"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:44:42 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:46:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


George, your posts are nothing BUT nonsense. Saying that the two Iraq
wars
were "one war" is about as stupid as anything you've said.

Your denial that the separation of the two periods of conflict was
only a cease fire... snip meaningless junk

Oh, Jesus, Gunner, you're losing it. Even the Bush administration makes
it
clear that this latest war was (supposedly) about a threat to the US from
Iraq's "WMDs." The first one was about Iraq's first steps toward a
takeover
of the Middle East.

Quit arguing for the sake of argument and get your stories straight for
once.

Like this one? (Snicker)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

No, the two differrent ones that the two Bushes told the American people
when each explained why we were going to war. Both of these speeches were
delivered within hours of each respective invasion:

In 1991, it was this:
================================
(George I): Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military
targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak. Ground forces
are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2nd when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small
and helpless neighbor. Kuwait -- a member of the Arab League and a member of
the United Nations -- was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago,
Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle
has been joined.

This military action, taken in accord with United Nations resolutions and
with the consent of the United States Congress, follows months of constant
and virtually endless diplomatic activity on the part of the United Nations,
the United States, and many, many other countries. Arab leaders sought what
became known as an Arab solution, only to conclude that Saddam Hussein was
unwilling to leave Kuwait. Others traveled to Baghdad in a variety of
efforts to restore peace and justice. Our Secretary of State, James Baker,
held an historic meeting in Geneva, only to be totally rebuffed. This past
weekend, in a last-ditch effort, the Secretary-General of the United Nations
went to the Middle East with peace in his heart -- his second such mission.
And he came back from Baghdad with no progress at all in getting Saddam
Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait.

Now the 28 countries with forces in the Gulf area have exhausted all
reasonable efforts to reach a peaceful resolution -- have no choice but to
drive Saddam from Kuwait by force. We will not fail.

================================

In 2003 we went to war, our president told us, because of this:

================================
(George II): My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces
are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its
people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of
military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure.
The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at
the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass
murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast
Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of
fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
================================

It sure seems that THEY thought they were two different wars, fought for
different reasons. And that's what they told us, wasn't it? Or did they tell
you something different?

I'd snicker, but snickerers usually wind up being the snickeree. It's about
the attitude.

--
Ed Huntress