Warmongers?
How about all the people like yourself that oppose any action in Iraq
and just wanted to let Saddam keep the status quo, doesn't that make
all of you oppressors or at least enablers?

Case in point if someone is getting mugged right in front of you, and
you do nothing; then doesn't your coward ness make you just as guilty
as the mugger because you have not taken action and allowed the mugger
to commit his crime? Society cannot allow these types of things let
this to happen anymore, we can't just look the other way. These
injustices have allowed the creation of the terrorist of the world.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying that we need to invade every
country with a dictator who is abusing his people, but in the case of
Iraq, it was the right thing to do and that is justified by the fact
that the people of Iraq came out and voted against all odds. They have
finally been heard after months and months of people like you drowning
out their voices saying that we shouldn't have helped them.

The effects of Iraq are spreading to other countries like Lebanon and
elsewhere, where the people have heard from the USA for years that we
are for freedom, but we have never shown them that are intentions are
truthful by supporting the dictators that keep them suppressed. In
Lebanon we are not dropping bombs but are giving support and putting
pressure on Syria, thereby helping the people of Lebanon gain their own
liberty.

The positive changes in the Middle East are happening right in front of
you and at greater speed than most thought. Although time will tell, at
the moment Bush's strategy seems to have been right!

Mule wrote:

Warmongers?
How about all the people like yourself that oppose any action in Iraq
and just wanted to let Saddam keep the status quo, doesn't that make
all of you oppressors or at least enablers?

***********

People who opposed taking any sort of action in Iraq and "just wanted
to let Saddam keep the status quo" are very much un-like myself, so the
rest of your nonsense is barely worthy of a reply.

People like myself would have at least heard what Hussein had to say
when he asked for a meeting with Bush or the Secty of State just hours
before the invasion began, rather than responding that it was "too
late" for diplomacy. Heck, for all we know he might have offered to go
into exile if we'd let him take a couple of billion of his bucks with
him. We would have been hundreds of billions ahead, with 100,000 deaths
and injuries prevented, and probably further into the political reform
of Iraq than we are today. When we faced the Russians in the Cuban
Missle Crisis we used the military to make the other side "blink". That
was statesmanship. We prevailed. Using the other side's "blink" as a
prime opportunity to hit the opponent with eyes closed may be
effective, but it's not statesmanship and it will come back to bite us
on the butt.

On 4 Mar 2005 08:36:14 -0800, wrote:

Mule wrote:

Warmongers?
How about all the people like yourself that oppose any action in Iraq
and just wanted to let Saddam keep the status quo, doesn't that make
all of you oppressors or at least enablers?

***********

People who opposed taking any sort of action in Iraq and "just wanted
to let Saddam keep the status quo" are very much un-like myself, so the
rest of your nonsense is barely worthy of a reply.

People like myself would have at least heard what Hussein had to say
when he asked for a meeting with Bush or the Secty of State just hours
before the invasion began, rather than responding that it was "too
late" for diplomacy. Heck, for all we know he might have offered to go
into exile if we'd let him take a couple of billion of his bucks with
him. We would have been hundreds of billions ahead, with 100,000 deaths
and injuries prevented, and probably further into the political reform
of Iraq than we are today. When we faced the Russians in the Cuban
Missle Crisis we used the military to make the other side "blink". That
was statesmanship. We prevailed. Using the other side's "blink" as a
prime opportunity to hit the opponent with eyes closed may be
effective, but it's not statesmanship and it will come back to bite us
on the butt.

Perhaps you're correct, Chuck. Perhaps Saddam was going to capitulate at the
last moment, tell us where all the bad stuff was, stop killing his people by the
hundred-thousands, and promise not to attack anyone ever again.

But if we'd listened to all that there wouldn't have been elections in Iraq,
there wouldn't have been a capitulation by Libya, there wouldn't have been
elections in Saudi Arabia, or newfound democratic intentions in Egypt, or the
departure of Syrian troops from Lebanon, or any change whatsoever in any of the
attitudes in the mideast.

Chirac and crew would still be getting millions from the oil for food program,
along with half (it seems) of the UN bureaucracy, hundreds of thousands of men,
women and children would still be in mass graves, and everything would be
hunky-dory.

When we faced the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis, we didn't worry about
what the UN, or France, or Germany thought. We just did what we had to do.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

wrote:

***********


People like myself would have at least heard what Hussein had to say
when he asked for a meeting with Bush or the Secty of State just
hours
before the invasion began.

When would it have been ok with you to finally go in and get Saddam
out?We had been screwing wit this guy for twelve years. I guess the
twelve years of double talk, lies and stalling from Saddam to the rest
of the world are just fine with you but for the people of Iraq it met
many more death from his hands than needed to be. We should have taken
care of him during the first Iraq war and even less would have died.
But instead we waited and more people died.


Heck, for all we know he might have offered to go
into exile if we'd let him take a couple of billion of his bucks with
him.

We did offer him exile or don't you remember.

When we faced the Russians in the Cuban
Missle Crisis we used the military to make the other side "blink".
That
was statesmanship. We prevailed. Using the other side's "blink" as a
prime opportunity to hit the opponent with eyes closed may be
effective, but it's not statesmanship and it will come back to bite
us
on the butt.

Are you trying to say that we just went in blindly with no warning?
Wow! Your sense of recent history is really confused. Since you don't
seem to remember ... We haggle with the UN for months on end to comply
with their own resolutions to no avail. Bush gave a deadline to Saddam
and the UN and nothing was done. Should he just ignore that deadline
and just give another then another and another? It was time to **** or
get off the pot.

Oh yea! you're the one that wanted to give him the 1000th chance in
hopes that it wouldn't have gone to 1001st and meanwhile the people
of Iraq where still being throw off buildings by Saddam and his thugs,
and their wife's were being rape by professional government sponsored
rapist.

