From: "Ian St. John" 
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 17:44:26 -0400

Kevin Singleton wrote:
> "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?

They were inspecting the ABSENCE of WMDs and providing documented proofs.
After all, that was the PURPOSE of the mission. To certify Iraq as not
HAVING WMDs before sanctions would be lifted.

>
>> 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?

Might be's of tubing that might be converted into gas centrifuge components.
Might be's of conversion efficiency that they might have use more reagent
than reported, or that the reactions efficiency might be more than normal or
that the factories might be rebuilt, or ..


> You just said there were no WMD,

That is the current report. That is the general conclusion of the U.N.
inspectors which was available at the time. Of course, it takes time to
check all of the 'might be's, but maybes seldom are..

> 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,

Again. A standard lie. Many were doucmented to exist prior to the Gulf War
( and with no problem as they were perfectly legal to have them, just as it
is perfectly legal for the U.S. to have massive stockpiles  hidden away for
'contingencies' ).

What was documented is that they did not have them ( or significant evidence
of having them ) at the time of the invasion.

>  and the UN passed resolutions requiring
> Hussein to provide proof that he had destroyed WMD that the UN knew
> never existed?

No. Most of the WMDs were destroyed under supervision by the first U.N.
mission that was sabotaged by the U.S. spies. That is a different thing than
him not ever having had them.

> You're logic is twisted and ridiculous, even by UN
> standards.  You should read some of the resolutions, before you start
> arguing about them.

Your bullshit is not really worth a response.

>
>> 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.

Fair enough.

> The precinct head
> wouldn't be patting anybody down,

Now we delve into your fantasy world. The U.N. inspections were a rather
'invasive' search requiring him to open up all bodily caviites....


>  because he would be too busy
> scamming an oil-for-food program to line his pockets,

More mindless rhetoric with fabricated charges.

>  and the policeman would be returning fire in the "no-fly zones"

You mean that the police would be illegally invading his home and shooting
everyone that tried to defend themselves? The 'no fly zones' were one of the
first instances of illegal U.S. miltary presence not sanctioned by the U.N.
or international law.

>  for
> approximately 12 years prior to launching his attack.

Don't forget that you would also be preventing hiim from shopping for
groceries or working for a living while you are in a steady campaign of
provocation.

> In the
> meantime, the bomber would be swearing blind that he had no WMD,

Of course, and the extensive body search by the sergeant would have backed
that up, while you continue your 'are you still beating your wife'
interrogation.

> but
> be totally unable to produce the requisite documentation

Actually, the 'requisite documents'  were given to the U.N. but had not been
fully processed as yet.

> 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.

No. There was nowhere in Iraq that was 'off limits'. Anything there would
have been reason for the inspectors to leave, and they did not. They merely
required more and more access to ensure that any possible or conceivable
hiding place was empty. The result is that, if he was wearing a bomb, it had
to be smaller than the head of a match and invisible.

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

While I am not a liberal, it is clear that they do not have the investment
in lies that the conservatives have. The truth hurts, doesn't it? Question
is, does it hurt enough?

>
>> 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.

The world is not the U.N. The world is a total collection of countries and
no particular agenda so they have total freedom to do or say anything on any
matter. The U.N. is a political organisation supported by a set of the major
countries with a specific organisation and charter under which they work.
They cannot work freely since their powers are limited by their mandate.
They do have jurisdiction, though, in specific areas such as international
warfare.


>
>> 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.

By no means. They had to have rapid inspections and repeated inspections to
ensure that nothing was being 'shuffled around' behind their backs. It was
the 'instant access' that was most difficult if you consider what it would
take to get an Iraqi inspection team instant access to a minuteman missile
silo..

> That didn't happen, on numerous occasions, over a
> period of about 12 years.  How long do you think we should have
> waited?

Since the situation was contained and improving, I think you should have
waited until it was finished ( which was due in less than two months I
believe ). The sudden invasion was clearly a way to forestall the final
report.

>
>> 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 continually refer to U.N. regulations and yet consider the U.N. to be a
side issue?

> You're clearly not prepared to discuss this subject.  I'm not
> interested in whether the UN had authority to enforce their
> sanctions.

Of course they did.

> They didn't enforce them.

And they had no reason to enforce them as long as Saddam continued to work
with the inspection teams. It is up to the U.N. to decide when the 'serious
consequences' are necessary, not the U.S.

> The US does not require UN
> permission to act in its own self-interest.

You keep confusing the U.S. self interest with the U.N. mandate. You must
really believe you are Masters of the Universe. Any other delusions to
share?

>That doesn't change just because we joined a team.

Obvioulsy you did not join a team, but decided to work under your own 'game
rules'. You can hardly appeal to the 'play book' when you fail to respect
the rules of the game.

>
>> 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.

They had been presented with deliberate misinformation, amounting to
deception, but Bush and his team.

>
>>> 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?

No. The *congress* voted about 75% for the authority and thus it was
Congress that authorised the actions UNDER THE CONDITIONS NAMED. It did not
write a 'blank cheque' as you seem to think.

And yes, Kerry voted to support U.N. resolutions and the defense of the U.S.
He did NOT vote to authorise an illegal and unjustified invasion based on
whim.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237