On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:29, Jonathan wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
>
> > On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:55, Nick Arnett wrote:
> >
> >> "Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the
> >> U.N.
> >> headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of
> >> weapons
> >> of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's
> >> finest sons
> >> and daughters."
> >>
> >> Yessir, how very encouraging it would have been to find some. It's
> >> just a
> >> damn shame that more tyrants don't have WMDs. But we can change
> >> that! In
> >
> > You mean except the sarin shells and suchlike? Yea. no, he didn't
> > have nuclear capacity, but chemical and a willingness to use it? Ask
> > the Kurds.
> >
> > AndrewC
> > Dawn Falcon
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, and I'll have them write their answer on my picture of Rumsfeld
> shaking Saddams' hand. You know, the snapshot taken the very same week
> the UN report describing this Kurdish gassing you cite actually came
> out! Poppy Bush had Rummy there to smooth out public response to this
Your point?
> The UN had rooted out everything of note - hence Bush lamenting not
That's why they're STILL don't know where he hid all the chemicals.
That's NOT "everything of note", many of the stashes were still
potentially lethal.
> finding any when he insisted we attack anyway. How was Saddam supposed
> to prove a negative: Bush demanded he prove he no longer had WMD and
Saddam retained NBC weapons. And by cooperating with international
inspectors, as he did not.
> warned the inspectors to leave {Saddam wanted them there to forestall
> invasion} so US could attack... It was all pretext to loot - both the
Yes, conspiracy theory #104590581656874387135786468715674
Right.
> target country resources and the US treasury and all we have is a
> handful of decade old dusty artillery shells to show for this threat.
Chemical. Warfare. Shells. That's not "old dusty artillery shells".
Your are trying to make a point by denying clear and present
evidence.
> So, Mr Braveheart. Content with being a real hero - but only when you
So, Mr. I love Dictators, content to crap on the world and surprised
when the world shits back? That America did not create the very
situation it decrys, and now you want to pull in the borders, hide
and deny that it ever happened, and think that it'll go away without
help. That you want the terrorists dying for their god round your
house, rather than in another country?
Noted. (No, I don't have time for conspiracy theorists, no.)
> for boot camp? We have words for this sort of approach, but I'll wait
> for your response to see where you take my questions.
There are words for your approach as wel, starting with "paranoia"
and "mentally ill". I work for the good of my country, Israel, as I
allways have done. If it came down to it, yes, I'd be there in the
line with a rifle.
> I'm more interested in whatever became of the Anthrax poisoning of a
> few key {democratic} leadership offfices just as the Patriot Act was
> coming up for review. That investigation has mysteriously dried up
> after tracking US milspec grade production was involved. We have more
> to worry about Weapons of Mass Deception than anything else these days.
The anthrax which it was so-easy to order? It dried up because there
were no solid leads. The procedure for getting hold of it is now
actually, well, reasonably secure.
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
