Teribus: Very disappointing GUEST,Arne Langsetmo, your post of 21 Nov 05 - 11:09 AM, is mostly spin.

Can you say "projection", Teribus? Good, I knew you could do it. Now we'll teach you what that big word means.....

And a BTW, Teribus: I'm not here to please you; you want that, you'll have to ask one of the swiftly dwindling number of c***sucking sycophant RWers here. Clear now?

Teribus digging back into the memory hole:

"STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Oh, yeah, one of those "sense of the Congress" thingies. That and a couple bucks will buy you a Starbucks cappuccino. The ol' "The Democrats were as stoopid as us" ploy. Quite the smackdown in forensics ttechnique. But note that Clinton didn't say that Saddam had nuclear weapons or that we'd blow a couple thousand U.S. soldiers' lives (plus a cool $2+ billion) tryign to occupy a Muslim country.....

So Arne, [...] you can't think of any country in the middle east supporting US military intervention. If that is the case Arne you just can't think.

Sheer rubbish, matey. You simply can't enumerate.

Pre-emption has been accepted as a valid strategy for defence for decades, international diplomacy has recognised it as a reality for an equal length of time.

Cites, please. Particularly those supporting the "I saw a hallucination" school of 'defence'....

In fact, Arne my 'opinion' here is worth as much as yours.

Every one is entitled to an opinion (just as they are entitled to a fair day in court). But your opinions are not entitled to a lack of derision, mainly because they're full'o'shite, and the most gruesomely misanthropic to boot. Perhaps you're of the opinion that anyone is entitled to attack any neighbour (or even non-neighbour, thousands of miles away) because they have paranoid, delusional hallucinations of some WoMD pointed at them (and I'm being charitable here, and assuming that the maladministration was just plain stoopid and incompetent and didn't lie to us all to further some rather different agenda), but fortunately most people in reasonable possession of their senses see such an act as a great (if not damnable) folly that would quickly turn the entire world into a hell-hole if everyone acted on such a rationale. You're just a tad on the up-hill slope of the bell curve here, Teribus. Do try to catch up.

Please provide examples of what the UN had decided, between April 1991 and June 2002, with regard to resolutions relating to Iraq, particularly the one relating to the release and return of 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted, taken to Iraq and imprisoned in 1990. Now whereas WMD and other stuff could possibly wait a while, I would have thought as a primarily humanitarian organisation the UN would have really gone in to bat for these people - they didn't of course, only three were found alive subsequent to US action in March 2003 - Only 3, you see because Saddam had had the others killed.

Quite the demand, when the U.S is in the process of "extraordinary rendition", Gulags in the former Soviet satellite states, revoking the Great Writ, and other crimes against human rights and humanity itself.

So Saddam (or his agents and army) killed a bunch of folks (keeping in mind that various stories, such as the "babies thrown out of incubators", were later found to be PR ploys by the United States and Kuwait). What do you want him to do? Bring the dead back to life???

The UN were never going to do anything - that is what the UN does best. The next thing the UN had on the agenda for Iraq was the removal of sanctions at the insistance of France, Germany, Russia and China - Oh, I forgot and George Galloway.

Gotta love how the eedjit Norm Coleman thought he'd have Galloway's a$$ ... but when Galloway showed up, he handed ol' Norm his own on a sterling platter.

You do know, of course, that KB&R (a Halliburton subsidiary) was doing illegal business in Iraq in the '90s? Guess the colour of anyone's money is the same to moral exemplars like Cheney.

The UN has no resources, financial or material.

Not true. But it doesn't help matters that the U.S. has been stiffing them on dues for many a year....

Cheers,