Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:50:41 GMT From: Paul Halliday <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ethanol ?
in article 492oseFl5tmnU1nospamvidual.net, Dave Hinz at DaveHinznospamcop.net wrote on 30/03/2006 20:12: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:59:55 GMT, Paul Halliday <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> in article 4921u6Fmi00rU1nospamvidual.net, Dave Hinz at DaveHinznospamcop.net >> wrote on 30/03/2006 13:40: >> >>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:01:17 GMT, Paul Halliday <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> So the US holding long range weapons is okay? For Israel, it's okay? But >>>> when a country, like Iraq, Iran or Pakistan get hold of them, they're >>>> criminals (or at least potential criminals) and that's wrong? >>> >>> Let's see. Which of those countries have used WMD against their _own >>> citizens_? >> >> Wow! Just wow! That really is a naïve statement. Since you obviously don't >> want an answer (and this stream is largely a you and me discussion), I won't >> bother pointing out what's wrong with that statement. > > Well, the kurds were his country's citizens. And last I checked, chem > weapons are WMDs. I was not denying that ... Look at the rest of the characters involved. >>>> That really is twisted logic. >>> >>> I think we're done with this topic, I can't see it going anywhere >>> useful. >> >> A pertinent point, nevertheless ... > > It certainly is. > >>>>> Luckily for the world, most dictators seem to have that whole arrogant >>>>> disregard of logic thing going for them. >>>> >>>> Like a certain Bush duo? >>> >>> Yes, we're definately done. >> >> So when I criticise the US and its leadership of the same errors and >> injustices that the US does of others, there can be no conversation? > > No, when you basically equate the Bushes with hitler, it's clear that > there's no point in further point/counterpoint. A very popular opinion. I don't see why it should stop any discussion, since they were the main figures along with Hussein in both of those fiascos. > The fact that you > apparently also don't know or recall that the best available information > before the war was that SH was a credible threat. "Best available information" ... Of course, just look at the receipts ... Both the UK and the US knew what weapons we sold him; us more than you. So, what credible threat was there? He could not fire directly upon the UK or the US, or Europe. He was a credible threat to the region which meant de-stabilising the oil barrel price. > Believe it or not, sometimes it's about doing the right thing, or the > least-wrong thing, not about money. Oh dear ... Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
