naren99@aol.com

From: "e. phil smeck" wrongplace@wrongtime.gov


That cuts both ways. The UN inspectors and Blix are vindicated, but of course
they were accused of incompetence.

The US intelligence on WMDs was completely useless.

And nobody was willing to give the UN years to find the "weapons." Find the
quote.

Bush was determined to invade no matter what. WMDs were nothing but PR. They
LIED. Bush lied in the State of the Union address. Wolfowitz even admitted it.
You were lied to, but obviously you don't give a shit.

US soldiers are dying because of these lies. But obviously you don't give a
shit about that either.

We don't deserve a democracy. What a bunch of pussies.

--
Naren

e. phil smeck

tyrone slothrop, hallucinating he was naren99@aol.com (Naren99) conjured
news:20030625212357.09335.00001617@mb-m11.aol.com:


<snip>

_read_ the article. these do***ents were buried in the backyard of a house
and hidden in shipping containers, unfound by blix, albaradei & co.

from the linked article "... It gave detailed instructions on how to hide
materials and deceive U.N. weapons inspectors, the sources said."

in other words, they knew exactly what blix would do and what protocols he
would follow. all the iraqis needed to do was hide do***ents and materials
where they knew the inspectors wouldn't look.

so it does not vindicate blix; it shows how methodically easy it was to


as has been shown, the iraqis methodically do***ented everything. sorting
through such a bureaucratic mess will take significantly longer than the
time allowed by the critics so far.

again the recent finds are far from definitive proof, but they are posistive leads.


so all of the intelligence shared in the unsc was a lie? how do you know?
you've seen all of the briefings and reports on this?

again, this proves the point that people saying there are no signs of wmds
are premature. no one has said saddam did an excellent job hiding any
signs of such programs. instead, they say "there are no wmd programs. they
fact that you haven't found any is proof they didn't exist."

uh, no. it proves they haven't been found yet.

that's not the quote i referred to. slow down your righteous indignation
and re-read my post for what the actual quote was.

better yet _you_ do the math and figure out how long weapons inspectors
were in iraq for (2003 minus 1991 is ____ years ?). how many times the
iraqis were told to comply with inspections?

i'll tell you: after resolution 1441 was passed (in nov. '02), saying iraq
"will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations
as spelled out in the resolution.

yet, months later (late feb, 03), members of the same security council that
passed the measure said:

"We find it unacceptable to adopt a resolution that foresees the use of
force," Putin told journalists after talks with German Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder.

He said that Russias position on the Iraq issue remained unchanged.

"We must resolve this situation through peaceful means and make sure that
Iraq complies with the UN resolutions," he added.

"We believe that the potential of (UN Security Council) Resolution 1441 is
far from having been exhausted."

http://www.arabia.com/newsfeed/article/english/0,14183,374611,00.html.

this is after u.n. passed resolutions 687, 688, 699, 706, 707*, 715 (1991);
949* (1994); 1060* (1996); 1115*, 1137* (1997) 1154, 1194*, 1205* (1998)
all dealing with iraqi disarming. resolutions with * specifically condemn
iraq for being asshats and intentionally prohibiting or restricting access
of inspectors in their search for weapons.

http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/UNSecCnclResolutions.htm

so to the russians, germans and french, the "serious consequences" in 1441
amount to throwing spit balls and say _again_ "pretty please disarm and
give up your info on wmd"?

so you tell me - how long was the axis of weasel willing to wait?

until blix stumbled into someone's backyard. and _that_ was scheduled for
when now?

i'll wait for your answer.

ois that the famously debunked "they're floating on a sea of oil" quote?

no i give a shit. i give a shit that hussein is now impotently cowering in
a ba*****t in some mud brick house somewhere. i give a shit that iraqis
have a chance to govern themselves in a responsible manner.

wah wah. you cry that river of crocodile tears. show me you care by doing
the same for every u.s. training mission fatality that takes a soldier's
life, every accidental death when u.s. military equipment fails and kills a
soldier or every soldier killed in a friendly fire incident involving u.s.
troops.

i'll be waiting for your hand-wringing posts every time such an incident
happens. if you don't, it clearly shows that you don't care about our soldiers.
</sarcasm>

soldiering is an inherently dangerous business, but has anyone ever claimed
otherwise? show me the war with no fatalities and i'll agree that the
rumsfeld/franks's plan, as executed, wasted and inordinate number of u.s.
lives. did some soldiers die that didn't have to? absolutely. but that
will always happen and no sane leader ever likes sending men to war. the
numbers in this conflict were low and while there is grief for every single
soldier who died, i'll bet the planners of this war feel comfortable with the cost.


right! throw the whole thing out!

in the meantime, frawnce has a cool democracy and you sound like their
kinda guy. maybe you go hang there until things are more to your liking
here?

