Not likely. There's no evidence to suggest it.

"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
news:IxmRb.257$EW.215@okepread02...

"Donal" wrote:

"Destroyed" would mean that he had got rid of them.
"Disposed of" means that he kept them, and had them ready to launch at
45
minutes notice!


Am I right?

Nope, Saddam probably hid them in Syria, among other places.

LP

There are records, but you're still living in the wrong century...
the 80s are over dimwit.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:46:12 +1100, OzOne1 wrote this crap:


Nope, the Weapons inspectors "disposed of " the weapons at the end of
the Gulf war by incineration and explosion. Seems they were
"destroyed"

The weapons inspectors disposed of the weapons? Then why are there no
records, dumbass?




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

No. You just proved yourself to be a dimwit. The issue
is that we invaded a country for because of his stockpiling
and imminent threat of using his WMDs. He HAD NONE.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:42:39 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Last I checked 1988 was in the 80s. That's 16 years ago.
Back to grade school Horass. This time pay attention in
math class.


You said there was no WMDs after the first Gulf War. I just proved
you to be an idiot.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raq/majeed.htm





This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

True, but it's still fun....

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:46:12 +1100, OzOne1 said:

Nope, the Weapons inspectors "disposed of " the weapons at the end of
the Gulf war by incineration and explosion. Seems they were
"destroyed"

I'm tempted to make a remark about your intelligence, but I'll charitably
assume it's a matter of ideological blinders. Fella's stumbling there's no
need to give him a shove.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Ah... well, you've got me there...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:39 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

No. You just proved yourself to be a dimwit. The issue
is that we invaded a country for because of his stockpiling
and imminent threat of using his WMDs. He HAD NONE.


That's not true. We invaded that country because of it's stockpile of
OIL.

BB


"Horvath" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:42:39 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Last I checked 1988 was in the 80s. That's 16 years ago.
Back to grade school Horass. This time pay attention in
math class.


You said there was no WMDs after the first Gulf War. I just proved
you to be an idiot.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raq/majeed.htm





This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:39 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:


No. You just proved yourself to be a dimwit. The issue
is that we invaded a country for because of his stockpiling
and imminent threat of using his WMDs. He HAD NONE.



That's not true. We invaded that country because of it's stockpile of
OIL.

That's right and OIL is uded to make WMD! The case for the defense rests!!!!

Cheers

True, except in a flame war...

OzOneof3 wrote in message
...
On 27 Jan 2004 13:36:15 -0600, Dave scribbled
thusly:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:46:12 +1100, OzOne1 said:

Nope, the Weapons inspectors "disposed of " the weapons at the end of
the Gulf war by incineration and explosion. Seems they were
"destroyed"

I'm tempted to make a remark about your intelligence, but I'll charitably
assume it's a matter of ideological blinders. Fella's stumbling there's
no
need to give him a shove.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

OK Dave, when you incinerate something would it be safe to say it's
beeen disposed of?

I'll help you here

Phrasal Verb:
dispose of
To attend to; settle: disposed of the problem quickly.
To transfer or part with, as by giving or selling.
To get rid of; throw out.
To kill or destroy

Note the last word!


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

No. I'm not willing to rely on the Bush administration to tell me. They've
already lied and mis-applied the intelligence reports that they were given.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:46:29 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Not likely. There's no evidence to suggest it.

IOW, you're willing to rely on those much-maligned intelligence sources to
tell you if Syria or another country got WMDs from Iraq, but not to tell
you
whether Iraq had them in the first place? A minor inconsistency, perhaps?


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Both statements are bs. Bush and co, lied to the American people,
and are now seeking every which way they can to get around the lie.

Bush didn't steal Florida. It was handed to him by his brother and his
cronies. He was elected by the Court.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:39 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

imminent threat of using his WMDs

As Reagan used to say, "there you go again."

The phrase "imminent threat" is a classic case of disinformation. The Dems
keep insisting that Bush claimed Saddam posed an "imminent threat," and
therefore since there was not an "imminent threat" the war was
unjustified.
For a more or less balanced presentation of the facts see
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html.

In like vein, the Dems (or at least their crazy left) keep insisting that
Bush "stole" Florida, whereas extensive post-election analysis by a
non-partisan organization hired by a number of news sources (including
that
extreme right-wing publication the NY Times) show pretty conclusively that
any number of recounts would have yielded the same result. You can check
that in that other radical right-wing paper the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/la-111201recount.story



Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

I have always, currently, and will always be a Grateful Dead fan,
but I don't rely on them.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:11:20 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

No. I'm not willing to rely on the Bush administration to tell me.
They've
already lied and mis-applied the intelligence reports that they were
given.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:46:29 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Not likely. There's no evidence to suggest it.

IOW, you're willing to rely on those much-maligned intelligence sources
to
tell you if Syria or another country got WMDs from Iraq, but not to
tell
you
whether Iraq had them in the first place? A minor inconsistency,
perhaps?

OK, now that you've made your speech, can you answer the question?

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27