Another Attempt To Hinder GA

In article , Martin Hotze
wrote:

where is the proof that Irag's WMD were destroyed?

prove that you have no gun.

This is not one of those "can't prove a negative" things.

Why isn't there proof that the WMD were destroyed?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Bob Noel wrote:

In article , Martin Hotze
wrote:


where is the proof that Irag's WMD were destroyed?

prove that you have no gun.


This is not one of those "can't prove a negative" things.

Why isn't there proof that the WMD were destroyed?

My guess is because Saddam didn't want there to be any
such proof.

Dictators generally have two main concerns; invasion by
a neighboring country and an internal coup. Having the
appearance of WMDs is a good deterrent against the first,
so if you do actually destroy them all, it's still best
not to document it convincingly since then Iran and other
countries may find out through their informants. Having
generals who are in charge of the WMDs might increase
the risk of a military coup. Better if each general
doesn't have such weapons under his own command but can't be
sure what weapons might be at the disposal of any other
general. So a good strategy is to secretly have the
weapons be destroyed but in a way that prevents anyone
from knowing if some might still be held in reserve.

So there are advantages in destroying the weapons - no
chance of the UN finding them, no chance of a military
revolt using them against you. And there are advantages
in making it look like they still exist to deter
a foreign invasion and to keep potential rebel
generals guessing. That's why I'm not surprised that
proof of their destruction has been hard to come by.

In article , Doug wrote:
Talking about making assumptions...I'm hardly a 'leftie'.

Perfect Socialist response. lenin would have been proud..At the point of
recognition denial starts, next step should be you claiming opression and
your freedoms being trampled.. then reverse accusations...then the law-
suits you people cannot destroy our country sir. We will defeat your
leftist ideas, actions and way of life.

I find you utterly amazing. You can deduce all this from me merely
pointing out that Russia's terror problem stems mainly from a
decades-old problem with Chechnya, and saying "I'm harldy a leftie".

With all the jumping to conclusions you do, I bet you're in top fitness
form.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote in
:

In article , Doug wrote:
Talking about making assumptions...I'm hardly a 'leftie'.

Perfect Socialist response. lenin would have been proud..At the
point of recognition denial starts, next step should be you claiming
opression and your freedoms being trampled.. then reverse
accusations...then the law- suits you people cannot destroy our
country sir. We will defeat your leftist ideas, actions and way of
life.

I find you utterly amazing. You can deduce all this from me merely
pointing out that Russia's terror problem stems mainly from a
decades-old problem with Chechnya, and saying "I'm harldy a leftie".

With all the jumping to conclusions you do, I bet you're in top
fitness form.


I can deduce this from you trying to deflect and justify the fact that
islamo facists are murdering newly freed peoples (read:Children) of Russia
in the name of Allah.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
Bob Noel wrote:

Why isn't there proof that the WMD were destroyed?

biological weapons don't have (so was I told) an unlimited life. so -
let's say
- after 5 years (just a number) after production it loses its deathly
value.

They do have a limited life, but I'm not sure about these
things becoming "mostly harmless".

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe...tions/?related

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_r...r_i/197406.stm

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.../14/vimy010414

Paul

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:31:03 GMT, FullName
wrote:

Corky,
Instead of replying bit by bit to confidental sources and outright
falsehoods please lets all together read the presidents address to the
people that outlined why we went and finished the job in Iraq. this is
what was told to the people and why we went to finish the war and keep our
country safe.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

Ok, here's his first paragraph: "The threat comes from Iraq. It
arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of
aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years
ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime
was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all
development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist
groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It
possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking
nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and
practices terror against its own people. The entire world has
witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad
faith."

He's outlining the reasons for his apparently already made decision to
invade Iraq by saying Iraq is a threat. He does not give any proof
that Iraq is a threat, he just says they're a threat.

He goes on to state the Saddam killed thousands of people with
chemical weapons, which is true, except that the chemical weapons were
given him by us, the USA, and they were used on his own countrymen,
and possibly Iran, . So thanks to the USA he had weapons of mass
destruction. But he apparently used them up.

So far Saddam is looking pretty tough on his own countryment and Iran,
but not the USA. So we should invade him anyway?

Aren't there lots of vicious dictators who deserve to arrested besides
Saddam? Is it possible GW wants to finish what his dad started?

GW's fixation on Iraq is really curious since Iraq literally did not
have the ability to threaten anyone but it's neighbors. Only the
Whitehouse appeared to see the threat, and the rest of the world,
except for England who apparently were duped by the same bogus
intelligence, could not understand why the USA was rattling it's
sabers so fiercely.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:03:20 GMT, FullName
wrote:

It was a example of the murderous, terror supporting regime that waved
its middle finger in the face of the united nations for 12 years. You
appear to be a very disturbed person for you seem to have no problem
with the systematic torture and rape of innocence, the support of
murders and safe haven to those that share in the wanton destruction of
our country and way of life.

Well, I guess you'll be the first to sign up to invade the Sudan then,
and North Korea, and a few other African nations where murder, rape
and torture are systematic. They deserve to be invaded and nation
built into democracy's too, right? Oh wait, Saddam was a Frankenstein
of our own creation wasn't he? It's up to us to take care of the
sadistic dictators we create? But that was nation building too,
right? I'm so confused.

Corky Scott

My letter:


Dear Congressman:
HR-5035.
I've only recently become aware of your attempt to introduce this most inept
and plainly stupid piece of legislation that I have ever witnessed in my
entire life. You are an intelligent man (so I thought) and I've supported
you in the past but now I'm not so sure that you know what you're doing. So
please let me know if I'm wrong: if your measure is enacted, I can still buy
an AK-47 but I can't fly a Piper Warrior?

"Toly" wrote in message
m...
His email is

I have personally seen the fool giving out flyers in Bklyn. He leaves
the impression of a complete retard, with slogans like "fight crime"
and "improve commute". I see with this bill he's doing both.

Anyway, pls drop him a line... he could use some attention.

-Toly.

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
GW's fixation on Iraq is really curious since Iraq literally did not
have the ability to threaten anyone but it's neighbors. Only the
Whitehouse appeared to see the threat, and the rest of the world,
except for England who apparently were duped by the same bogus
intelligence, could not understand why the USA was rattling it's
sabers so fiercely.

I can only assume the US had its reasons which we still don't really know
about. 70% of the UK population were against invading Iraq. Mr Blair
himself was against it without a UN resolution, and a UN resolution would
have had to have waited until the UN inspectors had finished their job and
reported back one way or the other. Mr Blair then went for a meeting with
Mr Bush, and suddenly changed his tune to "We have to invade now."
I, probably along with the rest of the world, would love to know what
happened in that meeting.

Various people have come out and said that the evidence was obtained
from the thesis of a British student written several years ago...which was
now
completely out of date...somehow that thesis got written about and, from
passing from person to person, place to place, became the CIA evidence,
along with reports from people "defecting" from Iraq. This in turn became
the evidence of MI5. It all got a bit silly with MI5 claiming they got the
evidence from the CIA and the CIA claiming they got it from MI5.

I would guess there were reasons for invading Iraq, but not what we're
being told. There's the current outcry about not having found any WMD
but I really don't think that would have made a difference...the US would
probably have found another "legitimate" reason if it had been reported
they didn't exist. It may have taken more time though.

Anyway, what's done it done. No one is going to let Saddam go back
now, even if it has been suggested that would be the best option! :-)
No debate on the legitimacy of the invasion is going to undo what's
already been done, so it's up to the world to try and figure out what to
do next.

Paul

Dylan Smith wrote in message ...
In article , Doug wrote:
Ok, I can see you point. Im sure there are more that hate us today. Like
the French, Germans adn Russians for us stopping their billions in illegal
UN oil for food money. Guess Russia now sees what terror actually means,
a shame that so many children and the innocent had to die. Interesting
isn't it? they were so against the war and yet the Islamo-facists STILL
killed their children, blew 2 planes out of the sky and blew up a subway.

On a point of pedantry, you're very wrong about the Russians. Their
terrorism problem is about Chechnya, and nothing to do with Osama's lot.

You might want to read up about the Russian situation with Chechnya.
Google is your friend. Don't expect Fox News to give you the facts on
anything, if you want to talk about Russia's enemies, learn who they are
first.

m kinda new to this site, isnt it an aviation forum for IFR?
Michelle

michelleinflorida wrote:

m kinda new to this site, isnt it an aviation forum for IFR?

Actually, this one is supposed to be for basic piloting issues. You can Google the
groups for the charter, which Larry Dighera posts every month or so. In fact, of
course, many of the posts here are unrelated to piloting aircraft, and this is
particularly bad in an election year.

If this bothers you, I suggest you adopt a few techniques to minimize exposure.
First, if any thread is cross-posted to any of the "alt" groups, just mark it as
"read" every day and ignore it. Second, when a thread drifts into an area in which
you don't want to go, just mark every post in that sub-thread as "read" and ignore
them.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.