On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, some of them were used on the Kurds in the late eighties,

Which were outside the time frame for which the yanks were able
to claim there was a problem with WMDs. The latter only apply
post 1991.

and I imagine the rest of them are in Syria or are buried in
the desert somewhere. After all, he had 12 years to conceal them.

Why would he hide them instead of using them to defend himself? The
obvious nonsense in your claim is that Saddam would rather live in a
spider hole than fight back. They didn't exist - he was just an
asshole that was tried to pretend they existed to impress the
arabs he was trying to influence. The US played to this, just as
they are jumping on the bandwagon to play to N. Korea's every
claim about nuclear weapons. It is in the interests of a war
monger to make sure that there is always an enemy.

I imagine we'll find them eventually.

Not likely, since America's given up looking. But then, you've never
let facts interfere with your opinions.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, some of them were used on the Kurds in the late eighties,

Which were outside the time frame for which the yanks were able
to claim there was a problem with WMDs. The latter only apply
post 1991.

Sez who?


and I imagine the rest of them are in Syria or are buried in
the desert somewhere. After all, he had 12 years to conceal them.

Why would he hide them instead of using them to defend himself?

He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because the
artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did, they
risked nuclear conflict.

The
obvious nonsense in your claim is that Saddam would rather live in a
spider hole than fight back.

You misunderstand the command and control systems in Iraq. Saddam suffered
the typical fate of dictators. As soon as things began to go badly for him,
and his commanders and soldiers saw a probability that the US would prevail,
and that Saddam would be driven into hiding, his commanders and his troops
abandoned him, stripped off their uniforms, dumped their personal arms and
surrendered gladly to US troops.

He didn't fight back effectively because no dictator can who rules by terror
and intimidation when a liberator with a real chance appears.

They didn't exist

They existed. He created them. He used them. He refused to permit unfettered
inspections and engaged in shell-game moving about of them, and he likely
removed them to Syria, along with billions in gold and cash, before the
invasion.

- he was just an
asshole that was tried to pretend they existed to impress the
arabs he was trying to influence.

Then he made a terrible mistake, didn't he.

The US played to this,

We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time. Hindsight
is always 20/20.

just as
they are jumping on the bandwagon to play to N. Korea's every
claim about nuclear weapons.

Are you suggesting that we should NOT take North Korea's claim to have
nuclear weapons seriously? How....idiotic of you.

It is in the interests of a war
monger to make sure that there is always an enemy.

We don't have to manufacture enemies, there are plenty of real ones out
there, and the only reason YOU get to spout your crap is because the US has
for decades maintained the balance of power and peace around the world.


I imagine we'll find them eventually.

Not likely, since America's given up looking.

For now. We've got other things to do.

But then, you've never
let facts interfere with your opinions.

You, on the other hand, wouldn't know a fact if it were shoved up your ass.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
==============
He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because
the
artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did,
they
risked nuclear conflict.
===================

C'mon! Admit it! You're making this up as you go along. Either that, or
this is Faux News drivel.

Weiser says:
=================
We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time.
=====================

BULL****! Your intelligence agencies may be good (or not), but other
nations do have intelligence agencies as well. How come they were
telling a different tale? They agreed with you on Afghanistan. They
disagreed on Iraq.

And there I was, sitting in a kayak in the Gulf islands, and even I had
this figured out. The lie was transparent.

frtzw906

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
==============
He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because
the
artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did,
they
risked nuclear conflict.
===================

C'mon! Admit it! You're making this up as you go along. Either that, or
this is Faux News drivel.

Try CNN and the BBC


Weiser says:
=================
We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time.
=====================

BULL****!

Really? Are you an intelligence agent with independent knowledge of what our
intelligence apparatus knew and when they knew it? I think not.

Your intelligence agencies may be good (or not), but other
nations do have intelligence agencies as well. How come they were
telling a different tale?

You mean like the French and Germans? Well, they came to different
conclusions because they were corruptly in bed with Saddam and had a profit
motive to dissuade us from invading.

They agreed with you on Afghanistan. They
disagreed on Iraq.

Who cares? We used OUR intelligence information, which we found more
reliable and credible. Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary
importance in the first place.


And there I was, sitting in a kayak in the Gulf islands, and even I had
this figured out. The lie was transparent.

Fortunately, you're not in charge of our intelligence system or our country.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
================
Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary
importance in the first place.
================

OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing?

After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't
the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was: "
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"

make up your minds.

frtzw906

wrote:
Weiser says:
================
Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary
importance in the first place.
================

OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing?

After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't
the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was: "
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"

make up your minds.

frtzw906

You acknowledge "before the war, all we heard was: "
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"

Is it possible that you were listening to certain medias that were just
quoting each other over and over, and not really researching beyond the
news wire feed, and ending up with the same story. Not the whole story,
just the part they wanted you to hear, and which was the part you now
acknowledge you heard.

