🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 02:38:39 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <3d7ab14f.21356599@news.ev1.net>, Monte wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 23:34:24 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>So where were you when Bill Clinton got permission to use force 
>>>to get Iraq inline weapons wise without any special proof back in 1998?
> 
>> Well, if memory serves, what the U.S. attacked were military
>> installations that were involved with doing or supporting Iraqi
>> attacks on our 'no-fly zone' patrol flights.  Uh, can you say direct
>> attack instead of  Rumsfeldian " I believe the they are a threat".
>
>And why did they attack these installations? Why did congress act 
>to give the president the power to use military power as he saw fit? 
>because they were believed to be a threat. 
>

They attacked, and with your poor memory for details we attacked and
some British planes attacked as well, maybe others.  These are as a
result of and in compliance with the UN sanctions levied as a result
of the Gulf War.  Authority to declare further war or measures are not
granted explicitly, nor implicitly.

Now as to that second sentence, which is a complete non sequiter to
the first.  The powers granted to the president after 9/11 apply
specifically to actions against terroism.  That implies, though the
document is a shakey piece of poorly written crap, that their be a
cause for such action other than mere hunches or grudges.  Once before
congress passed such a poorly written resolution, and it wound up
letting another Jesus freak Texas whacko (yes Jesus freak, read ol'
Lyndons memoirs where he says he talked to Jesus at night on the
bedroom veranda.) expand the war in Viet Nam, I refer you to the Gulf
of Tonkin Resolution.

>So tell me, how has iraq become less of a threat? 

Iraq is no less of a threat now, than it was in 1991 to the U.S.  and
that is nil, null, zero.  They do not have delivery capabilities for
nukes, unless you count some upgraded SCUDs, which arguably are
difficult to direct accurately at even sub-continents and with a range
of a half filled Volkswagon of no threat to anyone outside of their
neighbors.  As for bio-chem, it was pointed out that their is evidence
that some crop duster type planes have been fitted with spray
equipment.  Again, you might ask yourself how the hell they are going
to refuel those things even to get outside the immediate area.  No,
Iraq poses absolutely no threat to the U.S.  

EXCEPT, if they goad the U.S. into a unilateral attack the world will
back Saddam, though it won't save him.  But the oil prices will
skyrocket, world economy will make this last tumble look like a mild
sell off on wall street, we will have to maintain thousands of troops
in an unstable, and hostile country for many years and bring huge
deficits which in turn will drive up interest rates, unemployment
rates and weaken our military to such an extent that REAL threats,
China, and yes, Russia will gain tremendous influence in areas we now
the upper hand.

>
>The answer is they haven't. The only difference I see here is what 
>party occupies the whitehouse. 
>

You do not delve beyond the superficial in anything, do you?




"Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact, .... Printing, which comes necessarily out of Writing, I say often, is equivalent to Democracy: invent Writing, Democracy is inevitable. ..... Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures: the requisite thing is that he have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is requisite." - Carlyle