The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"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.

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.

"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

"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?

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?

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

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.

"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.

"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?

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 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