It reminds me of how they now report fatalities in Iraq. When a soldier
is killed, and the media picks up the story, report it on 30 different
TV and radio stations around the world for the next three days, and it
sounds like 100 casualties, and the war is going terrible wrong.
Granted, each death is sad, but for the media to twist the stories the
way they do is unconscienceable.

So I understand what you heard, and I regret that you did not hear the
full story, but I heard alot more than just WMDs and Oil. I heard about
a despotic tyrant and his sons, about oppressed people who desired to
be set free, and yes WMDs. WMDs that we wanted to be very aware of
during an invasion where they could possibly be deployed. All Saddam
had to do was open his country to unhindered UN inspection, and he
would have saved himself from a military invasion. He knew his time was
short, he gambled and lost.

I did have a good social ski time, and feel very refreshed. However
there was no socialist gov. assistance for buying lift tickets. Had to
buy them myself. TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Weiser says:
================
Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary
importance in the first place.
================

OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing?

After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't
the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was: "
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"

make up your minds.

frtzw906

You acknowledge "before the war, all we heard was: "
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"

Is it possible that you were listening to certain medias that were just
quoting each other over and over and not really researching beyond the
news wire feed, and ending up with the same story. Not the whole story,
just the part they wanted you to hear, and which was the part you now
acknowledge you heard.

When the decision was made to invade, the media had no reason to overstate
the WMD argument, because they had no idea that Bush was lying and no idea
that no WMD would be found and in fact I can't remember even one media
feature that questioned whether or not Iraq in fact has WMD. But if you care
to read the address to the UN prior to the invasion, it's quite clearly
stated that it's about WMD.

A Usenet persona calling itself wrote:

Weiser says:
================
Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary
importance in the first place.
================

OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing?

It was a number of things. First, he was a brutal tyrant who was murdering
his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most heinous
sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable. Second, he was facilitating
and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and facilitated the
9/11 attacks. Third, he refused to allow inspections as mandated by the
cease-fire agreement. Fourth, he was known to have, and have used WMD's on
his own people and Iran. Fifth, he was attempting to obtain nuclear
materials in violation of the cease-fire agreement. Fifth, he conspired to
attempt to assassinate the President of the United States. Sixth, his
actions destabilized the region and threatened world peace. Seventh, he
provided an excellent object lesson on the perils of thumbing one's nose at
the US for other terrorist nations such as Libya and North Korea...among
others. That's some of the principle reasons we invaded.


After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't
the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was: "
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"

First, what you heard and what was actually said are clearly very different
things. I imagine you get your news from the CBC, so I wouldn't expect you
to have heard anything even reasonably unbiased.

Second, what makes you think that we are obligated to justify our actions to
you, personally?

Third, all the above justifications were repeated by the administration
many, many times. That the liberal press refused to publish them is not the
administration's fault.


make up your minds.

We did. We decided to invade Iraq and free its people from a brutal tyrant
and we decided to ignore your country's (and everybody else's) opinion that
we didn't have sufficient justification to do so.

Evidently, you prefer the daily raping and torture of innocent young virgins
by brutal sex perverts, among other atrocities.

You're a real sterling fellow. Canada deserves you.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott, notwithstanding everything you said between:
"It was a number of things. First, he was a brutal tyrant who was
murdering
his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most
heinous
sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable." AND "Seventh, he
provided an excellent object lesson on the perils of thumbing one's
nose at
the US for other terrorist nations such as Libya and North
Korea...among
others. That's some of the principle reasons we invaded. "

That's NOT what Colin Powell was preaching at the UN. The justification
for going to war with Iraq was made to the world community, at the UN.

The weapons inspectors were well on their way to NOT finding WMD. The
aluminum tubes et al turned out to be a hoax.

He threatened world peace you say?!!! Fer crissakes man, your army
walked all over him in a few days! How could this man threaten world
peace? Are you now telling me that your intelligence agencies (the one
that KNEW he had WMD) did NOT know that his armed forces weren't worth
a popcorn fart? Threaten world peace! Not likely!

As to refusing to allow mandated inspections. Was that a UN issue, or
was that an issue for the USA?

Nope. It was WMD.

frtzw906

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

First, he was a brutal tyrant who was murdering
his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most heinous
sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable.

Which also describes US treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

Second, he was facilitating
and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and facilitated the
9/11 attacks.

No one has ever made a credible link between Saddam and 9/11.

I imagine you get your news from the CBC, so I wouldn't expect you
to have heard anything even reasonably unbiased.

I get news from The Economist, a British right-wing news magazine. They
reported the same news and then condemned the US for fraud after the
results of the invasion were revealed.

Third, all the above justifications were repeated by the administration
many, many times. That the liberal press refused to publish them is not the
administration's fault

The first invasion of Iraq was preceded by a huge mass of propaganda that
proved to be complete fiction (e.g. nuclear-hardened bunkers filled with
Republican Guards just inside the border). Given such a precedent, why
should we believe anything the US Administration says?

Mike