I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:

A little help? Does the report actually cite evidence that Saddam had
actual WMD and/or delivery systems (international and regional are the
only ones that count) in 2002/2003? I know about the aluminum cylinders


There's a lot more. It goes into detail on known development of WMD
production capabilities, information about WMD Iraq was known to have
possessed (and the lack of any evidence of its destruction).

If that's all, it's just not enough.

Anyone with a well-stocked kitchen has WMD production capabilities.
Nations of course can manage a lot more with just what nations typically
have on hand. And, just having the capability to produce "a lot" or
really nasty stuff does NOT equate to having the stuff.

Then there's the lack of evidence of destruction. No, we shouldn't just
take Saddam's word that it was all flushed, but that's a HELL of a leap
to justifying an invasion.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

JD wrote:
Raptor wrote:

A little help? Does the report actually cite evidence that Saddam had
actual WMD and/or delivery systems (international and regional are the
only ones that count) in 2002/2003?



It looks like he used them all up on the Kurds, eh?

JD

Must have, because there just doesn't seem to have been any left at all.

The least Shrub could do is ACT embarrassed.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Raptor wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

There's a lot more. It goes into detail on known development of WMD
production capabilities, information about WMD Iraq was known to have
possessed (and the lack of any evidence of its destruction).

If that's all, it's just not enough.

Anyone with a well-stocked kitchen has WMD production capabilities.
Nations of course can manage a lot more with just what nations typically
have on hand. And, just having the capability to produce "a lot" or
really nasty stuff does NOT equate to having the stuff.

Then there's the lack of evidence of destruction. No, we shouldn't just
take Saddam's word that it was all flushed, but that's a HELL of a leap
to justifying an invasion.

Then we agree to disagree.

To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President, who's
flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
dangerous to leave in place.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

* Mark Hickey :
To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President, who's
flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
dangerous to leave in place.



So you do agree Bush currently is the biggest threat to world peace
then.

Jason

Jason wrote:
* Mark Hickey :
To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President,
who's flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
dangerous to leave in place.



So you do agree Bush currently is the biggest threat to world peace
then.

Your smiley face doesn't make that any less innane.

* Bill Sornson :
Jason wrote:
* Mark Hickey :
To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President,
who's flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
dangerous to leave in place.



So you do agree Bush currently is the biggest threat to world peace
then.

Your smiley face doesn't make that any less innane.



The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks
post described him perfectly.

Jason

Jason wrote:

* Bill Sornson :
Jason wrote:
* Mark Hickey :
To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President,
who's flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
dangerous to leave in place.

So you do agree Bush currently is the biggest threat to world peace
then.

Your smiley face doesn't make that any less innane.

The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks
post described him perfectly.

Besides the many other points that don't fit - I'm wondering if you
could fill us in on which US President GWB tried to assassinate. If
that happened, I gotta check up on my news sources better...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:00:01 -0300, Jason wrote:

The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks
post described him perfectly.

"openly supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President"
describes him perfectly?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

BB wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:00:01 -0300, Jason wrote:

The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and
Marks post described him perfectly.

"openly supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US
President" describes him perfectly?

Give Jason a break. He was running late for homeroom!

rotfl

Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:


There's a lot more. It goes into detail on known development of WMD
production capabilities, information about WMD Iraq was known to have
possessed (and the lack of any evidence of its destruction).

If that's all, it's just not enough.

Anyone with a well-stocked kitchen has WMD production capabilities.
Nations of course can manage a lot more with just what nations typically
have on hand. And, just having the capability to produce "a lot" or
really nasty stuff does NOT equate to having the stuff.

Then there's the lack of evidence of destruction. No, we shouldn't just
take Saddam's word that it was all flushed, but that's a HELL of a leap
to justifying an invasion.


Then we agree to disagree.

To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President, who's
flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
dangerous to leave in place.

There's that. You're still wrong: it doesn't add up to a real war. But
that's just one thing.

How about the *way* of the war? You seem at least mildly reasonable.
Can't you join me in unreservedly condemning most of the means leading
to the hoped-for end? As wars go this one is a World-Class cluster****.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.