If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"devil" wrote in message news On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote: "devil" wrote in message news 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? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:52:12 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:
"devil" wrote in message news On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote: "devil" wrote in message news 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? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"devil" wrote in message news On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:52:12 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote: "devil" wrote in message news On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote: "devil" wrote in message news 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". |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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?) |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"devil" wrote in message news 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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:42:08 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"devil" wrote in message news 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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"devil" wrote in message news 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
State Of Michigan Sales/Use Tax | Rich S. | Home Built | 0 | August 9th 04 04:41 PM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
Soviet State Committee on Science and Technology | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 0 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
Homebuilts by State | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 03 08:30 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |