The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

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
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.

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.

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

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.

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
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.

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.

"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.

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


"Dick Locke" wrote in message
.. .

I associate fiscal responsibility with Democrats. QED.


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



Bzzzt! Too late! You challenged anyone to show where you posted
something that wasn't true and I only had to look back about two
posts.

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

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

"Dick Locke" wrote in message
...

Bzzzt! Too late! You challenged anyone to show where you posted
something that wasn't true and I only had to look back about two
posts.


Actually, the challenge was, "Please identify what I have written here that
is factually
incorrect and prove it to be so." Nobody has met the challenge.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"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.