On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:00:04 -0400, DSK wrote:

Nobody knows the "main reason" we invaded Iraq, although it looks like
revenge for their assassination attempt on Bush Sr and massive profits for
Halliburton are the two top contenders.

Perhaps Tehran does. There hasn't been much recently on the Chalabi
investigation, but it should prove informative. At the very least, much
of the faulty intelligence was fed by Chalabi's INC to the Office of
Special Plans. In question, did the intelligence start with Chalabi or
Tehran and, as Chalabi has been accused of tipping the Iranians to our
breaking their code, was he actually an Iranian agent. He has had ties
with Tehran as far back as 1995. At the worst, we could have been duped
by Iran into removing an enemy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...224075,00.html

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



I can help you on the confusion, I have been there myself. The Liberal's
plan of defense against facts that are not in their favor (most facts fall
into this category) is to say it is not true and say it is fabricated by the
Bush administration, then throw in the words "Halliburton" and "Oil money"
or something to change the focus from the facts. It is a play for emotion
not reason. Reason is one of the things Liberals fear most. When that does
not work, then they yell it louder and have all their friends yell it also.
Next they have the New York Times put it on the front page. If that don't
work then they put it on protest signs along with anti-Bush phrases adding
the words "Halliburton" and "Oil money." But the facts are still the facts,
no matter how many time you yell "It ain't so!"

Oh and more people die from violence related gunshot (excludes suicide
and accidental) in the US each month than died in WTC....nothings
being done about that!

Where do you live! They have a police force in all cities and towns here in
Texas and here in Texas we execute convicted murders. I am shore glad I live
in Texas!

I guess the Pentagon was lying when it said it found no evidence
of this. Kinda makes all you right-wing wackos look kinda silly,
but that's not unusual.

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

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
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



I can help you on the confusion, I have been there myself. The Liberal's
plan of defense against facts that are not in their favor (most facts fall
into this category) is to say it is not true and say it is fabricated by
the
Bush administration, then throw in the words "Halliburton" and "Oil money"
or something to change the focus from the facts. It is a play for emotion
not reason. Reason is one of the things Liberals fear most. When that does
not work, then they yell it louder and have all their friends yell it
also.
Next they have the New York Times put it on the front page. If that don't
work then they put it on protest signs along with anti-Bush phrases adding
the words "Halliburton" and "Oil money." But the facts are still the
facts,
no matter how many time you yell "It ain't so!"

So are we!

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

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Oh and more people die from violence related gunshot (excludes suicide
and accidental) in the US each month than died in WTC....nothings
being done about that!

Where do you live! They have a police force in all cities and towns here
in
Texas and here in Texas we execute convicted murders. I am shore glad I
live
in Texas!

"Horvath" wrote in message
...

"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.

You also saw pictures of a pair of trucks that convinced you that Iraq had
WMD.

Can't you see that you can't see what you think that you can see?

Regards



Donal
--

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...

I can help you on the confusion, I have been there myself. The Liberal's
plan of defense against facts that are not in their favor (most facts fall
into this category) is to say it is not true and say it is fabricated by
the
Bush administration, then throw in the words "Halliburton" and "Oil money"
or something to change the focus from the facts. It is a play for emotion
not reason. Reason is one of the things Liberals fear most. When that does
not work, then they yell it louder and have all their friends yell it
also.
Next they have the New York Times put it on the front page. If that don't
work then they put it on protest signs along with anti-Bush phrases adding
the words "Halliburton" and "Oil money." But the facts are still the
facts,
no matter how many time you yell "It ain't so!"

Perhaps you would be good enough to enlighten us with some of your facts?


What "facts" provided the justification for the invasion of Iraq?


You can't give us an answer, can you?

I am at a loss to understand why rednecks like you continue to spout
ignorant nonsense, when you already know that you haven't a leg to stand on.


Regards


Donal
--

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Uh oh!!! Perhaps Bush isn't so thick after all.



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.....

You obviously penned that lie before you read my post.


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

See?

Yes, I do see. Do you?



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

I'm really sorry. I find it difficult to hold a rational conversation with
someone who accuses me of disputing that Saddam possessed CW and then tells
me that I can't dispute the fact that Saddam had CW. Could you make up
your mind please?



the convenient thing is to redefine
WMD so as to exclude CW.

NO. You, and the rednecks have redefined "WMD" so as to include CW.


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

Correct.
If you thought that CW were WMD, then you were wrong.



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?

No, I don't. What made you reach that conclusion?



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'?

Perhaps you would care to define your interpretation of the "M" in WMD?

After all, "Mass" refers to the number of casualities. If I am wrong, and
you are right, then you should not have any difficulty in providing us with
a definitive number. I would be much happier to accept a "number" than a
vague reference to an obviously biased website, like Fox.... or the other
links that you provided.



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

That statement suggests that your POV is tainted.

Everything else that you wrote backs up my last assertion.

Regards


Donal
--

What's up, Donal? Cat got your tongue? You've replied to other posts in
this thread and your timestamps are well after the stamp on this one,
so ........ ?????????

Can't bring yourself to publically admit you're wrong?

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

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Perhaps you should either give up
smoking or start taking EPO. The extra oxygen going to your brain
couldn't hurt.

PDW

In article , Peter Wiley
wrote:

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

You have a point, but language evolves.

http://www.free-definition.com/Weapo...struction.html

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:



Nuclear and biological weapons have a destructive effect that extends far
beyond the geographical area of deployment. That is why they are termed
"WMD". Chemical weapons disperse rapidly.... therefore they are weapons of
local destruction.