On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:23:58 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." a écrit :

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 21:00:43 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." a écrit :

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 05:45:25 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." a écrit :

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 05:40:15 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:

Bucky Kaufman a écrit :

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:3F0CE7BC.93C90C8@globetrotter.net...

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." a écrit :

<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:

It is possible that he destroyed them unilaterally a couple of days
before the invasion, when he smelled the coffee, but maybe he shipped
them to Syria. We will find out exactly, don't worry. Those that
participated in that will be found eventually. Or trails will lead to
discovering the truth.

If Hussein DID send WMD to Syria in the days before the invasion by
Christian Coalition forces, it only serves to further prove that Bush was
extremely misguided when he insisted that going to war with a non-agressor
country was necessary in order to find the WMD.

He went to war because the UN resolution was violated all the time by
Saddam and not only on WMD.

No he didn't. He could care less about UN resolutions.

Only in your dreams.

He had to to keep the UN relevant. 1441 was the last chance of Saddam,
he threw it away by flipping the bird to Kuwait and financing
international terrorism in contradiction with four clauses of 687e,

He didn't support international terrorism. You made that up.

Only in your dreams.

He gave money to families of those killed in the Palestine-Israel
conflict.

Nah, he gave $25 000 ONLY for the murderers. There was no money for the
victims. This is PURE pay-off for murder.

False. He gave money to every family - including family of kids
throwing rocks.

False. He gave $25000 only to family who murdered innocents.

And he didn't give to the family of the victims just the assassins.

Don't just make things up. It wastes our time.

"Iraq is said to have distributed some 35 million dollars to families
of Palestinians who were killed or wounded in the intifada resistance
and towards some reconstruction of demolished buildings.

One very controversial aspect of that aid is the difference it makes
between “regular martyrs” and those who have died in attacks on
Israelis. The families of the regular victims get “just” 10,000
dollars, rather than the 25,000 dollars for the families of the
martyred militants".

http://www.codewan.com.ph/CyberDyaryo/features/f2003_0321_06.htm

Exactly.

You make my point.

This is blatant subsidizing of active terrorists, and giving nothing to
the victims.

The regular martyrs have killed no one.

They include families - with tanks running over their homes.

As opposed to "those who have died in attacks on the Israelis."

Exactly in contradiction of article 32 of Resolution 687e.

So what?

It's Israel's problem - not ours.

They are perfectly able to kill all the Palestinians and are making
excellent progress. They don't need our help.

No need for the US to spend money and lives -just to help the Israelis
in a fight where the Israelis are winning the slaugherhouse
competition three to one.

Thank you very much.

Your argument - that a regular martyr - attacks the treads of the tank
running over their house - is not convincing.

He gave more to suicide families. So what?

So what? it was breaching his obligation under the UN, that's what.

I don't believe you. I think you just made that one up also.

Read the damn clause 32.

Requires Iraq to inform the Council that it will not commit or support
any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed
towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to
condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of
terrorism;

Palestine is not involved in international terrorism. It's fighting to
get the Israelis out of Palestine. It's a domestic matter.

And I don't want to spend one US penny to fight over this matter -
whether Iraq is breaking the rules here or not. Let the UN spend the
money - if they want. And of course they don't want - 11 to 4 against.

Who are you to tell the UN what to do about alleged violations of UN
resolutions?

I don't want US money spent - the UN does not want UN money spent - on
this matter.

So if you want to fund a group to handle it - with your money - fine,
go ahead. But we don't want OUR money spent on this thank you.

Read it. "to condemn unequivocally (...) all acts, methods and practices
of terrorism."

Not to give money to terrorists and cheer them.

Jeez you are dumb OR brainwashed by your terrorists links. Either way
you have no clue. Do you have a brain that is not brainwashed?

It's not in the best interests of the US to invade Iraq - because the
Palestinians put up a struggle against their oppressors.

It's not in the best interests of the US - to attack Iraq on such
grounds.

The US - does not have to act contrary to its best interests -
especially since no one agrees with you that this matter would warrant
an attack on Iraq. Except maybe Israel and some in the US.

Many other nations support the palestinians - and we wisely do not
attack them. Many are allies of ours.

the

resolution that had top be abided in order not to lift the cease fire.
And he never really abided by the WMD clauses either,

He disarmed - he got rid of all his WMD.

Only in your dreams. He played games up to the last minute and there are
already multiple proof that he didn't.

Proof - a list of unaccounted for weapons. Maybe weapons. Possible
weapons.

He could not prove the nonexistence of things which were blown up by
our bombs in 1991 etc.

Nah, Saddam had these weapons.

By definition - this subset of weapons consist of those he had which
were blown up in 1991.

Nope. Not all of them. The ones that weren't blown up are listed below.

