On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 19:02:22 GMT, "tim chandler"
wrote:

Wow, I am amazed! So you admit that Clinton & his administration, France,
Germany, the UN, they all LIED TO US about WMDs when they all said that
Saddam had them, because there weren't any! I guess the thousands of
Iraqis, thousands of Iranians, thousands of Kurds who all died at once at
various times under Saddam, just all happened to die all at once of natural
causes?

OK, I'll type this slowly. Nobody with an ounce of brains denys Iraq
had chemical weapons early in the 1990's. It has been pretty well
accepted that they were used agains the Kurds. As part of the
agreement ending the First Gulf War he was to destroy them. He
claimed he did, but never offered PROOF to the UN, and certainly did
not cooperate with the inspectors. However, we are now faced with a
paradox. Either he had WMDs, and neither the UN inspectors, the
Coalition forces, or the insurgents have been able to find them; or he
disposed of them. It perhaps escaped your limited perception that a
decade has passed since he used them.

Stick your head in the sand if you wish, believe lies if you wish, look at
evil and pronounce it good if you wish, hell, go live under a dictator like
Saddam if you wish. At least Bush is doing something about evil in the
world rather than just talking about it and wringing his hands. People who
believe that the US is the focus of evil in this world are really clueless.

Stick you own head in the sand. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the
rest of the Republican leadership have done more to foster terrorism
than they have done to limit it. Over and over again, we find out we
have been misled, either deliberately or by their incompetence.

A month ago they felt there were 5000 insurgents in Iraq. They
killed 4000 of al Sadr's most militant followers. Now they are
estimating there are 20,000 insurgents.

A month ago they attributed the attacks to non-Iragi militants. Now
it appears most of them are Iraqi. Again and again, they demonstrate
they went into the war with poor planning, and don't have an effective
plan to restore a stable government to the country.

I understand you feel comfortable getting your news from Fox; you
might get a more balanced picture from a less biased source.

PlainBill
Tim C.

"PlainBill" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:13:04 -0400, "Benign Vanilla"
wrote:


"PlainBill" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:56:26 -0400, "Benign Vanilla"
snip
How was Iraq going to blow something up here? It has been pretty well
established that their nuclear weapons development program was going
nowhere.

Osama had no such program and successfully attacked both US civilian and
military targets.

Don't forget, that by the time the last plane crashed in
Pennsylvania, a technique for combatting such hijackings had already
been developed. Unarmed civilians took back the plane and tragically
crashed the plane. Armoring cockpit doors makes it very unlikely any
such attempt would even result in the loss of a plane (I wouldn't give
two bits for the chances of a hijacker surviving the attempt).


They APPEAR to have disposed of their stock of chemical
weapons. That pretty much leaves 'conventional' terrorist attacks.
Face the facts, Hussein was close to the head of the list of worst
dictators of the last century, but he was not a serious threat to the
United States.

You want me to face facts, when you yourself states that they APPEAR to
have
disposed of their weapons? Facts are hardly part of the data we are
working
with here.

Very true - facts are certainly hard to come by. Well, when after 15
months neither the colalition forces nor the insurgents have found
any, I'd have to say 'Appears' is a pretty solid assesment. Nothing
is certain in this world, but it's pretty certain that Bush, Cheney,
et al's claims that Iraq had WMDs were fabrications.


There are dozens of countries with a greater capability to attack us -
just search the CIA World Book of Facts for countries whose 2001 per
capita GNP was greater than Iraq's. There are dozens of nations who
would LIKE to hurt the United States. These include many nations in
the Middle East, many in Africa, and a few in Asia. Look at the
nations who have or are developing nuclear capability. One name pops
up on the 'Danger' list consistently - North Korea. Iran is a second.
Lybia is a third, although they claim to be playing nice NOW.

One reason was to 'Free the opressed people of Iraq'. You don't have
to look even that far to find people who are in worse straits.

Decades ago I heard a Latin phrase - Que Bono (Who Benefits). Ask
that question, then look at the answers and you'll get a pretty good
idea of the reasons Cheney was so eager to attack Iraq - and Bush was
willing to be led around on the leash. I'll give you a hint - Which
nations have the greatest untapped oil reserves?

Oh the blood for oil thing. yeah I forgot.

Yeah, forgetting seems to be a popular talent in the Bush family.
Like when Bush Sr. said he 'couldn't remember' if treason was
discussed at a cabinet meeting.

BV.

PlainBill