Happy Birthday America

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
Arthur Hagen wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

What do you suggest?
Sanctions? Tried that, for 12 years.


And they worked.

When did he make full disclosure? Hint: never. They didn't work.

They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?

Inspections? Tried that, for 12 years.


And they worked.


When did he make full disclosure? Hint: never. They didn't work.


They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?


Well, except for when they were banned from entering the country.


After it was discovered that many of the US "inspectors" were spies who
reported strike coordinates back to the US -- this is even something the
"weapons inspectors" admit to, so there's little point in denying it.

You're a great patsy for dictators. And no, the weapon inspectors did NOT
'admit' to it because it didn't happen.

You need to get a better source than Baghdad Bob.

Keep forces there so he's 'contained'? Guess what was #1 on Bin Laden's
complaint list when he murdered over 3000 people and destroyed the WTC.


1: Iraq is not Saudi Arabia any more than the U.S. is Canada. Learn
some
geography.

I bloody well know where Iraq and Saudi are. Saudi is where our troops
defending
the region and 'containing' Saddam were stationed, you sanctimonious
idiot.

snip of irrelevancies)


Maybe some 'incentive' bombing? Tried that in 1998.


Right. Bombs were clearly not the solution.

Right. Kicking his behind out sure as hell solved it though.

Did it.. Show me the proof of WMD
that's why US and British military people got killed.. sooooo

The terms of the cease fire required him to fully disclose all WMD,

programs,

and related documentation within 90 days but 12 years later he had still

not

complied.


Show me the evidence he hadn't complied. And please, do better than a
handful of conventional missiles that could reach 10% further than
allowed
(still far from enough to threaten Israel).

It was HIS obligation to show compliance, not anyone elses to go in and
'discover' if he had.


They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?

You are are a sucker fool. Every inspection team and the entire U.N. knows
he
had the WMD programs. The only disagreement was on what to do about it.
The U.N.
wanted 'more time', after 12 freaking years of that crap.

They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
Sure it doesnt say what they "had" but the point was made that they ceased
and destroyed their WMD programs..
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?

That
the Iraqi doesn't use the same form of bureaucracy as the US, and thus
could
not provide the exact legal papers that the US expected isn't their
fault --

Oh pulEEZE.

You mean like the nuclear docs they "didn't have" but were found in 1995
after a
defector told the inspectors where to look? Or the ones found buried in
the home
flower garden?

none of those documets are to anything recent, They kept the documents..
sooooo
Are you telling me that american biochemical research paperwork was just
desttroyed becasue they thought that bioweapons were bad.. I sure as hell
doubt it... ohhh but wait... I forgot... the only country that has a
goverment that's EVER used a WMD against another country is the usa.. that
makes them "Responsible Adults"

it's the US expectations and understanding of different cultures that
need
to be altered. Not all countries form $500 million committees and hire
a
corps of lawyers and bureaucrats when they need to do something -- they
give
the order, and it's DONE. Papers doesn't prove anything anyhow, as
Blair's
and Bush's "paper evidence" against Iraq clearly showed.
(And even if they had produced the exact paperwork the US "wanted",
would it
have been *believed*?)

Hey pal, having Iraqi trucks evacuate the building you're about to inspect
while
you're blocked at the gate, and yes, they have FILM of it, isn't a
'paperwork'
problem.

Really, So why didnt the lock downs (you know where the military were there
with the UN inspectors) work.. You do know that in most cases t hese planets
were fully surrounded and if you have a large movement of trucks going in
and out then that would have been neglectful of the inspectors.. Still IF
that happen'd then it could pose aproblem, yet that has never came about
before so your sources must be better than mine (or your getting fed from
ABC, NBC, CBS, BUSHRUS)


Another country in the region has now had 36 years to comply with
resolutions, and still doesn't. Should that country be attacked too?

Besides my doubting you have the slightest clue as to what the resolutions
actually say and what type of resolution they are, they've been under
attack for
50 years.

Frode wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Maynard wrote:

Inspections? Tried that, for 12 years.

And they worked.

When did he make full disclosure? Hint: never. They didn't work.


Didn't the US find undocumented chemical weapons on its own soil recently?
When in a glass house and all that.