--
~`~`~`~`~
democracy! whiskey! ***y!

now spinning: fsol, "herd killing"

e. phil smeck

tyrone slothrop, hallucinating he was naren99@aol.com (Naren99) conjured
news:20030626150016.10617.00002349@mb-m15.aol.com:

revenge for daddy? but didn't king george the first kick saddam's tuchus
too? or was it war for oil?

after 12 years of inspections and dodges, it was time to shit or get off
the pot. was it a shame that it had to come to that? absolutely.

but i can't believe that you'd believe that hussein ever intended to
disarm as required. he was too corrupt and had too much help on how to
cheat and cir***vent the embargoes - all at the expense of the iraqi
people.


so, you're the type to let your whole house catch fire, when you could've
stopped the small grease fire in your kitchen, because such a small fire
wasn't an "imminent danger" to you in your bedroom?

nope. no sense in being proactive. no sense in getting the huge inertia
it takes to make such a change moving so that when the threat turns real,
the measures to make the change are in place?

how much of the general public (in any nation, not just the u.s.) will
sit and listen to some policy wonk list myriad reasons why this guy
should be taken out?

"he's a cruel dictator." so what? there's about a dozen of them.

"he's committed genocide." been there, done that.

yada yada yada...

"he'll have nukes to pass around." let's get our ass over there!

cut to the chase. soundbites are the way, like it or not.

what kind of strawman are you pulling here? when were congo and liberia
even remotely close to this conversation? when did congo and liberia
_ever_ have anywhere near the prosperity, national culture (not tribal
disputes), ties with the u.s. and freedoms that iraqis had
(comparatively) in the '70s and '80s?

focus, naren-san.

but to your point, isn't the u.n. already "in action" in those countries?
yep. and, as usual, they're letting their own people get killed,
butchered and eaten in the process.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/6089273.htm

The headline tells all....

-------------
"Pleas for help, then death for U.N. workers

Their mutilated bodies were found in Congo. For days, they had begged to
be evacuated."
-------------

yet you advocate the u.n. was competant to handle weapons inspections in
iraq, when they're unwilling to defend or evacuate their own workers?

no thanks. stories like this make me even more confident that the path
taken in iraq was correct.


i know what it won't have: saddam hussein in power. that's not a bad
thing.

c'mon naren. i don't live in the united states. i live in southeast
asia (check the x-ref traceroute in the header of my posts: this one
should be via singtel (singapore) by way of giganews-australia). my day
job is trying to improve healthcare in this part of the world. i've
spent much of the last 2 months moving between nagpur, mumbai and
bangalore. in the past year, i've also been to japan, hong kong,
malaysia, thailand and germany, and will travel to vietnam, australia and
indonesia later this year.

xenophobe? you can call me that if you want, but it doesn't make it so.
but clearly i hate all non-whites and non-americans.

i personally know more muslims who wanted change in iraq than didn't by a
factor of about 3-to-1 (and there is no shortage of muslims i know here
and work with). actual quote from a random muslim cab driver on the day
the shooting started in march: "what took you so long? this should've
been done 12 years ago".

but they're not ones chanting at demonstrations or burning effigies,
either. the ones i know against the west's policies (sometimes
virulently) don't know why, they just know they're told to.

and believe me, there isn't 1 of them that wouldn't give their eye teeth
(if they have them) to trade places with you in the states right now.

so unless you're pushing your own grass roots campaign and trying to make
a positive change in your own politcal world (and contributions to
greenpeace or amnesty international etc. are not the kind of change i'm
talking about), you'll pardon me if i think you less than sincere as you
critique me from the luxury of your keyboard.

call me ignorant? speak for your own ignorance, naren. you're much safer
when you don't assume things. not nearly as funny, but definitely safer.

--
~`~`~`~`~
democracy! whiskey! ***y!

now spinning: 16 volt, "everyday everything"