Iraq v. WW II

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terrance" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
Cc: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: Iraq v. WW II
>
> jbor wrote:
> > Seems to me they believed, perhaps wrongly but certainly understandably
on
> > past experience, that Saddam was lying about his arsenal and his
intentions.
>

SH was running a country being so poor, so stripped off of any possibilities
to develop these things after more then ten years of sanctions. I've never
believed  that he had an arsenal of VX or alike. This argument has been said
before the war by the opponents of any war and I think it's still true.

I wonder why Mr. Wolfowitz is allowed to say what he says, spitting into
Tony
Blair's face. I bet next time poor Tony will be more careful.

>
>
> Iraq had WMD.

Yes, the years ago.

> Iraq refused to provide proof that these WMD (that we all know they had)
> were destroyed in accordance with the agreements they signed and the
> demands of United Nations.

Not true, the inspectors have left Iraq because of the upcoming war, not
because
SH had thrown them out or they had finished their job. Why aren't they
allowed to
return now? Why do the US insist of bringing their own personnel? This is
not building
confidence.

> Where are they now?
> We don't know.
> Where is SH?
> We don't know.
> But Iraq had a leader whose name was SH.
> And Iraq had WMD.
>

You mean those sold to SH by the Americans when he still
was a good guy? We've heard about the rolling labs on trucks,
now they've found two trucks and still no evidence. You cannot
clean everything when you've got such a plant or laboratory.
There must be traces of VX or mustard if there were some.

> The coalition invaded Iraq because of the WMD.
>

No, they wanted the control of the oil, like Wolfowitz admits.
And they wanted to give it to them f****ing Arabs for 9/11.
This is so obvious that I really wonder that you can't see it.
Both good reasons to be re-elected when you've got no
economical competence to run a big country like the USA
and the only measure you can think of are tax cuts for the wealthy.

Ask the man on the street, he knows better.

> They certainly had other reasons to invade Iraq, but this was the
> principle reason.
>
> The fact that the weapons can not be found may turn out to be the
> justification for the war because it may turn out that SH sold or moved
> the weapons prior to the war and they are now in the hands of
> terrorists.
>

With all those advanced intelligence methods we have today this is hard
to believe. What about the accusation of Syria? Rummy came up with it
once and now there's silence about it. They've said before the war that
they cannot reveal their sources for security reasons. These reasons have
gone with SH, why are they still unable to present any evidence that even
Schroeder and Fischer must recognize as true?

> We'll just have to wait and see what shows up.
>

Or what the victors put there out of their own arsenal(s)? Brits and Yanks,
Russkis & Frenchies have that kind of stuff, we Krauts have not.

All this doesn't answer the question why SH should have been
willing to sacrifice himself when Bush made it public that he wanted
regime change. Remember, this admittance made Schroeder to say
"no" and to win the election because the UN-charta doesn't give any
mandate for regime change. Maybe this should be changed in cases of
rogue states.

> Not very comforting.
>

I ask again, where's Bin Laden, where's SH? If they're still there,
hiding somewhere and planning terrorist attacks why hasn't happened
anything since then?

The Afghanistan and the Iraq-war have been clear messages to everybody
who might be willing to challenge the big nations that you better not dare.

Otto