Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Iraq Said Likely to Have Bioweapons

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Thomas

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 7:46:40 PM9/7/02
to

"Amanda Hugnkiss" <hugnki...@yahoo.c0m> wrote in message
news:hugnkiss98122-2B7...@pita.alt.net...
>
> Chemical and biological weapons are more of a threat to civilians than
> to U.S. or coalition soldiers, who have vaccines, protective gear and
> training to protect themselves.

Good post Amanda. In my opinion your last paragraph is most pertinent,
considering a point everyone seems to have forgotten. Hussein has already
shown that he is not only able, he is willing to unleash chemical and/or
nerve weapons on his own civilian population. Has everyone forgotten the
Northern Kurds who were gassed several times by the current Iraqi regime? I
wonder what they would say about the current debate regarding how to remove
Sadaam from power? And what would they say about some Americans claiming we
have no business interfering because Hussein is no real threat to the U.S.,
or his neighbors in the region? I think I could guess.

Aloha


Darren

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 8:45:49 PM9/7/02
to

"Amanda Hugnkiss" <hugnki...@yahoo.c0m> wrote in message
news:hugnkiss98122-2B7...@pita.alt.net...
>
>
>
>
> While Saddam Hussein probably does not have a nuclear bomb, the Iraqi
> president does have the designs, equipment and expertise to build one
> quickly if he can get enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium, the
> former inspectors and other experts says.
>
> Members of the U.N. teams that investigated Iraq's weapons of mass
> destruction from 1991 to 1998 say Saddam probably also has at least nine
> long-range Scud missiles, and has or easily could make chemical and
> biological weapons to arm those missiles.
>
> "That's what I'd worry about ‹ they could reconstitute these weapons
> fairly soon, and they actually have stuff on hand that could be used for
> terrorist and military purposes," said former U.N. inspector Raymond
> Zilinskas, head of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation
> Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
>
> Still, many former inspectors say Iraq's arsenal is not much of a
> threat. They say Saddam has been deterred so far by threats of massive
> retaliation by the United States and other countries and apparently has
> been reluctant to share his weapons with terrorists.
>
> "Possession of the weapons themselves don't, in my view, offer a
> proximate threat to the United States or to our friends in the region,
> and I'm including Israel in that," said Robert Gallucci, a former deputy
> director of the U.N. weapons inspection program.
>
> President Bush says Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
> programs are the main reason he must be removed from power, perhaps with
> military force. But administration officials have offered few details of
> what weapons or capabilities they believe Iraq has.
>
> Iraq's weapons could include:
>
> The nerve agent VX, regarded as the most toxic of chemical weapons.
>
> The nerve agent sarin, a liquid or gas that causes a choking, thrashing
> death.
>
> Mustard gas, a blistering agent that can dissolve flesh on contact and
> severely damage the eyes and lungs.
>
> Anthrax, the deadly bacteria used in the mail attacks on government and
> the news media last year.
>
> Botulinum toxin, a substance produced by bacteria that causes paralysis
> and death.
>
> Aflatoxin, a poison produced by a grain-eating fungus.
>
> Inspectors say Saddam probably has made more such weapons in the four
> years since the U.N. teams left Iraq.
>
> "Any reasonable assessment of where they are now would say they
> probably regenerated stocks of both mustard (gas) and nerve agents,"
> said Gallucci, now the dean of Georgetown University's School of Foreign
> Service.
>
> "Botulinum toxin and anthrax ‹ that is not speculation, they have
> produced both. One would expect that over the last four years they would
> have produced them again."
>
> After losing the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam agreed to scrap all of his
> chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, as well as the
> long-range missiles to deliver such weapons. The United Nations ( news -
> web sites) set up a special panel known as UNSCOM to inspect Iraqi
> weapons facilities and make sure all the banned weapons were destroyed.
>
> After seven years of inspections, weapons destruction and clashes with
> Iraqi authorities ‹ who shot at inspectors and held them at gunpoint
> various times ‹ UNSCOM pulled out of Iraq in 1998 when Saddam refused to
> allow inspectors into presidential sites. The United States and Britain
> responded with four days of airstrikes aimed at damaging or destroying
> suspected sites of weapons of mass destruction.
>
> In the four years since, Iraq has claimed that it ended its banned
> programs and destroyed all its weapons. Former inspectors and U.S.
> officials have accused Iraq of continuing with those programs.
>
> "Nobody really knows what Iraq has," said former inspector Jonathan
> Tucker. "You really can't tell from a satellite image what's going on
> inside a factory."
>
> Last month, U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said he had no real
> evidence Iraq actually has weapons of mass destruction although
> inspectors still have "many open questions" about Iraq's capability.
>
> Satellite photos show new construction at several sites linked to
> Saddam's past nuclear efforts, the head of a U.N. atomic weapons
> inspection team said Friday.
>
> Satellite images show also that Iraq has rebuilt several facilities
> that in the past were involved in Saddam's banned weapons programs. They
> include portions of biological and chemical weapons sites at Daura, Taji
> and Falluja and a uranium production facility at al-Qaim, said Iraq
> expert Kelly Motz of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.
>
> Former inspectors and U.S. officials say Saddam has kept his nuclear
> weapons teams together, which they say shows Iraq still has nuclear
> ambitions.
>
> Experts disagree on how close Iraq could be to making a nuclear bomb ‹
> estimates range from months to years ‹ though they agree that if Saddam
> could obtain stolen uranium or plutonium he could have a bomb ready
> relatively quickly.
>
> "If Iraq had that material, a fair assessment would be they could
> fabricate a nuclear weapon, and there's no reason for us to assume we'd
> find out if they had," Gallucci said.
>
> It also is unclear what means Saddam has to deliver the weapons to a
> target. At least nine long-range Scud missiles are unaccounted for in
> Iraq, and experts say Saddam may have hidden enough parts to assemble
> two dozen or more.
>
> U.N. sanctions also allow Iraq to build missiles with a range of no
> more than 95 miles ‹ and some experts worry that technology could easily
> be converted to make longer-range missiles.
>
> Iraq also has experimented with using small military training jets as
> remote-controlled drones, which could deliver biological or chemical
> weapons. Saddam also modified fuel tanks for supersonic MiG-21 fighters
> with sprayers for biological or chemical weapons.

