--- Gabe Menezes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How could Saddam show WMD's that are not there? Even a primary school kid could be foxed by such a preposterous question that you put to us.The WMD's were decommissioned and in reality were not of such a magnitude as made out by the USA. That he used it against the Kurds did not mean he had tons of it. > Mario replies, patiently: In the interests of education and correcting the record, I will attempt to explain the rationale to Gabe, one more time. See if you can follow this, Gabe.
First of all, Saddam actually used WMDs against Iran and against his own Kurds in the mid-80s. Since you were born at the time, you should know this, unlike WW-II, where you said you could not be expected to know stuff that happened before you were born. In the cease fire agreement in 1991 Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs and provide an accounting to the UN. The UN, Gabe, not the US. When he failed to do so, stringent economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq, which exempted food and medicines. There were 17 such UN resolutions, Gabe, from 1991 to the final one in 2003, which included an ultimatum that he would suffer severe consequences, not just more sanctions. When he again failed to account for the WMDs he was deposed. What you seem to have a hard time grasping, perhaps because you don't want to, is that, if he had, in fact, decommissioned the WMDs and had NONE, as you seem gullible enough to believe, he should have been easily been able to show this to the UN inspectors, which would have complied with the UN resolutions, the sanctions would have ended, he would not have been deposed and could have gone back to his cushy dictatorship, where he could kill, rape and torture people at will. He had from 1991 to 2003 to show the UN inspectors that he had no WMDs. He made his country suffer crippling economic sanctions, and deprived them of food and medicines that killed more of them than all the casualties since the war began, while he looted the oil-for-food program to build more palaces for his own use. He finally suffered the loss of his dictatorship. Only anti-Americans like you find it reasonable to believe that he went through all this, when he could have avoided it all by showing the UN inspectors what you claim he had done, which is decommission his WMDs. No, Gabe, he has either hidden them, because chemical and biological weapons do not require TONS, and are easy to hide in a vast country like Iraq, or he had them moved to Syria. Besides, as I have said, the WMDs, which you anti-Americans seem obsessed with, were only one of a whole list of reasons that were listed in the war resolution authorizing the liberation of Iraq in the US Senate. Look it up on www.senate.gov. Gabe writes: Poppycock, you will follow Bush blindly; what you do not answer on this Goanet is whether you would urge your progeny to do battle. You are full of praise for combating US troops - you should urge your kids to go there and do their bit. Mario replies: Poppycock, Gabe? What have I ever said that you can cite which leads you to believe I will follow Bush blindly? You are using big words for you, like poppycock, because you are too lazy to look up the facts. Look up the US resolution authorizing the war of liberation, and you will see it is no poppycock or any other cock. Besides, your attempts at personalizing this to me and my family is pathetic. You may think this is cute, but it is irrelevent to the discussion. Gabe writes: Again you are bringing us down to your level - primary school stuff - there is not one of us on this goanet site that loves Saddam; I would state though that there are not many of us that would follow George Bush or your view either! Mario replies: You (I did not say everyone on Goanet), may not LOVE Saddam, but the proof that you support him is based on the lengths you go to obfuscate the true facts, even refusing to look up things that are easily available on the internet. If your factless opposition to the US-led liberation of Iraq had prevailed, Saddam would have still be brutalizing the majority of Iraqis. This may not constitute you LOVING him, but it sure constitutes support. > Gabe writes: Yes I know you don't care, nor does your President. What I am stating is that you are the one who plainly stated that peace would not come to Iraq in a short while and it would take time. You seem to have a lapse of memory perhaps when it suits or perhaps when you have no other avenue to turn to, like a cornered dog staving off the inevitable - being torn to pieces by the opposition. > Mario replies: "Torn to pieces" is what is happening to your factless arguments, Gabe. Again, I think you are getting frustrated because you are losing track of what you are saying. Yes, I did "plainly state", as did President Bush, that this would take time. It is taking time, as we said, so we were correct. Where is my lapse of memory? Gabe, since WW-II took place before you were born let me inform you that it took 4 to 7 years for the US and its allies to pacify and democratize Germany and Japan. These things take time, Gabe, and it doesn't help the Iraqis or those trying to help them achieve freedom and democracy when people like you support the terrorists who are targeting innocent Iraqis in an attempt to turn back the clock.
