"Lloyd Parker" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Joe wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> >> >> >> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN
who
> >as a
> >> >> body
> >> >> >> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to
> >> >having
> >> >> >> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak
at
> >> >best...
> >> >> >> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his
reign
> >of
> >> >> >> terror:...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that
information
> >as
> >> >> >facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science,
would
> >> >> >understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says
> >that
> >> >> >in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If
> >you
> >> >> >consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't
> >rocket
> >> >> >them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then
they
> >> >> >still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used
on
> >his
> >> >> >own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in
Iraq
> >> >> >(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If
> >they
> >> >> >were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that
should
> >be
> >> >> >documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of
mass.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of
mass,
> >if
> >> >> >they existed they would have to have been:
> >> >> >(1) Dissipated (by use)
> >> >> >(2) Moved and found (so far no)
> >> >> >(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built
into
> >> >> >structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
> >> >> >(4) Shot into space
> >> >>
> >> >> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their
job.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think
they
> >> >would have remembered that.
> >>
> >> They did. They reported this. Bush refused to believe them.
> >
> >And yet they kept looking for them, or are you to dumb to realize why
they
> >were there?
> >
>
> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
troops
> haven't found them.
Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that they
existed. That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as well.
Or do you think that is also a lie?
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Was this before or after they were kicked out of
> >> >Iraq by Saddam?
> >>
> >> We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.
> >
> >No, Saddam kicked them out in 1998.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for
their
> >> >> >destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
> >> >> >decided that they really didn't mean it.
> >> >>
> >> >> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed
they
> >> >did.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
> >> >braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist.
> >>
> >> Bush claimed they existed in 2003. Where is the proof?
> >>
> >
> >The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
> >happened to them.
>
> LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?
Turn your brain on for a minute Lloyd, I know thinking is painful for you,
but do try. WHEN they are found, I'll be waiting for you to admit your
ignorance, IF they are not found, you can bet they will be used someday.
Again, the fact that Saddam had them is well documented, where they are now
is a mystery, are you reallty to dumb to understand something as simple as
that, or is it all an act?
BTW, yes, I do think you are dumb, you prove it with every post you make.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >Question is Where are they
> >> >now, not do they exist.
> >>
> >> Prove their existence first
> >
> >Well documented, look it up lazy.
> >..
>
> Liar. Prove they existed this year.
Look it up lazy, should take you about ten minutes to find all the proof you
can handle. It is well documented, and has been reported numerous times.
Pull your head out of the sand, look up Halejba, he used them there. Sheesh,
you're not only dumb, you enjoy being ignorant. Saves you the trouble of
thinking.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
> >> >Saddam provide proof of it?
> >>
> >> Prove you've destroyed all traces of drugs in your house.
> >
> >Irrelevant, I have not been ordered to destroy anything.
>
> No, it illustrates you cannot prove a negative.
Even you know better than that dumbass. Read what I wrote, IF i had been
ordered to destroy any drugs, or anything for that matter, I would do so in
the presence of witnesses the government would accept, such as the UN
inspectors were in Iraq before Saddam kicked them out in 98. You do know how
to read don't you Lloyd?
>
>
> >If I were, I would
> >destroy it with legally recognized witnesses. Sasddam kept meticulous
> >records,
>
> How do you know? The US does too, but our military is even missing planes
> from its inventory.
Saddams habits are well documented, look it up lazy.
>
>
> >he could easily have provided the proof of where they were and what
> >he did, he choose not to. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he destroyed
them
> >but choose not to reveal that, hopeing to use them as a bluff. Well, we
> >caled his bluff.
>
> Yeah, we broke international law, invaded a country, and find out we were
lied
> to as the reaons.
We enforced international law, which Saddam has been violating for twelve
years. Yes, we invaded a country, and the majority of the Iraqi people are
glad we did, of course, the Liberal media focuses on the negative, so the
positive results are seldom reported until you talk to people who are
actually there. And yes, I have, though a liar like you will never believe
anyone ever tells the truth.
>
> >Thak you for once again proving yourself an ignorant, closed-minded
Liberal.
>
> Thank you for once again proving yourself a war-mongering sheep of a
> right-winger.
LOL, you're a joke Lloyd. The difference between you and me is that although
I hate the war as much as you do, I know that the price of freedom is always
paid for with the blood of brave men and women. A warmongering sheep? When
did you ever see a sheep go to war?
There is a time for talk and negotiation, there is a time to back it up.
There is also a time for you to grow up, and now is the time. The real world
isn't all sugar and spice, sometimes you have to trim a few thorns.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
> >> >to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
> >> >
> >> >! =-----
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
