"thunder" wrote in message
news
LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD.

You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the
Western World was wrong about their existance. I know that we'll find 'em
eventually. I just hope that it's before the election. Unfortunately, I
believe that it will require troops in Syria...and that won't happen until
Bush's 2nd term.

NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news

LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD.


You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the
Western World was wrong about their existance. I know that we'll find 'em
eventually. I just hope that it's before the election. Unfortunately, I
believe that it will require troops in Syria...and that won't happen until
Bush's 2nd term.




They are on a truck right now, being driven by a Halliburton employee, eh?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news

LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD.


You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the
Western World was wrong about their existance. I know that we'll find
'em
eventually. I just hope that it's before the election. Unfortunately,
I
believe that it will require troops in Syria...and that won't happen
until
Bush's 2nd term.




They are on a truck right now, being driven by a Halliburton employee,
eh?

Oh, so that's it. The Mehdi Army is attacking our convoys and killing
civilians in a search for WMD's that we're trying to "plant".

Do you guys actually believe your own bull****?

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the
Western World was wrong about their existance.


Galileo and I had a good laugh over this...

"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the
Western World was wrong about their existance.


Galileo and I had a good laugh over this...

So you're into necromancy, eh?

Since you mentioned Galileo, then perhaps his theory on abstract dynamics
applies he the weapons are there, but they can't be observed under
anything less than ideal circumstances (ie--Saddam didn't have 1 year to
hide them; Syria would let our guys in to take a look; scientists watching
the current insurgency are no longer fearful to reveal their existence,
etc).

In fact, I'd say invoking Galileo's name is a pretty dumb way to prove that
something *doen't* exist.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:02:07 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
news
LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD.

You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the
Western World was wrong about their existance. I know that we'll find 'em
eventually. I just hope that it's before the election. Unfortunately, I
believe that it will require troops in Syria...and that won't happen until
Bush's 2nd term.

LOL, I don't think I could disagree with you more. First, *if* Bush is
reelected, both he and the Army will still have their hands full with
Iraq. I don't think even Bush is dumb enough to start yet another war.

Second, no country would risk our wrath by accepting Iraq's WMD, *if* they
existed. A terrorist network, perhaps, but no country. All of the WMD
Iraq was accused of having, has a shelf life of 3-5 years. Why would
Syria want WMD that is rapidly turning to goo. For a country, it is the
capability to make WMD that is important, not the WMD itself. Let me once
again state, Syria and Iraq are not allied. Syria sided with Iran in the
Iran-Iraq War, and the US in the first Gulf War.

Third, there were several intelligence sources that didn't believe Iraq
was in possession of WMD capabilities when we invaded, including many
agents in our own agencies.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:02:07 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
news
LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD.

You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the
Western World was wrong about their existance. I know that we'll find
'em
eventually. I just hope that it's before the election. Unfortunately,
I
believe that it will require troops in Syria...and that won't happen
until
Bush's 2nd term.

LOL, I don't think I could disagree with you more. First, *if* Bush is
reelected, both he and the Army will still have their hands full with
Iraq. I don't think even Bush is dumb enough to start yet another war.

Although some might perceive it as *another* war, it would *not* be another
war. Rather, it would be just a continuation of the current one.




Second, no country would risk our wrath by accepting Iraq's WMD, *if* they
existed. A terrorist network, perhaps, but no country.

I disagree. Syria was stupid enough to send military aid and terrorists to
Iraq. They were also dumb enough to skirt the oil embargo, hide Saddam's
money, and give sanctuary to many of the Baath Party officials from Saddam's
regime (possible even Saddam and his sons initially). Of course, seeing how
serious we were about making them the next target, they stopped supplying
the military hardware, and threw out the officials. Perhaps they accepted
the WMD, but later figured that either: a) turning them over would still not
prevent a U.S. attack, or b) they could hide them effectively enough, and we
couldn't find them unless we actually invaded Syria. I believe "b".


All of the WMD
Iraq was accused of having, has a shelf life of 3-5 years.

Not the bioweapon cultures...and certainly not the technology on how to make
them.

