In article , OzOne wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:16:19 +1000, Peter Wiley
scribbled thusly:


Iraq *had* WMD. That is an undisputable fact. When & where did they all
go? Either they're well hidden, which I strongly doubt after all this
time & embarrassment, they were shipped over a border (possible) or
they were all used up.

I don't know, the intelligence agencies didn't know and the people
relying on information from intelligence agencies didn't know either.
Hussein was very uncooperative with the UN weapons inspectors leading
them and pretty much everybody else to wonder what he was hiding. It's
apparent *now* that nobody can find WMD and therefore Hussein was not
an imminent threat. Unless you can prove Bush et al knew in advance
that there were no WMD left, you can't fairly call them liars.

It's nice to see how omniscient you are, Jonathan. Can you apply this
to tell me what stocks are going to radically change price by this time
next year?

PDW

Pete, I think the point is that the US was convinced that there were
huge stockpiles of WMD when the UN inspection guys were saying that
they had no evidence to support that and were not given access to the
US intelligence to confirm or refute the US conviction.

The US used the excuse that to allow the inspectors access to their
information would alert the Iraqis who would move the stuff.
Many saw then that this was a ploy by the US to keep their very
sketchy information to themselves so it couldn't be questioned or
dismissed.
Why?
To achieve the aim that Bush had even before he was confirmed as
president...to finish daddys business.
There is plenty of hearsay about these intentions, and to use the US
basis for invasion, "where there's smoke, there's fire"

Actually I agree with all of that. However, that doesn't make Bush et
al out to be liars as Jonathan keeps insisting unless they *knew* that
there were no WMD and said there were anyway. What it makes them is
misguided and willing to believe what was convenient for their aims
regardless of the scarcity of actual evidence. Hell, from what I read
and from past behaviour - gassing the Kurds, chemical warfare against
the Iranians - I would have said on the balance of probabilities that
he *did* have WMD and the means to deliver them in the geographical
area via missile. Refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors didn't help
him at all.

That's a lot different from *knowing* something isn't true and saying
that it is. Or at least that's the definition of a lie that I use. Who
knows, the way people have debased the language (the term genocide
comes to mind) maybe Jonathan thinks that making statements without
adequate factual basis *is* lying.

PDW

In article , FamilySailor
wrote:

Invading Iraq threatened more US lives than firing missiles at US fighter
pilots. How many US servicemen died as a result of Saddam's missiles?
How many died as a result of the invasion?


Let me see.... How many were in the Twin towers???

Get serious. There is *zero* credible evidence Iraq had anything to do
with that. Bin Laden et al hated Hussein's guts.

OTOH there's a hell of a lot of links to Saudi Arabia. Follow the money
trails.

PDW

In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Iraq *had* WMD. That is an undisputable fact.

Is it?


Perhaps you would present some evidence???

You just did it for me.

One of life's mysteries is that people who use cliched phrases like
"undisputable fact" are never able to back up their assertions.

So - you're disputing that Hussein had CW? OK. If you say so.....

It seems clear that Iraq had chemical weapons back in the early 90's.

See?

However, chemical weapons were considered to be battlefield weapons. They
were never considered to be WMD until the Bush administration began to
realise that they had lied.

Ah, got a source for that? Seems to me that since you can't dispute the
fact that Hussein had and used CW the convenient thing is to redefine
WMD so as to exclude CW.

All my life there have been 3 WMD - chemical, biological and nuclear.
Now you're telling me there were only 2?

Nuclear and biological weapons have a destructive effect that extends far
beyond the geographical area of deployment.

Some do, some don't.

By your definition then a neutron bomb isn't a WMD. Do you agree?

That is why they are termed
"WMD". Chemical weapons disperse rapidly.... therefore they are weapons of
local destruction.

Ah, Donal - got a definition of 'disperse rapidly'? How about 'local'?

It seems that there is an awful lot that you don't know about CW and
their effects. Not surprising really.

PDW

Just to do a 30 second bit of research for Donal:

In article , Peter Wiley
wrote:

In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Iraq *had* WMD. That is an undisputable fact.

Is it?


Perhaps you would present some evidence???

You just did it for me.

One of life's mysteries is that people who use cliched phrases like
"undisputable fact" are never able to back up their assertions.

So - you're disputing that Hussein had CW? OK. If you say so.....

It seems clear that Iraq had chemical weapons back in the early 90's.

See?

However, chemical weapons were considered to be battlefield weapons. They
were never considered to be WMD until the Bush administration began to
realise that they had lied.

Ah, got a source for that? Seems to me that since you can't dispute the
fact that Hussein had and used CW the convenient thing is to redefine
WMD so as to exclude CW.

All my life there have been 3 WMD - chemical, biological and nuclear.
Now you're telling me there were only 2?

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/

http://www.fas.org/nuke/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76887,00.html

That should do until Donal comes up with some cites showing that CW are
*not* considered as WMD.

Ball's in your court, Donal. Front some evidence, admit you're wrong or
bluster and lie. Your choice.

BTW, is a neutron bomb a WMD or isn't it?

PDW

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:26:39 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Such complete right-wing bull****. That's all you can come up
with? What an idiot!


He was talking about Salman Pak, you dumbass.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:31:04 +0100, "Donal"
wrote this crap:


"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
...

Iraq *had* WMD. That is an undisputable fact.

Is it?


Perhaps you would present some evidence???


Why don't you ask the kurds?





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

You're the dumbass:

Salman Pak

In a widely publicized September 12, 2002 briefing paper entitled, "Decade
of Deception," the White House described "a highly secret terrorist training
facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs
receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in
cities, sabotage, and assassinations."

"This facility became a major part of the strategic influence marketing
effort," Gardiner writes. Yet, in the invasions aftermath, the Pentgon
offered no "compelling evidence" that such a site existed.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:26:39 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Such complete right-wing bull****. That's all you can come up
with? What an idiot!


He was talking about Salman Pak, you dumbass.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:32:10 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

You're the dumbass:

Salman Pak

In a widely publicized September 12, 2002 briefing paper entitled, "Decade
of Deception," the White House described "a highly secret terrorist training
facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs
receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in
cities, sabotage, and assassinations."

"This facility became a major part of the strategic influence marketing
effort," Gardiner writes. Yet, in the invasions aftermath, the Pentgon
offered no "compelling evidence" that such a site existed.


What a bunch of bull****. I saw pictures. It was there.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...salman_pak.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040703.asp

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/khodada.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n-pak-east.htm






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

So now you're claiming that the Pentagon is lying.
You're quite a freak.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:32:10 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

You're the dumbass:

Salman Pak

In a widely publicized September 12, 2002 briefing paper entitled,
"Decade
of Deception," the White House described "a highly secret terrorist
training
facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi
Arabs
receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in
cities, sabotage, and assassinations."

"This facility became a major part of the strategic influence marketing
effort," Gardiner writes. Yet, in the invasions aftermath, the Pentgon
offered no "compelling evidence" that such a site existed.


What a bunch of bull****. I saw pictures. It was there.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...salman_pak.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040703.asp


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/khodada.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n-pak-east.htm






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 01:32:04 -0400, Horvath wrote:


What a bunch of bull****. I saw pictures. It was there.

It was there, but it wasn't a terrorist training facility. According to
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report, it was used to train
Fedayeen troops for *counterterrorism* operations. It goes on to say,
"Committee staff asked both CIA and DIA analysts whether any al-Qaida
operatives or other sources have confirmed Salman Pak training
allegations, and the unanimous response was that none have reported
knowledge of any training."

Sorry, but another terrorist link bites the dust. The full Senate report,
an interesting read, is available at:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/