alone. What is one more?

--
Stephen

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians
are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi

[George Z. Bush]

Kal Alexander wrote:
> nobody wrote:
>> Mike1 wrote:
>>> As long as "we"'re indulging ambiguous-collective fallacies, allow
>>> me to suggest that the American People never lost sight of the ball
>>> as getting Hussein out under any expedient excuse because he's a
>>> vicious *******
>>> who had to go.
>>
>> No single country should be allowed to unilaterally decide the fate
>> of another country. I know that it is a big blow to their ego, but
>> Americans need to understand that they cannot act alone,
>
> Sorry, but no nation needs to ask anybody else's permission to
> act in defense of itself.

Of course not, but what were we defending ourselves against? Sadaam Hussein's
alleged WMDs, which it turns out he never had because, if he had, he'd have used
them against us? Hell, lots of countries have war plans for this and war plans
for that.....that doesn't mean that we have to go to war with them. Who was
threatened with what? You may not be old enough to remember, but Adolf Hitler
had a war machine big enough to kick the bejesus out of half the world, and we
didn't feel threatened by him enough to start kicking ass until after he
declared war on us. But taking out a third rate thug and his mickey mouse army
because of what he would have liked to be able to do to us? It cost us the
respect of just about every nation in the world.....oh, they'll still deal with
us because we're the biggest gorilla on the block, but you know what they all
must think of a nation that goes to war to take out a bunch of non-existent
weapons. How can anybody respect anyone who is so fearful of so little?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course not, but what were we defending ourselves against? Sadaam
Hussein's
> alleged WMDs, which it turns out he never had because, if he had, he'd
have used
> them against us?
>

Right. The Kurds committed mass suicide.

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Of course not, but what were we defending ourselves against? Sadaam
>> Hussein's alleged WMDs, which it turns out he never had because, if he had,
>> he'd have used them against us?
>>
>
> Right. The Kurds committed mass suicide.

Stop playing "wag the dog" and stick to the subject. Bringing up the Kurds is a
non sequitor. Are you confused about who the Kurds are? They are not us.

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. What makes you
think that he wouldn't have used them against us if he still had them? And I'm
not talking about against us during last century's war.....I'm talking about the
current one that's supposed to be over.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> Of course not, but what were we defending ourselves against? Sadaam
> >> Hussein's alleged WMDs, which it turns out he never had because, if he
had,
> >> he'd have used them against us?
> >>
> >
> > Right. The Kurds committed mass suicide.
>
> Stop playing "wag the dog" and stick to the subject. Bringing up the Kurds
is a
> non sequitor. Are you confused about who the Kurds are? They are not us.
>
> He used chemical weapons against the Kurds (that we, incidentally, taught
him
> how to use)

We did? Any proof to back that one?

Brooks

<snip>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Stop playing "wag the dog" and stick to the subject. Bringing up the Kurds
is a
> non sequitor. Are you confused about who the Kurds are?
>

Nope.


>
> 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.
>

But you just said he never had WMD. How could he use chemical weapons
against the Kurds if he had no WMD? Are chemical weapons not WMD?


>
> What makes you
> think that he wouldn't have used them against us if he still had them?
>

I didn't say he wouldn't. For all I know he did order their use. If I was
an Iraqi commander ordered to use WMD in a fight I knew I was going to lose
I'd be more than a bit reluctant to carry out that order.


>
> And I'm
> not talking about against us during last century's war.....I'm talking
about the
> current one that's supposed to be over.
>

Why is it supposed to be over?

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Stop playing "wag the dog" and stick to the subject. Bringing up the Kurds
>> is a non sequitor. Are you confused about who the Kurds are?

> Nope.
>
>> 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.
>
> But you just said he never had WMD.

I never said never. If you think I did, produce the cite, please. Everybody
knows that he had them and used them in his 8 year war against Iran. But that
wasn't the war we were talking about, was it.

> .....How could he use chemical weapons against the Kurds if he had no WMD?

But he had them back then in the 80s, and we taught his people how and when to
use them.

> .....Are chemical weapons not WMD?

Yep....they certainly are.
>>
>> What makes you think that he wouldn't have used them against us if he still
had them?
>
> I didn't say he wouldn't. For all I know he did order their use.
>
That's pretty dumb. Why would he order their use if he didn't have them?

