########################################################################## # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
--- Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Santosh, I have no intentions of smearing you, just >debating the issues, but if the shoe fits I'm afraid >I must ask you to wear it. > It is clear from the above post, and the abuses, character assassination, prejudices and lies contained in it that Mario Goveia is incapable of defending against my charge that the Iraq war was based on a lie. He fails to defend the casus belli for this illegal war, namely the existence of WMDs and the purported imminent threat that they posed to the U.S. Like the politicians that he supports, Mr. Goveia does not have the honesty and the decency to unconditionally admit that it is now well established that there were no WMDs in Iraq just before the war, and there are none there at present. He has been reduce to demonizing me, calling me names, making baseless prejudiced statements against me, and lying and distorting the facts. And despite all this he fancies himself to be a superior logician and custodian of the choicest facts. In this post I will avoid, as far as possible, responding to Mr. Goveia�s abusive personal attacks against me. Suffice it to say that this aspect of his post illustrates how well he has been indoctrinated in the tactics and practices of the right wing hate mob in the U.S. His post is a poignant example � almost a caricature - of the intellectual dishonesty and bankruptcy that afflicts partisan hacks on either side of the political divide in this country. I will mostly address below only the factual contradictions, distortions and post-hoc rationalizations that he has propagated in his post. > > mount a vicious and relentless attack on the >liberation of a country that has been brutalized by >dictator, has never known freedom and democracy, >has................then yell "Bloody murder!" when >someone wonders why. > The above is a load of gratuitous hogwash designed to disguise the fact that the Iraq war was based on a lie. > > Not knowing you makes me more objective, don't you >think? > I wonder which part of Mr. Goveia�s post reveals himself to be objective. The part where he calls me a huge supporter of Saddam Hussein? Or the one where he calls me a diehard anti-American and anti-Semite? > > Here is a classic example of why I think you are a >huge supporter of Saddam Hussein. If you don't know >that Iraq used WMDs against Iran, the Kurds at >Halabja (5,000 innocent civilians dead in one day) >and the Marsh Shia in the Tigris-Euphrates delta >then you need to do some research and PLEASE stop >embarrassing yourself. > Here Mr. Goveia fantasizes that my knowledge is more limited than his. His ignorance about what I know and what I don�t know does not prevent him from drawing a prejudiced conclusion, complete with a stale and a rather childish slur. > >Yes there is. If Saddam had really destroyed his >WMDs as he had agreed to do, he would have been able >to show the UN inspectors that he had done so, and >the UN resolutions would have been complied with and >the crippling UN sanctions for not complying would >have been removed and everyone in the Baath party >could have lived happily ever after, but not the >Kurds and the Shia that make up about 75% of Iraq. > More hyper-defensive claptrap designed to disguise the fact that the Iraq war was based on a lie. A confused statement that goes beyond the rationale of international consensus, and appears to suggest that 100,000 more Iraqis would have had to be killed, no matter what, in the interest of democracy and freedom. > > No, I don't. Yes the UN inspectors destroyed some >that they found...........Don't you think the UN knew >what its own inspectors had destroyed and what had >not been accounted for? > The final report on WMDs, namely the Duelfer report, commissioned by the U.S. government stated that: 1. "When the United States invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or any facilities to build them." 2. "Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development." 3. "Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War." 4. "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991 and the survey team found no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production." 5. "The former (Iraqi) regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions." The above is taken from an article in USA Today posted just after the Duelfer Report was released in October 2004. > >The US did not lie about the AL tubes and the Niger >yellowcake, Santosh. Please go to www.senate.gov and >read the 9/11 Commission report, Santosh. > I read the relevant parts of the 9/11 Commission report and did a search for all kinds of information about Iraq and WMDs within it. This report says nothing about aluminum tubes and Niger yellow cake. It appears that Mr. Goveia is simply lying about this fact without bothering to read the report. The Duelfer report, on the other hand, completely supports what I have said. It states that: 1. "Aluminum tubes that the Bush administration alleged were for nuclear weapons production were, in fact, for making conventional artillery rockets." 2. "Iraq did not try to buy uranium overseas." 3. "The team found no evidence that Iraq was developing biological weapons in trailers or rail cars. Two trailers found after the war were for producing hydrogen gas for weather balloons." It is the clear from all of the above that Mr. Goveia is blowing a lot of hot air in this forum. His arguments can be reduced to smearing, name-calling, distorting, lying, bloviating, and regurgitating tired-old, deflated, right-wing propaganda. It appears that he has not even read the documents, which he is recommending others to read, such as the 9/11 Commission report. In short, he is proving to be a rather comical embarrassment in his own right. Cheers, Santosh
