I Will Never Understand Wind

You also believed that the Iraq had WMDs.

As did nearly every intelligence professional, worldwide.

Why? Because he DID have them, and used them -- on his own people.

I know you (and your ilk) would love to simply forget that little detail --
but it inconveniently won't go away.

Sorry, OT, but I can't resist, it drives me incredibly angry.

Why? The world is a better place without Saddam.

No, I won't "get over it".

Sure you will.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
news:HtHfe.65240$NU4.52784@attbi_s22...
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
Look at pretty much any entrepeneur - I think we can all agree Bill
Gates is an exemplar with this - yet Bill Gates and Microsoft have never
done anything radical at the 'front end' because the market won't stand
for it. (In fact Microsoft can barely be counted as being an innovator)

The "Blue Screen of Death" does not count as innovative? Damn, you're
hard
to please...

I understand that the vast majority of MS's R&D goes for reverse engineering
competing products.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:2mJfe.64415$r53.13498@attbi_s21...
You also believed that the Iraq had WMDs.

As did nearly every intelligence professional, worldwide.

Why? Because he DID have them, and used them -- on his own people.

I know you (and your ilk) would love to simply forget that little
detail --
but it inconveniently won't go away.

Sorry, OT, but I can't resist, it drives me incredibly angry.

Why? The world is a better place without Saddam.

No, I won't "get over it".

Sure you will.

One never gets over denial!

-------------------
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line." -
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." -
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." -
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." -
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies." -
Letter to President Bush,
Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001!

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Sadd! am has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction." -
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do"
Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
...." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:2mJfe.64415$r53.13498@attbi_s21...
You also believed that the Iraq had WMDs.

As did nearly every intelligence professional, worldwide.

Who exactly? There were plenty of people saying that they didn't have
meaningful WMD, including most of OUR people actually involved in weapons
inspections. The administration chose to include data that supported their
position and ignore data that didn't.


Why? Because he DID have them, and used them -- on his own people.

I know you (and your ilk) would love to simply forget that little
detail -- but it inconveniently won't go away.

Everybody recognizes that Iraq used chemical weapons on its own people but
that doesn't say anything about whether they had them at a later date. In
fact, they did not.


Sorry, OT, but I can't resist, it drives me incredibly angry.

Why? The world is a better place without Saddam.

Depends on who replaces him. Saddam was an evil tyrant, that is undisputed,
but he (as a secular leader) was also the natural enemy of fundamentalist
Islam (Our REAL enemy). This is a key point that most people seem to miss.
Saddam killed thousands of Iraqi civiilians. Over the past few years the US
has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. They will not forget this. Iraq
is not a natual country, it is made up a three parts that would perfer to
live with their religious/cultural brethren. Naturally it would be a
disaster (for us) if the country was split up between Iran, Syria and an
independent Kurdistan. This leaves us with the problem that SOMEBODY has to
keep Iraq together, probably by force. Saddam was doing this, now we must
do it or the government that we will be seen to have installed must do it.
Most of the rest of the world recognized this.

The bottom line is that we (in the US) were fed a lot of BS. It is natural
that we would believe our elected leaders initially, but we are stupid if we
continue to believe them after learning that we were lied to. Are the
Iraqis better off? Probably. Are we better of? Probably not.

Mike
MU-2

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:NaVee.54780$NU4.23676@attbi_s22...
I also remember the many reputable "researchers" claiming that all the
"oil
will be gone by the year 2000." (Actually, some were claiming 1990.)

When I was in school in the 1970s/80s, it was given as being about 300 years
so I'm not sure where the "by the year 1990" came from.

Paul

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
And, is global warming really a bad thing? 2/3rd of the earth is largely
uninhabitable due to COLD.

Isn't that more down to the fact that it's wet? :-)

Unfortunately for the places where humans live at the moment, it
just means different - more storms, more floods, more droughts,
etc. With regard to here in the UK, it seems that the weather used
to be best ("summer" weather) in July and August. Now it seems that
the best weather here is in May and June, with July, August and
September being quite wet, with frequent thunderstorms. Sort of thing
you see in sub-tropical areas! Various sub-tropical creatures which
could previously only be found in the far south of the country are
starting to be found further north.

This cannot be totally blamed on man-made warming...indeed the
earth's temperature closely follows solar activity if I remember
correctly. But in support of the man made change, records were
studied from the past 300 years or so. it shows a strong correlation
between solar activity and average earth temperatures - the two went
up and down together...until the Industrial Revolution, when the two
lines started diverging in the same proportion to the estimated global
production of man-made carbon dioxide.

Paul

Paul Sengupta wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:NaVee.54780$NU4.23676@attbi_s22...

I also remember the many reputable "researchers" claiming that all the

"oil

will be gone by the year 2000." (Actually, some were claiming 1990.)


When I was in school in the 1970s/80s, it was given as being about 300 years
so I'm not sure where the "by the year 1990" came from.

Figures like these were highly publicised in the U.S. during the Iranian oil
embargo. They were used as scare tactics to try to establish gasoline rationing
(amoung other things). I remember in 1979 being told by a co-worker not to throw
away some item I'd broken. "By the year 2000, genuine plastic will be worth a
lot of money, 'cause they won't be able to make it any more."

The claims I heard most often from the media heads and "experts" were that the
world's known reserves would be "exhausted in 15 to 20 years." I quit watching
TV in late 1980, so I don't know when they quit making these claims, but they
repeated them all through the late '70s.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Has there ever been a prediction by an "environmentalist" that has come
true? All the predictions I have seen that have come due are wrong.
All the worlds population aren't starving. The forests and jungles
aren't gone. The worlds mean temperature hasn't risen 5 degrees. The
Oceans aren't 10 feet higher. Ninety percent of the animals on the
earth haven't been forced into extinction. Oil hasn't been depleted.
The Ice age hasn't come. About the only prediction I have seen from
"environmentalists" that might be true is that the environment is going
to change

I will make a prediction In ten years "environmentalist" will be the
common term for "nutcase".

LG

"Legrande Harris" wrote in message
...
I will make a prediction In ten years "environmentalist" will be the
common term for "nutcase".

LG

That prediction came true about 25 years ago.

Jay Honeck wrote:

As did nearly every intelligence professional, worldwide.

Except those who actually were there and did first hand research.
(Remember the IAEO? Their reports were pretty clear.)

I know you (and your ilk)

It's always interesting to see at which point the arguments change from
"you" to "you and your ilk". Time to leave the discussion.

Stefan