>
> Chemical and biological weapons are more of a threat to civilians than
> to U.S. or coalition soldiers, who have vaccines, protective gear and
> training to protect themselves.
>
> Source:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20020907/ap_on_
> re_mi_ea/saddam_s_weapons
> -
> --
> ---
> Amanda Hugnkiss Sacred cow tipping in Usenet since May '96
>

We should've removed him a long time ago.

Darren

Some call me...Tim

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 9:39:02 PM9/7/02
to
"Thomas" <mau...@delete.hotmail.com> posted:

> Good post Amanda. In my opinion your last paragraph is
> most pertinent, considering a point everyone seems to have
> forgotten. Hussein has already shown that he is not only
> able, he is willing to unleash chemical and/or nerve
> weapons on his own civilian population. Has everyone
> forgotten the Northern Kurds who were gassed several times
> by the current Iraqi regime? I wonder what they would say
> about the current debate regarding how to remove Sadaam
> from power? And what would they say about some Americans
> claiming we have no business interfering because Hussein is
> no real threat to the U.S., or his neighbors in the region?
> I think I could guess.

That's very simplistic.

I have no problem acting against those who commit crimes against
humanity, but such actions must be conducted prudently. I think
a balkanized Iraq is more dangerous than one led by Saddam. If
we are going to topple him, we need to understand up front that
the fall of Saddam is not the end of our work there. We will
need to commit troops to Iraq for many years and those troops
will become targets for radical Islamist guerilla organizations.
We need to build a nation--something the bushies detest.
Otherwise, we accomplished nothing except the transfer of
chemical and biological weapons from control by a ruthless, yet
rational, dictator, to radical Islamists with dreams of
martyrdom.

Nothing the Bush Administration has said leads me to believe
that the war faction, the faction in control, understands this.
They certainly haven't sought public buy in for the years of
occupation they'll need to pull it off.

--
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
--GW Bush explaining why he took
legal action against a web site
for making fun of him.
Tim
http://member.newsguy.com/~satire/

Paul Mitchum

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 10:33:19 PM9/7/02
to
Some call me...Tim <tim...@newsguy.com> wrote:

[..]


