So are you agreeing or not that the administration mislead the
Americna people about the reasons for going to war? I would
be happy to credit them with something positive. I just can't
find anythingn positive. Everything they seem to do is bad for
America and the rest of the world. It's time for them to go.
If nothing else, we need balance (aka gridlock) in Washington.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Come on... get real. Bu**** made all sorts of claims as to why
we should attack Iraq. So far, none of them have any credibility.
You can dance all you want, but the fact remains that the American
people were mislead by the current administration in the White House.

Actually the miss leading is taking place now with the distortion of facts
and ignoring anything that will make the current administration look good.
It is just an attempt to manipulate the sheep like masses to help the
Democratic party regain power in Washington.

The WTC had nothing to do with Iraq. That's a fact. Even Bush
isn't so blind to claim otherwise, but he was manipulative enough
to allow people to think it.

Bush and company LIED to the American people about the
reasons for war in Iraq. Bush never bothered to get involved
in the hard decisions that lead up to it, preferring to be a
cowboy, with a lets-getum mentality. He certainly wasn't
involved in the lead up to 9/11. He was on vacation for a
full month a month before it. This was after just a few months
in office. He's taken more vacation than any other president
in history.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Invading Iraq threatened more US lives than firing missiles at US
fighter
pilots. How many US servicemen died as a result of Saddam's missiles?
How many died as a result of the invasion?


Let me see.... How many were in the Twin towers???
Didn't Russia tell us they had intelligence that Iraq was planning a
terrorist attack in the US also? I guess we should just ignore it, huh? I
guess Bush made up and manipulated the intelligence the previous
administration got too, huh? Of course if Bush acts on intelligent he is
manipulating it and a warmonger, if he doesn't he is not protecting the
American people and he is to blame for people dieing. It looks like he is
doing the responsible thing and acting on the intelligence to protect the
country (Much more than anyone else has done, by far), despite the ones
who
want to just act like the world is a beautiful place and ignore the
dangers
and smell the flowers in their make-believe little world. Maybe if we get
on
our knees and cry, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist!" I think the
current
administration does what needs to be done, despite the slanting and
attacking by the liberal press. And the reason Bush 41 called off the
attack
was because the liberals were crying that is was horrible to pursue them!
Bush 43 did not letting that same bunch sidetrack him from what had to be
done.

We need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Declare victory,
leave or stay in the background. Let the Iraqis handle it. Bush
is at best incompetent, at worst a liar... sort of like his friend
Ken Lay.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.

I really don't think he lied....

I agree. Saying things that are not true is not necessarily lying unless
one KNOWS that what (s)he is about to say is false. Bush's statements
about
WMDs fall into that catagory. He either knew Saddam had no meaningful
amount of WMDs or he didn't. If he knew, then he is a liar, and should be
replaced. If he didn't, as I suspect, then he is far to ignorant and
stupid
to remain President. Which is it?

But that's water over the dam. Question is what to do now we know better.
Do we stay in and bleed our own country and our military white like LBJ
did
in 'nam or do we cut our losses and leave Iraq to become like Iran.

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

Oh? I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right
that he would distance us from the UN. Does this mean he's really a closet
pinko, taking orders from the UN? Does he ever wear a tu tu?


Did we not vote on those resolutions also? Did we not also play a part in
defining those resolutions? It has nothing to do with taking orders from the
UN. It is about the safety of the US and its citizens. The UN is the UN and
it looks out for its own interests and the interests of its friends (which
is a relative thing). The US must take care of the US, because no one else
will.

Terrorist training camps with a commercial
jet......................................

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
The WTC had nothing to do with Iraq. That's a fact. Even Bush
isn't so blind to claim otherwise, but he was manipulative enough
to allow people to think it.

Bush and company LIED to the American people about the
reasons for war in Iraq. Bush never bothered to get involved
in the hard decisions that lead up to it, preferring to be a
cowboy, with a lets-getum mentality. He certainly wasn't
involved in the lead up to 9/11. He was on vacation for a
full month a month before it. This was after just a few months
in office. He's taken more vacation than any other president
in history.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Invading Iraq threatened more US lives than firing missiles at US
fighter
pilots. How many US servicemen died as a result of Saddam's
missiles?
How many died as a result of the invasion?


Let me see.... How many were in the Twin towers???
Didn't Russia tell us they had intelligence that Iraq was planning a
terrorist attack in the US also? I guess we should just ignore it, huh?
I
guess Bush made up and manipulated the intelligence the previous
administration got too, huh? Of course if Bush acts on intelligent he is
manipulating it and a warmonger, if he doesn't he is not protecting the
American people and he is to blame for people dieing. It looks like he
is
doing the responsible thing and acting on the intelligence to protect
the
country (Much more than anyone else has done, by far), despite the ones
who
want to just act like the world is a beautiful place and ignore the
dangers
and smell the flowers in their make-believe little world. Maybe if we
get
on
our knees and cry, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist!" I think the
current
administration does what needs to be done, despite the slanting and
attacking by the liberal press. And the reason Bush 41 called off the
attack
was because the liberals were crying that is was horrible to pursue
them!
Bush 43 did not letting that same bunch sidetrack him from what had to
be
done.

