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

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

Sure thing.

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

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

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

In article , Jonathan Ganz
wrote:

Huh? Bush said that there were WMDs. There are none. He
said Iraq was an iminent threat. It wasn't. Those were lies. What
"IS" are you talking about?

"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
--

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

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

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

What's up, Donal? Cat got your tongue?

Nope! Check on Google and you will see that I responded to you *before*
you posted your false allegation.

I'm wondering why I haven't seen a response from you. I'm not stupid enough
to assume that you weren't able to respond.

You've replied to other posts in
this thread and your timestamps are well after the stamp on this one,
so ........ ?????????

Check Google!!!



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

I wasn't wrong.


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

Why is this relevant? I didn't mention neutron bombs, ... you did.



Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Perhaps you should either give up
smoking or start taking EPO.

Are you feeling pleased because you think that I ignored your post? Check
Google.

Your "Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha" reminds me of when I was at school.
Theres were some stupid kids who were always the first to say "Nyah nah na
na nyah".


Did you get bullied at school?

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
--

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 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.