From: "Kevin Singleton" 
Newsgroups: alt.guitar.amps misc.consumers.house alt.home.repair sci.environment
Subject: Re: Kerry should work at IHOP.  not run for president
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:24:03 -0400

"Ian St. John"  wrote in message 
news:w3Aad.14383$3C6.570009@news20.bellglobal.com...

> No. If that were the case, then there woudl be no point to the 
> inspections.
>
Then, what were they inspecting?

> No. They kept enacting resolutions demanding more access and documentation
> of the disposal of the WMDs. They never had a complete list and thus had 
> to
> be 'thorough' and base their inspections on 'might be's.
>
"Might be's" (sic) of what?  You just said there were no WMD, presumably 
ever, but we know that's not true.  Now, you're saying the inspectors were 
searching to make sure there were no WMD, which you already said never 
existed, and the UN passed resolutions requiring Hussein to provide proof 
that he had destroyed WMD that the UN knew never existed?  You're logic is 
twisted and ridiculous, even by UN standards.  You should read some of the 
resolutions, before you start arguing about them.

> No. A clear analogy and correcting a quite distorted one. All you have 
> left
> is partisan rhetoric?
>
To be accurate, the analogy would have to mention the previous history of 
strapping bombs to one's chest.  The precinct head wouldn't be patting 
anybody down, because he would be too busy scamming an oil-for-food program 
to line his pockets, and the policeman would be returning fire in the 
"no-fly zones" for approximately 12 years prior to launching his attack.  In 
the meantime, the bomber would be swearing blind that he had no WMD, but be 
totally unable to produce the requisite documentation to show that he had 
destroyed the stockpiles of which the precinct head was already aware, and 
refusing to be searched and denying access to certain parts of his chest, 
the entire time.

You can keep spinning the facts, but you're just spinning the truth out of 
them.  Typical liberal.

> Yes. Semantics ( what words mean ) is an important function of intelligent
> converstaion which is why you diss it.
>
Ok.  Explain the difference between the "world" demanding sanctions, and the 
"UN" demanding sanctions.  Please.  Describe the practical difference.

> Well, to cooperate as fully as necessary to complete the job. Thus, they
> were always redefining how much cooperation was 'required' as they got
> suspicions they had to check out.
>
I think just letting the inspectors into the site to be inspected would be 
adequate.  That didn't happen, on numerous occasions, over a period of about 
12 years.  How long do you think we should have waited?

> The point here is not your lies ( really Bushs since he is the one who
> created them ) but the fact that it was not YOUR or his place to judge
> whether sanctions were effective or whether Saddam had complied
> suffiiciently. He was under sanctions by U.N. authority, and the surrender
> agreeement  which  specified that he was to give up WMDs was with the U.N.
> not the U.S.
>
I think you really should go and read some of these UN resolutions.  You're 
clearly not prepared to discuss this subject.  I'm not interested in whether 
the UN had authority to enforce their sanctions.  They didn't enforce them. 
The US does not require UN permission to act in its own self-interest.  That 
doesn't change just because we joined a team.

> What WMDs? They have shown that there were no WMDs in Iraq already, which
> was reported ( but not entirely confirmed) by the U.N. inspectors, This is
> in the CIA report. Nor are there any 'friends' as that is also conceded.
> Even Rumsfeld conceded that there was no ( and thus conceded that there 
> had
> never been) any credible evidence of connections between Iraq and 
> Al-Quaeda.
> Nor would there have been any significant threat considering that Iraq was
> under inspection and surrounded by hostile forces and neighbors. I repeat.
> There was no significant threat to the U.S.
>
Then, in very simple terms, please explain why the US Congress (including 
Senator John Kerry) believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat?  Please.  Do 
your best.

>> The authority was against the "continuing threat" from Iraq, which
>> indicates that those in Congress who voted in favor of authorizing
>> the president to use force believed that Iraq was, and continued to
>> be, a threat.  Nothing is said about "active" or "proven", and your
>> pathetic, flaccid attempt to spin the facts falls flat on its face.
>
> So he was given authority to move U.S. troops into battle based on a 
> fantasy
> scenario?? Let us be real here. Your delusions are getting out of hand.
>
It was Senator John Kerry that authorized the action.  Whose delusion are we 
discussing, here?

-- 
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com