Why would
Syria want WMD that is rapidly turning to goo.

The bugs from the bioweapons could be replicated easily and kept alive
indefinitely...and the technology would never "turn to goo".


For a country, it is the
capability to make WMD that is important, not the WMD itself.

Even David Kay speculated that Iraq shipped to Syria small quantities of WMD
and the technology to produce them .

Let me once
again state, Syria and Iraq are not allied. Syria sided with Iran in the
Iran-Iraq War, and the US in the first Gulf War.

So? They also traded oil for cash with Saddam, and backed him with weapons
when we invaded.


Third, there were several intelligence sources that didn't believe Iraq
was in possession of WMD capabilities when we invaded, including many
agents in our own agencies.

Are you talking about that pedophile that was part of UNSCOM?

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:56:05 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Although some might perceive it as *another* war, it would *not* be
another war. Rather, it would be just a continuation of the current
one.

Yup, I'm thinking this War on Terrorism will surpass America's longest
war, the War on Drugs, and with about the same success.

I disagree. Syria was stupid enough to send military aid and terrorists
to Iraq. They were also dumb enough to skirt the oil embargo, hide
Saddam's money, and give sanctuary to many of the Baath Party officials
from Saddam's regime (possible even Saddam and his sons initially). Of
course, seeing how serious we were about making them the next target,
they stopped supplying the military hardware, and threw out the
officials. Perhaps they accepted the WMD, but later figured that
either: a) turning them over would still not prevent a U.S. attack, or
b) they could hide them effectively enough, and we couldn't find them
unless we actually invaded Syria. I believe "b".

Puhleese, judging from the amount of illegal aliens we have, we haven't
done a very good job of policing our borders. Why are you holding Syria
to a higher standard? A third world country unable to police hundreds of
miles of desert wasteland, perhaps Bush should instruct Syria on
establishing a Department of Homeland Security. Syria did try to seal
it's border:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/stor...940947,00.html

The bugs from the bioweapons could be replicated easily and kept alive
indefinitely...and the technology would never "turn to goo".

LOL, now you are sounding like the Bush administration. So now, it is not
WMD, it is WMD related programs.


Even David Kay speculated that Iraq shipped to Syria small quantities of
WMD and the technology to produce them .

Speculated? Reminds me of an old Bush quote, "There's an old saying in
Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says,
fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled
again." Just how many countries are you willing to invade over the same
WMD, *without* ever having seen *any* of said WMD. The WMD is in Iraq.
Whoops, no, it is in Syria. Whoops, no, it is in Iran. Whoops, no, it's
in ... Try selling this somewhere else, I'm not buying.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
Just how many countries are you willing to invade over the same
WMD, *without* ever having seen *any* of said WMD. The WMD is in Iraq.
Whoops, no, it is in Syria. Whoops, no, it is in Iran. Whoops, no, it's
in ... Try selling this somewhere else, I'm not buying.

Buy whatever you like. However, the smart money says that time will tell
that Syria did indeed accept a transfer of Saddam's WMD. In fact, don't be
surprised when it's revealed that the "chemicals" that recently made their
way to Jordan via Syria turn out to be VX...a WMD made by Iraq.

BTW--did you notice that the noose around Assad's neck is tightening a
little bit each day?

Bush said to plan sanctions for Syria
Pressure aimed at halting terror aid
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | April 20, 2004

WASHINGTON -- President Bush plans to impose sanctions on Syria to pressure
it to halt support for terrorist groups, sending a strong message to
President Bashar Assad as foreign fighters continue to cross into Iraq from
Syrian territory, senior governments officials said yesterday.

The officials also said Jordanian investigators have reported that chemicals
discovered in a foiled Al Qaeda plot in Jordan had been smuggled in from
Syria.

The White House has told members of Congress that as early as this week the
president will implement the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty
Restoration Act, passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed
into law in December.

The law gives Bush new leeway to punish Syria economically and
diplomatically for failing to act forcefully against terrorism. The
sanctions could include prohibiting the sale of American products and US
investment in Syria and restricting the travel of Syrian diplomats in the
United States. It was not immediately clear yesterday which sanctions Bush
would invoke.

