![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Fly Guy" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: FYI, a ballistic missile is not a WMD all by its lonesome. How do you know that there was no weapons payload? Even if there was no payload, what are the Yemenese using them for? Garden planters? A year later are they still just delivery vehicles, or do you think they are fully armed WMD's? OK, let me say this very slowly so you might get a clue: it...takes...a....chemical...nuclear...or...biolog ical...warhead...to...make .....it...a...WMD. Conventional warheads carried by a Scud-wanna-be don't meet the criteria. Is the region better off with Yemen having them? Is Israel better off? I really don't know as to how it either negatively or positively affects the region (being as the Syrians, Saudis, Israelis, and Iranians all already have SRBM's of their own, I doubt it will have much of an effect either way). They are certainly no threat to Israel whilst sitting in Yemen (look at a map and calculate the range of those missiles in question). And they are pretty lousy terroist weapons--kind of hard to smuggle one into range of a target, then fuel it with those rather nasty fuels it requires...and even if you could, with a conventional warhead you'd like as not do no damage whatsovere to your intended target, since you'd most likely miss it by a wide margin. FYI, Yemen has not been forbidden to possess SRBM's--unlike Iraq was under 1441. Why you brought up and are arguing this issue, especially given your obvious complete unfamiliarity with the weapons you are discussing, is rather baffling. Brooks |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:16:35 -0500, Fly Guy wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes. The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving a negative. You can't prove that something no longer exists if you've destroyed it (especially if you're trying to prove it to those that are bent on invading you). You could prove you destroyed it. That's what they were ordered to do, destroy their WMD programs and retain proof of same. They say they destroyed them and didn't bother proving it; given Iraq's prior behavior the UN was unwilling to take them at their word. -- "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Fly Guy" wrote in message ... Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes. The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving a negative. So that was the cause of the war, eh? Wonderful reason to go to war, if you ask me. If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I got a bridge to seel you. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "devil" wrote in message news ![]() On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Fly Guy" wrote in message ... Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes. The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving a negative. So that was the cause of the war, eh? One of them, yes. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:
"devil" wrote in message news ![]() On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Fly Guy" wrote in message ... Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes. The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving a negative. So that was the cause of the war, eh? One of them, yes. I got a bridge... BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one of" but *the*. Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right? When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one. Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie. The White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the elections. As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no excuse. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "devil" wrote in message news ![]() On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote: "devil" wrote in message news ![]() On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Fly Guy" wrote in message ... Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes. The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving a negative. So that was the cause of the war, eh? One of them, yes. I got a bridge... Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then. BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one of" but *the*. Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right? When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one. Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie. You're referring to Dean's campaign, I assume? The White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the elections. Nope. Not at all. As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no excuse. You're referring to Dean's supporters here, I assume? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:52:12 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:
"devil" wrote in message news ![]() On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote: "devil" wrote in message news ![]() "Fly Guy" wrote in message ... Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes. The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving a negative. So that was the cause of the war, eh? One of them, yes. I got a bridge... Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then. Changing the topic, eh? No excuse left to serve us on the war thing? BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one of" but *the*. Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right? When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one. Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie. You're referring to Dean's campaign, I assume? Right. He went to war and served BS to the world as an excuse, sure. The White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the elections. Nope. Not at all. Care to check? As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no excuse. You're referring to Dean's supporters here, I assume? Right. They served all sorts of excuses for attacking Iraq, as we know. Anyway, sounds like you are really running out of anything meanful to anser? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "devil" wrote in message news ![]() On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:52:12 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote: "devil" wrote in message news ![]() On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote: "devil" wrote in message news ![]() "Fly Guy" wrote in message ... Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the course for this white house? Yes. The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving a negative. So that was the cause of the war, eh? One of them, yes. I got a bridge... Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then. Changing the topic, eh? No, because the topic was "I got a bridge". |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "devil" wrote in message news ![]() Wonderful reason to go to war, if you ask me. Yes, and I didn't. If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I got a bridge to seel you. How do you seel a bridge? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:20 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "devil" wrote in message news ![]() Wonderful reason to go to war, if you ask me. Yes, and I didn't. If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I got a bridge to seel you. How do you seel a bridge? Pretty immature response, isnt it? It that the best response you can make? Here's something you Bush apologists can reflect upon: Bush made a pre-emptive war on a sovereign country for reasons that were lies. Iraq posed no immediate threat to the national security of the US. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
State Of Michigan Sales/Use Tax | Rich S. | Home Built | 0 | August 9th 04 04:41 PM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
Soviet State Committee on Science and Technology | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 0 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
Homebuilts by State | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 03 08:30 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |