Rick,
actually it was not me that wrote the text you responded to below. That
would have been Mike (see http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/45661/)
>
>
> Dear Darryl,
>
>In retrospect, it would have been cheaper in both blood and money to
>have kept Sadam under scrutiny and contained him inst
Dear Darryl,
In retrospect, it would have been cheaper in both blood and money to
have kept Sadam under scrutiny and contained him instead of invading.
Rick
Darryl wrote:
No, they did not have weapons of mass destruction yet, but they did have the
know how and planned to build them
Hallo Darryl,
Not at all discounting any of those items you listed below
but definitely do not discount the radical religious
underpinning either. ;o)
Happy Happy,
Gustl
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:49:15 -0400
"Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gustl, leav
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo Kids,
>
> Better start thinking neocons and giving biblical prophecy
> a helping hand. A lot more there than meets the eye.
> Nasty business. Takes some digging and some understanding
> of fundamental Christianity. Rational to them but very,
> very scary.
>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded:
> Darryl wrote:
>
> "Clearly, "taking out Saddam" had nothing to do with weapons of mass
> destruction
> (the U.N. inspectors had all but proven he had none before the U.S. found the
> courage to invade), or 9/11 (the plans were in play in the U.S. Administration
Hallo Kids,
Better start thinking neocons and giving biblical prophecy
a helping hand. A lot more there than meets the eye.
Nasty business. Takes some digging and some understanding
of fundamental Christianity. Rational to them but very,
very scary.
Happy Happy,
Gustl
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 2
I wanted to share some information I came across a couple of weeks ago because
I think it contributes to at least one statement in this thread.
"Clearly, 'taking out Saddam' had nothing to do with weapons of mass
destruction..."
FYI: My partner is a chemist and interviewed a candidate for he
Darryl wrote:
"Clearly, "taking out Saddam" had nothing to do with weapons of mass
destruction
(the U.N. inspectors had all but proven he had none before the U.S. found the
courage to invade), or 9/11 (the plans were in play in the U.S. Administration
*before* the planes hit the towers). It
