Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Don't bring God into it. You're not qualified. I think
Bush would be well qualified to attack Mexico. In
fact, that's just about all he's qualified to do.

So, what you're saying is that the British and Kurds
are now responsible for our foreign policy decisions.
Thanks for clearing that up.

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:45:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Bush lied about Iraq. He had it on his agenda from the very
beginning.

For God's sake, we have plans on the table to attack, or defend every
country on the planet. If we were going to attack Mexico, there would
already be plans somewhere.


He lied about his reasons for going to war and
didn't bother to follow up with the intelligence services.


That's bull****. He put everything on the table. And nobody really
knows where the intelligence problems were.


For
all of Clinton's faults, he did do that. A couple of shells don't
match the tons of wmds that Powel and others claimed were
there.

And the British said they were there. And the Kurds said they were
there. And the UN said they were there. And so on.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

I think it is just a manipulation game of the sheep like masses to regain
power in Washington, nothing more!


Family Sailor,
actually i think it is the liberals that are unwittingly the terrorists

there is plenty that points to the *possibility* that WMD's found their
way
to Syria

--actually it is not liberalism ........it is infantile narcissism,
sometimes affected by ritilan deprevation.
don't confuse the two---they are very different.
gf.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Come on... get real. Bu**** made all sorts of claims as to why
we should attack Iraq. So far, none of them have any credibility.
You can dance all you want, but the fact remains that the American
people were mislead by the current administration in the White House.

Actually the miss leading is taking place now with the distortion of facts
and ignoring anything that will make the current administration look good.
It is just an attempt to manipulate the sheep like masses to help the
Democratic party regain power in Washington.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

OzOne wrote in message

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"

This is probably the most accurate and BS-free assessment of what really
happened. It's nice to see someone present the facts dispassionately.
Thanks, Oz.

Max

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.

I really don't think he lied....

I agree. Saying things that are not true is not necessarily lying unless
one KNOWS that what (s)he is about to say is false. Bush's statements about
WMDs fall into that catagory. He either knew Saddam had no meaningful
amount of WMDs or he didn't. If he knew, then he is a liar, and should be
replaced. If he didn't, as I suspect, then he is far to ignorant and stupid
to remain President. Which is it?

But that's water over the dam. Question is what to do now we know better.
Do we stay in and bleed our own country and our military white like LBJ did
in 'nam or do we cut our losses and leave Iraq to become like Iran.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"FamilySailor" wrote
OK, what is a weapon of mass destruction. Is saran (sp?) gas a weapon of
mass destruction?

Depends on the quantity - did Saddam have enough to cause "mass
destruction"? No.

Is putting out a hit on the George Bush a threat to America? Is firing
missiles at American fighter pilots a threat?

No! Neither are threats TO AMERICA nor is there any credible evidence that
Saddam's government sanctioned either one. If OzOne or Mooron threaten to
whup me does that make Australia and Canada threats to the US? I don't think
so. If some fustrated Iraqii officer gets fustrated at being bitch-slapped
around by Americans and fires a missile he knows has a near-zero chance of
hitting anything (part of his fustration) does that mean Saddam ordered it?
Not likely! After 'Desert Storm' Saddam knew damn well what would happen to
him if he had and prolly had the perps shot!

Face it, the Village Idiot has nearly bankrupt us to destroy the only
secular government in the region and it did not support Al Quida. The BEST
that can happen now is for it to be replaced by one just like it because
that Saddam's kind of repression is the only way to keep these people from
slaughtering each other but that's not likely. The most likely outcome is a
Shiite theoracy like Iran's that craps on Sunnis and Kurds even worse than
Saddam did and DOES support Al Quida's goals. Worst case is something like
the Taliban had. Gee thanks Georgie Boy!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"felton" wrote

Oh, well if it was "possible", then by all means start a war. I guess
there isn't much difference than saying that someone "might" have the
intent to develop WMDs so ....

Your honor, I had to shoot the bitch or she might have gotten mad,
bought a gun and shot me someday.

It's a Texas tradition:

BATF: We had to attack that religeous retreat. They might have been planning
to make illegal weapons. An insane man in an institution said so. So did my
invisible friend.

FBI: Yes, then we had to murder the witnesses, including 40 women &
children, to protect BATFs reputation.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

Oh? I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right
that he would distance us from the UN. Does this mean he's really a closet
pinko, taking orders from the UN? Does he ever wear a tu tu?

