Re: OT: Canada Agrees to be Missile Target

I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote (in <pan.2005.05.06.17.24.10.225334@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) about 'OT: Canada Agrees to be Missile Target', on Fri, 6 May 2005: 
On Fri, 06 May 2005 15:54:35 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul Burke <paul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote
(in <3e1dg8Fn8u9U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) about 'OT: Canada Agrees to be
Missile Target', on Fri, 6 May 2005:

The French gave up supporting Arafat a few months ago. 

Not too surprising, since he was dead.

And IIRC, French 'military intelligence' DID say there were WMD around. 

I think the repugnacrats are merely pissed off at France because they
didn't cosign Prince George's bull***.

In fact, the issue, like almost all issues these days, has been totally bogged down in propaganda and spin.

IMHO, WMD are irrelevant, even if regarded as an 'excuse' for attack. It ***simply didn't work*** as an excuse to get a second UN resolution and carry Continental European governments into the Alliance. So why go on about it? Blair has already said that, "but then, he would, wouldn't he?" Nevertheless, it's true.

SH had already attacked Iraqi people in the north and south of his own country, as well as Iran. He clearly wasn't going to stop. So he had to be stopped.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
.