| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"duke" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2004 06:19:17 PM |
| Object: |
Saddam is developing WMD's |
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them, he used them, he
can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect America from
terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
Not true for botox.
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
09 Aug 2004 05:45:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 21:29:42 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them,
he used them, he can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was
intent of getting more, including nuclear, and had the money and contacts
to do so.
Except Bush Sr. took out his military and Clinton took out what was left.
Wow, so we could have sent chicken little yang in all alone and get the job done. I
didn't realize that.
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect
America from terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
Except he attacked Iraq because of what a bunch of Saudis did.
You mean people from Saudi acting out terrorism on their own - right?
..
Not true for botox.
Except you're just an idiot.
botox will sell this country down the river to get elected. We already know he will hold
the United States hostage to European opinion.
I don't even *like Kerry but I hope he wins just so I can watch your head
explode...
No I won't. If he wins, he wins. Then let us hope he is more capable than he has shown,
but likes to talk big about.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
08 Aug 2004 08:30:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:19:17 -0500 the ET form known as
duke<duckgumbo32@cox.net> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them, he used them, he
can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect America from
terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
Not true for botox.
Your evidence Duke? Didn't think so.
Would Iraq have been invaded if it had no oil? Didn't think so.
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
09 Aug 2004 05:41:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:00:29 +0930, Meteorite Debris <abuse@yahoo.com> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them, he used them, he
can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect America from
terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
Not true for botox.
Your evidence Duke? Didn't think so.
Bet on it. The intelligence service of every country said he had them.
Would Iraq have been invaded if it had no oil? Didn't think so.
We're buying it if anything.
No body in his right mind would let some despot ruler blackmail the world. Take him out
first. Thank you President Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
12 Aug 2004 12:33:01 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:41:11 -0500 the ET form known as
duke<duckgumbo32@cox.net> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:00:29 +0930, Meteorite Debris <abuse@yahoo.com> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them, he used them, he
can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect America from
terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
Not true for botox.
Your evidence Duke? Didn't think so.
Bet on it. The intelligence service of every country said he had them.
Like the Blix report?
Wrong!
The intelligence reports like the uranium from Africa?
Wrong!
Centrifugal parts?
Wrong!
The 45 minute delivery?
Wrong!
The plagiarised student essay?
Wrong!
And on and on it goes. Lie after lie after lie.
So what exactly is the evidence. I mean e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. Not just an
assertion.
Would Iraq have been invaded if it had no oil? Didn't think so.
We're buying it if anything.
No body in his right mind would let some despot ruler blackmail the world. Take him out
first. Thank you President Bush.
Wrong! Pres Bush arm twisted a number of weak states to join his
"coalition". They obviously allowed themselves to be blackmailed by a
despot.
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
12 Aug 2004 05:48:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:03:01 +0930, Meteorite Debris <abuse@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect America from
terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
Not true for botox.
Your evidence Duke? Didn't think so.
Bet on it. The intelligence service of every country said he had them.
Like the Blix report?
Wrong!
The blix report was a report from people that had to give 3 days notice before going out
on inspection, and had to have their hands held while out there.
BTW, the blix group is not an intelligence service of any country.
The intelligence reports like the uranium from Africa?
Wrong!
Centrifugal parts?
Wrong!
The 45 minute delivery?
Wrong!
The plagiarised student essay?
Wrong!
And on and on it goes. Lie after lie after lie.
Nope, not one lie, but some bad intelligence.
So what exactly is the evidence. I mean e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. Not just an
assertion.
Assertions are evidence.
Would Iraq have been invaded if it had no oil? Didn't think so.
We're buying it if anything.
No body in his right mind would let some despot ruler blackmail the world. Take him out
first. Thank you President Bush.
Wrong! Pres Bush arm twisted a number of weak states to join his
"coalition". They obviously allowed themselves to be blackmailed by a
despot.
And the oil flows. No blackmail.
See what I mean.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
12 Aug 2004 11:01:15 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<3nsnh0li30igaf8q1so62j945kqpkh4agt@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:03:01 +0930, Meteorite Debris <abuse@yahoo.com> wrote:
So what exactly is the evidence. I mean e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. Not just an
assertion.
Assertions are evidence.
