"URN" <utopianrepublicnews@deadturdblossom.com> a écrit dans le message
de news: enbkll$p1u$1@aioe.org...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:I7cmh.109425$rv4.48074@edtnps90...

I have always said that the war in Irak was justified by the
resolution 687, and of course 1447 which the last chance Saddam was
given to comply to 687, which he didn't, in virtually every single one
of its clauses, including the WMD. About that, he refused to even talk
about anthrax until the last minute. But he also breached it in many
many other ways. Unfortunately, about the WMD, the US let him ship all
he had to Syria before the invasion. That Saddam was in cahoot with
the US is so ridiculous it is to roll over the floor laughing, but the
media still rumours today that, for isntance, his WMD were American
despite the proof it was European, (Americans stopped any possible
dual use or scientific justification very early, once they realized it
was misused. Not so the Europeans which were the ones that allowed him
to gas the Kurds.) Sure, once, they had to do something to offset the
advantage they had to give Iran with weapons after they had illegally
seized their embassy, by providing some satellites photographs, but
just so they wouldn't be giving unfair advantage to one side or the
other. They never did anything else to help Saddam. What is sad is
that unfounded disinformation is everywhere, and the biggest liars are
the ones that are most revered by the public in many countries. Even
in the USA BTW; that so many Americans are playing in the hands of the
enemies of America, it is to barf.

But why would I bother even talking to you, as you will always distort
whatever I, or anyone, would say. You are a born liar. The truth
exasperates you. I should take the New Year Resolution of ignoring
your posts since they are pure bunk, like you. But as we have seen
over the last few years, it doesn't change anything. You still come on
a newsgroup to mock its subject, mock the truth, and, we can see it
even in the last posts you made these past days, with your bunk site,
denigrate all the posters who debunk you, especially those who speak
about the topic. You are a disgrace with absolutely no sense of
proportion and act like a bully in a place where you don't belong, and
then, you whine like a little girl that people don't like you, as we
see today in the 'Happy New Year' thread.

Consult a psychiatrist, Bunk, you need one. You are not one.

J.

You consult a rationalist, Jeano. The UN Security Council didn't
authorize military action since the US failed to get the vote for it.
Serious consequences of non-compliance to those two Resolutions were
(mis)interpreted by the Bush administration as requiring all-out war,
removal of the government, and occupation to support another
government. That interpretation failed to get that UNSC vote, nor did
several major allies want to go along with that interpretation, and
kept their troops home.

AGAIN you lie.

The security council had unanimously signed for the grave consequences

and did not comply in virtually every clause. There was no alternative,
no authorization of any kind, but that of the members coalition that
respected its signature, who had all lattitude, like they had during the
first Gulf War.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/07/sprj.irq.main/index.html

------Extract---------------------------------------------------------
When the St. Patrick's Day deadline arrives, the U.N. Security Council
will meet to decide whether Baghdad has complied and gotten rid of any
weapons of mass destruction it might have. If the council decides that
Iraq has not complied, it might issue a statement to that effect, and
the "serious consequences" warned of in the resolution would follow.


Most likely, that would involve U.S.-led military action.
Predictions of failure for resolution


If the proposal passes, Iraq will likely fail to comply with it, one
council diplomat said. "I have a better chance of getting a date with
Julia Roberts than Iraq has of complying in 10 days," the diplomat
added.
------End-------------------------------------------------------------

You see, there si NO QUESTION that Iraq didn't comply witht he
resolution, to pretend otehrwise would be a lie, and there was admission
of this, and they tried to extend the deadline but by then Saddam hadn't
even begun talking about the anthrax. There was question as to whether
any deadline would ever work and so it was the only outcome BUT the US
tried to propose to act without attacking directly, but by making a
counter-resolution of regime change...

What the French vetoed was a watered down resolution to make the actual
resolution, which was the lifting of the ceasefire, into one of a regime
change, nothing else. This specific last minuite resolution would have
been voted down by the promised French Veto, and so it was abandonned,
the original resolution still stood, and was applied.

