O/T: New Iraqi Towns

[G.T.]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 05:55:28 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |>>"The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most
> |>>important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid
> |>>belittling the questions," he said.
> |>>
> |
> |And exactly how would that anthrax and VX reach North America? On SCUD |missiles with ranges of
> only 300 miles?
>
> There are these bad guys waltzing around called "terrorists" and the US has very porous borders.
>

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and Saddam was the only person on the planet that had chemical and
biological weapons. Your naivete and/or blinders are simply astounding. We've taken away about
.1% of the resources for a terrorist attack while increasing the likelihood by 500%. Whew, I
feel safer already.

From W's rhetoric it appears that Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the 'stans, Russia,
Turkey, France, and Germany are our short term goals for Operation Enduring Tyranny. Then most of
the countries of Asia, Africa, and South America.

Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 17:38:22 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

|P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
|> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 05:55:28 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
|>
|> |>>"The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most
|> |>>important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid
|> |>>belittling the questions," he said.
|> |>>
|> |
|> |And exactly how would that anthrax and VX reach North America? On SCUD |missiles with ranges of
|> only 300 miles?
|>
|> There are these bad guys waltzing around called "terrorists" and the US has very porous borders.
|>
|
|Yeah, yeah, yeah, and Saddam was the only person on the planet that had |chemical and
biological weapons.

I don't believe that any more than you do.

Your naivete and/or blinders are simply |astounding.

Huh? Because I don't believe the absolute fabrication posted by Chris
P. I'm naive? Or is it because I acknowledge that one, note "one, " of the reasons for going into
Iraq was WMD/terrorists that I'm naive?

| We've taken away about .1% of the resources for a terrorist
|attack while increasing the likelihood by 500%. Whew, I feel safer already.

What information do you base those figures on?

<snip more hyperbole>

Pete Fagerlin

Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:47:51 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

|P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
|> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 17:38:22 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
|>
|
|>
|> Your naivete and/or blinders are simply |astounding.
|>
|> Huh? Because I don't believe the absolute fabrication posted by Chris
|> P. I'm naive? Or is it because I acknowledge that one, note "one, " of the reasons for going into
|> Iraq was WMD/terrorists that I'm naive?
|
|The naivete lies in the fact that there are terrorists in every country,

So because there are terrorists in every country that means that reducing their access to some WMD
is not a good thing?

|there is money supporting them from every country,

So because there is money supporting them from every country it doesn't make sense to eliminate one
of those sources of funding?

and there are resources |for terrorists in every country.

Why does this make it a "bad thing" to reduce the resources available? What is your solution, other
than sitting on our hands and doing nothig?

And I surely hope that you think that one |reason for going into Iraq was miniscule compared to the
rest; oil,

Why didn't we just take the oil when we had a full-blown coalitiojn in 1991 then? Only time will
telll if your allegation is correct.

<snip more hyperbole>

Pete Fagerlin

Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:10:29 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

|P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
|> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:47:51 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
|>
|> |
|> |The naivete lies in the fact that there are terrorists in every country,
|>
|> So because there are terrorists in every country that means that reducing their access to some
|> WMD is not a good thing?
|>
|> |there is money supporting them from every country,
|>
|> So because there is money supporting them from every country it doesn't make sense to eliminate
|> one of those sources of funding?
|>
|> and there are resources |for terrorists in every country.
|>
|> Why does this make it a "bad thing" to reduce the resources available? What is your solution,
|> other than sitting on our hands and doing nothig?
|>
|
|The solution is to mitigate the reasons there are so many people falling |into fanaticism and
hatred towards the west. Creating hundreds of martyrs |is not the solution.

Then the solution seems to be to create a time machine and go back decades, if not centuries, to
rectify that problem.

I, and many others, think that "hatred towards the West" would persist regardless of what the
coaltion did in Iraq.

|> And I surely hope that you think that one |reason for going into Iraq was miniscule compared to
|> the rest; oil,
|>
|> Why didn't we just take the oil when we had a full-blown coalitiojn in 1991 then? Only time will
|> telll if your allegation is correct.
|>
|
|Because we weren't as desperate for oil then.

What makes you think that we are desperate for oil, or more desperate now than in 1991?