Assertion (n) a declaration stated positively but with no support or
attempt at proof. American Heritage Dictionary, 1980
Assertions are unsupported claims. Assertions can be supported with
evidence, but the terms are not equivalent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
09 Aug 2004 06:02:24 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:19:17 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them, he used them
20 years ago, duke, doesn't mean a thing.
he can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
So the "case for war" was mostly amateur psychology, along the lines
of "we know saddam and he's probably would have done something bad in
the future"? Well, I'm glad 1000 soldiers had to die for that.
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect America from
terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
Think for yourself, duke. Don't worship the Great Leader.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
09 Aug 2004 05:47:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:02:24 GMT, W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them, he used them
20 years ago, duke, doesn't mean a thing.
He definitely had them, and can't show he did away with the remainder.
he can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
So the "case for war" was mostly amateur psychology, along the lines
of "we know saddam and he's probably would have done something bad in
the future"? Well, I'm glad 1000 soldiers had to die for that.
No, every intelligence service in the free world said in 2000 (nominally) that he had
wmds.
What is your problem?
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect America from
terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
Think for yourself, duke. Don't worship the Great Leader.
Thank you, President Bush, for being something botox is not man enough to be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
10 Aug 2004 07:07:07 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:47:41 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:02:24 GMT, W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them, he used them
20 years ago, duke, doesn't mean a thing.
He definitely had them, and can't show he did away with the remainder.
he can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
Nonsense, duke, and you know it. It's bizarre to attack Iraq because
it MIGHT have WMDs and leave N.Korea that admits having WMDs totally
alone.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "hard" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
10 Aug 2004 09:43:36 AM |
|
|
W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:fe7c4f3e154e0d26d60ee6925e5f8448@news.1usenet.com:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:47:41 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:02:24 GMT, W. Syme
<Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had
them, he used them
20 years ago, duke, doesn't mean a thing.
He definitely had them, and can't show he did away with the remainder.
he can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of
getting more, including nuclear, and had the money and contacts to
do so.
Nonsense, duke, and you know it. It's bizarre to attack Iraq because
it MIGHT have WMDs and leave N.Korea that admits having WMDs totally
alone.
Of course we're *not* leaving N.Korea totally alone.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
10 Aug 2004 09:35:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:43:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:fe7c4f3e154e0d26d60ee6925e5f8448@news.1usenet.com:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:47:41 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:02:24 GMT, W. Syme
<Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had
them, he used them
20 years ago, duke, doesn't mean a thing.
He definitely had them, and can't show he did away with the remainder.
he can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of
getting more, including nuclear, and had the money and contacts to
do so.
Nonsense, duke, and you know it. It's bizarre to attack Iraq because
it MIGHT have WMDs and leave N.Korea that admits having WMDs totally
alone.
Of course we're *not* leaving N.Korea totally alone.
No, but they are not being invaded.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "hard" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
10 Aug 2004 11:14:36 AM |
|
|
W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:f2db9cc1fe9fbd50c85519073674afc1@news.1usenet.com:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:43:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:fe7c4f3e154e0d26d60ee6925e5f8448@news.1usenet.com:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:47:41 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:02:24 GMT, W. Syme
<Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He
had them, he used them
20 years ago, duke, doesn't mean a thing.
He definitely had them, and can't show he did away with the
remainder.
he can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent
of getting more, including nuclear, and had the money and contacts
to do so.
Nonsense, duke, and you know it. It's bizarre to attack Iraq because
it MIGHT have WMDs and leave N.Korea that admits having WMDs totally
alone.
Of course we're *not* leaving N.Korea totally alone.
No, but they are not being invaded.
But you agree that we *are* working on N. Korea too. A direct attack on
them would be too costly. That doesn't rule out indirect approaches.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
10 Aug 2004 11:46:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:14:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:f2db9cc1fe9fbd50c85519073674afc1@news.1usenet.com:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:43:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:fe7c4f3e154e0d26d60ee6925e5f8448@news.1usenet.com:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:47:41 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:02:24 GMT, W. Syme
<Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He
had them, he used them
20 years ago, duke, doesn't mean a thing.
He definitely had them, and can't show he did away with the
remainder.
he can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent
of getting more, including nuclear, and had the money and contacts
to do so.
