In article 01, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller states:

On my planet, Saddam is still a murderous tyrant. Has that notion
been
debunked on yours?

Nobody has even suggested Saddam Hussein was less than a murderous
tyrant. What others, and I, feel is that he was not a direct threat to
the U.S. at any time, not likely to become one in a rational time
frame, and thus was not worth the expenditure of life and treasure
that has been applied.

Oh, yes, someone has suggested that, at least implicitly: Nate, in his
response to me, finally acknowledged that there might have been
reasons other than WMDs for invading Iraq, and implied that they've
been debunked too.

Not all of them.

Not on my planet, anyway.

Maybe on Nate's.

Absolutely wrong, Doug. I never ever said that Saddam was less than a
murderous tyrant.

What I said was that Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to Al Qaeda, and
therefore the primary stated reasons for war have been debunked.


Those were not the "primary stated reasons" for the war, as you continue to
falsely claim; rather, they were two reasons among many. And neither one has
been "debunked" as you falsely claim: It's not proven that Iraq had no WMDs,
and they definitely *did* have ties to al Qaida and numerous other terror
organizations.




--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?