 

[Mark Hickey]

Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] says...
>> [email protected] (Spider) wrote:

>> >IIRC, several pointed comments were made during the "inspection process" about "we do not have
>> >any WMD." Or is the gingko not kicking in yet?
>>
>> Naaah, don't need it. I have the UN weapons inspection documents where Iraq admits having (among
>> MANY other things) 8,500 liters of anthrax, stores of VX, hundreds of artillery shells filled
>> with mustard gas, etc. To then say years later "well we don't have any of it" without ANY proof
>> to the contrary... sorry, I'll need better drugs than gingko to buy THAT one... ;-)
>
>Do you also have the ducments where the UN inspectors destroyed all these weapons too? There
>weren't there just to take pictures, they were destrying what they found.

OK, I'll bite. Show me any documented destruction of those stores of anthrax and VX I mentioned. If
you can find 'em, Hans Blix will be pretty surprised. So will I.

>> I've heard the same suggestion from those well to the left of center as well. We will no doubt
>> use our status as "regime removal specialists" to add weight to future requests for cooperation
>> on WMD and terrorism issues.
>
>Rumsfeld is already laying the ground work to go into Syria, suggesting that if weapons and the
>leadership is not found, then it must have moved to Syria. You tell me what the Syrians have done
>to you lately.

Other than supplying weapons and personnel to be used against our troops? Still I don't think that's
going to trigger an invasion of Syria - but I suspect we'll be able to ask for more cooperation than
we'd have expected a year ago, and get it.

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

 

[Pete Jones]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 10:35:03 -0700, P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> blathered:

>If Saddam had left the country, and his regime had fallen, the inspectors would have had full,
>unfettered access to all sites, and more importantly to the people involved in the programs.

Like this one - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2942521.stm It'll be interesting to see
how that plays out.

Re: finding the weapons. Iraq is a much bigger country than Ireland, with a much lower population
density. In Ireland there has been a spectacular lack of success finding IRA weapons caches (y'know,
the weapons bought with US Noraid funding). Most successes can be attributed to the authorities
being told where they are - which is what the Iraqis were supposed to be doing. Just a thought.

Pete
----
http://www.btinternet.com/~peteajones/

 

[G.T.]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 17:38:22 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>

>
> Your naivete and/or blinders are simply |astounding.
>
> Huh? Because I don't believe the absolute fabrication posted by Chris
> P. I'm naive? Or is it because I acknowledge that one, note "one, " of the reasons for going into
> Iraq was WMD/terrorists that I'm naive?

The naivete lies in the fact that there are terrorists in every country, there is money supporting
them from every country, and there are resources for terrorists in every country. And I surely hope
that you think that one reason for going into Iraq was miniscule compared to the rest; oil,
economics, power, revenge, and revenue for Halliburton.

>
> | We've taken away about .1% of the resources for a terrorist
> |attack while increasing the likelihood by 500%. Whew, I feel safer already.
>
> What information do you base those figures on?
>

My incredibly powerful brain deduced them from the gigabytes of information I have crunched in the
last 24 hours. And even if those numbers are way off I sure won't feel any safer during the rest of
my life just because we got rid of Saddam.

Greg

--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons

 

[G.T.]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:47:51 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |
> |The naivete lies in the fact that there are terrorists in every country,
>
> So because there are terrorists in every country that means that reducing their access to some WMD
> is not a good thing?
>
> |there is money supporting them from every country,
>
> So because there is money supporting them from every country it doesn't make sense to eliminate
> one of those sources of funding?
>
> and there are resources |for terrorists in every country.
>
> Why does this make it a "bad thing" to reduce the resources available? What is your solution,
> other than sitting on our hands and doing nothig?
>

The solution is to mitigate the reasons there are so many people falling into fanaticism and hatred
towards the west. Creating hundreds of martyrs is not the solution.

>
> And I surely hope that you think that one |reason for going into Iraq was miniscule compared to
> the rest; oil,
>
> Why didn't we just take the oil when we had a full-blown coalitiojn in 1991 then? Only time will
> telll if your allegation is correct.
>

Because we weren't as desperate for oil then.

Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons

 

[G.T.]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:10:29 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> |
> |The solution is to mitigate the reasons there are so many people falling |into fanaticism and
> hatred towards the west. Creating hundreds of martyrs |is not the solution.
>
> Then the solution seems to be to create a time machine and go back decades, if not centuries, to
> rectify that problem.
>

I think 30 to 50 years would be fine. However, we can't even do that so it is moot.

