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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

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.

Fu*k the UN. What we choose to tell the UN has nothing whatever to do with
what we base our independent sovereign actions on. The UN is a bunch of
leftist pussies who hate America and who wouldn't lift a finger to help us
if we were under attack. They do nothing but dither, debate and pontificate,
and the people who run it are massively corrupt. The UN should be disbanded
and kicked out of the US entirely.

Screw the world community too, if they were too blind to see the horrors
taking place in Iraq and the dangers posed by Hussein.

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."


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

No, they didn't.


He threatened world peace you say?!!!

Yup.

Fer crissakes man, your army
walked all over him in a few days! How could this man threaten world
peace?

By using UN oil-for-food money to fund international terrorism, including
the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union by
terrorist organizations, for one.

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!

I never said he threatened world peace through military invasion.


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

It was an issue for the US, which we misguidedly contracted out to the UN in
an ill-considered attempt to curry favor with the international community.
Turns out the UN really didn't give a crap about holding Saddam's feet to
the fire, because the UN, as an organization, hates the US and is happy to
see us embarrassed or put at risk. Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement
SEVENTEEN TIMES in the 12 years after the first war.

That's sixteen times too often.

When the UN failed to reinvest Baghdad with UN troops after the FIRST
violation of the cease fire agreement, the UN gave up any right to complain
when the US eventually (and belatedly) decided to act unilaterally to
enforce the agreement.


Nope. It was WMD.

Nope, it was a lot of things.

But even if it was only WMD's, nothing changes. He had WMD's, he used WMD's,
he concealed WMD's, he illegally retained information about the manufacture
of WMD's, he moved WMD's about in a shell-game to avoid detection, he
refused inspections for WMD's, and he very likely exported WMD's to Syria.
That's all the justification we needed.

BTW, a news story today details admissions made by a Syrian intelligence
officer that Syria is deeply involved in the Iraqi insurgency, supplying
arms and support, with the express purpose of keeping the US away from
Syria.

So, we'd better go clean out that nest of vipers too.
--
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:
==================
BTW, a news story today details admissions made by a Syrian
intelligence
officer that Syria is deeply involved in the Iraqi insurgency,
supplying
arms and support, with the express purpose of keeping the US away from
Syria.
================

Interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Of course, if it is, as you cite, "with the express purpose of keeping
the US away from
Syria. ", then that sounds like a strategic move in the interests of
Syria. Or aren't they supposed to take actions which support their
cause?

Historically, has the USA never supported freedom fighters?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
==================
BTW, a news story today details admissions made by a Syrian
intelligence
officer that Syria is deeply involved in the Iraqi insurgency,
supplying
arms and support, with the express purpose of keeping the US away from
Syria.
================

Interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Interesting indeed. Smoking gun interesting.

Of course, if it is, as you cite, "with the express purpose of keeping
the US away from
Syria. ", then that sounds like a strategic move in the interests of
Syria. Or aren't they supposed to take actions which support their
cause?

More likely it's because they know darned well that the US will discover all
sorts of WMD's and other terrorist-facilitating evidence upon which to base
a decision to sanction them.


Historically, has the USA never supported freedom fighters?

Terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations are not "freedom fighters."

--
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:
=========
Terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations are not "freedom fighters."
=============

depends whose ox is being gored...

a rose by any other name....

six of one - one half dozen of another

who is writing the history books?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
=========
Terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations are not "freedom fighters."
=============

depends whose ox is being gored...

Nope.


a rose by any other name....

Nope.


six of one - one half dozen of another

Nope.


who is writing the history books?

The winners, which will be us.

The fact that you cannot distinguish between terrorists (and the nations
which support them) who deliberately target civilians in a calculated
attempt to instill terror from soldiers (including "freedom fighters")
engaging other soldiers in a war is reprehensible.

--
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

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

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:56:14 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:

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.

I've kind of wondered about this. Who thought Abu Ghraib was a good place
to continue to keep prisoners? From what I understand, the place had a
pretty bad rep even before the US got there. Why not just tear it down?
For that matter, why did US generals and others use Saddam's palaces?
Having an occupying army billeted in luxury smacks more of "new boss same
as the old boss" than it does of any kind of "liberation."

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.

Even George W Bush has said he has seen no evidence to link 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?

Lets see if I've got this straight: The same bunch that predicted what
would happen to the Peacock Throne in Iran, the same crowd that accurately
forewarned folks about the Tet offensive, among other things in Viet Nam,
the folks that told all of us about the eventual breakup of the Soviet
Union, the crew that provided us with the hard evidence of WMD in Iraq,
this gang now wants us to believe they know what is going on in Syria?

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:56:14 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:

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.

I've kind of wondered about this. Who thought Abu Ghraib was a good place
to continue to keep prisoners? From what I understand, the place had a
pretty bad rep even before the US got there. Why not just tear it down?

The prison existed - much faster than building new. It should be destroyed
now that there is time to do it. But since it belongs to the new government
it really should be their decision what to do with it. I'm sure the families
of anyone that was ever there would like to see it replaced by something
else.

For that matter, why did US generals and others use Saddam's palaces?
Having an occupying army billeted in luxury smacks more of "new boss same
as the old boss" than it does of any kind of "liberation."

Yes it probably does, but it was a fast moving invading force and they
wanted secure command areas and I would assume that the palaces were
fortified and built to be easily defended. I wonder what they will do with
them now? I suggest Universitys/Schools/librarys something for the public
good.


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.

Even George W Bush has said he has seen no evidence to link 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?

Lets see if I've got this straight: The same bunch that predicted what
would happen to the Peacock Throne in Iran, the same crowd that accurately
forewarned folks about the Tet offensive, among other things in Viet Nam,
the folks that told all of us about the eventual breakup of the Soviet
Union, the crew that provided us with the hard evidence of WMD in Iraq,
this gang now wants us to believe they know what is going on in Syria?

Inteligence agents and weathermen - don't bet your life on either. But I
guess each are right sometime - as I sit watching the snow come down that
was supposed to be over by now.


Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help