Hmmm..
One poorly substantiated Sarin shell is proof of a major WMD program
in Iraq? That's what I hear you saying.
Please understand that I in no way have any intention to do so, but
I am sure that I could produce and detonate a single Sarin shell
here in Indiana. Would that be proof to you that Saddam had gotten
his WMDs into the US and was planning a major assault in the
Midwest? That seems to be where your logic leads.
And, if the US was in the business of deposing all sociopaths in
power, we would be awfully busy. Why specifically pick on Saddam.
If we thought he was that bad, why did we support him on his way up?
I don't know who Christopher Hutchins is, but I am thinking that he
would be close a frontrunner for the post of complete idiot in my
book.
Brian
--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, "the_maniacal_engineer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there were no WMD's. there was no sarin shell used against US
troops,
> these aren't the droids you're looking for... you can go about your
> business... move along..... Pay no attention to the man behind the
> curtain.
>
> Iraq still retains control of its own oil, we have not seized it,
> although we could have, and there were WMD's (duh - where did the
> ssarin shell come from?)
> Christopher hitchins says there are 4 ways you can tell a complete
> idiot. These are the things a complete idiot says:
> 1) "sure Saddam was a bad guy but....
> Saddam was a sociopath and so were his putative heirs.
> 2) We are just going to war to take the Iraqi oil
> We buy the oil from iraq at market prices, and unlike the oil
for
> food program administered by the corrupt french and russian
interests
> at the UN, the money does not go to build opulent palaces or for
> weapons programs.
> 3) "there is no connection between Saddam and terror" or "Saddam is
> just a secular tyrant and has no truck with those religious
zealots"
> he paid $25000 for each suicide bomber. the WTC bombing
> mastermind went to Iraq shortly after 9/11 and was given haven in
> Iraq, and is still there today. One of the planners of 9/11 was a
> colonel is Saddam's fedayin.
> 4) "there were no WMD's"
> DUH, they existed at the end of the first gulf war. to destroy
> them without supervision was a violation of international law. The
> Sarin and mustard attacks recently against US troops prove the
> contention that they didn't exist is totally false.
>
> didn't the ambassador recall that we just LEFT Saudi Arabia?
>
>
> --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Prince Turki al-Faisal, ambassador to Britain and Ireland, told
the
> > >Irish Independent newspaper Washington's stated aims in going
to war
> > >in Iraq masked a more cynical reality.
> > >
> > >"No matter how exalted the aims of the U.S. in that war, in the
final
> > >analysis it was a colonial war very similar to the wars
conducted by
> > >the ex-colonial powers when they went out to conquer the rest
of the
> > >world ...," Prince Turki said.
> > >
> > >John Kerry, ever Mr. Cautious ("if only I can stay two points
to the
> > >left of Bush I can win"), suggested that oil might have had
something
> > >do with the invasion, too. Kerry, who's constantly bashing the
> > >Saudis, didn't exactly line up with Prince Turki. And he didn't
> > >exactly sound like an anti-imperialist, either. But he did
suggest
> > >that oil was a factor. In a Washington Times piece
entitled "Kerry
> > >hints at link between oil, Iraq war," the Times reports:
> > >http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040524-103200-9250r.htm
> >
> > >Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry yesterday
suggested
> > >that America's dependence on foreign oil is the major reason
the
> > >United States went to war with Iraq.
> > >
> > >"A strong America begins at home-with energy independence from
the
> > >Middle East. Let's ensure that no young American soldier has to
fight
> > >and die because of our dependence on foreign oil," the
Massachusetts
> > >senator said.
> >
> > I'd like to point out that there are some substantial
differences in
> > trying to make the case that America's oil dependencies
have 'led'
> > inexorably to certain events, and to claiming that, specifically
and
> > simplistically, America was simply trying to take oil. They are
not
> > necessarily the same claim.
> >
> > I would be very much in favor of examining the first point and
trying
> > to figure it out and examine the issue of causality.
> >
> > As to the second, I question it, though I guess it's possible.
> >
> > The author of this article, though, leaves little or no room for
the
> > idea that there could be a difference, so the conversation and
the
> > article to me becomes far less worth my while.
> >
> >
> > >Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's
> > >intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. They are
the
> > >best. They have to know.
> >
> > Actually, around the time of the start of the invasion of Iraq,
> > Israeli Intelligence, I saw in one news report, stated that WMD
or
> > other weapons (I don't recall how it was put) were being moved to
> > Syria. I've never seen this mentioned before or since.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