> .....If I was an Iraqi commander ordered to use WMD in a fight I knew I was
going to lose
> I'd be more than a bit reluctant to carry out that order.

Then, after it was over, you might find yourself in the uncomfortable position
of explaining to Sadaam why you still had chemical weapons you were ordered to
expend. Unless, of course, you're a magician and could make them disappear into
thin air.
>>
>> And I'm not talking about against us during last century's war.....I'm
talking about
>> the current one that's supposed to be over.
>
> Why is it supposed to be over?

Because our fearless leader said it was over. Who would know better than him?

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> You think the current mess is really what the US wanted? Be my guest...
>>
>
> Just what is the current mess?

You don't think Americans being killed and maimed every damned day isn't a mess?
If we turn our backs on it and walk away, then every one of them will have been
for nothing.....so, we have to hang in there until we can get some sort of
democratically elected Iraqi government to take over running the country.

In the meanwhile, I think I read somewhere that someone said that the entire
country was an arsenal full of guns and ammunition, and that we may have picked
up half or two thirds of them. What's left is still killing our guys.

You can call that whatever you want. I call it a mess, because I don't see any
way out any time soon that isn't going to continue to kill and main American
troops each and every day that we're there.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> I never said never. If you think I did, produce the cite, please.
>

Easily done.

On Saturday, January 24, 2004, George Z. Bush posted:

"Of course not, but what were we defending ourselves against? Sadaam
Hussein's alleged WMDs, which it turns out he never had because, if he had,
he'd have used them against us?"


>
> But he had them back then in the 80s, and we taught his people how and
> when to use them.
>

We did? Cite, please.


>
> That's pretty dumb. Why would he order their use if he didn't have them?
>

Hey! There is a spark of life in your brain after all!


>
> Then, after it was over, you might find yourself in the uncomfortable
> position of explaining to Sadaam why you still had chemical weapons
> you were ordered to expend.
>

I'd only have to explain to Saddam if Saddam won the war.


>
> Because our fearless leader said it was over. Who would know better
> than him?
>

He did? Cite, please.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't think Americans being killed and maimed every damned day isn't a
mess?
> If we turn our backs on it and walk away, then every one of them will have
been
> for nothing.....so, we have to hang in there until we can get some sort of
> democratically elected Iraqi government to take over running the country.
>
> In the meanwhile, I think I read somewhere that someone said that the
entire
> country was an arsenal full of guns and ammunition, and that we may have
picked
> up half or two thirds of them. What's left is still killing our guys.
>
> You can call that whatever you want. I call it a mess, because I don't
see any
> way out any time soon that isn't going to continue to kill and main
American
> troops each and every day that we're there.
>

You expected a war without death?

[Krztalizer]

>
>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

[Krztalizer]

>
>> "The next time", I'll betcha it doesn't even consult the UN.
>>
>
>I'll bet you're right. The US is now a rogue state. Congratulations.
>

Thats how I look at it as well. Just wait, the Peruvians are coming, to force
a regime change in the US, based on our possessions of WMD, because we pose a
threat them, whether real or imagined. What are they waiting for??

Gordon

[B2431]

>Union: Lies about a Dishonest War
>From: (Krztalizer)

>>
>>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
>
>
And what about the Iranians who were gassed? Were they done by Iranians? What
about the cheimical munitions found by non American forces in a part of Iraq
the Iranians never went before, during or after the Iran/Iraq war? Reuters
showed them.

Now, about this "CIA report," have you a cite or site to back that up?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: nobody

<snip>

>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.

NO country needs the UN's "permission" to do anything in any area not under the
UN's control. The UN had no controlling presence in Iraq and therefore had no
legal objection to anyone invading.

I sure hope you don't actually believe the UN is a governing body. If you do
you are sadly mistaken.

As an aside the UN has authorized war under its flag exactly twice and they won
neither: Korea and Gulf War.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You don't think Americans being killed and maimed every damned day isn't a
>> mess? If we turn our backs on it and walk away, then every one of them will
>> have been for nothing.....so, we have to hang in there until we can get some
>> sort of democratically elected Iraqi government to take over running the
>> country.
>>
>> In the meanwhile, I think I read somewhere that someone said that the entire
>> country was an arsenal full of guns and ammunition, and that we may have
>> picked up half or two thirds of them. What's left is still killing our guys.
>>
>> You can call that whatever you want. I call it a mess, because I don't see
>> any way out any time soon that isn't going to continue to kill and main
>> American troops each and every day that we're there.
>>
>
> You expected a war without death?

What war? Remember the words of our President on his arrival on the carrier
deck looking like a warrior? "Mission Accomplished"!!! They even posted a
banner in big letters on the bridge in case anybody missed hearing the President
say it.

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.

[George Z. Bush]

Dave Smith wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>>
>>> The Iraqi mess.
>>>
>>
>> War is a messy business, what were you expecting?
>>
>
> That is why civilized countries try to avoid it. That is why most
> of the civilized world rejected the claims of WMDs and need for a
> war in Iraq. David Kay, the guy leading the hunt for WMDs in Iraq
> resigned yesterday and said that he did not believe that Iraq had
> stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons.

And poor old Secretary of State Colin Powell, who put on his best dog and pony
show for the UN trying to get them to go along with us. If you recall, he even
mentioned the number of tons of this and that they were supposed to have with
which to threaten the world. He's now having to acknowledge that he swallowed
the poop he was fed in believing that SH had all those WMDs, but maybe, in
hindsight, there really were none . Maybe indeed!

[George Z. Bush]

Mike1 wrote:
> devil > wrote:
>
>>> War is a messy business, what were you expecting?
>>
>> Wasn't war supposed to be over some time ago?
>
>
> The "war" in Iraq has an ongoing casualty rate lower than than the
> murder rate in Washington DC.
>
> (The Marines took 40,000 casualties in a few days at Tarawa -- *that*
> was "war".)

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.

[George Z. Bush]

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.

That may or may not be. However, our President and our Secretary of State both
stated in the press that they believed those deaths were caused by Sadaam
Hussein. If they said that, knowing that the deaths were caused by Iran, then
how can we avoid calling our President and Secretary of State liars?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> What war? Remember the words of our President on his arrival on the
carrier
> deck looking like a warrior? "Mission Accomplished"!!! They even posted
a
> banner in big letters on the bridge in case anybody missed hearing the
President
> say it.
>

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!"


>
> 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.

[John Mullen]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>What war? Remember the words of our President on his arrival on the
>
> carrier
>
>>deck looking like a warrior? "Mission Accomplished"!!! They even posted
>
> a
>
>>banner in big letters on the bridge in case anybody missed hearing the
>
> President
>
>>say it.
>>
>
>
> 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!"
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>

You really should get one of the nurses in the rest home to show you how
to use Google some time, Steven.

I know that reading isn't a particular strength of yours, so just read
the first paragraph, will you?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/index.html

ABOARD THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) -- The following is an unedited
transcript of President Bush's historic speech from the flight deck of
the USS Lincoln, during which he declared an end to major combat in Iraq:

Thank you. Thank you all very much.

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.

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the
peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this
accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States
military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger
for your country and for each other made this day possible.

Because of you our nation is more secure. Because of you the tyrant has
fallen and Iraq is free.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision
and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not
seen before.

From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that
could destroy an enemy division or strike a single bunker. Marines and
soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground in one of
the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history.

You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American armed
forces.

This nation thanks all of the members of our coalition who joined in a
noble cause. We thank the armed forces of the United Kingdom, Australia
and Poland who shared in the hardships of war. We thank all of the
citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of
their own country.

And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary Rumsfeld, for General
Franks and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United
States: America is grateful for a job well done.

The character of our military through history, the daring of Normandy,
the fierce courage of Iwo Jima, the decency and idealism that turned
enemies into allies is fully present in this generation.

When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our service men and women,
they saw strength and kindness and good will. When I look at the members
of the United States military, I see the best of our country and I am
honored to be your commander in chief.

In the images of fallen statues we have witnessed the arrival of a new
era. For a hundred of years of war, culminating in the nuclear age,
military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on
an ever-growing scale.

In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed
entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe
until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by
breaking a nation.

Today we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous
and aggressive regime.

With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military
objectives without directing violence against civilians.

No device of man can remove the tragedy from war, yet it is a great
advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.

In the images of celebrating Iraqis we have also seen the ageless appeal
of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the
Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement.

Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and
water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices and
everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of
that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders
of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We've
begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already
know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for
himself instead of hospitals and schools.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a
government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

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.

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on
September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful
ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their
ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September
the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America.

