bike cop shoots driver from hood of car

[Jake Greene]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Kevan Smith <[email protected]/\/\> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 05:12:55 GMT, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> from Habanero Cycles wrote:
>
>
>>>>At least he wasn't subject to greed-based hallucinations that place weapons of mass destruction
>>>>in oil-rich countries.
>>>
>>>Obviously you missed it when he claimed that Iraq DID have WMD, and was a major threat that must
>>>be dealt with immediately.
>>
>>>But I know that since he's no a Republican, he gets a pass for taking the same position GWB
>>>does, right?
>>
>>If Clinton said that last year or this, he was wrong, too. Like I said earlier, Democrats and
>>Republicans are just different breeds of pigs feeding on different sides of the same corporate
>>money trough.
>
>
> Naww, he said it back when he was president, back when it was common knowledge that Saddam had
> WMD. Let's not forget that even Hans Blix and Jacques Chirac said Iraq had WMD - but those are
> insignificant facts for those who'd prefer to cast stones at GWB. Bottom line is, Iraq admitted
> having 'em, and NEVER coughed up ANY evidence they'd gotten rid of them. Pretty simple, really.
>
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

Would you consider that our not finding any as evidence that they'd gotten rid of them? Sticking to
the "Iraq's WMDs meant immenent danger to Americans" party line is proving to be lonely business.
And rightfully so, it appears.

The only Americans in any danger of Iraqui weapons, of Mass Destruction or otherwise, are those we
sent to topple the regime. The worthiness of that goal is certainly at issue, especially in light of
the fact that our stated reason is shaping up to be a lie.

Jake

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

>
> One has to ignore several glaring facts to believe there was no basis for the action, including
> Saddam's own admissions of chemical/bio weapons with no proof of ever getting rid of them, 12 year
> and 14 totally ignored UN resolutions, open support of terrorism - little things like that that.

Sorry, Mark, we must have diligently ignored _many_ similar glaring facts in dozens of other
countries - if that's what you think it takes to _not_ preemptively invade!

Unless a person is hopelessly naive, it should be obvious that we do not invade any country whose
leaders commit the sins you describe. And in fact, in many cases, we've generously supported leaders
who have done worse. We've installed dictators and we've helped destroy democracies when we decided
it fit our plans.

Obviously, good versus bad isn't the criterion, nor is dictator versus democracy. Obviously, open
support of terrorism isn't the criterion - or we'd be marching into Saudi Arabia right now.
Obviously, WMD isn't the criterion - just ask the former "WMD! WMD!" hawks, who are now saying that
wasn't the point after all.

> The fact France didn't sign up for the party is irrelevant (as is the UN apparently, and sadly).

Oh come on. _Nobody_ signed up for the party except Tony Blair and the few economically-challenged
"allies" we could afford to buy! The entire run-up to this exercise consisted of the Bush-league
leaning on Powell to somehow convince other leaders about imminent WMD attacks. Poor Powell had to
play the fool, somehow pretending that he had WMD evidence. But every other world leader said "This
is no evidence." Not surprisingly, they were right.

So now we go begging, hat in hand, asking those same world leaders to help get us out of the mess
we're in. Astoundingly, there are still those who are faithful to Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz,
buying whatever the current rationalization is.

It reminds me of my dear departed mother-in-law. She went to her death thinking Nixon was a good
man, who never said the things on those tapes...

... no, come to think of it, even she came to her senses just before she passed on.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Obviously you missed it when he claimed that Iraq DID have WMD, and was a major threat that must
> be dealt with immediately.

I did miss that, and I'd be interested in an exact quote. "Dealt with" is rather vague. Most people
don't automatically equate that phrase with "preemptively invaded with overwhelming military force."

>
> But I know that since he's no a Republican, he gets a pass for taking the same position GWB
> does, right?

In my case, no, that's wrong. First, Clinton is not very admirable in my eyes. But it's fiction to
say he was "taking the same position [as] GWB." Obviously, if he'd wanted to preemptively invade
Iraq, he had eight years to do so. Since we didn't invade in, oh, 1995 or so, it's obvious he didn't
really take the same position.

