"But the world isn't like that"

[jbor]

on 19/10/02 4:17 AM, barbara100 at jps.net at barbara100 at jps.net wrote:

>>> It's not very logical for you to deduce, Jbor, that the Stop the War crowd
>>> thinks it's "totally OK" that Saddam launch an attack first. How did you
>>> figure that? 
>> 
>> It's actually pretty obvious.
> 
> It's not obvious.  It's not even true, how could it be obvious?

Many of the stop the war! protesters (what war?) like yourself seemed to be
totally OK with the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction, as
I said. You proved that when you stated unequivocally that "Saddam's got
nothin'". Your viewpoint was probably more ill-informed and ignorant than
some of the others, who were using the cause just to try and keep their
anti-Bush and anti-America flags and flak flying.

> Okay, I'm sorry.  He's got "something."

Yes, "of course" he's got weapons of mass destruction, according to Richard
Butler: 

    ... the case against Saddam Hussein is utterly proven. All the permanent
    members of the Security Council have known for years that he retains
    weapons of mass destruction and they signed off on a report to that
    effect 4 years ago.

And:

    Richard Butler, what did you think of the Blair Dossier?

    It added a little bit to what was already known. I'd seen earlier
    versions of it. Sure - Iraq is back in the business of making weapons of
    mass destructions, seeking to acquire uranium in Africa - that was a new
    element, in order to advance a nuclear weapons programme, extending its
    network of front companies to get equipment and materials it needs for
    its weapons. It didn't change the picture that I knew - it extended it a
    bit. I think it's credible and it did a reasonable job.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s695405.htm

31 July 2002: Richard Butler tells a US Senate committee that Iraq stepped
up the production of chemical and biological weapons after UN inspections
ended - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2167933.stm

> But the range is 600 miles at most

And you're still OK with that, are you?

best


> on 16/10/02 3:31 PM, barbara100 at jps.net at barbara100 at jps.net wrote:
> 
>> Honestly, Otto, have you heard any compelling evidence that Saddam has
>> WDMs?  Let alone nuclear capabilities?  Fuck, he doesn't even have
>> penicillin the last 12 years, how could he have uranium?
>> The last UN inspector in Iraq  (1998) said of 450 inspections they came up
>> clean in [virtually] all of them and were in complete compliance.
>> Saddam's got nothin', and if he does, as far as it's ever gonna go is
>> Israel.
>> GW's got us all worked up over a two-bit scudster.
>> This war is bullshit!  Even my mother took down her flag tonight, and she's
>> a real patriot. She said her famous line again, "I'm a woman, I'm a
>> Democrat, and I'm a Catholic!" but she added tonight, "but I just can't
>> support this war!" I kid you not, she wrestled that old faded red white and
>> blue from its pole as I buckled up and drove off.
>> 
>