By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their
allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve and force
our retreat from the world.

They have failed.

In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists
and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people
lay roads, restore hospitals and educate all of their children.

Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special
operations task force lead by the 82nd Airborne is on the trail of the
terrorists and those who seek to undermine the free government of
Afghanistan.

America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.

From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting
down Al Qaida killers.

Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the
patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight nearly one half
of Al Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or killed.

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against
terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of
terrorist funding.

And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass
destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused
and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten
the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder
of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the
terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and
war is what they got.

Our war against terror is proceeding according to the principles that I
have made clear to all.

Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against
the American people becomes an enemy of this country and a target of
American justice.

Any person, organization or government that supports, protects or
harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and
equally guilty of terrorist crimes. Any outlaw regime that has ties to
terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a
grave danger to the civilized world and will be confronted.

And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and
sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America.

Our commitment to liberty is America's tradition, declared at our
founding, affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, asserted in
the Truman Doctrine and in Ronald Reagan's challenge to an evil empire.

We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq and in a peaceful
Palestine.

The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of
terror in the world. Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope.

When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a
better life.

American values and American interests lead in the same direction. We
stand for human liberty.

The United States upholds these principles of security and freedom in
many ways: with all of the tools of diplomacy, law enforcement,
intelligence and finance.

We are working with a broad coalition of nations that understand the
threat and our shared responsibility to meet it.

The use of force has been and remains our last resort. Yet all can know,
friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer
threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.

Our mission continues. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered
cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations and we know
from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people.
The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger.

The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government
has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland and we will
continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.

The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the
day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide.

No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve,
or alter their fate. Their cause is lost; free nations will press on to
victory.

Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to
occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more
than to return home. And that is your direction tonight.

After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war, after 100,000
miles on the longest carrier deployment in recent history, you are
homeward bound.

Some of you will see new family members for the first time; 150 babies
were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are
proud of you, and your nation will welcome you.

We are mindful as well that some good men and women are not making the
journey home. One of those who fell, Corporal Jason Mileo, spoke to his
parents five days before his death. Jason's father said, "He called us
from the center of Baghdad, not to brag but to tell us he loved us. Our
son was a soldier."

Every name, every life is a loss to our military, to our nation and to
the loved ones who grieve. There is no homecoming for these families.
Yet we pray in God's time their reunion will come.

Those we lost were last seen on duty.

Their final act on this Earth was to fight a great evil and bring
liberty to others.

All of you, all in this generation of our military, have taken up the
highest calling of history: You were defending your country and
protecting the innocent from harm.

And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope, a message that is
ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "To the
captives, come out; and to those in darkness, be free."

Thank you for serving our country and our cause.

May God bless you all. And may God continue to bless America.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
>
> You really should get one of the nurses in the rest home to show you how
> to use Google some time, Steven.
>
> I know that reading isn't a particular strength of yours, so just read
> the first paragraph, will you?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/index.html
>
> ABOARD THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) -- The following is an unedited
> transcript of President Bush's historic speech from the flight deck of
> the USS Lincoln, during which he declared an end to major combat in Iraq:
>
> Thank you. Thank you all very much.
>
> 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.
>

Ah, I see. You believe "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" means
"the war is over." Obviously I'm not the one due for remedial reading
class.

[John Mullen]

devil wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:41:52 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>
>>"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>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!)

[Matt Wiser]

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!

[George Z. Bush]

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.

[George Z. Bush]

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.
..

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> 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.
(^-^)))

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

> .
>
>

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(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?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[George Z. Bush]

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.

[Kevin Brooks]

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

ROFLOL! Now that's a ripsnorter, coming from the guy who is King of Word
Twisting when it comes to misquoting the subject of this particular
discussion. Do that Google you were bragging about and you will find that
Steven is correct in stating that your quote is not accurate.

Brooks

<snip>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

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

Nobody twisted your words, you twisted George Bush's words.

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Nobody twisted your words, you twisted George Bush's words.

Poor Georgie! Can you imagine anyone ever accusing him of misspeaking? Of
course not! And you're just like him.....you never twist anyone's words. Of
course not....it's never you, it's always me. I'll let you in on a secret: I
do it deliberately just to **** you off.

Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa! Beat me to death with a wet noodle.
Feel better, now? (^-^)))

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Poor Georgie! Can you imagine anyone ever accusing him of misspeaking?
Of
> course not! And you're just like him.....you never twist anyone's words.
Of
> course not....it's never you, it's always me. I'll let you in on a
secret: I
> do it deliberately just to **** you off.
>

Really? Why would imagine your imbecilic rants **** me off?

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Poor Georgie! Can you imagine anyone ever accusing him of misspeaking? Of
>> course not! And you're just like him.....you never twist anyone's words. Of
>> course not....it's never you, it's always me. I'll let you in on a secret:
>> I do it deliberately just to **** you off.
>>
>
> Really? Why would imagine your imbecilic rants **** me off?

Because you just lost your temper. Otherwise, you'd just have let it pass and
moved on. But I'm glad you didn't because it makes me feel good to know that
I've found your button. (^-^)))

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because you just lost your temper.
>

What made you think that?

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Because you just lost your temper.
> >
>
> What made you think that?

Why do you want to know?

[George Z. Bush]

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I get it. Ran out of serious arguments, it seems?
>
Brace yourself, pal. You're about to enter the world of the merry-go-round
where, no matter what you say, your friend Stevie boy will never concede that
you're right or have a point about anything. He'll question every comment you
make and every word or phrase you've used in making it to avoid having to
concede anything to you. You'll find it to be a never-ending exchange in which
he'll do anything rather than have to concede that he's (gulp) mistaken or
uninformed about something. And just in case he doesn't specifically say so to
you, keep in mind that he's always right and you're always wrong, and he's
always ready to twist your words and meanings to make it happen.

Watch and see what happens, and do have fun, however you can arrange it.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > Nobody twisted your words, you twisted George Bush's words.
>
> Poor Georgie! Can you imagine anyone ever accusing him of misspeaking?
Of
> course not! And you're just like him.....you never twist anyone's words.
Of
> course not....it's never you, it's always me. I'll let you in on a
secret: I
> do it deliberately just to **** you off.

You lie deliberately to **** him off? Your stature, already plummeting after
your "you made an acknowledged typo and I'm gonna hold you to it anyway"
crap, continues to seek new lows, Georgie. You need to unblock
Tarver--sounds like you and he are a match for each other.

>
> Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa! Beat me to death with a wet
noodle.
> Feel better, now? (^-^)))

You have already admitted you are a liar--why should we take *anything* you
have to say as being truthful?

Brooks

>
>

[George Z. Bush]

Mike1 wrote:
> john > wrote:
>
>> Gee, your statements are SO reassuring to the families of the 500
>> soldiers killed and several thousand wounded and maimed in Bush's war.
>
>
> I hate (...no, that's not true...) to be a hard-ass about this, but:
> *What the **** were they thinking when they enlisted*? Is there a
> *single* enlistee that didn't cut his teeth on John Wayne war movies?
>
> Or did they expect to just waltz their way to fat student loans?

Bingo! Do you really think this volunteer Army is full of John Waynes? That's
why so many of them are married and single parents, or haven't you noticed?
>
>
>> Could you please state the reason for Bush' invasion of Iraq and why
>> it was a good thing.
>
>
> (E.g., "Could you please state the reason why just about anything any
> politician does with stolen loot is a good thing?")
>
>
> Because it removed a heinous monster from power. Whether or not Bush
> actually cared about that aspect is irrelevent to me -- governments
> achieve good by happenstance, not design.

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> So? Did they rise more than they would have without the cuts?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>> I think not.
>>
>
> Why? Please show the numbers.

Why don't you show your numbers to prove your point before you ask someone else
to show theirs? Hell, if you can prove your point with your numbers, they won't
have to bother showing theirs, unless you've been cooking the books.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why don't you show your numbers to prove your point before you ask
> someone else to show theirs? Hell, if you can prove your point with
> your numbers, they won't have to bother showing theirs, unless you've
> been cooking the books.
>

I showed the numbers in my previous message, Georgie.

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Why don't you show your numbers to prove your point before you ask
>> someone else to show theirs? Hell, if you can prove your point with
>> your numbers, they won't have to bother showing theirs, unless you've
>> been cooking the books.
>>
>
> I showed the numbers in my previous message, Georgie.

I don't know how I missed it.....I usually hang on your every word.