Now, as far as voting in favor of the invasion - or just as bad, giving a certain cowboy the
authority to do whatever he wanted - there were plenty of Democrats who were just as wrong as the
Republicans. They get no pass from me.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Top Sirloin]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:46:49 GMT, "Baker, Jane Baker" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:56:34 -0500, Kevan Smith <[email protected]/\/\> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:26:56 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> from The Esoteric c0wz'
>>Society wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:33:53 -0500, wrote:

>>>> invaded.
>>>
>>>Clinton's lies resulted in bringing out one very important item about him that strongly
>>>disqualifies him from being a good president.
>>>
>>>He didn't know the meaning of the word "is", which is a majorly important word to know.
>>
>>At least he wasn't subject to greed-based hallucinations that place weapons of mass destruction in
>>oil-rich countries.
>
>
>But really... how does your ass look in spandex, Kevan?

I wish Kevan could tell me who the author of these quotes are:

1: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.
They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

2: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms,
poison gas, or biological weapons."

3: "And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system,
Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons
programs in months, not years."

--
Scott Johnson Fry Mumia http://www.danielfaulkner.com

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:58:44 GMT, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> from Habanero Cycles wrote:

>Kevan Smith <[email protected]/\/\> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 05:12:55 GMT, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> from Habanero Cycles wrote:
>
>>>>At least he wasn't subject to greed-based hallucinations that place weapons of mass destruction
>>>>in oil-rich countries.
>>>
>>>Obviously you missed it when he claimed that Iraq DID have WMD, and was a major threat that must
>>>be dealt with immediately.
>>
>>>But I know that since he's no a Republican, he gets a pass for taking the same position GWB
>>>does, right?
>>
>>If Clinton said that last year or this, he was wrong, too. Like I said earlier, Democrats and
>>Republicans are just different breeds of pigs feeding on different sides of the same corporate
>>money trough.
>
>Naww, he said it back when he was president, back when it was common knowledge that Saddam had WMD.
>Let's not forget that even Hans Blix and Jacques Chirac said Iraq had WMD - but those are
>insignificant facts for those who'd prefer to cast stones at GWB. Bottom line is, Iraq admitted
>having 'em, and NEVER coughed up ANY evidence they'd gotten rid of them. Pretty simple, really.

Except, of course, you're lying. Iraq presented plenty of evidence about the destruction of their
WMD and the status of their programs. The most recent was the 12,000-page report Iraq submitted to
the U.N. -- the one the administrtion expurgated pages from because it implicated U.S. corporations
in possibly violating U.S. law regarding selling arms to Iraq. The current pigs at the trough chose
to ignore the report in order to invade Iraq.
--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace I'm gliding over a NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP near
ATLANTA, Georgia!!
10:37:17 AM 12 September 2003

 

[Chalo]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

> One has to ignore several glaring facts to believe there was no basis for the action, including
> Saddam's own admissions of chemical/bio weapons with no proof of ever getting rid of them, 12 year
> and 14 totally ignored UN resolutions, open support of terrorism - little things like that that.

If these things mattered to the US regime, they'd have to attack themselves first-- for being the
most serious proven aggressor nation, for openly holding massive stockpiles of banned WMDs, for the
most intransigence in ignoring and defying UN resolutions, and for being the most prolific supporter
of terrorism in the world for at least the last 60 years.

Chalo Colina

 

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]/\/\> wrote
>
> Except, of course, you're lying. Iraq presented plenty of evidence about
the
> destruction of their WMD and the status of their programs. The most recent
was
> the 12,000-page report Iraq submitted to the U.N. -- the one the
administrtion
> expurgated pages from because it implicated U.S. corporations in possibly violating U.S. law
> regarding selling arms to Iraq. The current pigs at the trough chose to ignore the report in order
> to invade Iraq.

Not according to Hans Blix.

USA Today, Dec 12, 2002 http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-12-19-blix-iraqreport_x.htm "We
are consistent in the view that there has been relatively little given in the declaration by way
of evidence concerning the programs of weapons of mass destruction," Blix told reporters after
the briefing.

Blix noted inconsistencies in Iraq's biological declaration, noting that the latest report did not
include a table that had been provided in 1999 on Baghdad's purchase of material that it used to
grow biological warfare agents including anthrax. This omission "needs to be explained," Blix told
the council, according to his briefing notes.

[head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed] ElBaradei noted that the Iraqis have been
opening doors for inspectors on the ground but said: "We have not gotten what we need in terms of
additional evidence."

In preparing its declaration, Iraq had a list of outstanding questions prepared by the former U.N.
inspection agency and by an international panel of experts.

The unanswered questions included: How much anthrax did Iraq actually produce, and was it all
destroyed as Baghdad claims? Where are 550 artillery shells that it filled with mustard gas? Why
were no remnants found of warheads for 50 long-range missiles that Iraq said it destroyed? What
happened to all the deadly VX nerve agent that Iraq produced.

Pete

But I guess we should just believe, them, right? After all....Saddam and Co would never lie,
would they?

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 20:45:57 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner High Speed Online
http://www.rr.com wrote:

>"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]/\/\> wrote
>>
>> Except, of course, you're lying. Iraq presented plenty of evidence about
>the
>> destruction of their WMD and the status of their programs. The most recent
>was
>> the 12,000-page report Iraq submitted to the U.N. -- the one the
>administrtion
>> expurgated pages from because it implicated U.S. corporations in possibly violating U.S. law
>> regarding selling arms to Iraq. The current pigs at the trough chose to ignore the report in
>> order to invade Iraq.
>
>Not according to Hans Blix.
>
>USA Today, Dec 12, 2002

Have you seen what he's said _recently_ instead of something he said a year ago to put pressure on
Iraq? Check this:

Blix: Iraq may have told truth

09/09/2003 10:42 - (SA)

Washington - Iraq may have been candid with the international community when it told the United
Nations Security Council in December that it did not have chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons, a former chief UN weapons inspector said late on Monday.

The declaration, submitted on December 7 by the government of then-Iraqi president Saddam
Hussein, was quickly dismissed as false and incomplete by the United States and Britain, which
accused Baghdad of failing to disarm as required by Security Council Resolution 1441.

These charges were later used by Washington and London to justify the invasion of the country
in late March.

But more than four months after US President George W Bush declared victory in Iraq, former
chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said facts presented by Iraq in the 12 000-page document
may have been accurate.

"With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all
the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991, may well be the
truth," Blix said on CNN television.

No smoking gun

The retired Swedish diplomat, who headed the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and
Inspection Commission for Iraq, said his inspectors had worked in Iraq for three-and-a-half
months in late 2002 and early 2003 and "did not find any smoking gun."

Blix said US and British experts have now been scouring Iraq for weapons of mass destruction
for several months and had the opportunity to interrogate members of the Iraqi establishment in
their custody.

"I cannot fail to notice that some of the things that they expected us to see that they have
turned out not to be real weapons of mass destruction," said the former chief inspector.

Dueling news stories is a sucker's game. IMO, the only thing that can show Bush and his
administration weren't lying about what they claimed Iraq had or weren't just so wrong as to be
criminally incompetent in their jobs is for WMD to be either found or accounted for otherwise.
--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace An INK-LING? Sure -- TAKE one!! Did you BUY
any COMMUNIST UNIFORMS??
09:10:20 PM 12 September 2003

 

[Eric S. Sande]

>>The downside: I listen to early ELP and watch The Brak Show.

>I've never heard of The Brak Show, but I can handle ELP!

Which brak show do y'all watch, left or rat?

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________

 

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]/\/\> wrote
>
> Dueling news stories is a sucker's game. IMO, the only thing that can show
Bush
> and his administration weren't lying about what they claimed Iraq had or
weren't
> just so wrong as to be criminally incompetent in their jobs is for WMD to
be
> either found or accounted for otherwise.

Fair enough. We haven't found anything. Blix says "well...the Iraqi's may have been telling the
truth". Only because we haven't found anything.

But Blix and others were of the opinion, at the time of the report, that Iraq was BSing.

Maybe Saddam did, at some point, have all that stuff destroyed. I'd really like to belive that.

Then *why* didn't Saddam state so clearly and unambiguously? "Yes, we had them" (we knew it, he knew
it, the UN knew it) "Yes we *did* destroy them" "Here's the proof"

No playing around, no 'maybe, might be, could be, we're not sure'. Clear, unequivocal,
documented proof.

After 12 years of obfuscation, dicking around with 3 US administrations, he made it awfully hard to
believe him.

Pete If your house arrest, multiple felon neighbor tells you, while still making threatening noises,
"I got rid of all my guns", do you believe him without hardcore proof?

 

[Smokey]

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:33:53 -0500, wrote:

> > invaded.
>
> Clinton's lies resulted in bringing out one very important item about him that strongly
> disqualifies him from being a good president.
>
> He didn't know the meaning of the word "is", which is a majorly important word to know.

