On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 20:17:23 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > To launch a war on a nation is a very serious matter and the evidence > should be solid, very solid.
> The evidence for weapons of mass destruction has been very soft and it > still is. To present it to the American people (and the world) as hard > core evidence is a lie. > Making it an urgent matter, THAT pressing the US army could not wait > untill the UN-inspectors ended their job, is making this a very big lie. > Even if those weapons do exist... Iraq could not deliver them to the USA > by the lack of carrying rockets. > So there was never a great threat to the US. The lie is growing. Bush wanted to launch a war to overthrow Saddam's regime. His reasons for wanting to do that are probably very complex and difficult to explain to the American people. He might have figured from an analysis of some intelligence data that Saddam had WMD's at the time when the recent war was launched. We do know that he had WMD's at various times in history and that many of the WMD's have not yet been accounted for. Bush used accusations of Saddam's still having WMD's as a rallying cry and as hype for launching the war. He could have used other reasons to justify going to war against Iraq, but such other reasons as he might have had might not have worked as a rallying cry to insure widespread support. It might have been a mistatement on Bush's part that he had "proof" that Saddam still had WMD's at the time when the recent war was launched. He probably figured that the alleged WMD's would be quickly found after Saddam is deposed. So far they have not yet been found. Anyway, the good news is that Saddam has been overthrown. The Iraqi people and most of the rest of the world are happy and rejoicing that the old regime is gone. > There is still no evidence, there never was, about a connection between > Al Quaida and Iraq. Next lie... The bad guys always tell lies about the good guys first. Then the good guys retalliate by telling lies about the bad guys. The good guys and the bad guys always lie about the evils that happen in the camps of their enemies. This happens in every war and in every election. > If Sadam would have the possesion of WOMD... the US would not have > attacked. The US probably would have attacked regardless. > Perhaps the fact they did attack is the best prove there are > and were NO weapons of mass destruction. > Any dictator threatened by the US is trying to get hold of weapons of > mass destruction because this is the only way to have the Americans > think twice... proliferation?? > Americans are a curious people: backing an administration that tells > lies, not one lie but many. All governments tell many lies. Bad governments tell lies about good governments and good governments retalliate by telling lies about bad governments. If the truth were known to all, then there would be no further need for war nor for government. > Bringing democracy to Iraq or any other country can not start with > lies and can not be enforced with guns. Democracy cannot be established nor preserved without guns or some other weapons that are useful for making democracy work the way it does. > What good did this war based on lies... nothing (until now) > What bad did this war do to the US... > - costed a lot of money > - costed many lives > - friends are lost > - goodwill is lost > and who will believe the Bush administration when the next crisis > arrives? Even Tony Blair will hesitate! Bush doesn't need any support from other countries or from the UN. He needs only the support of the American people. As long as Bush tells lies only about the bad guys then he will continue to enjoy the support of the American people. Pray for whirled peas. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
