"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
The fact Saddam was a totalitarian dictator and that the freedom and
liberty of Iraqis are voided by his continued
dictatorship seems to have escaped the supposed moral concerns of the
French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Vatican.

Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric.

1) 12 years of continued torture, rape, murder, and totalitar-
ianism by Saddam and Saddam's cronies against the
people of Iraq,

Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric.

Most Americans can see thru any rhetoric. Saddam needed to be taken
out.
That was crystal clear.

That was not what we were told. We were told that he was an iminent threat.
Bushso lied.

If you choose to rush thru pasting answers check the spelling.



2) Saddam's use of biochemical weapons against the Kurds
and Iranians,

Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric.

Well mass murder must be OK then, we should look the other way right?

No. We should not lie about the reasons for war. Bushco lied.



3) Saddam's starvation of groups out of favor with the ruling
regime (Marsh Arabs),

Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric.

Genocide is OK as long as we hate bush.

Bushco lied. He justified killing 3000 US troops, maiming 20K, and killing
100s of 1000s of innocent Iraqis by lying.


4) Saddam's construction of mosques and palaces of enormous
opulence as his people suffered,

Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric.

So then it's OK to starve children?

Is it better to kill 100s of 1000s of innocent civilians?


5) Saddam's continued development of weapons of mass destruc-
tion,

Untrue. Propaganda that was disproved many times over.

Liar. Sucker...or just plain dumbass.

Talking about yourself or Bush?


6) Saddam's alliances with and assistance to likeminded terrorist
entities,

Untrue. Propaganda that was disproved many times over.

He bragged of sending Hammas suicide bombers families cash (rewards)
but thats not in anyway a clue to what he would do in the future is it?

In fact, that's quite different than attacking the US. Hammas wasn't a
threat to the US, and the Israels are quite capable of defending themselves.


7) Saddam's refusal to cooperate and pro-actively assist the inspec-
tors in a genuine effort to rid itself of weapons of mass
destruction,

Saddam's posturing was a miscalculation, but it wouldn't have mattered.
Bushco was going to invade no matter what.

A simple mistake ...the poor mis-understood gentlemen. 10 yrs of
posturing who can blame him for telling the UN and the USA to **** off,
no one had the balls to comfront him.

And, there was need to invade to get rid of him. If BushI had supported the
Shiites after the first was, Saddam wouldn't have been there.


8) Saddam's treating his commitments to disarm as burdens to be
avoided rather than as obligations to be fulfilled (disarmament
as a game, rather than as a goal),

So what? He didn't have anything to disarm.

So jon, if you had no cocaine in your car, and a cop pulled you over
and said he wanted to look for cocaine, or he was going to blow your
brains out, would you "POSTURE" and miscalculate?

I would if the cop was a liberal pussy pansy assed little douchbag.
Maybe thats how you want our country to be seen as again. Is that part
of the first 100 hours goals?

As usual, this makes no sense. Grow up Joe. We went to war on a lie.


9) Saddam's financial support of Palestinian suicider-mass murder-
er organizations in a public display of hatred for human life,

Along with Iran and Syria.

Yeah and look how embolden the leader of Iran has become since the
mid-terms, he loves you guys, you have a new friend.

So, when is Bushco going to invade? NEVER. Neither is he going to invade N.
Korea. Sounds like appeasement to me.


10) Saddam's past atrocities committed against the peoples of
Kuwait and Israel and Iran,

Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric.

All that oil burning was pretty huh, WTF Red and his boys made a
killing.

Nothing to do with the war in this century. Talk to BushI who actually did
something right.


11) Saddam's past efforts to develop nuclear weapons (only
stopped due to Israeli bombing of a nuclear reactor and,
later on, the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and the surprising
discovery, thereafter, that Iraq was within two years of devel-
oping nuclear weapons),

Key phrase, "past efforts." Iraq was no where near having them or even
seriously contemplating such a program.

Says you...

Says just about everyone who isn't too dumb to accept reality.


12) freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people, a people who have
been bullied and murdered into submission to totalitarianism,

Nothing to do with the invaision according to Bushco's rhetoric.

Well screw them then huh Jon, just as long as we can hate bushco

Your words not mine.

13) defense of the United States, a country vulnerable to attacks
from mass murdering Islamist terrorists who could easily find
succor and WMD from an American-hating tyrant,

Bzzzt. Saddam hated and feared Islamic terrorists and never cooperated
with
them.

But he loved us,,,,, right Jon?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


14) prevention of the Saddam-Islamist-terrorist goal of a united
Arabia confronting the west (Saddam's goal was a united Arabia
led by Saddam -- Islamists' goal, worldwide conquest led
by a strong leader and the strongest leader in Arabia was
Saddam),

Complete fabrication on the part of Bushco.

Oh then that Kuwait, iran thingy, was just a way for Saddam to pass
his time.
Have you read anything about Saddam?

He was totally contained and on the way out. Bushco lied and 3000 died.


15) reducing the likelihood that Iran will develop nukes by removing
Iran's feeling it must do so to protect against its arch enemy,
Saddam,

Try picking up a newspaper... that's exactly what they're doing, NOW.
Stupid
they're not.

Oh..I saw that, I have faith the dems are going to solve that little
problem in the first 100 hr program

Didn't say they would. But, they won't invade Iraq to deal with Iran.

16) increasing pressure on Saudi Arabia to deal with the terrorist
elements which are widespread in its midst due to Wahabism,

By invading Iraq? What kind of delusion is this?

If you shoot one rat, the others scurry and are skiddish.

Really? Except for Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, and the list goes on.


17) the historical record which clearly demonstrates that pacifism-
appeasement-diplomacy are inept when confronting totalitarian-
ism led by a belligerent and powerful foe -- reference the Treaty
of Versailles and its lack of enforcement by France and Great
Britain as Hitler violated its tenets, re-armed, re-militarized the
Rhineland, and (unopposed until it was too late) set out to con-
quer most of Europe and Russia, allied with Japan in its effort
to dominate the Far East (an effort which led to the attack on
the U.S. at Pearl Harbor), -and- committed the systematic mass
murder of the handicapped, Jews, homosexual men, and any-
one else opposed to Hitler's tyranny.

Nothing to do with Saddam or his capabilities.



Sure Jon...sure

Yes.