WTF does this have to do with bicycles? Aren't there plenty of political forums on the internet
where this BS can be discussed? smokey

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 02:32:21 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner High Speed Online
http://www.rr.com wrote:

>Maybe Saddam did, at some point, have all that stuff destroyed. I'd really like to belive that.
>
>Then *why* didn't Saddam state so clearly and unambiguously? "Yes, we had them" (we knew it, he
>knew it, the UN knew it) "Yes we *did* destroy them" "Here's the proof"

After the first Gulf War, the Iraqi government did destroy a lot of WMD -- chemical and biological
agents. However, they made the mistake of doing it without U.N. observers and without proper
documentation. Inspectors later went to the sites where they munitions were destroyed and verified
that WMD had been destroyed there. Of course, though, the inspectors had no way to know exactly how
much had been destroyed.

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace he dominates the DECADENT SUBWAY SCENE.
10:02:22 PM 12 September 2003

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 02:32:21 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner High Speed Online
http://www.rr.com wrote:

>After 12 years of obfuscation, dicking around with 3 US administrations, he made it awfully hard to
>believe him.

Why give the U.S. administrations any credit, either? Can you recall one in your lifetime that
hasn't lied for either political or economic gain? Can you recall a U.S. war or conflict in your
lifetime that wasn't associated with some sort of lie to justify the action?

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace a red wallpaper poem is a low tissue?
10:04:22 PM 12 September 2003

 

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]/\/\> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 02:32:21 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner
High
> Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:
>
> >After 12 years of obfuscation, dicking around with 3 US administrations,
he
> >made it awfully hard to believe him.
>
> Why give the U.S. administrations any credit, either? Can you recall one
in your
> lifetime that hasn't lied for either political or economic gain? Can you
recall
> a U.S. war or conflict in your lifetime that wasn't associated with some
sort of
> lie to justify the action?

Can I recall *any* administration, from *any* country, ever, that hasn't lied for political or
economic gain?

Well...I haven't researched *all* of them, but no.

Some worse than others, but IME, they *all* do it.

Pete it seems to be the nature of the beast

 

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]/\/\> wrote

>
> After the first Gulf War, the Iraqi government did destroy a lot of WMD -- chemical and biological
> agents. However, they made the mistake of doing it without U.N. observers and without proper
> documentation. Inspectors later went to the sites where they munitions were destroyed and verified
> that WMD had
been
> destroyed there. Of course, though, the inspectors had no way to know
exactly
> how much had been destroyed.

Sure they did. But, as you say, there was no way to determine exactly what or how much had been
destroyed.

The onus was on Saddam to provide the evidence.

Pete Trust, but verify.

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Frank Krygowski) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>
>> One has to ignore several glaring facts to believe there was no basis for the action,
>> including Saddam's own admissions of chemical/bio weapons with no proof of ever getting rid of
>> them, 12 year and 14 totally ignored UN resolutions, open support of terrorism - little things
>> like that that.
>
>Sorry, Mark, we must have diligently ignored _many_ similar glaring facts in dozens of other
>countries - if that's what you think it takes to _not_ preemptively invade!

Give me an example of a country openly hostile to its neighbors and the US, armed with WMD, and that
openly supports terrorism, AND has been jerking the UN around for over a dozen years.

>Unless a person is hopelessly naive, it should be obvious that we do not invade any country whose
>leaders commit the sins you describe. And in fact, in many cases, we've generously supported
>leaders who have done worse. We've installed dictators and we've helped destroy democracies when we
>decided it fit our plans.

So you're saying we should invade MORE countries? Why arrest that guy for robbing the 7-Eleven when
there are bank robbers running around? Iraq was by far the biggest destabilizing force in the
already tenous
middle/near east, and HAD to be dealt with - the UN wasn't going to do it (obviously). 25 million
people are out from under a horrible dictatorship, and on the road toward a much better
society (yes, with some bumps - it woulda been worse if they had done it themselves). Chalo
will probably chime in and tell us all that the Iraqis are worse off now that we're shooting
back at them than when Saddam was filling mass graves with hundreds of thousands of them.
Whatever...

>Obviously, good versus bad isn't the criterion, nor is dictator versus democracy. Obviously, open
>support of terrorism isn't the criterion - or we'd be marching into Saudi Arabia right now.
>Obviously, WMD isn't the criterion - just ask the former "WMD! WMD!" hawks, who are now saying that
>wasn't the point after all.

You know that it was a lot more than that - though that, IMHO was enough.

>> The fact France didn't sign up for the party is irrelevant (as is the UN apparently, and sadly).
>
>Oh come on. _Nobody_ signed up for the party except Tony Blair and the few economically-challenged
>"allies" we could afford to buy! The entire run-up to this exercise consisted of the Bush-league
>leaning on Powell to somehow convince other leaders about imminent WMD attacks. Poor Powell had to
>play the fool, somehow pretending that he had WMD evidence. But every other world leader said "This
>is no evidence." Not surprisingly, they were right.

