Reply to: Urban myth or truth?

[Mailman]

Mailman, what exactly is/was the goal for the war in Iraq? Oh and do try to engage the brain cell before typing, there's a good fellow.

Wasnt it so we could get all their lovely oil, thus making our prices go down...no wait...prices have been going up hasnt it? Those damned cheeky joooooooos and eskimos!

Mailman

[Mailman]

Originally Posted by zeitghost
It's a tad difficult to deploy something that doesn't actually fecking exist.


Which part of "doesn't actually fecking exist" do you find it so difficult to understand?

Any comments on this Mailman?

Hmmmm...really...absolutely no chemical weapons have been found in Iraq?

You willing to put a bet on that SG?

Mailman

[sasguru]

It's a tad difficult to deploy something that doesn't actually fecking exist.


Which part of "doesn't actually fecking exist" do you find it so difficult to understand?

Any comments on this Mailman?

[sasguru]

Im sorry darling but there is a very real difference between deployment and firing...one the anti-war goons seems to have failed to notice (ever wonder why anything related to this 45 minute claim from anti-war peace lovers always uses the word FIRE? Its so they can frighten those who might oppose the anti-war movement into backing it.

Mailman

Mailman, what exactly is/was the goal for the war in Iraq? Oh and do try to engage the brain cell before typing, there's a good fellow.

[Mailman]

Not really, in military terms deploying an asset means getting it into a position where it is ready to be used, to make it operational - ie ready to be fired.

Im sorry darling but there is a very real difference between deployment and firing...one the anti-war goons seems to have failed to notice (ever wonder why anything related to this 45 minute claim from anti-war peace lovers always uses the word FIRE? Its so they can frighten those who might oppose the anti-war movement into backing it.

Mailman

[Mailman]

Did I say "firing"? No. Read my post before you post false allegations.

Ok...LAUNCH then...there, happy now mohio?

Mailman

[DaveB]

You want to check your facts...the original claim was DEPLOY within 45 minutes. Heck of a lot of difference between that and firing the stuff!

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...iew.cgi/6/3490

http://www.archive2.official-documen...raqdossier.pdf

No where does it say anything about FIRING them.

Mailman

Not really, in military terms deploying an asset means getting it into a position where it is ready to be used, to make it operational - ie ready to be fired.

The actual firing takes an inconsequential amount of time. Given an order to deploy and engage the firing time becomes part of the deployment time in any case.

If there was a distinction between deploying and firing then it was not made clear and at no point did the govt refute the fireing interpretation untill it became clear it was going to cause them embarrassment.

The claim was made in a clear attempt to frighten those who might oppose the invasion decision into backing it.

[Paddy]

You want to check your facts...the original claim was DEPLOY within 45 minutes. Heck of a lot of difference between that and firing the stuff!

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...iew.cgi/6/3490

http://www.archive2.official-documen...raqdossier.pdf

No where does it say anything about FIRING them.

Mailman

Did I say "firing"? No. Read my post before you post false allegations.

[Mailman]

You want to check your facts...the original claim was DEPLOY within 45 minutes. Heck of a lot of difference between that and firing the stuff!

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...iew.cgi/6/3490

http://www.archive2.official-documen...raqdossier.pdf

No where does it say anything about FIRING them.

Mailman

[Paddy]

http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/30702-03.htm


Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): In his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Foreign Secretary said that the claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes was not in the original draft of the dossier released by the Government. However, the very next day, Alastair Campbell contradicted that, and said that it was in "the very first draft". Will the Prime Minister please clarify once and for all which version of events is correct?

[Mailman]

Weapons of mass destruction within 45minutes.

EXACTLY!

See, if the anti-war goons say something enough times then it suddenly becomes true

Thank you for proving my point about the anti-anything to do with america movement

Mailman

[Paddy]

Sorta like religion and anti-war rhetoric

Mailman

Weapons of mass destruction within 45minutes.

[Mailman]

The problem with urban myths they are repeated so many times and eventually taken as fact.

Sorta like religion and anti-war rhetoric

Mailman

[Paddy]

Yeah, right.

http://lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/lawlib/nov01/0285.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

Any old T I T can write for wikipedia and it seems to be used for advertising now rather than fact. I have somewhere in my archive the full case Lieback v. McDonald's, and the case did lead to the sacking of the staff involved. The woman, who was 79 years-old at the time of the accident, received third-degree burns requiring skin grafts on much of her inner thighs, buttocks, and genitals. I was an internal investigation by McDonalds led them to admit liability.


The problem with urban myths they are repeated so many times and eventually taken as fact.

[monkeyboy]

But the one about the guy who crashed his motor home when he switched on the cruise control on the freeway and went to make a cup of tea is true I believe, and the reason now why we have stupid comments in instruct manuals saying that cruise control does not mean the car can drive itself.

And I find out this one was fabricated. Oh the shame......