Go ahead. Tell me you're seriously suggesting that Saddam "lost" his WMD.

Then tell me you can't tell the difference between someone making a good faith
effort to find something vs doing their level best to thwart every attempt to do so.

You've got to be kidding because that wouldn't even be believable as a Three
Stooges plot: "Hi, we're morons."

rstlne wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

Arthur Hagen wrote:

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...


What do you suggest?
Sanctions? Tried that, for 12 years.


And they worked.

When did he make full disclosure? Hint: never. They didn't work.


They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?

Since we know for a FACT that he DID have WMD the answer to your question is
"yes, more is needed."



Inspections? Tried that, for 12 years.


And they worked.


When did he make full disclosure? Hint: never. They didn't work.



They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?

Since we know for a FACT that he DID have WMD the answer to your question is
"yes, more is needed."



Well, except for when they were banned from entering the country.


After it was discovered that many of the US "inspectors" were spies who
reported strike coordinates back to the US -- this is even something the
"weapons inspectors" admit to, so there's little point in denying it.

You're a great patsy for dictators. And no, the weapon inspectors did NOT
'admit' to it because it didn't happen.

You need to get a better source than Baghdad Bob.


Keep forces there so he's 'contained'? Guess what was #1 on Bin Laden's
complaint list when he murdered over 3000 people and destroyed the WTC.


1: Iraq is not Saudi Arabia any more than the U.S. is Canada. Learn

some

geography.

I bloody well know where Iraq and Saudi are. Saudi is where our troops

defending

the region and 'containing' Saddam were stationed, you sanctimonious

idiot.

snip of irrelevancies)


Maybe some 'incentive' bombing? Tried that in 1998.


Right. Bombs were clearly not the solution.

Right. Kicking his behind out sure as hell solved it though.


Did it.. Show me the proof of WMD
that's why US and British military people got killed.. sooooo

The U.N. had 12 years to find them. It's only fair we get the same courtesy
since they already found the easy ones.. that he lied about having too..


The terms of the cease fire required him to fully disclose all WMD,

programs,


and related documentation within 90 days but 12 years later he had still

not


complied.


Show me the evidence he hadn't complied. And please, do better than a
handful of conventional missiles that could reach 10% further than

allowed

(still far from enough to threaten Israel).

It was HIS obligation to show compliance, not anyone elses to go in and
'discover' if he had.



They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?

Since we know for a FACT that he DID have WMD the answer to your question is
"yes, more is needed."




You are are a sucker fool. Every inspection team and the entire U.N. knows

he

had the WMD programs. The only disagreement was on what to do about it.

The U.N.

wanted 'more time', after 12 freaking years of that crap.


They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"

Since we know for a FACT that he DID have WMD the answer to your question is
"yes, more is needed."


Sure it doesnt say what they "had" but the point was made that they ceased
and destroyed their WMD programs..
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?

So you're fool enough to take a proven liar's word and ask for nothing else.

Don't presume the rest of us are just as crazy.


That
the Iraqi doesn't use the same form of bureaucracy as the US, and thus

could

not provide the exact legal papers that the US expected isn't their

fault --

Oh pulEEZE.

You mean like the nuclear docs they "didn't have" but were found in 1995

after a

defector told the inspectors where to look? Or the ones found buried in

the home

flower garden?


none of those documets are to anything recent,

No so.

They kept the documents..
sooooo

That's how you build them. Not to mention they were to be disclosed but he lied
and hid them.

Are you telling me that american biochemical research paperwork was just
desttroyed becasue they thought that bioweapons were bad.. I sure as hell
doubt it... ohhh but wait... I forgot... the only country that has a
goverment that's EVER used a WMD against another country is the usa.. that
makes them "Responsible Adults"

Non-sequitur and irrelevant attempt at diversion. The terms he signed required
disclosure. He didn't. He was in violation, for 12 years. Times up.


it's the US expectations and understanding of different cultures that

need

to be altered. Not all countries form $500 million committees and hire

a

corps of lawyers and bureaucrats when they need to do something -- they

give

the order, and it's DONE. Papers doesn't prove anything anyhow, as

Blair's

and Bush's "paper evidence" against Iraq clearly showed.
(And even if they had produced the exact paperwork the US "wanted",

would it

have been *believed*?)