You continue to "ignore that man behind the curtain". I'll type it again...

1) Saddam admitted having WMD
2) He's never shown anyone where they went

I'm no logistician (not even sure I spelled it right), but those two facts pretty much lead to only
one sensible conclusion, whether he destroyed or hid them prior to the invasion or not.

>So now we go begging, hat in hand, asking those same world leaders to help get us out of the mess
>we're in. Astoundingly, there are still those who are faithful to Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz,
>buying whatever the current rationalization is.

Yeah, go figure. And the majority of Americans will probably vote for them in '04 too. Hmmmmm.

>It reminds me of my dear departed mother-in-law. She went to her death thinking Nixon was a good
>man, who never said the things on those tapes...
>
>... no, come to think of it, even she came to her senses just before she passed on.

There are no "good" presidents if you speak in absolutes. If you're talking about a president with
morals, there haven't been many. I think it's shocking for a lot of folks to have a man in charge
who says what he's going to do - and then actually DOES it. It's been a while since that happened...

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Chalo) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> One has to ignore several glaring facts to believe there was no basis for the action,
>> including Saddam's own admissions of chemical/bio weapons with no proof of ever getting rid of
>> them, 12 year and 14 totally ignored UN resolutions, open support of terrorism - little things
>> like that that.
>
>If these things mattered to the US regime, they'd have to attack themselves first-- for being the
>most serious proven aggressor nation,

Wow... worse than the USSR? Worse than the UK? Worse than even France? Amazing - I'll have to start
studying up on US colonial holdings more I guess.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Frank Krygowski) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> Obviously you missed it when he claimed that Iraq DID have WMD, and was a major threat that must
>> be dealt with immediately.
>
>I did miss that, and I'd be interested in an exact quote. "Dealt with" is rather vague. Most
>people don't automatically equate that phrase with "preemptively invaded with overwhelming
>military force."

I believe the posting by "Top Sirloin" (or was that Sir Toploin?) had the quotes...

>> But I know that since he's no a Republican, he gets a pass for taking the same position GWB
>> does, right?
>
>In my case, no, that's wrong. First, Clinton is not very admirable in my eyes. But it's fiction to
>say he was "taking the same position [as] GWB." Obviously, if he'd wanted to preemptively invade
>Iraq, he had eight years to do so. Since we didn't invade in, oh, 1995 or so, it's obvious he
>didn't really take the same position.

Remember Clinton sent in cruise missiles to destroy what he thought was a WMD plant - or did you
forget about that too? Why did he do that if he didn't think Iraq had and was producing WMD, and
that they were a threat to the US and/or Iraq's neighbors?

>Now, as far as voting in favor of the invasion - or just as bad, giving a certain cowboy the
>authority to do whatever he wanted - there were plenty of Democrats who were just as wrong as the
>Republicans. They get no pass from me.

You'd prefer that Saddam was still in power filling up the mass graves and oppressing 25 million
Iraqis? Isn't the chance for a real democracy in the middle/near east worth anything?

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 04:58:22 GMT, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> from Habanero Cycles wrote:

>I think it's shocking for a lot of folks to have a man in charge who says what he's going to do -
>and then actually DOES it.

It sure is. Bush said, "I'm going to kill a bunch of people over a pack of lies and exaggerations."
Then he did just that. It's tremendously shocking.

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace If it GLISTENS, gobble it!!
12:04:25 AM 13 September 2003

 

[Kevan Smith]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 04:19:26 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> from Road Runner High Speed Online
http://www.rr.com wrote:

>
>"Kevan Smith" <[email protected]/\/\> wrote
>
>>
>> After the first Gulf War, the Iraqi government did destroy a lot of WMD -- chemical and
>> biological agents. However, they made the mistake of doing it without U.N. observers and without
>> proper documentation. Inspectors later went to the sites where they munitions were destroyed and
>> verified that WMD had
>been
>> destroyed there. Of course, though, the inspectors had no way to know
>exactly
>> how much had been destroyed.
>
>Sure they did. But, as you say, there was no way to determine exactly what or how much had been
>destroyed.
>
>The onus was on Saddam to provide the evidence.

How could he? Besides, Bush wasn't interested. He was going to invade no matter what.

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace I think my career is ruined!
11:49:23 PM 12 September 2003