> Otherwise, we accomplished nothing except the transfer of chemical and
> biological weapons from control by a ruthless, yet rational, dictator, to
> radical Islamists with dreams of martyrdom.
>
> Nothing the Bush Administration has said leads me to believe that the war
> faction, the faction in control, understands this. They certainly haven't
> sought public buy in for the years of occupation they'll need to pull it
> off.

They don't care. They want the wealth of the region, and if they can't
have that, they want instability in the region so they can profit and
try again later. And if they can't have that, then they want to have
screwed up in a way that's plausible so that history will remember them
as having fought against Hussein's evil weapons of mass destruction.
Have you heard? He's like another Hitler, that Hussein!

Clave

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 11:58:54 PM9/7/02
to
"Thomas" <mau...@delete.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:alega...@enews1.newsguy.com...

<...>

> The man is gathering massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, no
one
> of intelligence denies that. He has gassed his own people with nerve and
> mustard gas. How much "more dangerous" can it really be? Do we wait
until
> a 100 kiloton blast levels Washington D.C.?


As I've repeatedly tried to point out in the past, this is an empty argument
used by people trying to distract from the FACT that nobody can demonstrate
that Iraq poses any credible threat to the US, or is likely to in the
forseeable future.

To take this "argument" seriously, one has to ask one's self, why not start
with *more* obvious threats? North Korea springs to mind, as do Iran and
Indonesia, whose ties to al-Qaeda are far more well-documented than those of
Iraq. What about China?

What about Saudi friggin' Arabia, for sheesh's sake?

Jim

Thomas

unread,
Sep 7, 2002, 11:31:27 PM9/7/02
to
Comments inline.
"Some call me...Tim" <tim...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9282C1232354E...@216.168.3.40...

> "Thomas" <mau...@delete.hotmail.com> posted:
>
> > Good post Amanda. In my opinion your last paragraph is
> > most pertinent, considering a point everyone seems to have
> > forgotten. Hussein has already shown that he is not only
> > able, he is willing to unleash chemical and/or nerve
> > weapons on his own civilian population. Has everyone
> > forgotten the Northern Kurds who were gassed several times
> > by the current Iraqi regime? I wonder what they would say
> > about the current debate regarding how to remove Sadaam
> > from power? And what would they say about some Americans
> > claiming we have no business interfering because Hussein is
> > no real threat to the U.S., or his neighbors in the region?
> > I think I could guess.
>
> That's very simplistic.

Thanks Tim, food for thought. It isn't very common in World affairs for a
countries government to be classified in such a clear cut manner as Iraq.
It's very simple, Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, has used them on
his own people, and will use them on us if he gets a chance. If you think he
isn't busily at work attempting to build a nuclear weapon, to use on us if
he gets a chance, you have your head in the sand. I haven't heard anyone
denying that fact. Rarely is such an issue so clear.


>
> I have no problem acting against those who commit crimes against
> humanity, but such actions must be conducted prudently.

Agreed, but not so "prudent" that the cost is possibly hundreds of thousands
of lives, maybe ours. Lack of resolve and hesitation for the sake of
political expediency is not what's called for here. While the "bend over
and take it up the rear, just so we don't look militaristic" crowd is
studying and debating the issue to death, people are in danger of being
killed, indeed, have been killed.

I think
> a balkanized Iraq is more dangerous than one led by Saddam.

The man is gathering massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, no one


of intelligence denies that. He has gassed his own people with nerve and
mustard gas. How much "more dangerous" can it really be? Do we wait until
a 100 kiloton blast levels Washington D.C.?

If


> we are going to topple him, we need to understand up front that
> the fall of Saddam is not the end of our work there.

Clearly, on that point there's no argument.

We will
> need to commit troops to Iraq for many years and those troops
> will become targets for radical Islamist guerilla organizations.

We have had troops in Bahrain, Kuwait, and other bases in the area since
1991. We have been "targets" for over a decade. Remember the U.S.S. Cole
in Yemen? At what point do we stop taking it up the rear and start applying
a little pre-emptive first aid? Fear cannot weaken this countries resolve
to do what's right, no matter how many pacifists and liberals rationalize
their calls for inaction. Granted, we should have finished off this maniac
back in 1991. Let's just get it done, even belatedly.

> We need to build a nation--something the bushies detest.

We sit on our hands and allow the Iraqi regime to lob chemical and
biological weapons all over the region, and allow them the time to put
together a nuclear weapon, and there isn't going to be a U.S., much less an
Iraq.

> Otherwise, we accomplished nothing except the transfer of
> chemical and biological weapons from control by a ruthless, yet
> rational, dictator, to radical Islamists with dreams of
> martyrdom.

All wars and military action carries risk, to timidly sit by and allow a
ruthless dictator to threaten his neighbors, and us, because we didn't have
the resolve to fight for what's right, isn't what this country is all about.


>
> Nothing the Bush Administration has said leads me to believe
> that the war faction, the faction in control, understands this.

If you really knew, everything U.S. intelligence knew about Hussein and his
plans, I would bet it would scare you to death. Let's allow our elected
leaders the room to make an analysis, and then let's support the U.S. like
we always have. Nothing this complex is ever a sure thing.

> They certainly haven't sought public buy in for the years of
> occupation they'll need to pull it off.

Just wait, it's coming.


Aloha


Charlie Wilkes

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 1:12:34 AM9/8/02
to

But why bother guessing? Let's just put the Kurds in charge of U.S.
foreign policy.

We'll sponsor a goat-fucking contest and the Kurd who fucks the most
goats can be Sec'y of Defense in the Bush administration.

Charlie

Darren

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 1:11:50 AM9/8/02
to

"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in message
news:2Wze9.385161$hU6....@news.easynews.com...

It's all about the oil.


Bill Bonde

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 3:14:28 AM9/8/02
to

Clave wrote:
>
> "Thomas" <mau...@delete.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:alega...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> <...>
>
> > The man is gathering massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, no
> one
> > of intelligence denies that. He has gassed his own people with nerve and
> > mustard gas. How much "more dangerous" can it really be? Do we wait
> until
> > a 100 kiloton blast levels Washington D.C.?
>
> As I've repeatedly tried to point out in the past, this is an empty argument
> used by people trying to distract from the FACT that nobody can demonstrate
> that Iraq poses any credible threat to the US, or is likely to in the
> forseeable future.
>

You simply invented that, you didn't demonstrate it.

> To take this "argument" seriously, one has to ask one's self, why not start
> with *more* obvious threats? North Korea springs to mind, as do Iran and
> Indonesia, whose ties to al-Qaeda are far more well-documented than those of
> Iraq. What about China?
>

What about all those. Each in its due time.


--
Don't cry, Mother. We will make them pay. I promise.
--Prisoner of the Mountains

Shea F. Kenny

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 6:14:13 AM9/8/02
to
After realizing it's been "Myra's" fault all along, use...@mile23.com

(Paul Mitchum) said:
>They don't care. They want the wealth of the region, and if they can't
>have that, they want instability in the region so they can profit and
>try again later. And if they can't have that, then they want to have
>screwed up in a way that's plausible so that history will remember them
>as having fought against Hussein's evil weapons of mass destruction.
>Have you heard? He's like another Hitler, that Hussein!

Opinion granted.

I mean, how is it this idiot can surmize various themes
within our government, but cannot fathom overt acts of one individual?


--
Live from Camp Labor, the Moon....
This has been, Lunar Network News....
Click for the audio: http://lunarchy.home.att.net/signoff.wav

Shea F. Kenny

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 6:15:07 AM9/8/02
to
After realizing it's been "Myra's" fault all along, "Clave"

<ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> said:
>To take this "argument" seriously, one has to ask one's self, why not start
>with *more* obvious threats? North Korea springs to mind, as do Iran and
>Indonesia, whose ties to al-Qaeda are far more well-documented than those of
>Iraq. What about China?

Document them.

And do it now.

Shea F. Kenny

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 6:18:16 AM9/8/02
to
After realizing it's been "Myra's" fault all along, Charlie Wilkes

<charlie...@easynews.com> said:
>We'll sponsor a goat-fucking contest and the Kurd who fucks the most
>goats can be Sec'y of Defense in the Bush administration.

This is it. Charlie, you have quite simply declared yourself
as a useless idiot and will be FORMALLY commended to the killfile
county jail.....

Nice knowing you. I've tried......;-)

Mary Wallace

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 12:46:19 PM9/8/02
to
Yeah! Saddam is a nice guy! Remember the Iran Iraq war? Remember the tons
of mustard and chloride gas he dumped on tens of thousands of people? What?
You don't believe it? What about the gassing of the Kurds and Shiites?
Remember the defectors that fled to Jordan from Baghdad? Saddams in-laws? He
invited them back in and pleaded with them? When they came back, he had them
all shot in the head the moment they stepped back into Iraq? Remember these
things? Oh, yeah, you are a leftists, no knowledge of facts or logic. All a
Republican plot huh?