The US led coalition had two choices, either wait until there is a
consensus which would have never happened because the desisting UNSC
countries were in cahoot with Saddam (and even the Secretary General's
son had a stake in that which made him somehow refuse to outright refute
the ludicrous proposition by a journalist that there was something
illegal in the intervention.), or go ahead and implement the resolution,
keeping the UN credibility. Those who refute that, refute the logic of
the words printed black on white on resolutions. It is totally
impossibnle to refute logically, but politically, as we see, anything
can happen. Makes these traitors to the world. That includes journalists
who can't but know better (I know, i have been one, and there is nothing
more sacred than the truth, but not anymore, the ^probity and the
coutrage to uphold the truth has been flushed away for some reason,
maybe they have something against the administration, no excuse... It
includes everybody who refute this. It is insane the number of people
who espouses these lies, but it seems that this insanity is contagious.
Yet their theory is unsustainable.

One could say that if the US had known that the world wouldn't rally,
but would continue betraying everything in order to get on their case,
they could have said the hell with the UN credibility. Wothout the full
coalition, they needed to reconsider the plan, not go ahead despite the
deadline, but they had good allies and probably expected that they could
overcome the adversity, and that the rest of the world would come to its
senses, not the incredible sequence of events that followed, making them
bear the brunt of the whole thing and blaming them at every turn.

But even then, I wonder if the credibility of the UN wasn't utmost and
would have engendered the same scenario, although events showed they
(the UN) have none (credibility) when it came to Iraq.

If Syria had Saddam's WMD arsenal, it was never detected by satellite
or other means as it was moved hundreds of miles into that bordering
nation. If in fact Hassad is hiding Saddam's WMD arsenal, and since
Bushites keep publicly warning that Syria and Iran represent a danger,
it would behoove the Bush adminstration to present such evidence to the
world to confirm it so they can justify a military invasion, or an
economic coercion. No such evidence has ever come forth.

AGAIN YOU LIE. There was satellite detection of long caravans of hundred
of thousands of tons of military material moved to Syria just prior to
the invasion. he was certainly not moving the playboys of his sons.

In the absence of evidence, your argument collapses into a fairy story
to your liking and convenience, making you appear to have never been
wrong, or the Bushites to have been wrong, or that any lying or
covering ever occurred, and that it's all a huge left-wing conspiracy
to leave the world vulnerble to a massive WMD attack...because? Well,
because the Left, or someone crazy and sinister, wants to have the
world destroyed and all of us dead.
Sheeeesh...Jeano, just admit you were duped by some inept and/or lying
politicians, and let it go at that.
Docrodile

Gee, I wonder if it is worth replying to you...

telling lies, you will act as if you don't know. no wonder youattack
individuals by invented ludicrous lies, you have no shame...

Anyway, evidence from satellite photos has been tracked and some fo the
reference was posted here...

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.abuse.recovery/msg/32ab8be79f43e6e0

With the link from NTI, a totally reliable source:

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004_4_26.html
Iraq had Chemical Weapons, Israeli General Says (...) “Perhaps they
transferred
them to another country, such as Syria,” he said. “We very clearly saw
that
something crossed into Syria. (...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or one article by Grub, sept 2005:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.abuse.recovery/msg/c48100241419be24

Showed that link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm

Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials

(etc. very interesting article)..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course this article you will not consider even if it is true that kay
said that:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml


NewsMax - Jordan's King Abdullah revealed on Saturday that vehicles
reportedly containing chemical weapons and poison gas that were part
of a deadly al Qaeda bomb plot came from Syria, the country named by
U.S. weapons inspector David Kay last year as a likely repository for
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is just scrapping the surface, there are other sources...

Anyway, it is certain that Saddam moved this stuff, it was indeed
observed. Now, the nuclear program wasn't in advanced stages, they also
knew that, but Saddam did try to get more yellow cake from Niger,
despite the incredible saga that went around that, you know all this is
true, you read the Buttler report.

I'll admit something about this in particular, I really don't understand
why weasels rule the world, it eludes me why people cannot see beyond
their lies despite the facts. And because of this I have no idea where
it is going, but the Muslim war scenarii of Nostradamus, the only
remaining ones left to occur, are unavoidable... even though the precise
chronology is not decipherable before the fact.

But one thing is sure, and you can laugh all you want, only God could
have shown him what was ahead, 500 years ago. Short of knowing the
chronology of the future, we can at leaast see why it will be so easy
for these wars to happen; the world begs for them by its blindness. If
all this insanity serve a purpose, it is to understand why the future is
so bleak.

J.