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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???
Didn't Russia tell us they had intelligence that Iraq was planning a
terrorist attack in the US also? I guess we should just ignore it, huh? I
guess Bush made up and manipulated the intelligence the previous
administration got too, huh? Of course if Bush acts on intelligent he is
manipulating it and a warmonger, if he doesn't he is not protecting the
American people and he is to blame for people dieing. It looks like he is
doing the responsible thing and acting on the intelligence to protect the
country (Much more than anyone else has done, by far), despite the ones who
want to just act like the world is a beautiful place and ignore the dangers
and smell the flowers in their make-believe little world. Maybe if we get on
our knees and cry, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist!" I think the current
administration does what needs to be done, despite the slanting and
attacking by the liberal press. And the reason Bush 41 called off the attack
was because the liberals were crying that is was horrible to pursue them!
Bush 43 did not letting that same bunch sidetrack him from what had to be
done.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

I guess he's flip flopped on that one... looks like now he really, really
wants the UN involved in Iraq. I call that a flip flop.

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

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

Oh? I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right
that he would distance us from the UN. Does this mean he's really a closet
pinko, taking orders from the UN? Does he ever wear a tu tu?

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

So are you agreeing or not that the administration mislead the
Americna people about the reasons for going to war? I would
be happy to credit them with something positive. I just can't
find anythingn positive. Everything they seem to do is bad for
America and the rest of the world. It's time for them to go.
If nothing else, we need balance (aka gridlock) in Washington.

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

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Come on... get real. Bu**** made all sorts of claims as to why
we should attack Iraq. So far, none of them have any credibility.
You can dance all you want, but the fact remains that the American
people were mislead by the current administration in the White House.

Actually the miss leading is taking place now with the distortion of facts
and ignoring anything that will make the current administration look good.
It is just an attempt to manipulate the sheep like masses to help the
Democratic party regain power in Washington.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

The WTC had nothing to do with Iraq. That's a fact. Even Bush
isn't so blind to claim otherwise, but he was manipulative enough
to allow people to think it.

Bush and company LIED to the American people about the
reasons for war in Iraq. Bush never bothered to get involved
in the hard decisions that lead up to it, preferring to be a
cowboy, with a lets-getum mentality. He certainly wasn't
involved in the lead up to 9/11. He was on vacation for a
full month a month before it. This was after just a few months
in office. He's taken more vacation than any other president
in history.

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

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
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???
Didn't Russia tell us they had intelligence that Iraq was planning a
terrorist attack in the US also? I guess we should just ignore it, huh? I
guess Bush made up and manipulated the intelligence the previous
administration got too, huh? Of course if Bush acts on intelligent he is
manipulating it and a warmonger, if he doesn't he is not protecting the
American people and he is to blame for people dieing. It looks like he is
doing the responsible thing and acting on the intelligence to protect the
country (Much more than anyone else has done, by far), despite the ones
who
want to just act like the world is a beautiful place and ignore the
dangers
and smell the flowers in their make-believe little world. Maybe if we get
on
our knees and cry, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist!" I think the
current
administration does what needs to be done, despite the slanting and
attacking by the liberal press. And the reason Bush 41 called off the
attack
was because the liberals were crying that is was horrible to pursue them!
Bush 43 did not letting that same bunch sidetrack him from what had to be
done.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

We need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Declare victory,
leave or stay in the background. Let the Iraqis handle it. Bush
is at best incompetent, at worst a liar... sort of like his friend
Ken Lay.

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

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.

I really don't think he lied....

I agree. Saying things that are not true is not necessarily lying unless
one KNOWS that what (s)he is about to say is false. Bush's statements
about
WMDs fall into that catagory. He either knew Saddam had no meaningful
amount of WMDs or he didn't. If he knew, then he is a liar, and should be
replaced. If he didn't, as I suspect, then he is far to ignorant and
stupid
to remain President. Which is it?

But that's water over the dam. Question is what to do now we know better.
Do we stay in and bleed our own country and our military white like LBJ
did
in 'nam or do we cut our losses and leave Iraq to become like Iran.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

Oh? I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right
that he would distance us from the UN. Does this mean he's really a closet
pinko, taking orders from the UN? Does he ever wear a tu tu?


Did we not vote on those resolutions also? Did we not also play a part in
defining those resolutions? It has nothing to do with taking orders from the
UN. It is about the safety of the US and its citizens. The UN is the UN and
it looks out for its own interests and the interests of its friends (which
is a relative thing). The US must take care of the US, because no one else
will.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

Terrorist training camps with a commercial
jet......................................

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
The WTC had nothing to do with Iraq. That's a fact. Even Bush
isn't so blind to claim otherwise, but he was manipulative enough
to allow people to think it.

Bush and company LIED to the American people about the
reasons for war in Iraq. Bush never bothered to get involved
in the hard decisions that lead up to it, preferring to be a
cowboy, with a lets-getum mentality. He certainly wasn't
involved in the lead up to 9/11. He was on vacation for a
full month a month before it. This was after just a few months
in office. He's taken more vacation than any other president
in history.

