[extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? Onwhatbasis?

[Terry W. Colvin]

Robert Lindauer wrote:

> Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>>
>> You raise some very good points in return.
>>
>> I will offer a cautionary, almost concessional point on your remarks  
>> to start with. Although we can say
>>
>>> Let's grant that it's possible that Saddam had a small chemical and  
>>> biological weapons arsenal
>>
>>
>>
>> The 'possible' isn't possible, it was a fact. He did actually have  
>> them at least at some point.
>
>
>
> I gave a reference in the last message to some damning proof that he 
> did in fact have the ones that we (the us) provided to him during the 
> 80's under the supervision of the Reagan/Bush administration and, I 
> might add, without congressional consent.
>
>>
>> Also, the 'small' qualifier modifying 'arsenal' is a bit personal -  
>> what constitutes small? He factually killed over 8,000 people (names  
>> were recorded, remains identified, etc.) in one attack alone. Is 
>> that  amount of chemical weapons a small amount, or is 10x that a 
>> small  amount? or 10%? See what I mean?
>
>
>
> Of course, but this is all OLD NEWS - our (cia) operatives were 
> helping them gas the kurds so they could concentrate on killing 
> Iranians for us.  We can't blame Saddam for doing things that we paid 
> him to do.  Let's not play games.  My point is that we could grant 
> that he CONTINUED after the 10-year inspection regime to have a small 
> (apparently invisible*) arsenal of hidden weapons that the weapons 
> inspectors of the UN were unable to detect either before or after they 
> were ejected (and returned) AND still be pissed at Bush for lying to 
> us since he obviously didn't KNOW that Saddam did despite what they 
> (Bush and Powell and Cheney and Rumsfeld) said.  We can also fault 
> them/him for making a very, very bad decision in starting a war with 
> someone who had such an arsenal and was capable of disseminating to 
> other even less stable elements (as is the current top republican 
> theory) and with not apparent exit plan other than that the Iraqi's 
> will welcome us.  Well guess what, they didn't put out some pie and 
> coffee when we got there.
> If there weren't such obvious profits involved in going to war for 
> Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, one would think that the case for going 
> to war was simply irrational ("they almost killed my dad") or 
> stupidity ("We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation 
> that will make--it would hope--put a free press's mind at ease that 
> you're not being denied information you shouldn't see." George Bush, 
> Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005).  However, in light of the 
> tremendous profit potential, we have to regard their actions as 
> rational but unfortunately evil.  The risk of the American Public 
> becoming sufficiently outraged before the damage could be done and 
> profit made was too small because of the natural tendency of the 
> new-deal-educated-sheep to swallow whatever codswallop is secreted 
> from the Rovian press room.

Robert,

First, a linguistic note to salve my curiosity.  I've noticed posters on 
other lists, who I know aren't British, who use
British terms such as codswallop (bullshit?) or pinch (to steal).  Are 
you British?

Second, if war is the last resort then would you have pursued Islamic 
extremists in Afghanistan in a different way?

Terry


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]