--- ralph rau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mario seems to be very sure that Dubai is funding > terrorist organisations. He probably has access to > reliable sources. One hopes these are not the same > sources that Bush depended on for information about > Iraqi WMD. > Mario responds: > Ralph, I rechecked my sources and found that I was wrong in my previous assertion that Dubai was actively funding terrorist organizations. However, other than that, you don't seem to know much about what is really going on. > It was the Bush administration that proposed and strongly supported the Dubai Ports deal because they believe that Dubai is a reliable ally in the war on terrorism. It was opposed by many in Congress because of a) suspicion that the UAE, of which Dubai is a part, was one of the locations that Al Qaeda financial transactions were being channeled through, b) the fact that two of the 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE, and c) Because Dubai does not recognize Israel, whose survival is guaranteed by the US. > Are you aware that in the US, the Congress, as an institution, is co-equal in Constitutional power with the President and the Judiciary? > Regarding Iraq's WMD's, your knowledge is also very poor. Were you aware that in 1998, way before Bush became President, Bill Clinton proposed and signed The Iraq Liberation Act, based on Iraq's WMDs and the concern that Saddam would provide these to US enemies?
> Are you aware that the intelligence services of the entire civilized world believed that Iraq had WMD's? The evidence lies in the 17 UN resolutions since 1991, demanding an accounting of these WMD's, which Iraq had admitted having in 1991. The last one in early 2003, No. 1441, was passed unanimously, and contained an ultimatum of serious consequences if Saddam did not comply. BTW, when these series of UN resolutions started in 1991, George W. Bush was not even Governor of Texas. > That Iraq was unable to comply with these UN resolutions after being given over a decade to do so, in spite of crippling economic sanctions and finally an ultimatum, proves that they did have the WMD's. > You apparently believe the illogic that because the WMD's were not found, Iraq had none. > The more plausible explanation is simply that they are still hidden either in Iraq or Syria. Stocks of chemical and biological WMD's do not require much space. The logic behind this version is that, had Iraq really not had WMD's, Saddam would have been able to comply with any one of the 17 UN resolutions, the last one containing an ultimatum of serious consequences by force. By showing UN inspectors he had no WMD's he could have maintained his cushy dictatorship and continued sadistically brutalizing his people and building even more palaces. He had already tortured, raped, and massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people in order to maintain his dictatorship, so how does it make sense that he would then risk losing it all by not disclosing that he did not have something that he did not have? > Regarding errors and omissions in Forbes Magazine, I suggest you refer any you find to the Editors of that magazine. > _____________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)