🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <unir8vgg4uhgk7594...@4ax.com>, 
br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk says...
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:06:42 -0800, Bret Ripley <rip...@olywa.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <8d9r8v8224sfs2ppc...@4ax.com>, 
> >br...@zakalwe.demon.co.uk says...
> >> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 22:12:06 +0100, Lemming
> >> <l3m...@bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >Bret Ripley <rip...@olywa.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>In article <A4Nia.23982$Hx.14...@twister.socal.rr.com>, bhuffma1
> >> >>@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com says...
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> "Lemming" <l3m...@bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:igmm8v82tq5ga16pl7haej658j54uuvdmo@4ax.com...
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> > I'm just please they have found all those chemical and biological
> >> >>> > weapons.  Makes the whole thing worthwhile.  What a relief.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> I'm convinced that they will find some. Why else would the Iraqi army have those
> >> >>> NEW gas masks and chemical suits?
> >> >>
> >> >>For the same reason that the US has NEW gas masks and chemical suits?  
> >> >>
> >> >>Even if Irag doesn't have bio & chem weapons (and I think it rather 
> >> >>probable that they do), there are countries that pose a threat to Iraq 
> >> >>that definitely have them.
> >> >>
> >> >>You know the US has bio & chem weapons, right?
> >> >
> >> >Shurely shome mishtake?
> >> >
> >> >Repeat after me: 
> >> >
> >> >The US does not have ANY biological or chemical weapons.  Period.
> >> >
> >> >The anthrax that was sent around the USA after 11/9 was NOT produced
> >> >in the USA.  Period.
> >> >
> >> >The UK is NOT the world's most prolific producer of germ warfare
> >> >agents.  Period.
> >> 
> >> All fine points, and no argument from me on the agenda ridden, double
> >> standard standpoint of the coalition.
> >> 
> >> However, I wonder when the US government will get around to dropping
> >> it's supply of comicals on some of it's northern cities?
> >
> >Hmmmm.  I can't speak for Lemming, but my point was that it is just 
> >possible that Iraq had chem suits to defend *against* attacks from an 
> >enemy using chem weapons.  I mentioned that the US had such weapons, not 
> >because I think we would use them in Iraq, but because Iraq might not 
> >share my PollyAnna opinion.
> 
> I understand that. And I was just pointing out what I feel to be the
> differences between two particular systems of governance are.

Our leader can't speak English?

> >> Just cos something is wrong doesn't mean something else isn't wronger.
> >
> >Oh, I agree.  That's why I'm not convinced that invasion was the best 
> >solution.
> 
> Neither am I. I would hope that some other way to resolve the
> situation could have been found, for the sake of future scenarios even
> if it's too late for this one. My worry - and the reason for my view -
> is that any other solution would simply have taken too long. With the
> lovely Uday and Qusay waiting in the wings I do not feel that the
> Iraqi people's fate can once again be re-scheduled to a convenient
> diplomatic moment. War is not the answer, obviously, but I just cannot
> imagine how leaving hundreds of thousands of innocents to the fate of
> the million before them can be a solution either. I have no wish to
> argue with anyone about this here, in fact, there's been admirable
> deference to others views so far in this group, I hope we can keep it
> that way. 

We are world
  We are the children
We (something something something)
  So let's start giving

> Does anyone have Pierre's address?

No need.  He's goose-stepping quite nicely over in c.s.i.p.g.flight-sim, 
as usual.  Oh, and he has cohorts.

Bret