Anyway, if you proved your point, why don't you just move on instead on
mince-meating the subject? If you're satisfied that you've got it right, why is
it so important to you to make the other guy out to be wrong? Isn't being right
in your own mind good enough for you? Maybe you're not that sure of yourself.
Is that it?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
>
> Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq. the Bush regime claimed to have
> specific evidence of WMDs and nuclear programme. So much so that
> it was an immediate threath, with Hussein capable of launching such
> weapons within 45 minutes.
>

How was this invasion illegal? What law was violated?


>
> Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, the USA was systematically
> discrediting Hans Blix and the UN inspectors stating that they were
> incompetent and couldn't find anything. Yet Blix has stated that every
> piece of evidence that was handed to him by the USA turned out to be
> a total waste of time because there were no signs of any illicit activity.
>
> So it would seem that the USA didn't have any real evidence and just
> fabricated stuff to make it appear to be a real threath.
>

What is your evidence that the USA fabricated evidence?


>
> This was well known outside the USA. Media outside the USA were
> quick to provide complelling reasons why the Februiary 5th 2003
> evidence prsented by Powel at the UN was not credible. Yet in the
> USA, the media took Powel's speech as a bible and never questioned
> the validity of the presented evidence.
>
> When a few weeks later, ElBaradei, in front of the security council,
> announced that they had obtained proof that the so called evidence
> on nuclear weapons had been ***fabricated*** , neither the USA
> media nor the democrats pounced on the Bush regime. That alone
> should have started impeachement process with a Ken Star to
> investigate the activities of the Bush regime.
>

Well, knowing the Democrats and the USA media as I do, if this announcement
had any credibility at all they WOULD have pounced on the Bush
administration.


>
> And now that it is evident that there are no WMDs left in Iraq
>

How is that evident?


>
> and that 9 months of inspectiosn by thousands of americans have yielded
> nothing,
>

They have yielded little, but not nothing.


>
> don't
> you think that the regime which made all those claims to justify its
> unprovoked invasion of Iraq should be held accountable for its lies ?
>

While it is becoming clear that they were probably wrong, it is also clear
they were not lies.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"stephen" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you feel about fairies dancing on your front lawn?
>

Depends. Please describe the fairies.


>
> What I don't understand is why the US has not planted WMD in Iraq so
> that they could find them.
>
> They have been lying all alone. What is one more?
>

You've hit it without realizing it. Had the Bush administration been lying
about the WMD, they surely would have planted evidence that proved their
case. That little evidence of WMD has been found to date suggests that
while they may have been wrong about WMD in Iraq they were clearly not
lying.

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "stephen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > How do you feel about fairies dancing on your front lawn?
> >
>
> Depends. Please describe the fairies.
>
>
> >
> > What I don't understand is why the US has not planted WMD in Iraq so
> > that they could find them.
> >
> > They have been lying all alone. What is one more?

> You've hit it without realizing it. Had the Bush administration been lying
> about the WMD, they surely would have planted evidence that proved their
> case. That little evidence of WMD has been found to date suggests that
> while they may have been wrong about WMD in Iraq they were clearly not
> lying.

Well, that's a relief! All this while, I thought we went to war for a lie.
Now we find out that that wasn't so. We went to war because somebody was too
stupid to know that Sadaam's WMDs really weren't there.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, that's a relief! All this while, I thought we went to war for a
lie.
>

Well, now you know better!


>
> Now we find out that that wasn't so. We went to war because somebody
> was too stupid to know that Sadaam's WMDs really weren't there.
>

That "somebody" was pretty much the whole world.

[None]

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

Good lawdy, you can easily tell you're a republican. An excuse for
everything, and someone else to blame!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Good lawdy, you can easily tell you're a republican.
>

It appears you can't, as I am not now and have never been a Republican.

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Well, that's a relief! All this while, I thought we went to war for a
> lie.
> >
>
> Well, now you know better!
>
>
> >
> > Now we find out that that wasn't so. We went to war because somebody
> > was too stupid to know that Sadaam's WMDs really weren't there.
> >
>
> That "somebody" was pretty much the whole world.

That makes me feel a lot better. Our decisions are being made by the whole
world. At least we have a consensus, right? But, if that was the case, why
didn't the UN go along with our little adventure? As I recall, they kind of
hinted that they weren't finished looking.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> Good lawdy, you can easily tell you're a republican. An excuse for
> everything, and someone else to blame!

You've noticed! And not just once in a while, but always. (^-^)))

George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "None" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Good lawdy, you can easily tell you're a republican.
> >
>
> It appears you can't, as I am not now and have never been a Republican.

But you quack like one......what else could you be? (^-^)))


>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> But you quack like one......what else could you be? (^-^)))
>

I'm a classic liberal.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyway, if you proved your point, why don't you just move on instead on
> mince-meating the subject?
>

Devil asked a follow-up question. Take it up with him.


>
> If you're satisfied that you've got it right, why is
> it so important to you to make the other guy out to be wrong?
>

I should ignore follow-up questions asked of me? Why?


>
> Isn't being right in your own mind good enough for you?
>

I feel the need to help my fellow man understand.


>
> Maybe you're not that sure of yourself.
> Is that it?
>

Nope.

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > But you quack like one......what else could you be? (^-^)))
> >
>
> I'm a classic liberal.

God forbid!!!
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > and in spite of Bush's recent lies on the subject -- inspectors were in
> > Iraq helping to enforce that policy when the US decided a war would be
> > more fun and more politically expedient
> >
>
> What are Bush's recent lies on the subject?

How about today's goody: We weren't threatened by Sadaam's WMDs, it was his
plans to have them that drove us to war. Being threatened by weapons that
didn't exist was at least credible, but being threatened by plans to get those
weapons?

When will you give up and stop swallowing every bit of pap they put in your
mouth? It's not unpatriotic to question him.....it's unpatriotic not to
question him when he has so much trouble coming up with a believable answer.

And we're not talking about a blow job now; this is a lot more important!!!
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Anyway, if you proved your point, why don't you just move on instead on
> > mince-meating the subject?
> >
>
> Devil asked a follow-up question. Take it up with him.

I must have missed it, so I'm taking it up with you. Any good reason for the
Texas two step?
>
>
> >
> > If you're satisfied that you've got it right, why is
> > it so important to you to make the other guy out to be wrong?
> >
>
> I should ignore follow-up questions asked of me? Why?

Why not?
>
>
> >
> > Isn't being right in your own mind good enough for you?
> >
>
> I feel the need to help my fellow man understand.

All together now and not too loud: bulllllllllllshiiiiiiiiit!!
>
>
> >
> > Maybe you're not that sure of yourself.
> > Is that it?
> >
>
> Nope.

Then what is it?
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> When will you give up and stop swallowing every bit of pap they put in
your
> mouth?
>

I'm by nature quite skeptical, especially when it comes to government. The
fact remains nobody has demonstrated any Bush statement to be a lie.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> I must have missed it, so I'm taking it up with you.
>

Review the thread, and I can't speak for him.


>
> Any good reason for the Texas two step?
>

Texas two step?


>
> Why not?
>

Because I choose to answer them.


>
> Then what is it?
>

It's be impolite not to answer.

Why is this so important to you? What is it to you if I answer a question
asked of me directly?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> That makes me feel a lot better. Our decisions are being made by
> the whole world. At least we have a consensus, right? But, if that
> was the case, why didn't the UN go along with our little adventure?
> As I recall, they kind of hinted that they weren't finished looking.
>

Yup, the UN was content to look forever. As I recall, the time limit Saddam
agreed to in 1991 was something like 90 days. He had over twelve years.

[B2431]

>From: "None"
>Date: 1/30/2004 1:21 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>Good lawdy, you can easily tell you're a republican. An excuse for
>everything, and someone else to blame!
>
The Democrats, Libertarians and all the other parties do it too.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> When will you give up and stop swallowing every bit of pap they put in your
>> mouth?
>>
>
> I'm by nature quite skeptical, especially when it comes to government. The
> fact remains nobody has demonstrated any Bush statement to be a lie.

That is exactly the opposite of what you are. You accept every statement issued
by the government as the truth and I don't remember you ever questioning any of
it. I don't see how you can watch the government present the public with one
reason for going to war after another without wondering why any of that should
be necessary. I don't understand why it doesn't occur to you that they are
going through that exercise in the vain hope that they'll find something,
however far fetched, that the public will buy. Every time somebody drills holes
through one reason, they say they didn't really mean that, or it wasn't
important anyway, and here's another reason we hope you'll buy.

Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose?

You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly don't.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is exactly the opposite of what you are. You accept every statement
issued
> by the government as the truth and I don't remember you ever questioning
any of
> it.
>

You're a poor judge of character.