Once>"we also know that the Iraqis did have chemical weapons. They
confessed

to having had all of these weapons over a sustained period of time. I
brought something along. In the '90s, Iraq admitted having 8,500 liters
of anthrax and several tons of VX. Iraq admitted producing 6,500
chemical bombs containing an estimated 1,000 tons of chemical agents,
none of which have ever been accounted for. In 1998, President Clinton
said Saddam Hussein possessed 5,000 gallons of botulin, 2,000 gallons of
anthrax, and 177 Scud warheads, and bombs filled with biological
agents."
(See DoD briefing Tuesday, June 24, 2003 on C-SPAN if you want to see it
in video)

Clinton was not in office in 2003

Duh. This is TODAY'S info.

Saddam had things once upon a time.

Then we blew a lot of them up. Then inspectors blew a lot of them up.
Then Saddam destroyed at least some of them. Then old weapons which
might still be around rotted with thim - to the best of our knowledge
of most of his weapons.

Then Clinton blew more up in 1998.

I doubt Clinton said that in 1998 Saddam possessed any given amount of
weapons - I can't listen to CNN - nor to the little symbols you post
on these pages which appear to represent audio-visual files.

What does that mean? saddam didn't account for the missing ones. He
didn't say they were blown, he said nothing. Just that he didn't have
them. Only a day before the ultimatum did he start saying that he had
destroyed the anthrax himself without having the UN witness it. Yeah,
right...

Don't worry, we will find out if even that has a hint of truth... Like
Tony (yesterday?) said today, they had 8 months under the UN to fly them
all over the Arab world.

We will get him and we will find out.

.

THere are no WMD in Iraq - isn't that the proof in the pudding?

As Rumsfeld say during that same briefing about what happened to them:

Rumsfeld: I'm not going to get into the various possibilities. They're
fairly self-evident as to what the possibilities might be. I have
reason, every reason, to believe that the intelligence that we were
operating off was correct and that we will, in fact, find weapons or
evidence of weapons programs that are conclusive. But that's just a
matter of time.

He didn't like intelligence saying that there were no weapons, and so
he got evidence saying somethng else.

Hahaha your claims are unfounded.

We went to war for reasons 1,2,3.

The evidence was just part of the sales job - the decision came before
the evidence, and the evidence was not important. Thus when Bush found
out some of his evidence in the SOTU address was wrong - he was
neither angry nor curious about that. He knows - evidence was just
part of the sales job - had no bearing on teh decision to invade.

Nah, we were tired of all the threats by Saddam and knew he was a
potential danger with AlQaeda. We decided not to wait any longer for the
UN to never implement 687e so we made a resolution that was an
ultimatum, 1441. It gave him a last chance to abide by 687e or else face
the consequences many times repeated in the past... of 687e, i.e. the
lifting of the cease fire. He didn't abide by 687e. He was invaded.
Period.

J.

That was sort of the point of all the resolutions.

Nah, the point was to give back to Kuwait all he stole, and their
national archives and their POWs and stop threatening them and stop
encouraging terrorism and also stop playing games with the UN about WMD.
He didn't do any of that.

No. We could care less about Kuwait. ***** Kuwait.

We went to war - to save our own skin.

But our own skin wasn't really at risk.

It was all a big lie that we were at risk.

Nah, Kuwait was the main ally in the UN resolution, you are either ally
of Kuwait against Saddam or you are not part of the coalition and have
no say in anything about it. Read the wording.

Yes it was to counter evil against us, but through the UN. We were
defending Kuwait and their allies (us), see?!

J.

all Blix reports

say it, but PERHAPS one day before the ultimatum, when he spoke for the
first time about the missing anthrax when he pretended he destroyed it
without telling anyone, while his country was under sanction because of
it amongst other things. It was a rotten regime that didn't abide by its
obligation that were binding to avoid war.

They destroyed all their WMD.

Yeah, two days before the invasion, **IF** he did.

That's what mattered.

Well, he played with fire and if it hadn't been for the imminent
invasion (**IF** he did destroy them), it wouldn't have happened. It
took the invasion to make him do it (IF he did it). And no it wasn't the
only thing as I just showed you. He had to abide by every single clause
of 687e according to 1441. Nothing short of that warranted him anything
else than war.

War should have been automatic 13 years ago or anytime since, but the US
made a resolution and got the support of all the world for a last
chance. Saddam didn't take it. **No matter what the signatory said**,
there was no choice to keep the UN relevant.

Your theory - a burglary suspect is about to escape from an
interrogation room in the police department - so the police are
required to blow up the building, killing the burglar and all in the
building - because the burglar was about to break the rules.

What are you talking about? He had the choice to "escape" as you say, to
avoid the war. he preferred to take his chances. Your analogy makes no
sense. He wasn't in custody, still isn't. He wasn't in the police
building,. He was in the bandit den running the show with the bandits
and threatening anyone who didn't cooperate with him.

It's not a good theory - that we are required to be self-destructive.

It is what the resolution called for. The serious consequences many
times reiterated, the lifting of the cease fire of the resolution.

The UN would not have been relevant otherwise. if they wanted something
short of that they wouldn't have signed it. That some backed out is
irrelevant, it is only the coalition associated with Kuwait that was
relevant short of another resolution to nullify the existing ones.

J.

J.

J.