Nonsense, duke, and you know it. It's bizarre to attack Iraq because
it MIGHT have WMDs and leave N.Korea that admits having WMDs totally
alone.
Of course we're *not* leaving N.Korea totally alone.
No, but they are not being invaded.
But you agree that we *are* working on N. Korea too. A direct attack on
them would be too costly. That doesn't rule out indirect approaches.
I don't know about that. Why would Korea be more expensive to invade?
And even then, wouldn't a REAL nuclear threat be worth the money?
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "hard" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
10 Aug 2004 12:09:53 PM |
|
|
W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:a9325c967f8e4e1841d63afaca834995@news.1usenet.com:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:14:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:f2db9cc1fe9fbd50c85519073674afc1@news.1usenet.com:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:43:36 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
W. Syme <Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:fe7c4f3e154e0d26d60ee6925e5f8448@news.1usenet.com:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:47:41 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:02:24 GMT, W. Syme
<Winston.Syme.superstitions@fastmail.fm> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He
had them, he used them
20 years ago, duke, doesn't mean a thing.
He definitely had them, and can't show he did away with the
remainder.
he can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was
intent of getting more, including nuclear, and had the money and
contacts to do so.
Nonsense, duke, and you know it. It's bizarre to attack Iraq
because it MIGHT have WMDs and leave N.Korea that admits having
WMDs totally alone.
Of course we're *not* leaving N.Korea totally alone.
No, but they are not being invaded.
But you agree that we *are* working on N. Korea too. A direct attack
on them would be too costly. That doesn't rule out indirect
approaches.
I don't know about that. Why would Korea be more expensive to invade?
And even then, wouldn't a REAL nuclear threat be worth the money?
It's not so much that they'd be more expensive to invade, but that with
their REAL nuclear threat they'd be likely to do an enormous amount of
environmental damage. And then the Chinese probably wouldn't appreciate
us provoking Kim 2 into using his nukes.
As I've said before, we have other options with N. Korea that we didn't
have with Iraq. The sanctions against Saddam's regime obviously weren't
working, and in fact were subverted by the outright corruption of the
Oil for Food program. N. Korea is *much* more vulnerable to economic
pressure. China basically supplies *all* of their oil and gas
requirements and much of their food supply as well. There are also some
signs that the Kim 2 regime is on the verge of collapse, though this
could be wishful thinking; he's been holding on by the skin of his teeth
for quite a while now.
This website has a lot of informative discussion about war topics from
around the world and doesn't seem to be too slanted either way:
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=korea
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
08 Aug 2004 09:20:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:19:17 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them, he used them, he
can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect America from
terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
If he really wanted to protect America from terrorism, he would have
done better to bomb Texas. That's the only place WMD's have been
found.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raptor514" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
09 Aug 2004 06:06:12 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4144de5d.388668343@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:19:17 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them,
he used them, he
can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting
more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect
America from
terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
If he really wanted to protect America from terrorism, he would have
done better to bomb Texas. That's the only place WMD's have been
found.
Despite the fact that I live in Dallas, I have to agree with you. Sadly
enough. . .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
09 Aug 2004 05:41:45 PM |
|
|
On 8 Aug 2004 21:20:11 -0500, (Kate ) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:19:17 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them, he used them, he
can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect America from
terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
If he really wanted to protect America from terrorism, he would have
done better to bomb Texas. That's the only place WMD's have been
found.
yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
09 Aug 2004 07:29:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:41:45 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 8 Aug 2004 21:20:11 -0500, (Kate ) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:19:17 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them, he used them, he
can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
Thank you President George Bush for doing what you had to do to protect America from
terrorism, regardless of European opinion.
If he really wanted to protect America from terrorism, he would have
done better to bomb Texas. That's the only place WMD's have been
found.
yet.
Always hopeful, aren't cha dukebutt?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam is developing WMD's |
15 Aug 2004 10:57:15 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
at this very moment if President Bush had not invaded Iraq. He had them, he used them, he
can't show he destroyed them, he wanted more and he was intent of getting more, including
nuclear, and had the money and contacts to do so.
Even Condi Rice and Colin Powel said Saddam had no WMD's.
http://100777.com/media/jp-bts.wmv?PHPSESSID=88fabb98ee9bb5711faff30909bf7daf
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
