Surge? Who's surge? 250 dead possibly 500 as Iraqi religious murders continue

[Rich Travsky]

Jerry Okamura wrote:
> "Desmond and Molly Jones" <dmj@spamspamspamspam.org> wrote in message
> > In article <46c9e933$0$31851$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Jerry Okamura
> > at okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com says...
> >> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
> >> > On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:49:41 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> >> > <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we did
> >> >>>> go
> >> >>>> to
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Lies tend to do that.
> >> >>
> >> >>How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
> >> >>please....
> >> >
> >> > You wish current examples - Saddam's WMD's,
> >>
> >> Okay, let us once again pick up on this first statement. Who believed
> >> that
> >> Saddam did not have any WMD"S?
> > Saddam himself
>
> Okay, let us assume that Saddam knew his country did not have WMDs, a
> statement by the way that is in dispute. If he knew they did not have any

Not in dispute. We knew it in 2001 (Powell and Rice) and nothing has been found.

> WMDs, then he did he not "help" the inspectors to verify that fact, aka
> South Africa. Did he do that? No, he did not.
>
> and his government,
>
> As I understand the situation and as it has been reported, those in Saddam's
> inner circle would not have told Saddam there were no WMDs, because (1) he
> "thought" they had WMDs and as a result anyone who said that they did not
> have WMDs, would have been executed.

WHAT? This is hilarious! They didn't tell him there were no WMDs? HAHHAHHA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
...
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete
the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's
ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since
1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to
restart the program."
...
While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents,
his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United
States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
...
But after extensive interviews with Hussein and his key lieutenants,
Duelfer concluded that Hussein was not motivated by a desire to strike
the United States with banned weapons, but wanted them to enhance his
image in the Middle East and to deter Iran, against which Iraq had
fought a devastating eight-year war. Hussein believed that "WMD helped
save the regime multiple times," the report said.
...

> the Iraqi people,
>
> The Irawi people did not know, and would not have known.
>
> the U.N.
> > Inspectors?
>
> The UN Inspectors NEVER said that they knew that Saddam did not have WMDs.
> >
> > Since there was no actual evidence, I did not believe Iraq had WMD's.
>
> I have no trouble with that statement.
> >
> > Just because warmongering "leaders" "believed" and it was reported all
> > over the newspapers, that doesn't mean thinking people believed it,
> > even back then.
> >
> I think we are starting to go around in circles once again. But I will end
> with this thought. "Thinking people" includes everyone on every side of
> this issue. But "if" people did not believe that he did have WMD's, then
> their actions would not lead anyone to that conclusion....if you want me to
> amlify on that point, I will be more than happy to do just that.....

 

[Rich Travsky]

Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:46C8EEE7.2E05286B@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eiu9c3hjd8r0cf1v7leo07f9h3ik5cfm5b@4ax.com...
> >> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:46:26 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> >> > <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not possible,
> >> >>>>>>> then we are putting our military men and women in harms way, some
> >> >>>>>>> of
> >> >>>>>>> them dying everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be
> >> >>>>>>> achieved.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I guess we need to make it simple. Success is not possible. The
> >> >>>>>> invasion of Iraq was stupid, unnecessary, ill-planned, and poorly
> >> >>>>>> executed. The US destabilized a country and had little if any
> >> >>>>>> plans
> >> >>>>>> for the consequences of what anyone with half a brain and a
> >> >>>>>> knowledge
> >> >>>>>> of the region knew would occur - sectarian strife. So the US has
> >> >>>>>> succeeded in starting an internal war and putting the US military
> >> >>>>>> right smack-dab in the middle. The stabilization of Iraq is a
> >> >>>>>> political battle - not military. If the soldiers leave then all
> >> >>>>>> hell
> >> >>>>>> breaks loose. If the soldiers stay, they continue to die for
> >> >>>>>> political
> >> >>>>>> (not military) reasons. Success is next to impossible so the
> >> >>>>>> soldiers
> >> >>>>>> should come home. That leaves the US in the untenable position of
> >> >>>>>> taking down a regime (no matter how evil and corrupt) and leaving
> >> >>>>>> nothing in return. It's our fault that Iraq is in the position we
> >> >>>>>> see
> >> >>>>>> today.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> WB Yeats
> >> >>>>> Well said.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Looking out for American interests, we need to get out now.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> bush,jr wrecked America's reputation
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Out now, we can start to rebuild
> >> >>>>> our military and, with a new
> >> >>>>> administration, rebuild our place in the world.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Why do we "have to rebuild" our military? What is the purpose of
> >> >>>>having
> >> >>>>a
> >> >>>>military? The purpose of having a military is (1) to defend our
> >> >>>>country
> >> >>>>it
> >> >>>>attacked, (2) to protect our access to vital resources, and (3) to
> >> >>>>use
> >> >>>>the
> >> >>>>military for humanitarian reasons. We do not have to have such a
> >> >>>>large
> >> >>>>military to defend this country. We do need a large military to
> >> >>>>protect
> >> >>>>our
> >> >>>>access to vital resouces. We "could" use our super power status to
> >> >>>>do
> >> >>>>some
> >> >>>>good.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We have to rebuild our military for all the reasons you list above
> >> >>
> >> >>One, you do not need to be a super power to defend this country from
> >> >>attack.
> >> >>Second, you agreed that we needed to protect our access to vital
> >> >>resources,
> >> >>but you are not willing to protect our access to the oil in Iraq
> >> >>(please
> >> >>try
> >> >>to be consistent). You think we should use our military for
> >> >>humanitarian
> >> >>reasons, yet when we do that, you do not want us to insure that the
> >> >>goal
> >> >>is
> >> >>achieved (again a matter of consistency). So, which is it?
> >> >
> >> > Enjoying your mental masturbation, are you? We had access to Iraq's
> >> > oil thru the markets. The US destroyed the country and made it
> >> > impossible to presently pump this oil. And now you feel we should
> >> > protect the access which we destroyed. Johnathan Swift would be proud
> >> > as would George Orwell. I am consistent. You're seeking to take a
> >> > particular and draw a universal from it. Shame, shame. That's
> >> > fallacious logic.
> >>
> >> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we did go
> >> to
> >
> > Lies tend to do that.
>
> How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
> please....

Show us the WMDs ->