"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.com> wrote in message
news:1fi5mxk.1wq0ada1dm8zegN%use...@mile23.com...

Paul Mitchum

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 12:57:36 PM9/8/02
to
Mary Wallace <mr...@msn.com> wrote:

> "Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.com> wrote in message
> news:1fi5mxk.1wq0ada1dm8zegN%use...@mile23.com...
> > Some call me...Tim <tim...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > Otherwise, we accomplished nothing except the transfer of chemical and
> > > biological weapons from control by a ruthless, yet rational, dictator,
> > > to radical Islamists with dreams of martyrdom.
> > >
> > > Nothing the Bush Administration has said leads me to believe that the
> > > war faction, the faction in control, understands this. They certainly
> > > haven't sought public buy in for the years of occupation they'll need
> > > to pull it off.
> >
> > They don't care. They want the wealth of the region, and if they can't
> > have that, they want instability in the region so they can profit and
> > try again later. And if they can't have that, then they want to have
> > screwed up in a way that's plausible so that history will remember them
> > as having fought against Hussein's evil weapons of mass destruction.
> > Have you heard? He's like another Hitler, that Hussein!
>

> Yeah! Saddam is a nice guy! Remember the Iran Iraq war? Remember the
> tons of mustard and chloride gas he dumped on tens of thousands of people?

> What? You don't believe it? [.. etc ..]

Who's saying he's a nice guy?

And it's not a Republican plot. It's greed on the part of a bunch of
people with a bunch of power.

John Edward Robinson a/k/a "robbie"

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 2:23:05 PM9/8/02
to

Mary Wallace wrote:

> Yeah! Saddam is a nice guy! Remember the Iran Iraq war? Remember the tonsof
> mustard and chloride gas he dumped on tens of thousands of people? What?You

> don't believe it? What about the gassing of the Kurds and Shiites?Remember the
> defectors that fled to Jordan from Baghdad? Saddams in-laws? Heinvited them
> back in and pleaded with them? When they came back, he had themll shot in the
> head the moment they stepped back into Iraq? Remember thesehings? Oh, yeah,


> you are a leftists, no knowledge of facts or logic. All aRepublican plot huh?

***************************************************
Yes,
While we are at it- remember that over 100,000 American Service Men returned
with such Symptoms and Bush I denied them VA or service credit. Now his son Bush
II has cut them off from the VA hospitals and un funded their treatment.

Perhaps that is why we think its politics and Bull Shit!

>
>
> "Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.com> wrote in message
> news:1fi5mxk.1wq0ada1dm8zegN%use...@mile23.com...
> > Some call me...Tim <tim...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > Otherwise, we accomplished nothing except the transfer of chemical and
> > > biological weapons from control by a ruthless, yet rational, dictator,
> to
> > > radical Islamists with dreams of martyrdom.
> > >
> > > Nothing the Bush Administration has said leads me to believe that the
> war
> > > faction, the faction in control, understands this. They certainly
> haven't
> > > sought public buy in for the years of occupation they'll need to pull it
> > > off.
> >
> > They don't care. They want the wealth of the region, and if they can't
> > have that, they want instability in the region so they can profit and
> > try again later. And if they can't have that, then they want to have
> > screwed up in a way that's plausible so that history will remember them
> > as having fought against Hussein's evil weapons of mass destruction.
> > Have you heard? He's like another Hitler, that Hussein!

--

\\\\\\||///
\\ //
( @ @ )
---0ooo-----(_)------ooo0
John Edward Robinson
a/ka/ "robbie"

jrobin33.vcf

Clave

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 2:49:53 PM9/8/02
to
"Bill Bonde" <sst...@space.com> wrote in message
news:3D7AF8D4...@space.com...

>
> Clave wrote:
> >
> > "Thomas" <mau...@delete.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:alega...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > The man is gathering massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction,
no
> > one
> > > of intelligence denies that. He has gassed his own people with nerve
and
> > > mustard gas. How much "more dangerous" can it really be? Do we wait
> > until
> > > a 100 kiloton blast levels Washington D.C.?
> >
> > As I've repeatedly tried to point out in the past, this is an empty
argument
> > used by people trying to distract from the FACT that nobody can
demonstrate
> > that Iraq poses any credible threat to the US, or is likely to in the
> > forseeable future.
> >
> You simply invented that, you didn't demonstrate it.


