Re: OT: Canada Agrees to be Missile Target

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote (in <pan.2005.05.06.17.24.10.225334@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) about 'OT: Canada Agrees to be Missile Target', on Fri, 6 May 2005:

On Fri, 06 May 2005 15:54:35 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul Burke <paul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote
(in <3e1dg8Fn8u9U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) about 'OT: Canada Agrees to be
Missile Target', on Fri, 6 May 2005:

The French gave up supporting Arafat a few months ago. 


Not too surprising, since he was dead.

And IIRC, French 'military intelligence' DID say there were WMD around. 


I think the repugnacrats are merely pissed off at France because they
didn't cosign Prince George's bull***.

In fact, the issue, like almost all issues these days, has been totally bogged down in propaganda and spin.

IMHO, WMD are irrelevant, even if regarded as an 'excuse' for attack. It ***simply didn't work*** as an excuse to get a second UN resolution and carry Continental European governments into the Alliance. So why go on about it? Blair has already said that, "but then, he would, wouldn't he?" Nevertheless, it's true.


One needs to go on about it because we have been flagrantly lied to.
Blair and Bush should not be able to get away with the crime they have committed.

SH had already attacked Iraqi people in the north and south of his own country, as well as Iran. He clearly wasn't going to stop. So he had to be stopped. 

Yes - perhaps - but not by the means that was chosen.
The power of the USA is best used where it will be effective.
Clearly the situation in Iraq and outside is now worse than it was before.
All of this was predictable and predicted.
In this circumstance one is forced to the conclusion that there was an ulterior motive.
.

Quantcast