On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:23:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:HUWRb.597

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

There is a Syrian journalist who escaped Syria and published a lengthy
article in a Danish (I believe) newspaper just before Christmas (IIRC) --
sorry, details in my computer at work -- wherein he detailed three
specific
areas within Syria where multiple huge convoys of equipment had been
transported from Iraq and stored during the winter 02-03. Each area
roughly
equivalent in size to a medium to large military base, and still, to this
day, heavily guarded with 24-hour troops, barbed wire, razor wire, etc.
Western press doesn't seem to care, but you can bet your ass the long
lense
sats are watching. Facts will out.



Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not. First of all, they're an inconsequential force, and second,
we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff over
the border.

Think about that last sentence.

Wait a minute -- we went to Iraq, according to the best you guys had
to offer, to steal the Iraq oil. Does Syria have a lot of oil? No?
Then why would we go there?

Bush did not want to give Saddam a lot of time. Bush wanted to
convince the UN and all the Dems that it was necessary to change the
regime, like Mr. Clinton wanted to do. He gave Saddam time to get
honest.

Let's don't get too ridiculous here.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...


Kay ****ed off Democrats and the entire Bush administration, and
you're calling him diplomatic? He ****ed everyone off because he stuck
to what he thought was the truth.


If he condemned your leader in a one-sided way, and let the Dems off the
hook, you'd say he was biased. If he's ****ing off everyone equally, he's
behaving like a scientist who understands that there are not sound
conclusions to be drawn yet. If you like, purge the word "diplomatic" from
your mind. It's getting you all hung up. Normally, that only happens to
little Dave Hall.


He admitted that he was also wrong and that he had access to all the
intelligence available (as far as he knew). He stated he was convinced
he would find something. He stated that we (the USA), the British, the
French, and the Germans, not to mention the previous administration,
all thought there were WMD to be found. "We were all wrong," was his
main theme.

He also suggested that an "outside" investigation be conducted to
determine and fix the intelligence problems. McCain (sp?) loved that,
but the administration doesn't much like the idea. I think the
administration still thinks that something may be found. Kay also
admitted that he wasn't "sure" that there was nothing to be found.

Do you suppose the investigation might last until December of 2004? Not
October of 2004?


I think an investigation would be worthwhile. But if the results
didn't show that Bush and Powell absolutely lied, then the Dems would
say the committee was unduly influenced anyway.

Some of us will say that any committee will be influenced by an unfortunate
tendency in politics to protect those who are still in power or still
living, or those who may have sad illnesses. It took a long time to find out
that Nixon was being dosed with Dilantin for quite some time. It may take a
long time to find out that some of our intelligence people are not as slick
as they're portrayed in the movies.


I hope those damn truckers weren't union folks. Why do they have to
stop at a whorehouse? Isn't that why they have queen beds and jacuzzis
in that 'motel' behind the seats?

I guess some of the truckers figure that anything is better than working, or
dealing with traffic. Some of them can't stand lumpers - crack heads who
hang around loading docks and get paid cash for helping to unload trucks.
Very common thing in the grocery biz. Not union, either. We have to make
sure truckers have green cash money ready for these guys, or they can't
unload.

"John H" wrote in message
...

Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not. First of all, they're an inconsequential force, and
second,
we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff
over
the border.

Think about that last sentence.

Wait a minute -- we went to Iraq, according to the best you guys had
to offer, to steal the Iraq oil. Does Syria have a lot of oil? No?
Then why would we go there?

John, I'm finally going along with the nouveau-Kremlin's thinking! You
should love this. I'm saying that since we no longer believe in borders,
Bush should put his money where his mouth is. If he thinks the WMDs were
shuffled into Syria, he should go after them. That was his main reason for
spanking Iraq. Why not stick to his guns and chase the same weapons into
Syria? Or, is he going to give the Syrians time to shuffle them to Sudan or
Saudi Arabia?


Bush did not want to give Saddam a lot of time. Bush wanted to
convince the UN and all the Dems that it was necessary to change the
regime, like Mr. Clinton wanted to do. He gave Saddam time to get
honest.

Convince the UN? He ridiculed them the entire time he was trying to convince
them. When Powell allowed that the UN might have a purpose, he was silenced
and never said it again, until recently when we needed their help in
cleaning up our mess.

John Gaquin wrote:
Let's assume for the moment that you're on the right track. How does that
jibe with your oft-repeated premise that GW is an incompetent moron who
couldn't find his ass with two hands and a flashlight? Morons are not
usually adept at strategic chess.

I like the flashlight quote, that's really great.

As for "adept at strategic chess" you have number of tremendous flaws to
overcome if you are applying this to President Bush. Come to think of
it, I'd be astonished if he had ever played tabletop chess.

If you assume that the Iraq war represents some strategic masterstroke,
then you have to assume one or more of the following

1- the main purpose of the Iraq war was to pump obscenely huge amounts
of money into defense contractors (especially Halliburtons) pockets

2- Increasing the number of Arab and Muslim who despise the US will be a
good thing

3- Increasing the number of foreign countries who trust US intentions &
coopoerate with US foreign policy is of no value.