Your sense of recent history is really confused. Since you don't
seem to remember ... We haggle with the UN for months on end to comply
with their own resolutions to no avail. Bush gave a deadline to Saddam
and the UN and nothing was done.

***************

Really?

Think back to December 2002. You may recall a deadline by which we
demanded that Saddam Hussein account for the disposition of all the
WMD's that we knew he, at one time or another, had in Iraq. Iraq met
that deadline, delivering something like 17 volumes of printed material
and some extensive computer files to the United Nations. A matter of
hours later, George Bush was already dismissing the 17 volumes as "all
lies".

Think back a bit further to September 12, 2001. Bush calls his cabinet
together and asks, "What evidence can we find that Iraq was involved in
these attacks?" One of his top security advisors said, "Mr. President,
there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in any way at all." Bush's
response: "Wrong answer."

We were destined to go to war with Iraq beginning on the first day of
Bush II's regime. When we couldn't find a good excuse, we invented one.

On 4 Mar 2005 13:49:31 -0800, wrote:

Your sense of recent history is really confused. Since you don't
seem to remember ... We haggle with the UN for months on end to comply
with their own resolutions to no avail. Bush gave a deadline to Saddam
and the UN and nothing was done.

***************

Really?

Think back to December 2002. You may recall a deadline by which we
demanded that Saddam Hussein account for the disposition of all the
WMD's that we knew he, at one time or another, had in Iraq. Iraq met
that deadline, delivering something like 17 volumes of printed material
and some extensive computer files to the United Nations. A matter of
hours later, George Bush was already dismissing the 17 volumes as "all
lies".

I think your memory is wrong. I think the problem was one of substance. There
were 17 volumes of nothing. Who indicated there *was* something worthwhile
there?

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I think your memory is wrong. I think the problem was one of substance.
There
were 17 volumes of nothing. Who indicated there *was* something
worthwhile
there?

*********************************

There were 17 volumes of material that said, "We don't have any WMD in
Iraq."

Bush said, the day the material was delivered, "That's all lies". This
from a guy who admits he doesn't read and has probably not read 17
volumes of anything except Playboy magazine in his life.

Nobody every really took a serious look at the material the Iraqis
provided.

Subsequent events and non discoveries support the statement made by the
Iraqi report, and refute the accusation made by Bush.

Point here is....don't yammer on about all the dealines the Iraqis
missed. Even when they complied and conformed we dismissed their
efforts as false or meaningless. We were going to have our little war
come hell or high water. Nothing that Iraq could have done would have
prevented Bush from ivading the country.

On 4 Mar 2005 14:59:14 -0800, wrote:

I think your memory is wrong. I think the problem was one of substance.
There
were 17 volumes of nothing. Who indicated there *was* something
worthwhile
there?

*********************************

There were 17 volumes of material that said, "We don't have any WMD in
Iraq."

Bush said, the day the material was delivered, "That's all lies". This
from a guy who admits he doesn't read and has probably not read 17
volumes of anything except Playboy magazine in his life.

Nobody every really took a serious look at the material the Iraqis
provided.

Subsequent events and non discoveries support the statement made by the
Iraqi report, and refute the accusation made by Bush.

Point here is....don't yammer on about all the dealines the Iraqis
missed. Even when they complied and conformed we dismissed their
efforts as false or meaningless. We were going to have our little war
come hell or high water. Nothing that Iraq could have done would have
prevented Bush from ivading the country.

I will agree to disagree as to the 'value' of the 17 volumes. You seem to have
been one of the few to think of that pile as an actual indication of something
worthwhile.

Besides, it's a mute point.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

wrote in message
ups.com...
I think your memory is wrong. I think the problem was one of substance.
There
were 17 volumes of nothing. Who indicated there *was* something
worthwhile
there?

*********************************

There were 17 volumes of material that said, "We don't have any WMD in
Iraq."

Facts:

We are in Iraq.

We captured Saddam and many of the terrorist leaders.

The rapes, tortures and murders of Iraqi citizens have ended.

Iraq had a free election this past January.

We have yet to find WMD in any large quantity, but that does not mean they
never existed. Reports are now that Russia helped in the transport of them
to other countries.

We are making a positive impact in the Middle East.

So focus on one thing if you want. When it proves that WMD existed, what
will your complaint be? The Liberals are running out of "....but" excuses.

An interesting side note: Nancy Soderbergh, a former Clinton official,
admitted to John Stewart (he was interviewing her after the release of her
book) that the Democrats hope for a failure in the Middle East, and that the
signs of progress are disturbing to them. When asked about Iran and the
positive things being reported in the Middle East she said " There's always
hope that this might not work."

Her closing comments were "Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't
want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to
have progress."

How revealing. How disturbing.

Think back to December 2002. You may recall a deadline by which we
demanded that Saddam Hussein account for the disposition of all the
WMD's that we knew he, at one time or another, had in Iraq. Iraq met
that deadline, delivering something like 17 volumes of printed material
and some extensive computer files to the United Nations. A matter of
hours later, George Bush was already dismissing the 17 volumes as "all
lies".


John H wrote:
I think your memory is wrong.

You're thinking is wrong. Look it up.

... There
were 17 volumes of nothing. Who indicated there *was* something worthwhile
there?


I guess you read all 17 volumes yourself?

The final conclusion of almost 2 years of hunting & digging in
post-invasion Iraq is that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs, and no serious
facilities for producing any.

You're just plain wrong, John. But hey, I guess you can stamp your foot
and insist that water really really *does* flow up hill. A lot of the
retardo fascist nut cases in this newsgroup will agree with you. Makes
you feel good to be part of a group, doesn't it?

DSK