Hey pal, having Iraqi trucks evacuate the building you're about to inspect

while

you're blocked at the gate, and yes, they have FILM of it, isn't a

'paperwork'

problem.


Really, So why didnt the lock downs (you know where the military were there
with the UN inspectors) work.. You do know that in most cases t hese planets
were fully surrounded and if you have a large movement of trucks going in
and out then that would have been neglectful of the inspectors.. Still IF
that happen'd then it could pose aproblem, yet that has never came about
before so your sources must be better than mine (or your getting fed from
ABC, NBC, CBS, BUSHRUS)

You obviously have no idea what went on during the 8 UNSCOM years and I'll bet
your complete knowledge is whatever snippets you've been spoon fed over the last
year. Go read the UNSCOM inspection reports and educate yourself.

Where in the world you dreamed up the notion there was some 'military' locking
down Iraqi buildings for the U.N. inspectors is a mystery.


Another country in the region has now had 36 years to comply with
resolutions, and still doesn't. Should that country be attacked too?

Besides my doubting you have the slightest clue as to what the resolutions
actually say and what type of resolution they are, they've been under

attack for

50 years.

rstlne wrote:
We saw what 12 years of "handling it better" accomplished: A brutal

dictator

playing perpetual WMD hide and seek with an impotent U.N..


Uh
No.... That's the point right there
It's been 12 years of the USA saying they have been doing it..

No. 12 years of U.N. inspection reports proving beyond a shadow of a doubt he
was, including the government agency he set up to do it and who he appointed to
head it.

12 years of IRAQ saying they have stopped

Said he had no nuclear program. Inspectors found it in 1995 after a defector
showed them where to look. Said he had no sarin gas, till a defector told the
inspectors where to find it. It went on and on, lie after lie.

and now after it's all done and said only paperwork (going back at least 10
years) can support that the country had WMD programs..

Wouldn't be a problem if said paperwork had been presented 12 years ago when he
was bloody well supposed to, now would it?

And as to the knee slapping HIlarious theory that they 'lost' the stuff, the
U.N. UNSCOM inspectors noted that the Iraqis were the most meTICulous record
keepers they had ever seen.


We saw that for 12 years (after the previous war) that they had a brutal
dictator..

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
rstlne wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

Arthur Hagen wrote:

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...


What do you suggest?
Sanctions? Tried that, for 12 years.


And they worked.

When did he make full disclosure? Hint: never. They didn't work.


They did make Full Disclosure
"We have no weapons of mass destruction"
I mean.. Do you need to ask for more?

Since we know for a FACT that he DID have WMD the answer to your question
is
"yes, more is needed."

Since you belong to the group who demanded that Iraq show negative proof[1],
the LEAST you can do is show some positive proof that he had them during the
last few years.

Somehow I doubt you're going to produce any proof, though, since there's
exactly *NO* proof that's been published. All evidence has later turned out
to be false at worst and doubtful at best.

[1]: Of course, demanding negative proof is just a way to say "it doesn't
matter what you say", while misleading the plebs to think "guilty". Asking
for negative proof is not legal in court, and anyone knowing even a little
about logic would scoff at the very idea. It's like if the cops threw you
in jail and demanded "Prove to us that you've never smoked pot, else you're
going to jail". It's ridiculous. The exact same thing happened here -- the
US demanded that Iraq showed proof that they'd destroyed "the rest" of the
weapons, which "were not listed" in their report. Iraq stated that they
couldn't, because said weapons never had existed. Then the US, masters of
public deception, demands of Iraq: "prove that they've never existed".
Uhm, come again? That alone had the world convinced that the US would
attack Iraq *no matter what*, and the whole thing was a setup and a farce to
gain support from the public.

--
*Art

I can't resist....see comments below:

In message , J.D.
writes
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 06:20:06 +0000 (UTC), "All Of A Sudden"
wrote:
Who were your allies in the two recent Gulf wars?
I suppose you're going to say the "Brits" because they want to make
sure the next time they get their asses in trouble with somebody, we
are supposed to be obligated to bail them out.

