🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter Benyk" <peterbenyk@mts.net> wrote in message 
news:WAqMd.18134$Ka6.125458@news1.mts.net...
> Ask United Nations where the WMD are -they are the one who said they were 
> in Iraq

Found and destroyed. Remember what Hans Blix kept saying? There is ZERO 
doubt that at one time Iraq did have WMD's. Hell they used chemical weapons 
as early as 1983 in the Iran-Iraq War.


> I guess Saddam will not be invading Kuwait anymore.

Why didn't the Republican administration of the elder Bush, push on to 
Baghdad after laying waste to Iraqi forces on the highway leading to capital 
city?



> I guess Saddam will not be launching any missiles on Israel Anymore

Weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East...Israel yes and Iraq no.

Israel...a democratic country that practices torture.

> I guess Saddam will not be launching any missiles against Saudi Arabia


Saudi Arabia has WMD's while Iraq didn't.

And while Iraq doesn't have Saddam Hussein's torture chambers, Saudi Arabia 
still has their torture chambers in operation.


> I guess Saddam will not be attacking Iran anymore

A war in which the US was too happy to support Saddam Hussein.


> I guess Saddam will not be wiping out the Kurds anymore


And the US looking the other way when Saddam Hussein used WMD's on them.

> I guess there won't be burial plots of hundreds of thousands of Iraquis

Iraqis not Iraquis.

What of the civilian causalties in this war? Why is it the US won't tell the 
general public approximately how many have been killed and injured?


> anymore ,or torture chambers like the UN found


A certain US military based on the same island as a communist country. Or 
the US could always deport some one to a torutre happy country to do the 
dirty work for them.

> I guess Saddam will no longer be threatening the United States.


Oooo...like he was a big threat to the US. The Iraqi military was a shadow 
of it's former self after the first Gulf War, and even then it proved to be 
no match for the US and it's allied forces.

> I guess the people of Iraq will now be free and become a democracy and 
> this will spread as an example through the whole middle east

So it's ok to launch a war of aggression predicated on the lie that the 
country's dictator played a role in terrible terrorist attacks? When that 
lie doesn't hold water another it's ok to make up another lie that the 
dictator has a huge arsenal of WMD's? And when that lie is exposed yet 
another lie is made up that the war of aggression was done out of the 
altruistic desire, guided by the right-hand of God himself, to bring 
democracy to the Iraqi people.

Shallow analysis my friend is you forte. An election needing a huge security 
operation with endless threats from insurgent groups against political 
parties and their candidates. Oh yah what a democracy that is.

Getting wrapped in sentimentality over democracy doesn't make right what has 
gone on in Iraq. Be it when Saddam Hussein was America's buddy and when he 
was America's enemy. Keep in mind that the worst of his crimes happened when 
he was America's buddy.


> I guess Saddam will never have any WMD anymore whether it is the truth or 
> he is bluffing


Bluff? What bluff? The US knew damn well that following the Gulf War all of 
Iraq's WMD's were found and destroyed. But Dubyah and company still lied.



Glen