🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:36:47 -0800, Bret Ripley <rip...@olywa.net>
wrote:

>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?

Inscrewtabilly-T who?

>> >> 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

For one terrible moment I thought that was that fucking awful Whitney
Houston thing, there just isn't any room left in my garden for another
PC.

>> 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.

Flight-sim? I've never been there, don't think I ever will now, I
don't fancy the complimentary nuts.

br d