Skip to comments.
Bush feeling heat after Saudi attacks
Taipei Times ^
| 5.16.03
Posted on 05/16/2003 5:34:30 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 last
Comment #41 Removed by Moderator
To: Concerned Gentleman
I notice that most of your posts since you've signed up 2 days ago usually take the conservative-contrary viewpoint. Trolling?
To: MightyMouseToSaveThe Day
He was sort of polite, but nothing but a trolling R-basher.
43
posted on
05/16/2003 2:07:08 PM PDT
by
palmer
(ohmygod this bulldozer is like, really heavy?)
To: palmer
Yes, he's been careful to be polite, but politeness doesn't disguise the fact that most of his postings since he joined 2 days ago have been apologies for the Left.
To: Concerned Gentleman
The export of weaponized nuke/chem/bio ingredients is a violation of law. Take anthrax, for example. If a lab in North Dakota exports anthrax cultures to Iraq, then it's no big deal (at least it
was no big deal) . . . anthrax is naturally-occurring and has legitimate research applications. On the other hand, the export of anthrax ground into powder fine enough (not an easy task) to remain suspended in air (essential for weapons purposes--hence the term "weaponized") is a violation of both domestic law and ratified international treaty.
It is no secret that we shipped anthrax to Iraq in the past. No credible study, anywhere, has ever found that the U.S. shipped weaponized anthrax. The Left bends itself into pretzels to confuse the two, hoping that the public cannot tell the difference. After all, "we declared war in order to take away the weapons we gave them" makes for good propaganda.
The same is true for "mustard gas," or any other chemical weapon. No one has ever proven (heck I'd settle for "credibly asserted") that the U.S. shipped chemical weapons to Iraq. Arguing with someone who makes the claim is like nailing Jello to a wall. If he is intellectually honest, then he will admit that he is speaking of "dual-use" chemicals (or machinery, for that matter). Again, deliberate obfuscation is the norm, for political purposes.
As an aside, it really hasn't been that long since you could buy anthrax (or nastier "germs") and have it shipped to your "home" (as long as you identified it as a lab, or some such nonsense) via UPS. The point I'm making is, if you did so, the argument that the U.S. government or a U.S. corporation "helped" you develop a bio-weapon would be seen as ridiculous.
45
posted on
05/16/2003 2:17:54 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
Darn, I composed that reply to someone who was banned? I think I will start a new thread asking the Mods why. Well, maybe not.
46
posted on
05/16/2003 2:20:21 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
Comment #47 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson