Canada Believes Saddam Had WMD

Boy, he better not, as he's skating on thin ice already! I'm more inclined to think he's kissing ass a bit to get our live cattle across the border again!

Im sitting here with a cold beverage and some UTZ potato chips.waiting to hear how Occams Razor provides us with a comfortable fact filled answer to your proposition .
Certain we were, that the chemical agent Sarin was in the hands of Hussein I certainly would have mobilized the Alabama National Guard to Invade Iraq, had this Sarin shell been known to exist 15 months ago. Why this shell could, alone have been the one that rolled off the truck that was escaping to Syria containing the rest of the Sarin filled shells that now , alas are in the hands of others because we invaded Iraq because we were sure they had Sarin filled shells.
Does that reasoning somehow sound a bit circular? Our administration feels not.
This sounds like a cruel parallel to the story behind the old Arlo Guthrie song,"Alices Restaurant" ,wherein ,ARlo, our hero,felt that a big single pile of trash in a known spot was much preferred to a series of smaller piles laying about who knows where.

Boy genius--be thankful that the ground forces of the Canadian aArmy are best equipped to fight blizzards . Theyre equipment all have snowplows up front. Therefore they could be deemed non-critical materiel.
Tell Martin that I speak only for me and to suppose that we even accept that he speaks forall of Canada is like the position of patriotic solidarity that we in the lower provinces have with our administration.. after all, are they not all honorable men?

Mr. Farmerman:

You may be right. There may have been only one shell filled with Sarin. On the other hand, there may be hundreds more in Iraq.

You must know, sir, that Occam's razor( sometimes written as Ockham's razor) is sometimes referred to as the Law of Economy. It states that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity and that the simplest hypothesis is probably the correct one.

I am of the opinion that the simplest hypothesis is that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction all along.

I simply cannot understand why he did not allow inspections if, as some say, he did not have WMD's

Nevertheless, Mr. Farmerman, if the philosophical explanation from Occam is not to your liking, you may be more amenable to an argument from authority.

It is well known that the most brilliant president of the twentieth century; a man who had superb, in-depth knowledge of foreign relations, was Bill Clinton.

On December 18th 1998, President Clinton said, in a speech to the American people shortly after ordering that missles be sent to bomb Baghdad:


quote

"If Saddam can cripple ther weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday, make no mistake, he will use it again as he had in the past"

How could any president elected after the most brilliant president of the twentieth century read such words from the best policy wonk of modern times and disregard the danger???

Remember his 'this is BS!!' comments?

More mischief from Chalabi & Co: Powell misled

so, you maintain that, with all things being equal, the simplest explanation works. Well, It doesnt take a genius to infer that a simple explanation was that Hussein was merely allowing his past practices dictate his present reputation. Hes better served in the Arab world should everyone believe he has a pile of WMDs extant.
His leadership wasnt that which resulted in a "Golden Age" of Iraq, so Occoms razor may be that he was bluffing like in poker .

All the lives lost to date and money for that one shell and his sorry ass. Fair trade? I still need some mmajor convincing.
Truth is, we have no idea about anything. Thats the rule of "farmermans Baler" . My baler is a very wondrous machine that takes hay mows and stuffs it into 700 pouns square bales of hay. However It never works right and is always out of tension and always needs a good tweaking in the hayfield. Ive had it looked at by the implement people continuously during haying season and they try things and tell me its finally working and , as soon as I get it out in the field it turns into a huge rolling pile of scrap
metal that looks like a great preying mantis. If I had any brains Id cut my losses in time wasted and sell this crappy machine.
The parallel is that, probably, we will, with great fanfare , attempt to tweak the Iraqi adventure so as to make it "work", even as we attempt to reinforce to the public, all the reasons that we acted unilaterally. All the time, if wae had any sense of hhonor and national resolve , we should be going after the salesman of this POS and fire him.

Well, for god's sake man! As I've tenderly advised you previously, your ambitions outreach the attainable. As Posh Spice said, "Golly, I'd like to compose a symphony with, you know, pages and pages of that paper with the lines and the spots."

Forget the 700 pounds. That's like three dead milk cows...very hard to stack with precision if you are the unlucky bastard at the top of the elevator in 120 degrees and with hayseeds lacerating your ass. Think Kellog's Miniwheats. You want one pound bales. Hell, at that size, you can even bind them with Christmas ribbon, which would look very attractive - your north forty all atwinkle in the summer sun.

hi Mr. Stillwater- Chabali is a ruthless criminal and his background is very likely the reason Bush and Co. selected him to carry out the violations of international law.

Like Nick Berg's beheading.

Hi y'self sweetlips. Love that name, reminds me of my very own nickname for Voyager's '7of9': '36ofDD'.


Mr C first came to my attention, when I read (can't remember where right now) that even when the Pres was like.... pretending... that he hadn't made his mind up about invading Iraq, he was already making deals selling Iraqi oil. Some folks may think he was prescient. I'd say it was a complete set-up, years in the making.

Mr. Mporter, I think a fair argument can be made that Mr. Finn D'Abuzz saved this thread. Before he posted his conclusion, the discourse had descended to a comparison of gyros and roadkill.

Far be it for me, though, to further inflate the already swelled head of Mr. Finn D'Abuzz.

Whew!

His aides were quick to explain (with a little help from Campbell Clark) that he didn't mean Bush was right about WMDs and the real thrust of his speech was that the world is worse off now that the US has invaded Iraq.
Damage control in full operation.

Funny, how his opponents in Bloc Québécois heard it differently.

Little Stevie Hunter probably heard it differently as well. I saw a piece on the News Hour recently which reported that Hunter's operatives are trying to compare Marin to Bush in that he is a son of privilege. Meanwhile Martin's folks want to Canada to see Hunter as George Bush in flannel with a Moosehead in his hand. Gosh, maybe Canada does hate GWB.

Mr. Finn: I was just pulling your leg. I know that you will agree with me that Mr. Blatham fills his posts with what can be described as non-sequiturs. On another thread, he pronounced that a Time Magazine article I referenced did not exist. Mr. Blatham is safe when he prattles about Kellog's Miniwheats--anything excpet facts.

And I, in a way, yours.

I enjoy Mr. Blatham's posts - non-sequitors and all.

They sure beat:

"Martin is the new PM, previous PM thought what everyone else who can think believed, it was a load of sheeit. Martin is a King George I a** kisser, I wouldn't be surprised to see him sending troops off to help his buddy."

But don't you just want to smack his avatar?

finn

I went looking for a transcript of the speech several days ago, but couldn't find one. Martin is smart fellow, and the original canoe piece didn't accord with what I'd expect the man to voice or think. Damage control is a correct description of what followed, but I'm not sure if it followed on the speech or the interpretations of it. GWB is not terribly popular up here, I confess. But then again, where is he?

Why, in the hearts and minds of every freedom loving person on God's Green Earth.

I think he will be re-elected and I hope he will be re-elected. If that doesn't sit well with Canadians, Western (Old) Europeans, Brazilians and Russkies...so be it.

I can sympathize with them.

If the Prime Minister of Canada was the most powerful man on earth and dwarfed the American President in terms of global influence (I know, I know, I'm stretching to make a point) then I would be generally pissed off that I didn't get to vote for him, and hopeful that the Canadians would elect a Gordon Milquetoast who was all for ceding Canada's power to the UN.

You guys vote for Martin or Hunter and we'll vote for Bush or Kerry. I would venture to say that the number of Canadians who are interested in the outcome of our election will approach the number interested in their own. Meanwhile, I doubt that 1 in 100,000 Americans could tell you who Martin was, let alone Hunter.

A source of pride? Not at all. Too many Americans are woefully ignorant of the world around them (and their own country if the truth be told). However, arrogance born of power does have a way of frosting those who don't share it, and so I don't wring my hands too often over America's image in the world.

This past Sunday George Stephanopolis was interviewing, among others, an Arab journalist. George pointed out that Bush and Rumsfeld, who never apologize for anything, apologized for the prisoner abuse in Iraq. The Arab journalist replied to the effect of "American ears heard an apology, but Arab ears heard arrogance."

Tough not to reply "Tough sh*t bub"

Then again this same journalist tried to blame America for the fact that there is not a single democracy among the Arab nations. Farek Zakaria (hardly a Bush lover) was compelled to reply to the effect "So we're to blame for even that (Arab tyrants)?"

The jackals will always nip at the heels of the lion.

Who gets to play Lion and who gets to play the jackals may change over time, but the roles don't.

Oh no, Finn, I would never smack his avatar.

One has only to look and ponder--What does his avatar tell us?

Authority; majesty; maturity.

I would never have dreamed of smacking his avatar, that is, until the other day when he, apparently without doing even a basic amount of research, opined: "well, since you referenced a Time Issue which apparently does not exist".

At that point, Finn, the "authority, majesty and maturity of the avatar disappeared and was replaced by pure pomposity. I know that opinions can differ but labeling a person's quotes as being from an "issue which apparently does not exist" is an act that can only be performed by a pompous person.

Therefore, I would never smack the avatar. I would be afraid that it would burst like a hot air balloon.

mporter

Sorry, but you're not going to drag me into a bash blatham parade.

I think he chose the avatar precisely for its smackable qualities.

M. Finn D'Abuzz

I would not bash Blatham. That would be offensive. All I wanted to do was to point out that he, essentially, called me a liar in the Friday May 14, 2004 post in which he said:

quote:

"Well, since your reference a Time issue which apparently does not exist."

The reason, Finn, I took umbrage at this is because I know that false referencing is a fatal blow to credibility.

I would never bash Mr. Blatham like he bashed me.

I must confess that I do enjoy, in some perverse way, the image of the imperious Mountie surveying the peasants who live down the hill.

Martin is a capital "L" Liberal, not a liberal;

the Canadia/en parties happen to have the names Liberal, and Conservative, but in each party there is a spectrum of views rendering the names approximate at best, and Martin tends to be a conservative Liberal!

that said in my opinion some of what he is quoted as saying makes sense, and some does not.
It is of little consequence which because using a politition's comments as a reference in an arguement, is about as safe as using a cheese cloth condom!

I noted your comment, BoWoGo. It is something that calls for thought.

"Using a Politicians' comment as a reference in an argument is about as safe as using a cheese cloth condom"

You may be correct, BoWoGo. I would like to see everyone adopting your standard. However, as long as the radical left continues to use the words of the Republican Administration to inform their commentaries, I am very much afraid that the opposition will have to do the same.

As I said, BoWoGo, you may be correct, however, you cannot deny, that by the mere fact of his status, a statement by the PM must affect the thinking of many Canadian citizens who have insufficient information concerning WMD's.