Which begs the question just what did the Americans and French do during
the Falklands War? We (Brits) got our arses into and out of trouble with
minimum assistance from the former and positive hindrance from the
latter.


and what happened when you TRIED to do vietnam on your own?

I wasn't even IN Vietnam, and if I were, I sure as hell wouldn't have
been alone, asshole!
Arsehole!!

Tsk! Some people seem to have forgotten the very significant involvement
by the British in contributing to the causes of the Vietnam War. Still,
the negative repressive colonial attitudes of the French was probably a
greater contribution.

As a minor point, Britain fought and won jungle wars against Indonesia
(in Borneo) and communist insurgents (in Malaysia), something that both
French and US forces are yet to achieve.



The british forces are the best in the world

True. And acknowledged by all military forces throughout the world.

- How many "Yanks" have been
killed by terrorists in Iraq? How many Brits? try defending 50 years of USA
backed terrorism in Northern Ireland. The Brits did!!

Let's see, we sent how many troops to Irag, and the "Brits" sent how
many? And how many did we lose in comparison? Anybody done a
statistical analysis on that one?

You're forgetting that the British have the easy part of the game in the
south.

Best in the world, huh? And just
how did you come to this not-so-scientific conclusion?

Probably sheer partialism, but it is a recognised truth that the British
have the best and most professional armed forces in the world. Don't
confuse quantity with quality. For the record, my father worked in the
UK armed forces and spent significant amounts of time with US armed
forces. He always had a poor assessment of US forces training, awareness
and capability.



--
Alistair Maclean

In message , noise
writes
I know some guys in the Australian SAS and they are great. IT's a bit of
a boys' club to be sure, but that's part of the culture of being the top
soldiers in the forces I guess. They are the best we've got, on a par
with the British SAS, some of the finest in the world. They're not
really assault troops, AFAIK they do more of your kind of surveillance
and covert operations. One of them was in a music production course my
ex-girlfriend did, and one night they had to all say what they did for
a living. There were hair-dressers, office workers etc., then this guy
gets up and says he's a professional trained assassin or something

If the guy is really SAS then he should know better than to be stupid
enough to tell everyone what he did for a living. I work on the
principle that real SAS don't brag about it. It just makes them into
targets.

--
Alistair Maclean

In article ,
says...
I've had two kidney transplants in the last 20 years in the US.

If I lived north of the border, I'd probably be dead or still waiting
for one!

Or the first one they put in you mighta been a good one, and not something
taken from a genetic modification of a cow

-----------------Insert your own mad cow joke here.

In message , J.D.
writes
Both of these derived from the work of all sorts of pioneers,
including England's Charles Babbage (the Difference Engine, a mech-
anical calculator, which had input, output, registers [fits a def-
inition of memory] and processing - again, a working model was
built but his full design never was),

The original machine never worked and was never completed. (Engineering
tolerances were too poor)

Ada what's-her-name after whom Ada the programming language as used
by US. DoD (credited with writing the first program for a pro-
grammable machine, early 19th century[?]),

She was a great publicist for Babbage but IIRC she didn't program.


whoever that guy was in
the British industrial revolution late 18th cen. who came up with
the punched-card reader and applied it to operate "programmable"
weaving looms, giving us punched cards for many years, and
others. Primarilly, it was the Brits in the WWII though. If you
read a book called "Ultra Goes to War", a fair bit is printed about
the developement of Turing's machine, which was used for breaking
German radio cyphers (Ultra was the codename for this intelligence,
and it focused on breaking the output of the Enigma cypher machine).

Why not throw in the bit about U-571 being a falsification

--
Alistair Maclean

In message , Arthur Hagen
writes
Yes, Saddam Hussein and his sons were evil dictators.
NO, the US had no right to attack Iraq. While the government of Iraq was
evil, it was THEIR government, and not subject to US judgment.


Not entirely THEIR government. It was the government imposed by the
minority Sunni Muslims upon the Kurdish and Shia Muslim majority against
their wishes. And, technically, seeing as the Iraqi government of Saddam
Hussein appears not to have functioned as a proper government does it
merit the title of 'government'?

--
Alistair Maclean