XPost: rec.travel.air, alt.travel   
   From: alohacyberian@att.net   
      
   "Miguel Cruz"  wrote in message   
   news:R14Nb.8475$4l3.6384@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...   
   > alohacyberian  wrote:   
   > > "Miguel Cruz"  wrote:   
   > >> The scary question is how people are so gullible as to believe what   
   wasn't   
   > >> even asserted - that "every intel service on the planet" believed in all   
   > >> these WMDs. Even the CIA wasn't sure, and they said as much before,   
   during,   
   > >> and after.   
   > >   
   > > Scary schmary. Hussein bragged about his weapons of mass destruction on   
   > > many occasions. Was he lying? And if he was lying, we're supposed to   
   trust   
   > > his other statements?   
   >   
   > Let me try to understand your thought process here.   
   >   
   > If he didn't have WMDs and lied about it, claiming that he did have them,   
   > then he was a liar and therefore if he later claimed not to have them, then   
   > he actually did, even though in order for him to be a liar by this   
   reckoning   
   > he would have to not have them and have them simultaneously?   
   >   
   > > Hussein used his weapons of mass destruction against Iran. Hussein used   
   > > his weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds. Hussein used his   
   > > weapons of mass destruction against his own people. And now the   
   > > Hussein-huggers want us to believe he never had any weapons of mass   
   > > destruction?   
   >   
   > Nobody's claiming he never had them. Demonstrably he had.   
   >   
   > What most people are claiming, bolstered by recent history, is that   
   whatever   
   > weapons he may or may not have had clearly did not represent any serious   
   > threat.   
   >   
   > > Why? Because they'd rather focus on what has become a non-issue instead   
   of   
   > > consider the real problems Iraq faces today.   
   >   
   > It's very hard to follow when the "real problem" keeps changing from day to   
   > day. Last year the WMDs were the lynchpin of the rationale for the war. Now   
   > that it's overwhelmingly obvious that they were a paper tiger, suddenly   
   > they're classified a "non-issue". Presumably after it's become   
   > overwhelmingly clear that "regime change" has failed to bring peace and   
   > stability to Iraq, then we'll have yet another "real problem".   
   > miguel   
   > --   
      
   They were never the lynchpin, they were merely the media darling. The main   
   rationale for the allied invasion of Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein, the   
   worst weapon of mass distruction Iraq has ever produced. Because the media   
   isn't about to give up it's WMD fixation has nothing to do with much of   
   anything except to the politically illiterate. 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/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)