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

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
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???
Didn't Russia tell us they had intelligence that Iraq was planning a
terrorist attack in the US also? I guess we should just ignore it, huh?
I
guess Bush made up and manipulated the intelligence the previous
administration got too, huh? Of course if Bush acts on intelligent he is
manipulating it and a warmonger, if he doesn't he is not protecting the
American people and he is to blame for people dieing. It looks like he
is
doing the responsible thing and acting on the intelligence to protect
the
country (Much more than anyone else has done, by far), despite the ones
who
want to just act like the world is a beautiful place and ignore the
dangers
and smell the flowers in their make-believe little world. Maybe if we
get
on
our knees and cry, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist!" I think the
current
administration does what needs to be done, despite the slanting and
attacking by the liberal press. And the reason Bush 41 called off the
attack
was because the liberals were crying that is was horrible to pursue
them!
Bush 43 did not letting that same bunch sidetrack him from what had to
be
done.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

That's silly. If that were true, then we didn't need to wait until 2003
to invade Iraq, we could (and *should*) have had a U.N coalition behind
us, and there needn't have been any ridiculous fables about WMDs and
ties to Al-Queda.

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. IMHO this is why you heard
NOTHING about war against Iraq as a Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign promise,
even though they were determined to go ahead with one before the election.

"Vito" wrote
...I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right
that he would distance us from the UN.

Isolationism is one of the favorite themes of the right, religious or
otherwise. Bad-mouthing the U.N and appeals to lowbrow bigotry aginst
them furriners is one way of making an elitist rich persons campaign
that has a chance of capturing the vote of the average & below average
citizen.



FamilySailor wrote:
Did we not vote on those resolutions also? Did we not also play a part in
defining those resolutions? It has nothing to do with taking orders from the
UN.

Agreed.

... It is about the safety of the US and its citizens.

If that were true, then where is the credible 'imminent threat' posed by
Iraq? It was never there. It was never even credible on paper. In order
to pretend that it might be there, Bush & Cheney had to strenuously
ignore lots of intel on Iraq and carefully quote only cherrypicked reports.


... The US must take care of the US, because no one else
will.

Agreed again. But overstretching the Army and running up a huge deficit
while chasing phantoms, and meanwhile creating many many more real
enemies, is a very poor way to go about it.

DSK

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:49:21 -0500, "FamilySailor" wrote:


"Vito" wrote in message
...
"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

Oh? I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right
that he would distance us from the UN. Does this mean he's really a closet
pinko, taking orders from the UN? Does he ever wear a tu tu?


Did we not vote on those resolutions also? Did we not also play a part in
defining those resolutions? It has nothing to do with taking orders from the
UN. It is about the safety of the US and its citizens. The UN is the UN and
it looks out for its own interests and the interests of its friends (which
is a relative thing). The US must take care of the US, because no one else
will.


And no one put the US in sole charge of monitoring compliance with UN
resolutions or in determining how and when to unilaterally "enforce"
them. The UN chose not to go along with our little adventure for a
reason. They clearly didn't see the facts the same way that the
Bush/Cheney administration was spinning them. Funny thing about
that...the US was wrong and the rest of the world was right. Oops.
Mulligan.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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

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

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Terrorist training camps with a commercial
jet......................................

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
The WTC had nothing to do with Iraq. That's a fact. Even Bush
isn't so blind to claim otherwise, but he was manipulative enough
to allow people to think it.

Bush and company LIED to the American people about the
reasons for war in Iraq. Bush never bothered to get involved
in the hard decisions that lead up to it, preferring to be a
cowboy, with a lets-getum mentality. He certainly wasn't
involved in the lead up to 9/11. He was on vacation for a
full month a month before it. This was after just a few months
in office. He's taken more vacation than any other president
in history.

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

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
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???
Didn't Russia tell us they had intelligence that Iraq was planning a
terrorist attack in the US also? I guess we should just ignore it,
huh?
I
guess Bush made up and manipulated the intelligence the previous
administration got too, huh? Of course if Bush acts on intelligent he
is
manipulating it and a warmonger, if he doesn't he is not protecting
the
American people and he is to blame for people dieing. It looks like he
is
doing the responsible thing and acting on the intelligence to protect
the
country (Much more than anyone else has done, by far), despite the
ones
who
want to just act like the world is a beautiful place and ignore the
dangers
and smell the flowers in their make-believe little world. Maybe if we
get
on
our knees and cry, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist!" I think the
current
administration does what needs to be done, despite the slanting and
attacking by the liberal press. And the reason Bush 41 called off the
attack
was because the liberals were crying that is was horrible to pursue
them!
Bush 43 did not letting that same bunch sidetrack him from what had to
be
done.

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

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

Is it?


Perhaps you would present some evidence???

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

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

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.

Rednecks are convinced that Iraq posed a threat to the west. The rest of
us are aware that Saddam always asked for permission before he launched war.


Regards


Donal
--

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
And the UN said they were there.

That is incorrect.



Regards

Donal
--

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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/

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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!"

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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!"

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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!

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"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
--

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"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
--

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

"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
--

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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

Put your money were your mouth is! OT
 

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.