Think about what you are saying here.  You would basically like to believe
something because you have suspicions that there is a link between Al-Qaeda
and Iraq.  Yet you are unable to produce any kind of substantial proof.
Surely any logical person can only assume there is no link until proven
otherwise.

------------------------

This begs the question Mr. Barker.  I asked what you would consider proof?
The question still hangs.  I submit again..... if we assume for the
sake of the argument there is a link, I submit it is almost impossible to
prove.  Thus, you ask for proof which cannot be provided.

------------------------

Your starting position is that you hope that there is a link to Al-Quaeda,
you hope they find WMD's.  This stand point means you are not assessing the
situation with any kind of objectivity, you are basically desperate that
Bush and Blair were right.

------------------------

You ask again for that which, if it exists, has been concealed with
great care.  If it did exist at one time, it probably does not exist
NOW.  Bluntly, I don't CARE if Bush and Blair were right.  Deposing
Saddam was past due, and if WMD's would have been found, it would be
easier to justify to the Anti-Bush crowd.  For me, the world will be
a better place with these Baath party thugs behind bars.  The challenge
will be to get the remaining people to live together in peace.  We will
see if this can be done, I don't have a lot of hope since the Anti-Bush
crowd is playing politics as usual.

I don't know about Denys.  Paranoid, maybe, but I have seen a lot of bias
in the press, so he has a point when he says the media is biased.  Here
we are talking again about something which cannot be proven with
mathematical certianty, but is never-the-less evident to me.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *