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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net...
"john" wrote in message ... Bush made a pre-emptive war on a sovereign country for reasons that were lies. There were several reasons given, which were lies? Full title to book with link to 'Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq' http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...758342-8472957 Chapter titled, "True Lies" -- Jan 2003 speech mentioned the "yellow-caked uranium" lie! |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"devil" wrote in message news When you cut taxes without reducing spending, where does the shortfall come from? You're confusing tax rates with tax revenue. Reagan cut tax rates, tax revenue then rose, rising tax revenue does lead to deficits. You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to deficits.That can only happen if you spend more money than you've taken in, and the difference between the two is the deficit. Econ. 101. George Z. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"john" wrote in message news On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:54:53 GMT, "Jarg" wrote: And what proof do you have that these are lies? You seem pretty ****ed about this. You aren't a Howard Dean fan by chance? Bush claimed that Iraq had nuclear,biological,and chemical weapons hidden away. NO SUCH WEAPONS WERE FOUND! Don't you read the freaken newspapers? Bush, on numerous occasions, said that these weapons threatened our national security. Jarg And how was that a lie exactly? It hasn't been disproven, and even if it were it wouldn't make it a lie. You see, a lie is an INTENTIONAL untruth, not a mistaken statement. A little reading in a dictionary might help clear this concept up for you. Jarg |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
t... "Jarg" wrote in message om... "john" wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:28:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "john" wrote in message .. . Bush made a pre-emptive war on a sovereign country for reasons that were lies. There were several reasons given, which were lies? How about , to start with, the Bush administration lie about WMD. How about the Bush lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our national security? And what proof do you have that these are lies? You seem pretty ****ed about this. You aren't a Howard Dean fan by chance? LOL! Which would explain his poor temperament today, given Dean's abysmal performance in the Iowa caucus last night... Brooks Yep, that's what I'm thinking also -a little post caucus hysteria! Jarg |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
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. Then why was Iraq prohibited from having scuds, regardless of the payload? Or is it a double standard? (Iraq with empty scuds) = WMD (Any other country with scuds with conventional warhead) =/= WMD |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Fly Guy" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: 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. Then why was Iraq prohibited from having scuds, regardless of the payload? You must be having a bad hair day. Iraq was prohibited from having weapons with a range of over 150 km as part of the ceasefire settlement--that was NOT a universal prohibition against ANY nation possessing such weapons. Get it? And by the way--Iraq violated that prohibition (see their Al Samoud program), as the UN inspectors finally discovered on the very eve of the commencement of OIF. Or is it a double standard? Nope. When you try and take over your neighboring nation as your "newest province", and then get your clock cleaned and agree to a ceasefire with terms, you open yourself to terms that do not apply to other nations that did not act as you did. Iraq did exactly that--Yemen has not. (Iraq with empty scuds) = WMD No, again (sigh...). The ballistic missiles were indeed prohibited by the terms of the ceasefire (UN Resolution 687)--that does not make them "WMD". It is really quite simple to keep the two different items (WMD and ballistic missiles) seperate if you think about it *real hard*. What is probably tripping you up is the fact that Iraq *had* developed chemical and biological warheads for their ballistic missiles, unlike the Yemenis who you are so strangely fascinated with. (Any other country with scuds with conventional warhead) =/= WMD No, again. You are not the brightest apple in the basket, are you? Brooks |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Jarg wrote:
"john" wrote in message Bush, on numerous occasions, said that these weapons threatened our national security. Jarg And how was that a lie exactly? It hasn't been disproven, and even if it were it wouldn't make it a lie. You see, a lie is an INTENTIONAL untruth, not a mistaken statement. "The onus to war was forced upon the Intelligence group from the Top Down, to a given conclusion..." - According to O'Neil. And you think he _didn't_ know ? A little reading in a dictionary might help clear this concept up for you. Jarg |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"In The Darkness" wrote in message
... Jarg wrote: "john" wrote in message Bush, on numerous occasions, said that these weapons threatened our national security. Jarg And how was that a lie exactly? It hasn't been disproven, and even if it were it wouldn't make it a lie. You see, a lie is an INTENTIONAL untruth, not a mistaken statement. "The onus to war was forced upon the Intelligence group from the Top Down, to a given conclusion..." - According to O'Neil. And you think he _didn't_ know ? A little reading in a dictionary might help clear this concept up for you. Jarg s, Note the remainding members of President Bush's administration have dismissed these allegations, as well they should. They are the ramblings of a disguntled ex-e mployee trying to sell some books. Jarg |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:15:58 +0000, Jarg wrote:
"john" wrote in message news On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:54:53 GMT, "Jarg" wrote: And what proof do you have that these are lies? You seem pretty ****ed about this. You aren't a Howard Dean fan by chance? Bush claimed that Iraq had nuclear,biological,and chemical weapons hidden away. NO SUCH WEAPONS WERE FOUND! Don't you read the freaken newspapers? Bush, on numerous occasions, said that these weapons threatened our national security. Jarg And how was that a lie exactly? It hasn't been disproven, and even if it were it wouldn't make it a lie. You see, a lie is an INTENTIONAL untruth, not a mistaken statement. A little reading in a dictionary might help clear this concept up for you. You really think GW is that stupid, to truly believe in his own lies? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |