XPost: rec.sport.tennis, soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa   
   XPost: soc.culture.german, soc.culture.latin-america, soc.culture.canada   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   In article <87h9wkf979.fsf@wintersun.localdomain>,   
   jdeluise   wrote:   
   >acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:   
   >   
   >> I have to say that it is quite amazing (or is it amusing?) to know   
   >> that you feel so secure behind that faith castle of yours, even after   
   >> the US government has repeatedly lied to us, every time it felt a need   
   >> to mow down some third world country by force.   
   >   
   >Just like every other world power before the US and every other world   
   >power to come.  See, that's the difference between you and I, I see all   
   >world governments as capable and willing to commit atrocities, lie,   
   >cheat, steal.... anything really to stay in power.  Yes, even your   
   >beloved strongholds like China or Russia who you never dare to   
   >speak out against.   
   >   
   >Answer me directly and without your characteristic   
   >verbal diarrhea, why did the US not manufacture evidence of Iraqi WMDs   
   >when it had the opportunity?   
      
   I don't expect that anything I say will satisfy you given your   
   implacable and unjustified hostility.   
      
   But I will take this opportunity to clarify my position, lest that a   
   casual reader would really believe your ad hominem!  I will also take   
   this opportunity to present Paul Craig Roberts' view on the official   
   narrative of the 9/11 attacks.  (See below.)   
      
   As for your question:   
     why did the US not manufacture evidence of Iraqi WMDs when it had   
     the opportunity?   
      
   Nobody really knows since Bush, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice aren't   
   telling us.   
      
   But I can tell you what I think.  In fact, I thought about this before   
   but I didn't include it in my previous response to keep you from   
   experiencing a bigger "diarrhea" - I wouldn't want that happen to   
   anybody!:)   
      
   Now that you ask, I can tell you.  Put it simply, it's because Bush   
   found out that it wasn't that easy to fake evidence when the whole   
   world was watching!   
      
   In fact, the State Department's case against Syria using poison gas a   
   couple of years ago was a teaching moment for me.   
      
   Kerry wanted to begin his narrative with "Assad is the new Hitler" or   
   something to that effect and lead the world into the blind alley of   
   turning Syria into another Iraq-like shock-n-awe inferno.   
      
   Fortunately, Obama got a messiah in Tovarish Vladimir Vladimirovich   
   and escaped the fate to be another mass-murdering US president like G   
   W Bush or Truman, who killed hundreds of innocent Japanese instantly   
   with his two Atom bombs.   
      
   (Truman didn't have to do it to win the war, but he sacrificed   
   hundreds of thousands of lives in a matter of days just to warn the   
   USSR that we weren't gonna let its Red Army control the whole Korean   
   peninsula, etc, etc. and he followed up that atom bomb rhetoric with   
   the Korean War too, as we all know!)   
      
   (See, despite your ad hominem, I differentiate between Obama and G W   
   Bush or Truman.  It's true that Obama's policy is indistinguishable   
   from that of G W's.  They both serve(d) the war party.  It's very   
   disappointing for someone who would normally vote Democratic!  But   
   even so, even though Obama is bad, he is no G W Bush.)   
      
   Back to Iraq.  Obviously G W used the false WMD pretense to go to war   
   against Iraq the first chance he got.  He wanted it so bad, even Paul   
   O'Neill and others who were sort of at the edge of the neocon Cabal   
   could tell.  In my mind, G W must have thought that he could just put   
   his WMD "evidence" once he got control of Iraq.  Dick Cheney probably   
   reassured him about that too.  But since WMD is an international kind   
   of deal - using it would be a war crime and all, international teams   
   would be involved in investigating any claim of locating WMD, just as   
   what happened in Syria.  Since the findings of international teams in   
   the Syrian case did not yield evidence to corroborate the allegations   
   of the State Department, it was not a "slam dunk" and Obama knew it.   
      
   (So, who is still talking about Assad using poison gas against his   
   people?  Not many!  The truth is the allegations were only useful as a   
   pretext for a war.  If the moment to start a war is not seized, the   
   allegation would instantly become stale!  No point to talk any more   
   about it.)   
      
   The Syrian experience tells us that all kind of international experts   
   are ready to be watching any WMD allegations like a bunch of hawks.   
      
   For this same reason, the Bush administration found out that it wasn't   
   that easy to stash a pile of WMD somewhere in Iraq that would not be   
   revealed as fraud later.  So between the choice of making a false   
   claim (and blame the intelligence for it) and fabricating evidence to   
   support a false claim (and be found out), G W's advisors probably told   
   him what he should choose.   
      
   The moral: It is'nt easy to fabricate material evidence like some WMD   
   that every legit body in the world can claim the right to examine for   
   itself and you can still get away with it.   
      
   By the way, I have repeatedly criticized Putin for his handling of   
   east Ukraine.  And I rarely talk about Xi or Hu or those Chinese   
   leaders.  My only concern is that China doesn't find itself in a state   
   of chaos and misery like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, or Ukraine have   
   found themselves in.  I also happened to learn how ruthless the   
   neocons are in terms of sacrifice American lives, not to mention the   
   lives of other countries.  (See John Hemington's recent article   
   below.)  I have not criticized Russia or China like I have my country   
   because those countries have not waged cynical and ruthless wars like   
   my country has.  I have also repeatedly said that government in every   
   country are more or less ruthless in its way of governing and that's   
   why it makes no sense to single out Saddam or Qaddafi or Assad or   
   Korea's Kims, or Iran's Mullahs, when you said nothing about Chiang   
   Kai-shek when he ruled China ruthlessly.  So, criticism goes to where   
   criticism is due.  But trying to talk about monsters at a state level   
   without considering the context is just demonizing the head of state   
   in preparing the American people for more war the war party wants and   
   nothing more.   
      
   lo yeeOn   
      
   It's Time to Declassify Those 28 Pages   
   http://28pages.org/   
      
   Seeking the American government's analysis of the 9/11 attacks, most   
   people look to the 9/11 Commission Report. There is, however, another   
   report that merits equal attention: the Joint Inquiry into   
   Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist   
   Attacks of September 11, 2001.   
      
   President George W. Bush censored 28 pages of this report - an entire   
   section said to describe the involvement of specific foreign   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)