''The word I have gotten from the administration is the president fully
intends to implement it," Representative Elliot Engel, Republican of New
York and a key sponsor of the legislation, told the Globe yesterday.

Such a move is expected to increase anti-American sentiment in the region,
already heightened over the war in Iraq and Israel's recent assassinations
of two Hamas leaders, as well as Bush's support for Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon's plan to keep some West Bank settlements.

Engel and others said the White House was waiting to take action against
Syria after a series of meetings in Washington this month with Middle East
leaders, including President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Sharon, and King
Abdullah of Jordan. Jordanian officials announced yesterday that Abdullah,
who was scheduled to meet with Bush at the White House tomorrow, has
postponed his trip until next month.

''I think there is something we might hear this week," said Theodore
Kattouf, who served as Bush's ambassador to Syria until last fall and met
with the Syrian president last week. He added, however, that recent
developments could delay the move.

Syria, labeled by the State Department as a sponsor of terrorism for its
support of anti-Israeli terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and
the Lebanese Hezbollah, has come under enhanced scrutiny in recent days. US
forces have been battling with armed insurgents in western Iraq who are
believed to have infiltrated the country through Syria. Five US Marines were
killed Saturday in the western Iraqi town of Husaybah.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the Associated Press yesterday that
he has asked Syria to beef up security on the border. ''It is in our mutual
interest to deal with the problem," Powell said. ''It is not in Syria's
interest to be seen as a base from which infiltrators can come across to
kill innocent Iraqis or to kill coalition troops."

The Syrian Embassy did not return calls yesterday seeking comment on the
allegations.

General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday
that ''We know that the pathway into Iraq for many foreign forces is through
Syria. It's a fact. We know it. The Syrians know it." Myers, speaking on
CNN's ''Late Edition," said, ''The Syrians need to take this situation very
seriously. They need to help us stop that infiltration of foreign fighters.
It doesn't do their government any good."

Meanwhile, Jordanian authorities announced Saturday that raids earlier this
month uncovered an Al Qaeda cell in Jordan that was planning to detonate a
huge chemical bomb at the headquarters of the Jordanian Intelligence
Services, the US Embassy, and other targets in Amman. They said the raw
materials could have killed as many as 20,000 people in gas attacks.

''There is evidence that it came from Syria into Jordan," Engel said of the
chemical materials and explosives. ''The Jordanians believe that and I
believe that."

But Kattouf, who met with Assad last week, said Syria has little incentive
to cooperate with the United States in policing its border with Iraq or
other issues in the current environment,

On border control, ''I believe last October the Syrians, through their
ambassador, let it be known that they might be open to some cooperation,"
said Kattouf, president of America-Mideast Educational and Training
Services, a private nonprofit organization in Washington. ''I conclude that
some elements of the [Bush] administration are so anti-Syrian that they
would prefer to issue public warnings rather than to open serious talks on
the matter."

The Syria Accountability Act called on Damascus to ''immediately and
unconditionally halt support for terrorism, permanently and openly declare
its total renunciation of all forms of terrorism, and close all terrorist
offices and facilities in Syria." It also demanded that Syria pull its
military forces out of neighboring Lebanon, which it has occupied for more
than two decades.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:36:51 -0400, NOYB wrote:


Buy whatever you like. However, the smart money says that time will tell
that Syria did indeed accept a transfer of Saddam's WMD. In fact, don't
be surprised when it's revealed that the "chemicals" that recently made
their way to Jordan via Syria turn out to be VX...a WMD made by Iraq.

LOL, again, Syria did not accept WMD from Iraq. It's a red herring,
foisted to explain the lack of WMD in Iraq. Syria's relations with Iraq
were tepid at best. This administration blew the intelligence on Iraq's
WMD. As you have difficulty believing this, the final reason Syria would
not accept Iraq's WMD is that it would be unnecessary. Syria's chemical
weapons capability far surpasses Iraq's. It is considered to be the most
advanced in the middle east.

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

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


BTW--did you notice that the noose around Assad's neck is tightening a
little bit each day?

Personally, I think the Likud party should fight their own battles.