4- strategic intelligence reports and sources are pawns in a cool
political game rather than serious & useful info

Which is it? John H I'd be interested in your answers too.

DSK

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:HUWRb.597

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in
Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

There is a Syrian journalist who escaped Syria and published a lengthy
article in a Danish (I believe) newspaper just before Christmas
(IIRC) --
sorry, details in my computer at work -- wherein he detailed three
specific
areas within Syria where multiple huge convoys of equipment had been
transported from Iraq and stored during the winter 02-03. Each area
roughly
equivalent in size to a medium to large military base, and still, to
this
day, heavily guarded with 24-hour troops, barbed wire, razor wire, etc.
Western press doesn't seem to care, but you can bet your ass the long
lense
sats are watching. Facts will out.



Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not. First of all, they're an inconsequential force, and
second,
we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff over
the border.

Think about that last sentence.

Hmmmmmmm. I *like* it. Bush *wanted* Saddam to send the weapons to
Syria...so that we'd have an excuse to blast the hell out of them next. You
mean, just like a sting operation run by the DEA? They don't just want the
kingpin...but all of his known and unknown affiliates.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether
Syria
likes it or not.

Well, whether you want to believe it or not, there is a limit to the
number
of things we can do simultaneously on the ground. And, as they have
done
in
past circumstances, they will try the diplomatic route first. When and
if
that fails, look for boots on the ground.

we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad
that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

disregard puerile rant

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at
Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff
over
the border.

Let's assume for the moment that you're on the right track. How does
that
jibe with your oft-repeated premise that GW is an incompetent moron who
couldn't find his ass with two hands and a flashlight? Morons are not
usually adept at strategic chess.

He's not adept, but his sitters are. So is his father, who started all
this.
Who knows what he'd do to insure that his boy had an income stream after
the
next election?

Have you thought about both reasons why Nookular Boy (meaning "his
sitters")
might've wanted to give Saddam time to clean up his back yard?


I can think of a reason:
When Saddam sends the weapons to Syria, we can then blast the hell out of
Syria.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John H" wrote in message
...

Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether
Syria
likes it or not. First of all, they're an inconsequential force, and
second,
we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad
that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff
over
the border.

Think about that last sentence.

Wait a minute -- we went to Iraq, according to the best you guys had
to offer, to steal the Iraq oil. Does Syria have a lot of oil? No?
Then why would we go there?

John, I'm finally going along with the nouveau-Kremlin's thinking! You
should love this. I'm saying that since we no longer believe in borders,
Bush should put his money where his mouth is. If he thinks the WMDs were
shuffled into Syria, he should go after them. That was his main reason for
spanking Iraq. Why not stick to his guns and chase the same weapons into
Syria?

What's to say that isn't on the agenda? In fact, the Syrian Accountability
Act isn't much different from the Iraqi Regime Change Act. It's a prelude
to an armed conflict if Syria doesn't do an about-face.

If you don't think so, read some excerpts and Findings:

(5) the Government of Syria should halt the development and deployment of
medium- and long-range surface-to-surface missiles and cease the development
and production of biological and chemical weapons;

(20) The Government of Syria is pursuing the development and production of
biological and chemical weapons and has a nuclear research and development
program that is cause for concern.

(30) On March 28, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned: '[W]e
have information that shipments of military supplies have been crossing the
border from Syria into Iraq, including night-vision goggles ... These
deliveries pose a direct threat to the lives of coalition forces. We
consider such trafficking as hostile acts, and will hold the Syrian
government accountable for such shipments.'

(34) On April 13, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld charged that
'busloads' of Syrian fighters entered Iraq with 'hundreds of thousands of
dollars' and leaflets offering rewards for dead American soldiers.



Keep in mind that this resolution was passed *after* the armed conflict with
Iraq...and had a near-unanimous vote from Congress (only 4 "nays").

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
Have you thought about both reasons why Nookular Boy (meaning "his
sitters") might've wanted to give Saddam time to clean up his back yard?

Only "both"? I can think of several scenarios. Iraq is just one piece of
the puzzle. Right now, the entire Arab/Islamic axis, from Algeria to the
Hindu Kush, is in flux. If all you watch is Iraq, you're liable to miss the
show.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Have you thought about both reasons why Nookular Boy (meaning "his
sitters")
might've wanted to give Saddam time to clean up his back yard?


I can think of a reason:
When Saddam sends the weapons to Syria, we can then blast the hell out of
Syria.


Yes. Syria. Another major threat to the U.S. Idiot.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
Have you thought about both reasons why Nookular Boy (meaning "his
sitters") might've wanted to give Saddam time to clean up his back yard?

Only "both"? I can think of several scenarios. Iraq is just one piece of
the puzzle. Right now, the entire Arab/Islamic axis, from Algeria to the
Hindu Kush, is in flux. If all you watch is Iraq, you're liable to miss
the
show.



I suspect that EVERY country in that arc is full of people who just want to
send their kids to school and put dinner on the table every night. Just like
here. In your mind, though, it probably makes perfect sense to bomb the
bejeezus out of all of them in order to nail the 1% of the population
comprised of lunatics. Lunatics like George.