OT-VIDEO of AMERICAN BEHEADED BY TERRORISTS

Page 5 of 9  


evidence.
threat?
This
Guilty until presumed innocent? The UN weapons inspectors as well as the US weapons inspectors have repeatedly stated that Saddam no longer possesses chemical or biological weapons, and that he did not have the capability to produce nuclear weapons. These people scoured Iraq for years looking for evidence, and for the last 10 years have come up with nothing. Nada. Not even a trace.
Forget about the opinions of a few democrats or republicans, as most of them probably haven't a clue and their interests are likely to be self serving. Have you read what the actual weapons inspectors themselves, ie. Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, and David Kay have reported?
It's always amusing to me too, when people say with absolutely no evidence that Saddam has WMD's .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Kind of ironic seeing this post from 5/14 show up after this past week's events vis a vis the sarin and mustard gas rounds found. I quote, "Nada, not even a trace"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

partisan
of
US
to
them
serving.
evidence
I don't think I replied to this post (I wrote the top part). Does everybody forget (or even know) that the UN searched for chemical weapons in Iraq after the first gulf war and couldn't find anything until a defector TOLD THEM where they were? Scott Ritter was on Saddam's payroll. They gave him $500,000 to write a book or something. Hans Blix is a fool. Inspector Clouseau comes to mind.
I keep telling myself not to argue with people who can't see the forest for the trees. Other agendas cloud their vision.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 20 May 2004 01:59:40 GMT, Mark & Juanita

That trace of sarin or mustard would be left over from the stuff you gave them to clobber the Iranians, No?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

week's
C'mon Sandy. It was about a gallon of sarin -- enough to kill thousands if dispersed correctly. Do you doubt that there is more where that came from? Let's get all the excuses out of the way now:
1. It's not really a WMD, 2. We gave all this bad stuff to them, so it is our fault, 3. It was never in Iraq. It is our fault because it was brought into the country because we attacked them first, 4. It's nothing, just a little shell and they didn't even know there was anything in it.
What did I miss? :)
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Trace? It was between 3 and 4 liters of Sarin, nearly a gallon. The fatal dose - LD50, when in contact with skin, is 1.7 grams, much smaller dose if inhaled. I don't know the density of Sarin as a liquid, but we're talking hundreds or thousands worth of fatal doses in this one shell you are calling a "trace".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

... snip

The origins are irrelevant, the fact is Saddam agreed to destroy *all* (not most, not a bit of, but ALL) WMD's he had as a condition for the cease-fire after the initial Gulf conflict. Full rounds of mustard and/or sarin absolutely violate that agreement. A full round constitutes a bit more than a trace.
Still more irony here, first the opponents argued that there were *no* WMD's and that Saddam had destroyed them all or never had them. Now several shells are found and the opponent's litany is "it was old", or "it's only a little bit", or "they were forgotten rounds".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

You cry like a little girl.
Face it, Markie, that ONE shell is too little too late to help your cause. Whatever that happens to be.
One shell, from 1988, that was improperly deployed, cannot justify this war.
I'm sure your too blinded to realize this.
--
Mark

N.E. Ohio
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ad hominem attacks are *so* impressive.

Where there's one, there may be more. And there were not supposed to be ANY, remember?

Just where have you been the last thirteen years? Saddam started the war, back in 1991, and he has persistently refused to abide by the terms of the _cease_fire_ agreement -- hence the war continues. This is not a new war, started by GW Bush, it's the *conclusion* of the one started by Saddam.
Simply put: a cease-fire agreement such as the one reached in 1991 says in essence "you agree to do x, and we agree to stop shooting at you". Implicit in this agreement is the threat that if you *don't* do x, we'll resume shooting. And that's exactly what has happened.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

The use of the phrase ad hominem is so ..... Logic 101,
I'm impressed.
--
Mark

N.E. Ohio
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, yes, haven't you been paying attention? That's what's being discussed here, the Sarin-containing artillery shell that was exploded last week. A shell that Saddam's government certified to the UN had been destroyed. A shell that the UN arms "inspectors" couldn't find. Don't you wonder what *else* they missed? Don't you wonder what *else* Saddam didn't declare?
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

No.
It all became moot when the U.S. attacked Iraq without cause.
--
Mark

N.E. Ohio
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Obviously you haven't paid *any* attention to anything that happened between 1991 and 2003, so you probably missed one of my other posts earlier today as well, in which I pointed out that we didn't start this.
Brief lesson for the history-impaired [this includes yourself] --
Saddam started the war by invading Kuwait in 1991. After he ignored repeated UN resolutions demanding that he leave, the United States organized a coalition to kick his butt out. Having done so, a cease-fire agreement was negotiated. The former government of Iraq refused to comply with the terms of that agreement, despite repeated further UN resolutions demanding compliance. The UN Security Council lacked the spine to enforce compliance (not to mention several of its members having a vested interest in not doing so); thus, the US is enforcing those resolutions.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That sums it up pretty well Tim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip one fine exposition only for the purpose of conserving bandwidth>
Damn, Tim, I wish I had the talents to write like that! Well Done!!!
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Agkistrodon"

Bull. The "War on Terror" is a war on all terrorist groups and it's likely most terrorists consider themselves rebels, not terrorists. But when they're shooting at you or setting landmines it doesn't make much difference what you call them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message

You really don't know much about the Middle East, do you?

How did we miss the Irish Republican Army? Why aren't we fighting South Mollucan terrorists? The "War on Terrorism" is a hoax. It's a war on anybody who doesn't appreciate and support "American interests." Read "power interests".

They religious rebels. They had no power under Hussein. Hell, Hussein executed several of his family so the fighting with his group has nothing to do with Hussein's terrorists. In fact, who is the American pointman in Falujah? One of Saddam's ex-generals! We are witnessing the fragmentation of Iraq along religious alignments. Al-Sadr is a Shi'ite and he's structuring a post-American Iraq that will either be broken up due to in-fighting between sects and clans (Kurds, Sunnis, Shi'ites) or controlled by another tough guy Husseinoid.

them.
It certainly does. We must not confuse the situation we have created with the one that went before. The Mehdi Army is not Saddam's army. We are fighting new terrorists that we have created from people who were not terrorists before we invaded and destroyed the poilitical integrity of Iraq. Do you know what the word "integrity" means?
Agkistrodon

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Agki Strodon"

I know enough to call the above statement bull.

They haven't been very active in a while but would be targeted if they were. The war on terrorism is global, not a US war.

"We" can't do it all today.

I'm still hoping yopu'll make a substantive comment.

yawn.
Your point was...?

I nominate John Kerry after his unsucessful whitehouse run. He's a man for everyone, at least once.

Tell that to they guy that has his legs blown off or the family of the deceased.

We created them?

LOL !!!!! Political integrity !!! Thanks for that one !

Do you? It's nice we have a middle east expert here!!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

nothing to

You don't get it?? Wow!

Typical evasive rightwing failure to respond to the issue.

call
That could be said of anyone on any side in any "war."

Yes... prior to our invasion, al-Sadr was just another kook fundie. The removal of Saddam's repression enabled the present situation. We are fighting people who want either dominance of all Iraq or a separate nation. Why didn't someone predict this?

Iraq.
You see, you don't know! Integrity, in this sense, means unity. Iraq was one whole but now it is fractionated by groups seeking power. "Integrity" is related to the word "integer" which means... well, you tell us. Can you? Don't look it up. Just answer from your "knowledge."
Agkistrodon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 May 2004 10:51:38 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:

nope. it's a war on uppity arabs with oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.