Tsk, tsk. Reduced to asking me to prove a negative.

You don't have the cards, Bonzo.

Jim

Clave

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 2:56:32 PM9/8/02
to
"Shea F. Kenny" <luna...@REMOVETHISatt.net> wrote in message
news:3j8mnuo849i12k5do...@4ax.com...

> After realizing it's been "Myra's" fault all along, "Clave"
> <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> said:
> >To take this "argument" seriously, one has to ask one's self, why not
start
> >with *more* obvious threats? North Korea springs to mind, as do Iran and
> >Indonesia, whose ties to al-Qaeda are far more well-documented than those
of
> >Iraq. What about China?
>
> Document them.
>
> And do it now.


STFW, whack-job.

Jim

alohacyberian

unread,
Sep 8, 2002, 5:14:55 PM9/8/02
to
Why Clave - what brilliant repartee! No doubt only geniuses are bright
enough to respond via name-calling! What a novel approach from you. Such
respect you must garner from your wisdom and from such high-minded people.
And once again, you managed to say zero and contribute nothing. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

Clave <ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote in article
<lZMe9.89346$6o2.1...@news.easynews.com>...


> "Bill Bonde" <sst...@space.com> wrote in message
> news:3D7AF8D4...@space.com...
> > Clave wrote:
> > > "Thomas" <mau...@delete.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:alega...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>

Charlie Wilkes

unread,
Sep 9, 2002, 1:12:09 AM9/9/02
to
On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 10:18:16 GMT, Shea F. Kenny
<luna...@REMOVETHISatt.net> wrote:

>After realizing it's been "Myra's" fault all along, Charlie Wilkes
><charlie...@easynews.com> said:
>>We'll sponsor a goat-fucking contest and the Kurd who fucks the most
>>goats can be Sec'y of Defense in the Bush administration.
>
> This is it. Charlie, you have quite simply declared yourself
>as a useless idiot and will be FORMALLY commended to the killfile
>county jail.....
>
> Nice knowing you. I've tried......;-)

Say what you will, Shea, but the job calls for enthusiasm and stamina.

Charlie

harlan bettencourt

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 1:43:18 AM9/10/02
to
On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 03:58:54 GMT, "Clave"
<ClaviusNo...@CableSpeed.com> wrote:

>"Thomas" <mau...@delete.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:alega...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
><...>
>
>> The man is gathering massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, no
>one
>> of intelligence denies that. He has gassed his own people with nerve and
>> mustard gas. How much "more dangerous" can it really be? Do we wait
>until
>> a 100 kiloton blast levels Washington D.C.?
>
>
>As I've repeatedly tried to point out in the past, this is an empty argument
>used by people trying to distract from the FACT that nobody can demonstrate
>that Iraq poses any credible threat to the US, or is likely to in the
>forseeable future.

Over 600 liters of Anthrax Einstein - read up!

>To take this "argument" seriously, one has to ask one's self, why not start
>with *more* obvious threats?

It's tto late to kill your parents before the sphincterthat left you
here.

> North Korea springs to mind, as do Iran and
>Indonesia, whose ties to al-Qaeda are far more well-documented than those of
>Iraq. What about China?

They are not at critical mass, you freaking idiot.

>What about Saudi friggin' Arabia, for sheesh's sake?

They ain't building no bombs, but they'd make a good test run strafe
site. So would yer plave ace, care to volunteer?

You are a jerk, an that's been said more than a few thoudsand times
that I can reserach. Damn Washington clam head liberal.

Thomas

unread,
Sep 10, 2002, 8:01:48 PM9/10/02
to

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie...@easynews.com> wrote in message
news:9qmlnu4204ivj981k...@4ax.com...

Hmmm. 1) Racist 2) Moronic 3) Obnoxious
Congratulations. You have just won the Usenet Trifecta for today. You are
the winner of a white sheet to wear and a dunce cap for your head and you
may sit in the corner by yourself.


--
Aloha

Reply to group(Unsolicited E-mail is unwanted)


0 new messages