Mike Smith wrote in
:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:42:19 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in news:1117j2927qgc938
:


That's a skewed perspective. A timeline was given after
10 years of Saddam's nonsense, including his removal
of power. Dragging it out until UN inspectors were satisfied
wouldn't make much sense since a decade had already
gone by and an Army can't be held at bay indefinitely and
there was a weather factor to deal with. I would agree that
the UN member nations could have solved the problem
but they had their own interests at heart.

Unfortunately much of what you call "nonsense" consists of us accusing
Saddam of having things he didn't have, and then us demanding that the
Iraqis prove a negative.

Not true. We knew Saddam had WMD's. What we didn't know is "when did
he get rid of them". We will find his WMD's when we invade Syria.

Read the reports. What he had was destroyed by the UN inspectors after
the first Gulf War.

Do you really believe Saddam put WMDs in Syria, or are you just looking
for an excuse to invade another Middle Eastern country? How many more
do you think we can afford at a few hundred billion a shot?


You do know that numerous 18 wheelers were sent to Syria during our 14
months of negotiating wiht Saddam before the invasion, right?

You'll have to show evidence that WMDs were moved to Syria. It's a
pretty good conspiracy theory, though.


It finally came down to the fact that we went to war because we damned
well wanted to go to war. And we were intent to do the tough talk,
and ratchet up the confrontation until we got our war.

Not even close. Saddam told the world he would not agree to the terms
of surrender he signed in 1991. For 14 months the US attempted to get
him to comply.

For 14 months the US told Saddam to come clean and disclose his WMDs.
He said he didn't have them. We didn't believe him. We invaded. Turns
out he didn't have any.


Not everybody agreed. Our own allies disagreed. The UN wouldn't pass
a second resolution.

France opposed the resolution, so Bush withdrew it. According to UN
1441, it wasn't needed anyway. I'll assume you wish to defend France's
actions.

The US withdrew the resolution because there was wide opposition to it
and it was clear it would not pass.

France has been a steady longtime ally of the US, and we would be
thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars ahead if we had
moved more cautiously, as many of our allies were counseling.


Here's a good timeline:
http://www.news10.net/news-special/w...q-timeline.htm

There were millions of protesters around the world
taking to the streets. It didn't matter, Bush had it in his head that
he was going to push his New American Century.

Millions? Is that the same as the million mom march? {200,000 = 1
million, according to liberals}

Whatever. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?


Now we've got our war, and the question is whether or not it is going
as we expected.

No war has ever gone "as expected". That is NOT the question.

Sounds like a Rummy quote. Don't blame us, war is hard to predict. Who
can know how it will go?

Gee, and I thought it was their job to plan, predict, and adjust
strategy. I guess that _is_ asking a lot.


It's all fine to spout the prose about spreading freedom
and democracy, but there also needs to be substance behind the
rhetoric. Is anyone learning from the mistakes, or adapting the plan?


Well, there are a lot of democrats that seem unhappy about the spread
of freedom in Iraq.

Ridiculous. We just get disgusted at the people who believe all the
sunshine that's being blown, and never question what they are told.

And the "plan" is being modified on a daily basis, depending on the
situation. That is standard procedure in any war or mop-up operation.

Really? I see little evidence of any flexibility or questioning of the
plan. Seems to me they are all intent on painting a rosy picture and
"staying the course."