LWW
01-12-2008, 03:34 PM
A recent POST (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=npr&Number=268837&page=0&v iew=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=11) left me in shock and awe:
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr><font color="red">Saddam didn't attack America </font color>
Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
Not true.
Abu Abbas traveling on Iraqi diplomatic papers kidnapped the Achille Lauro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro) and murdering US citizen Leon Klinghofer in cold blood. Abbas lived in Iraq under Saddam’s protection and on an Iraqi pension until 2003 when the US toppled Saddam
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr><font color="red"> Iraq had not terrorists. </font color>
Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
Not true.
Saddamite Hussinsein (http://www.husseinandterror.com/) funded terrorist attacks which led to the murder of dozens of Americans and hundreds of others as well as murdering conservatively 400,000 of his citizens.
Not only was Saddam a sponsor of terrorism, he was himself a terrorist.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr><font color="red"> Iraq had no weapons capable of reaching our shores </font color>
Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
Irrelevant.
Saddam had missiles capable of hitting US forces in neighboring nations as well as US allies. Argument to the contrary is ridiculous as they were used … even though labeled as WMD by UN definition and banned … as recently as 2003 as well as having launched attacks against Iran, Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia in the region.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr><font color="red"> We signed agreements that we would not attack, or occupy another country without first going to the UN for support in our decision.</font color>
Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
Deflection and misdirection.
Also, irrelevant.
The CEASEFIRE (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/08/national/main528675.shtml) allowed for hostilities to resume upon Iraq’s failure to comply with it’s obligations which it clearly did..
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr><font color="red">Bush is calling it pre-emption. Preemption is when there is an impending attack, and we know that it is about to happen, and take action first. There was no impending attack. We broke our agreements. The war is illegal. thees actions, along with using torture, are war crimes. </font color>
Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
It doesn’t matter what he calls it. Attacks had been going on for years. Saddam broke HIS agreements. The war is eminently legal. If there are war crimes then where are the tribunals and how far deep do you suggest we go? Bush? San Fran Nan? Kennedy? Kerry? Rockefeller? Clinton? All? None?
The facts are as they have been presented vs the rant of an, at best, woefully uninformed partisan.
The facts will not be contested because the left here knows them to be the truth, however inconvenient they may be.
LWW
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr><font color="red">Saddam didn't attack America </font color>
Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
Not true.
Abu Abbas traveling on Iraqi diplomatic papers kidnapped the Achille Lauro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro) and murdering US citizen Leon Klinghofer in cold blood. Abbas lived in Iraq under Saddam’s protection and on an Iraqi pension until 2003 when the US toppled Saddam
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr><font color="red"> Iraq had not terrorists. </font color>
Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
Not true.
Saddamite Hussinsein (http://www.husseinandterror.com/) funded terrorist attacks which led to the murder of dozens of Americans and hundreds of others as well as murdering conservatively 400,000 of his citizens.
Not only was Saddam a sponsor of terrorism, he was himself a terrorist.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr><font color="red"> Iraq had no weapons capable of reaching our shores </font color>
Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
Irrelevant.
Saddam had missiles capable of hitting US forces in neighboring nations as well as US allies. Argument to the contrary is ridiculous as they were used … even though labeled as WMD by UN definition and banned … as recently as 2003 as well as having launched attacks against Iran, Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia in the region.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr><font color="red"> We signed agreements that we would not attack, or occupy another country without first going to the UN for support in our decision.</font color>
Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
Deflection and misdirection.
Also, irrelevant.
The CEASEFIRE (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/08/national/main528675.shtml) allowed for hostilities to resume upon Iraq’s failure to comply with it’s obligations which it clearly did..
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr><font color="red">Bush is calling it pre-emption. Preemption is when there is an impending attack, and we know that it is about to happen, and take action first. There was no impending attack. We broke our agreements. The war is illegal. thees actions, along with using torture, are war crimes. </font color>
Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
It doesn’t matter what he calls it. Attacks had been going on for years. Saddam broke HIS agreements. The war is eminently legal. If there are war crimes then where are the tribunals and how far deep do you suggest we go? Bush? San Fran Nan? Kennedy? Kerry? Rockefeller? Clinton? All? None?
The facts are as they have been presented vs the rant of an, at best, woefully uninformed partisan.
The facts will not be contested because the left here knows them to be the truth, however inconvenient they may be.
LWW