Bob Ackley -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 BA> Replying to a message of Ed Hulett to Bob Ackley:

 EH>>>>>> Besides, we aren't imposing our will on anyone.

 BA>>>>> We're not?  Our troops were *invited* in to take
over the country
 BA>>>>> and install a new government?

 EH>>>> Actually, they were invited, but George Bush the Elder
didn't accept
 EH>>>> the invitation. For that, Saddam murdered hundreds of
thousands of
 EH>>>> Shi'ites in the south and Curds in the north.

 BA> Most of that was done prior to Gulf War I, Ed.

Say what?!?

You have things backward, Bob. It was *AFTER* Desert Storm that the
Shi'ites revolted. The biggest attack against the Curds was in the late
80s, but we weren't invited to help the Shi'ites until after DS.

 BA> In point of fact he got his poison gas from the US

Total, unadulterated nonsense. The US has never given Iraq any chemical or
biological weapons. EVER!

 BA> (for use against Iran's mass attacks on his troops
 BA> when those countries were at war - which Saddam was encouraged by the
 BA> US to start,

No, you are making things up now.

 BA> BTW; whether or not he had a legitimate gripe against Iran I'm
 BA> not sure, but IIRC it was regarding access to the Persian Gulf);

Iran tried to block Iraq's access to the Pursian Gulf.

 BA> presumably the gas came from US Army stocks.

That is a lie.

 BA>>> Invited by whom?  A bunch of antigovernment rebels?

 EH>> Would you prefer that Saddam had invited them?

 BA>>> That's the same thing
 BA>>> as saying the British were invited in to help the South during the US
 BA>>> Civil War (which in fact they were, and which fact precipitated
 BA>>> Lincoln's famous Emancipation Proclamation).

 EH>> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 BA> Perfectly true, Ed.  Both points.  If you don't believe me check with Vern
 BA> Humphrey.

I wasn't denying what you said. I was just laughing at how you made my point for me.

 EH>> Your point?

 BA>>> Somehow I don't think you'd've appreciated the
 BA>>> intervention of the Royal Navy to break Lincoln's blockade of
 BA>>> southern ports or the appearance of British Army regulars in the
 BA>>> fighting.

 EH>> What on earth are you trying to say?

 BA> That you're not consistent.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

Give your strawman a rest.

 EH>> We were invited by the Shi'ites and Curds to help oust Saddam.

 BA> A bunch of antigovernment rebels.  Who, incidentally, were advised by
 BA> Bush41 to rebel against Saddam after Gulf War I, and of course Bush41
 BA> then refused to provide them with any assistance after they started out.
 BA> Saddam's perfectly legitimate attempts to suppress that rebellion, of
 BA> course, led to Clinton's no-fly zones and ultimately to the US
conquest of his
 BA> country.

Oh yeah, it was legitimate for Saddam to mass murder men, women, and
children (in some cases taking out entire villages) and bulldozing them
into mass graves.

The "no-fly zones" began before Clinton entered office.

 EH>> The
 EH>> Brits were invited by the south to fight against the federal
 EH>> government back during the "Civil War."

 EH>> Bush the Elder didn't accept the invitation, unfortunately for the
 EH>> Iraqis. The Brits very prudently declined the invitation form the
 EH>> CSA, fortunately for the US.

 EH>>>>>> We are helping them rebuild their country and government.

 BA>>>>> Most of which our troops - and/or ten years of
embargos - broke.

 EH>>>> Total, unadulterated nonsense. Saddam broke it with his murderous
 EH>>>> sons' help.

 BA> Pure government propaganda.

So those mass graves are all figments of someone's imagination?

 BA> Note that I'm not claiming that any of the
 BA> three were nice people, nor am I denying that at least one of his sons
 BA> was a murderous psychopath.

You've gone off the deep end, Bob. Saddam killed his first victim when he
was only 12 years old. He killed his way into power. He used murder as a
way of wielding his power. He was a terrorist.

His sons would grab young women off the street and rape and kill them and
then kill their boyfriends/husbands.

 BA>>> AAMOF, Ed, during the runup to and the invasion of Iraq the US Air
 BA>>> Force deliberately targeted water purification plants, power plants
 BA>>> and electrical distribution stations and telephone switch
 BA>>> facilities.

 EH>> Wouldn't you do the same?

 BA> Not when I'm trying to claim that I haven't yet decided to invade and conquer
 BA> the country, which Bush was doing right up to March 18, 2003; the bombing
 BA> started in mid-2002.

What bombing started in 2002? Was it Bush's fault Clinton bombed Bahgdad in 1998?

 BA>  Besides, water plants at least are civilian
 BA> targets (power and telephones are dual-use; although one would
think that the military
 BA> would have backups for them, which civilians would not) - and to
attack them is
 BA> defined, quite properly, as a war crime (as, incidentally, is starting an
 BA> unprovoked war).

You don't know what you are talking about. The US hasn't committed any
"war crimes."

 BA>>> They did it a decade
 BA>>> ago in Serbia, too (just in case you think I'm blaming Bush for it).
 BA>>> 25 years ago, and presumbably continuing to the present, strategic
 BA>>> targeting people routinely targeted 'infrastructure' targets such as
 BA>>> noted above, plus dams, bridges and other similar structures.

 EH>> That's the strategic thing to do, Bob. If you don't cut off
 EH>> communications and other infrustructure before an attack, you risk
 EH>> failure.

 BA> Perhaps.  However, as I noted above, intentionally targetting civilians is
 BA> a war crime.

There was no intentional targeting of civilians. You have to make a stretch
to even attempt to make that claim.

 BA>>> I *do* know that they used to do that
 BA>>> as I used to work in the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff at
 BA>>> SAC, but I don't *know* that they still do (although, given the
 BA>>> actual events of 2002 and 2003 one can reasonably suspect that they
 BA>>> do, or at least did at that time).

 EH>> Do you have a point?

 BA> Yeah.  Unlike you, I know what I'm typing about.

No, you only "know" what you've been reading in your conspiracy
theory books.

Ed

-- 
"Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of
some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference
would be, that there is not sufficient virture among men for
self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can
restrain them from destroying and devouring one another."

-- Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (Federalist No. 55,
15 February 1788)


Linux User#: 416016
Linux Machine#: 323569

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060717 Debian/1.