> I, and many others, think that "hatred towards the West" would persist regardless of what the
> coaltion did in Iraq.
>

Probably. And to get off of my devil's advocate stump I think that if we get an interim Iraqui
government set up ASAP with little meddling by us and we do not allow too many American interests
ala Halliburton into the mix then the Middle East may start realizing that we weren't in it for the
oil and the economics.

> |> And I surely hope that you think that one |reason for going into Iraq was miniscule compared
> |> to the rest; oil,
> |>
> |> Why didn't we just take the oil when we had a full-blown coalitiojn in 1991 then? Only time
> |> will telll if your allegation is correct.
> |>
> |
> |Because we weren't as desperate for oil then.
>
> What makes you think that we are desperate for oil, or more desperate now than in 1991?
>

Just more hyperbole on my part. But I'll ask you why we didn't take Baghdad then? Saddam was much
more dangerous then than now.

Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons

 

[Mark Hickey]

BB <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:34:03 GMT, Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> I guess we agree to disagree then. This isn't a new war, but a continuation of the old one due to
>> blatant disregard by Iraq of the terms of the cease fire.
>
>You're not disagreeing with me, your disagreeing with a whole bunch of international law experts.
>As much as I'd like to take the opinion of a bike frame maker over theirs, its a little tough.

I've seen "experts" come down on every side of this discussion. Some say that no UN resolutions were
necessary, others say they are. I can't be sure who's right, but the "resumption of hostilities
based on the non-compliance to the terms of the cease fire agreement" does make sense to me.

>> France made it clear they would veto any resolution authorizing force, thereby making the UN
>> totally irrelevant in the decision. When the scope of the Iraqi WMD program comes to light,
>> France and Germany's prestige in the UN will drop dramatically (I predict). Perhaps we're due for
>> that UN SC shake-up you mention.
>
>Naa. There'll just be more tossing blame around. They'll keep reminding us that we went to war
>immediately after the inspectors had reported good progress.

I'd rephase that to say "... after the inspectors had reported the first tentative small steps
toward Iraqi cooperation". Remember that the terms of the cease fire and UN resolutions demanded
(not requested) that Iraq give up full details on the status of all their WMD stocks and programs.
They simply never did this at all, but rather tried to figure out how little token action would be
required to keep the UN embroiled in controversy. Compared to the stuff they admitted having in the
90's, crunching a few missiles was a show to keep Blix from having to admit total failure. And
don't forget this "cooperation" only happened with a quarter million hostile troops massed at the
borders. That was hardly a threat we could afford to keep up for years waiting for other scraps
Saddam would toss us.

> Unless we can come up with some irrefutable evidence that they'd have never found those WMD
> without an all-out war, of course.

Well, I figure if we hadn't found 'em in 12 years, the odds of doing so without full cooperation
(which we were obviously never going to get) aren't good. Now that the scientists and others working
on the weapons programs don't have to worry about Saddam's thugs, I suspect they're "negotiating"
with us even as we type...

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

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:41:44 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

|> |Because we weren't as desperate for oil then.
|>
|> What makes you think that we are desperate for oil, or more desperate now than in 1991?
|>
|
|Just more hyperbole on my part. But I'll ask you why we didn't take |Baghdad then? Saddam was much
more dangerous then than now.

Because it wasn't part of the mandate of the coalition and because it was thought that it would have
shattered the coalition.

 

[Bb]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:45:04 GMT, Mark Hickey wrote:

> I've seen "experts" come down on every side of this discussion. Some say that no UN resolutions
> were necessary, others say they are. I can't be sure who's right, but the "resumption of
> hostilities based on the non-compliance to the terms of the cease fire agreement" does make
> sense to me.

Yes, I realize that's what we did. That doesn't mean its legal. What I haven't seen is an expert in
international law say that unilateral military action was anything but illegal. If you have a
reference, I'd like to see it.

> Well, I figure if we hadn't found 'em in 12 years, the odds of doing so without full cooperation
> (which we were obviously never going to get) aren't good.

Whatever the odds, no one will ever know for sure. This is why there'll never be a UN shake-up. You
expect countries to admit some action was required (which they didn't take), when even WE don't know
for sure if it really was required. Ain't gonna happen. We'll have our position that "odds weren't
good", and they'll have their side that it was just our best guess.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >>Blix also told a tense meeting of the U.N. Security Council that two versions of Iraq's al
> >>Samoud 2 missile exceed the maximum range of 93 miles set by the United Nations.
> >>
> >>"The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most
> >>important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling
> >>the questions," he said.
> >>
>
> And exactly how would that anthrax and VX reach North America? On SCUD missiles with ranges of
> only 300 miles?
>
> Greg
>
> --
>

Terrorists agree, the USPS is 20% more reliable than Russian made missiles Actually I don't even
get into whether or now Iraq threatened the US directly because it doesn't really matter, people
are people.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

>
> UNMOVIC arrived in Iaq in late November.
>
> Blix's comments where part of his second report to the UNSC.
>
> Where have you read that the Iraqis have provided documents to the UN showing that they destroyed
> all of their VX and anthrax.
>
> Pete Fagerlin
>
> Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm
>
>
The iraqis didn't have to destroy anything themselves, why should they, the UN and coalition did
it for them.

Now lets say there are some long buried weapons left in the country, the only people that knew where
they were buried are probably dead. And chance UNMOVIC had of finding them is all but gone. The
Iraqi people will probably find out about them decades later when they leech into the ground water.
In that way I guess they really will be a country modeled after the USA. I doubt the US can account
for the THOUSANDS of tonnes of chemical weapons stockpiled stateside at this very moment either. Now
tell me, if the USA does not destroy every last chemical weapon in the country by 2007 as they said
they would do, and provide hard evidence of this fact, can Iraq "liberate" Rode Island? Why does the
USA get so much more time anyway? Are we to accept that Saddam was this unfathomable threat to the
world when even with a gun to his head he did not unleash this supposed arsenal?

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 05:55:28 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |>>"The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most
> |>>important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid
> |>>belittling the questions," he said.
> |>>
> |
> |And exactly how would that anthrax and VX reach North America? On SCUD |missiles with ranges of
> only 300 miles?
>
> There are these bad guys waltzing around called "terrorists" and the US has very porous borders.
>
> That's one way.
>
>

Of course most of them are running around free, probably with this stuff in hand, and probably not
in Baghdad. But one country at a time right?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

> Huh? Because I don't believe the absolute fabrication posted by Chris
> P. I'm naive? Or is it because I acknowledge that one, note "one, " of

Pardon me Pete, what fabrication would that be? The numbers in the UN weapons inspector's reports or
CNN fed view of what's going on?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:47:51 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> |> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 17:38:22 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> |>
> |
> |>
> |> Your naivete and/or blinders are simply |astounding.
> |>
> |> Huh? Because I don't believe the absolute fabrication posted by Chris
> |> P. I'm naive? Or is it because I acknowledge that one, note "one, " of the reasons for going
> |> into Iraq was WMD/terrorists that I'm naive?
> |
> |The naivete lies in the fact that there are terrorists in every country,
>
> So because there are terrorists in every country that means that reducing their access to some WMD
> is not a good thing?
>

Antagonizing an enemy you have no hope of defeating is not a good thing, Saddam knows this now, will
it take another WTC for Bush to learn it also? Face it, even if you bring democracy and capitalism
to ever corner of the world, stamp out all religions AND find an alternative to burning oil, there
will still be people gunning for the USA. When you see the secretary of defense or the president
himself saying "We can't allow other countries to tell us what to do." Do you ever think for one
minute that leaders like Bin Laden and Saddam are saying the same god damn thing to their people?
I've got to tell you that even here in good old USA buddie Canada the USA is starting to look a lot
like a Russian boogey man trying to convert to the world to one great flawles system of government
because all of ours are so flawed. Now just imagine what people in Iran, Syria or even Egypt think.
Hell, I bet Isralies are even taking a second look. now there's only two ways you can go with that,
conquer the world or back off. Bush seems content to surve out his term in the middle ground that is
constant conflict. I guess the next monkey in the white house will have to make the descision on how
to finish it.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:10:29 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> |> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:47:51 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> |>
> |> |
> |> |The naivete lies in the fact that there are terrorists in every country,
> |>
> |> So because there are terrorists in every country that means that reducing their access to some
> |> WMD is not a good thing?
> |>
> |> |there is money supporting them from every country,
> |>
> |> So because there is money supporting them from every country it doesn't make sense to eliminate
> |> one of those sources of funding?
> |>
> |> and there are resources |for terrorists in every country.
> |>
> |> Why does this make it a "bad thing" to reduce the resources available? What is your solution,
> |> other than sitting on our hands and doing nothig?
> |>
> |
> |The solution is to mitigate the reasons there are so many people falling |into fanaticism and
> hatred towards the west. Creating hundreds of martyrs |is not the solution.
>
> Then the solution seems to be to create a time machine and go back decades, if not centuries, to
> rectify that problem.
>
> I, and many others, think that "hatred towards the West" would persist regardless of what the
> coaltion did in Iraq.
>

Yes and yes, you would have to go back and kill the Pope to undo his persecution of Muslims, but do
you think selling arms to one or both sides in middle east conflicts had anything to do with with
current hatred levels? Perhaps the aiding and abetting of multiple assassinations of Islamic leaders
in the interests of stopping the communist boogey man cheezed them off a bit? And then of course
there's Israel, oh boy like there's just one thing in that whole situation to zero in on. Well now
why don't we try that one again, cut a piece of Turkey off the bottom and Iraq off the top, give the
Kurds and independent state and pump billions of dollars their way, help them out with a little
secret nuclear weapons program there, a little airforce here, and ask then to keep "an eye on
things" in the gulf for us. See how many new friends come to the table.

> |>
> |
> |Because we weren't as desperate for oil then.
>
> What makes you think that we are desperate for oil, or more desperate now than in 1991?

Was Bush trying to drill holes in Alaska in 1991? Anyway, you are not desperate for oil, you are
desperate for cheap oil traded in American dollars. Now expensive oil traded in euros that would be
a real disaster. The tools to rein in OPEC are at hand, if you can just get the CIA to successfully
overturn the US hostile government of Venezuela (again), you'll have it made. I still have to drive
and heat my home, and unfortunately we are tied to the US dollar in Canada so more power to ya.
Maybe Ed Begley Junior will save us all.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:41:44 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> |> |Because we weren't as desperate for oil then.
> |>
> |> What makes you think that we are desperate for oil, or more desperate now than in 1991?
> |>
> |
> |Just more hyperbole on my part. But I'll ask you why we didn't take |Baghdad then? Saddam was
> much more dangerous then than now.
>
> Because it wasn't part of the mandate of the coalition and because it was thought that it would
> have shattered the coalition.
>

And 12 years later it did.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] says...
> >> [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
>
> >> >IIRC, several pointed comments were made during the "inspection process" about "we do not have
> >> >any WMD." Or is the gingko not kicking in yet?
> >>
> >> Naaah, don't need it. I have the UN weapons inspection documents where Iraq admits having
> >> (among MANY other things) 8,500 liters of anthrax, stores of VX, hundreds of artillery shells
> >> filled with mustard gas, etc. To then say years later "well we don't have any of it" without
> >> ANY proof to the contrary... sorry, I'll need better drugs than gingko to buy THAT one... ;-)
> >
> >Do you also have the ducments where the UN inspectors destroyed all these weapons too? There
> >weren't there just to take pictures, they were destrying what they found.
>
> OK, I'll bite. Show me any documented destruction of those stores of anthrax and VX I mentioned.
> If you can find 'em, Hans Blix will be pretty surprised. So will I.
>

Ok I'll bite, show me pictures of these weapons what were not destroyed. Some one must have
inventoried them for them to be there, not yet destroyed, correct? Or are you relying in Saddam
Husienn to do your paperwork?
> >> I've heard the same suggestion from those well to the left of center as well. We will no doubt
> >> use our status as "regime removal specialists" to add weight to future requests for cooperation
> >> on WMD and terrorism issues.
> >
> >Rumsfeld is already laying the ground work to go into Syria, suggesting that if weapons and the
> >leadership is not found, then it must have moved to Syria. You tell me what the Syrians have done
> >to you lately.
>
> Other than supplying weapons and personnel to be used against our troops? Still I don't think
> that's going to trigger an invasion of Syria - but I suspect we'll be able to ask for more
> cooperation than we'd have expected a year ago, and get it.
>

Syria wasn't doing anything of the sort until you invaded a country bordering theirs. Strong arming
Syria isn't going to get you any farther than strong arming Iran has. If you want to get into who
provided what, check out who's helicopters Saddam flys in or where the component chemicals of his
former chemical weapons stash were made. Hint: they also make a find set of breast implants.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com