>
> Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose?
>

Always.


>
> You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly
don't.
>

Nobody accused you of thinking.

[devil]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:47:37 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "stephen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> How do you feel about fairies dancing on your front lawn?
>>
>
> Depends. Please describe the fairies.
>
>
>>
>> What I don't understand is why the US has not planted WMD in Iraq so
>> that they could find them.
>>
>> They have been lying all alone. What is one more?
>>
>
> You've hit it without realizing it. Had the Bush administration been lying
> about the WMD, they surely would have planted evidence that proved their
> case. That little evidence of WMD has been found to date suggests that
> while they may have been wrong about WMD in Iraq they were clearly not
> lying.

That they ended up believeing in their own lies does not necessarily mean
they were not lies.

Just that they were foolish.

(But I guess I agree. If I were in their shoes, I suppose I would have
found a way to find WMDs. But eh, I am not trying to compete for the
prize for the most stupid guy of the week.)

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> That is exactly the opposite of what you are. You accept every statement
>> issued by the government as the truth and I don't remember you ever
>> questioning any of it.
>>
>
> You're a poor judge of character.

So are you.
>
>
>>
>> Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose?
>>
>
> Always.

Then why don't you recognize the constantly changing reasons given by our
government for going to war as the scam it is? They'll keep on doing it until
everybody says, "ah, that was it", all the while forgetting that each and every
one of the replaced reasons was phony and was floated only to see if it would be
accepted.

Gen. Wesley Clark stated during the debate in S. C. that he attended a Pentagon
briefing some two weeks after 9-11, during which they were told that our primary
target since day one was Iraq, whether or not they had anything to do with 9-11.
That's the same story that former Treas. Secy. Paul O'Neil said in his biography
that he heard during the first cabinet meeting he attended. Since it appears to
be true, coming from two disparate sources, why was Sadaam's alleged
relationship with OBL and Al Qaeda given as one of those abandoned reasons for
going to war?

Your government lies to you and you persist in denying it. If I am such a poor
judge of character in that I'd suggest that anyone who believes that
government-floated fairy tale might be naive or gullible, I don't mind resting
my case and letting anybody else reading this exchange decide how bad a judge of
character I might be.

And before you say it, your denial is noted. Anybody else out there?
>
>
>>
>> You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly
>> don't.
>>
>
> Nobody accused you of thinking.

[George Z. Bush]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose?
>>
>
> Always.

Except when your eyes are closed, which is whenever the government feeds you its
poop.
>
>
>>
>> You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly
>> don't.
>>
>
> Nobody accused you of thinking.

Your repartee is dazzling! I am smitten. I haven't heard such good stuff since
I graduated the fifth grade.

[George Z. Bush]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> devil > wrote in news:pan.2004.01.31.06.22.28.721037
> @attglobal.net:
>
> Like conservatives care a whit about deficits.......

Why should they? They'll leave their money to their kids, carefully protected
by the tax loopholes they put into the tax code, while the average guy's kids
pay off the bank loans.
Pretty good deal, wouldn't you say?

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 06:16:20 GMT, devil > wrote:
>
>
>>>> Not in the USA. Tax revenues increased at a much slower rate after
>>>> the Reagan tax cut then before the cut, and increased much faster
>>>> after taxes were raised again by Bush41/Clinton.
>>>
>>>
>>> Source for those figures ?
>>
>> Funny.
>>
>> When you talk about your own ideological BS, I don't see sources being
>> mentioned. Care to add them?
>>
>
> Yes, you can start here
>
> http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/

Why bother? This discussion is about the US not the UK. Would
UK data be relevant?

George Z.

[nobody]

John Gaquin wrote:
> > ....The soviets had been invited into Afghanistan by the Afghan
> > government to help control the warring factions,

> I spent a lot of time working in Afghanistan in 76, 77. That's not quite
> the way it happened.


All that is missing is "claimed they" between "soviets" and "had".

But weren't they actually invited ? (after the soviets installed a soviet
friendly government ?)

What I don't quite understand is that it was often said that the soviets
wanted a corridor to be able to ship their oil to a port and sell it to world
markets. But afghanistan doesn't give them access to the ocean because of the
strip of land that belongs to pakistan that covers the shores shouth of
afghanistan. Does this mean that the soviets would have eventually taken that
strip of land ?