"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

That's silly. If that were true, then we didn't need to wait until 2003
to invade Iraq, we could (and *should*) have had a U.N coalition behind
us, and there needn't have been any ridiculous fables about WMDs and
ties to Al-Queda.

Nobody knows the "main reason" we invaded Iraq, although it looks like
revenge for their assassination attempt on Bush Sr and massive profits
for Halliburton are the two top contenders. IMHO this is why you heard
NOTHING about war against Iraq as a Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign promise,
even though they were determined to go ahead with one before the election.

"Vito" wrote
...I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right
that he would distance us from the UN.

Isolationism is one of the favorite themes of the right, religious or
otherwise. Bad-mouthing the U.N and appeals to lowbrow bigotry aginst
them furriners is one way of making an elitist rich persons campaign
that has a chance of capturing the vote of the average & below average
citizen.



FamilySailor wrote:
Did we not vote on those resolutions also? Did we not also play a part in
defining those resolutions? It has nothing to do with taking orders from the
UN.

Agreed.

... It is about the safety of the US and its citizens.

If that were true, then where is the credible 'imminent threat' posed by
Iraq? It was never there. It was never even credible on paper. In order
to pretend that it might be there, Bush & Cheney had to strenuously
ignore lots of intel on Iraq and carefully quote only cherrypicked reports.


... The US must take care of the US, because no one else
will.

Agreed again. But overstretching the Army and running up a huge deficit
while chasing phantoms, and meanwhile creating many many more real
enemies, is a very poor way to go about it.

DSK

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:49:21 -0500, "FamilySailor" wrote:


"Vito" wrote in message
...
"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

Oh? I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right
that he would distance us from the UN. Does this mean he's really a closet
pinko, taking orders from the UN? Does he ever wear a tu tu?


Did we not vote on those resolutions also? Did we not also play a part in
defining those resolutions? It has nothing to do with taking orders from the
UN. It is about the safety of the US and its citizens. The UN is the UN and
it looks out for its own interests and the interests of its friends (which
is a relative thing). The US must take care of the US, because no one else
will.


And no one put the US in sole charge of monitoring compliance with UN
resolutions or in determining how and when to unilaterally "enforce"
them. The UN chose not to go along with our little adventure for a
reason. They clearly didn't see the facts the same way that the
Bush/Cheney administration was spinning them. Funny thing about
that...the US was wrong and the rest of the world was right. Oops.
Mulligan.

Such complete right-wing bull****. That's all you can come up
with? What an idiot!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Terrorist training camps with a commercial
jet......................................

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
The WTC had nothing to do with Iraq. That's a fact. Even Bush
isn't so blind to claim otherwise, but he was manipulative enough
to allow people to think it.

Bush and company LIED to the American people about the
reasons for war in Iraq. Bush never bothered to get involved
in the hard decisions that lead up to it, preferring to be a
cowboy, with a lets-getum mentality. He certainly wasn't
involved in the lead up to 9/11. He was on vacation for a
full month a month before it. This was after just a few months
in office. He's taken more vacation than any other president
in history.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Invading Iraq threatened more US lives than firing missiles at US
fighter
pilots. How many US servicemen died as a result of Saddam's
missiles?
How many died as a result of the invasion?


Let me see.... How many were in the Twin towers???
Didn't Russia tell us they had intelligence that Iraq was planning a
terrorist attack in the US also? I guess we should just ignore it,
huh?
I
guess Bush made up and manipulated the intelligence the previous
administration got too, huh? Of course if Bush acts on intelligent he
is
manipulating it and a warmonger, if he doesn't he is not protecting
the
American people and he is to blame for people dieing. It looks like he
is
doing the responsible thing and acting on the intelligence to protect
the
country (Much more than anyone else has done, by far), despite the
ones
who
want to just act like the world is a beautiful place and ignore the
dangers
and smell the flowers in their make-believe little world. Maybe if we
get
on
our knees and cry, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist!" I think the
current
administration does what needs to be done, despite the slanting and
attacking by the liberal press. And the reason Bush 41 called off the
attack
was because the liberals were crying that is was horrible to pursue
them!
Bush 43 did not letting that same bunch sidetrack him from what had to
be
done.

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Iraq *had* WMD. That is an undisputable fact.

Is it?


Perhaps you would present some evidence???

One of life's mysteries is that people who use cliched phrases like
"undisputable fact" are never able to back up their assertions.

It seems clear that Iraq had chemical weapons back in the early 90's.
However, chemical weapons were considered to be battlefield weapons. They
were never considered to be WMD until the Bush administration began to
realise that they had lied.

Nuclear and biological weapons have a destructive effect that extends far
beyond the geographical area of deployment. That is why they are termed
"WMD". Chemical weapons disperse rapidly.... therefore they are weapons of
local destruction.

Rednecks are convinced that Iraq posed a threat to the west. The rest of
us are aware that Saddam always asked for permission before he launched war.


Regards


Donal
--

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
And the UN said they were there.

That is incorrect.



Regards

Donal
--