On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:26:16 GMT,

Well, the fact that he turned out to be a paper tiger should be one big
hint.

So, because he managed to fool people - the way he *wanted* to - we are
allowed to condemn an action *in retrospect"??

The UN inspectors provided a means to confirm or deny that

complained we were giving them useless "intel" and W. and company
called them incompetent for not finding WMDs. Can we measure w. by
the same standard?

nothing to do with Saddam. It had to do with having troops in the Gulf
and redrawing the map and interests for Israel.

I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to flaviaR@verizon.net:

On 5-Oct-2005, The Secretary of HomInt3rn wrote:

I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The
Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain Barton:

However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war that
began in 1991.

'dem are da facts for better or for worse...

Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k.

And he's wrong....where?

Well, the fact that he turned out to be a paper tiger should be one big
hint. I think Americans would be wise to learn how to just STFU about
Saddam Hussein, since they only look like paranoid psychos when they talk
about him in the sense of justifying the invasion of Iraq.

By

"violating the terms of the ceasefire", I presume you refer to WMDs, of
the
sort he hasn't had since 1991 or so?

No, he refused to allow UN inspectors in to do their jobs.
He jerked them around for 10 YEARS.
I realize quite well that he may have wanted to keep the illusion that he
had WMDs to keep his other enemies in fear if him - or maybe just
make himself look good to the Irqis - but that's just too bad for him.

And if America has to be invaded and/or destroyed to protect the rest of the
world, that'll be just too bad for America.

I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to øéòéï áøúåïý/Riain Barton:

However, the technical glitch is that no treaty had been signed
therefore the war had not been concluded, but there was merely a
ceasefire. Since Saddam kept violating the terms of the ceasefire and
never negotiated a treaty, the United States and other nations had the
right to invade and enforce the ceasefire and/or conclude the war that
began in 1991.

'dem are da facts for better or for worse...

Oh my fucking Goddess, I never knew you were such a right-wing k00k. By
"violating the terms of the ceasefire", I presume you refer to WMDs, of the
sort he hasn't had since 1991 or so?

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:02:10 GMT,

George W. Bush lied to the US, lied to Congress, and lied to the world
in order to wage a war which has killed 100,000 people.

Of course not.

He consistently stated that he was performing in accordance with
in place Ununited Nations resolutions, and he named them.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:02:10 GMT,

George W. Bush lied to the US, lied to Congress, and lied to the world
in order to wage a war which has killed 100,000 people.

Of course not. He consistently stated that he was performing in
accordance with in place Ununited Nations resolutions, and he named
them. Everybody agreed.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:02:10 GMT,

George W. Bush lied to the US, lied to Congress, and lied to the world
in order to wage a war which has killed 100,000 people.

Of course not. He consistently stated that he was performing in accordance with
in place Ununited Nations resolutions, and he named them. Everybody agreed.

Not that you care. You're a fascist who supports killing people you
don't like.

July 1969