OT: Apple, tree..not falling far from...etc

On Feb 20, 2:35 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > What evidence do you have that there was anything to hide?
>
> LOL, I am going to use a comment that Doug once made that applies well
> here.
>
> Not exactly as he put it but it goes something like,,,
>
> Some people are not going to believe being told that "this" pot of boiling
> water is going to burn you if you put your hand in it. Those people need to
> put their hands into the boiling water to make sure.
>
> Now at some time in the past that person was told that a pot of boiling
> water is going to burn you if you put your hand into it. But that was then,
> it may be different now, the pot of boiling water may not burn your hand if
> you put your hand in it, now.

How about this:

You tell me to be afraid of someone because he is going to
throw a pot of boiling water on me. I ask you, "Where's the
pot, and where's the water?" You say you don't know.
How scared should I be?

> A similar comparison, SH did have weapons of mass destruction and used them
> on his people. But that was then, it may be different now, October 2002.
> We do know that he banned weapons inspectors from his country during that
> period of time. If you have nothing to hide why shun the inspectors?

Posturing. Spies.

>
> There is a point where further explanation of a common sense deduction needs
> no further explanation. That person either gets it or he never will.

I'll repeat a point here, maybe you'll get it.

Suppose, in 2002, Saddam Hussein had lots of Sarin, VX,
Anthrax and so one. Could he use them to attack the United
States? No. Could he use them to attack his neighbors?
Sure, and he would succeed in uniting the rest of the world
against him to remove him once and for all. Could he have
used them against the Kurds or Shia, sure and with the same
consequences.

So even IF he had chemical and biological weapons, it would
not be worth our while to invade Iraq for that reason.

While on the topic of logic, what would be the rationale
behind making and stockpiling weapons that had a shelf
life measured in months?

--

FF

On Feb 21, 12:25 pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:11:57 -0800, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > I have concluded that this administration cannot be trusted
> > because they have been caught in so many deceptions.
>
> The most benign explanation of why the Bush administration wanted a war
> was that some of them felt that they could establish a democracy in Iraq
> ...
> As far as deceptions, I wonder how many in the US still believe that Iraq
> was responsible for 9/11? At one point it was over 50%. And Bush seldom,
> if ever, directly stated that they were - he just couldn't say "Iraq"
> without saying "9/11" and vice versa.

If one has to trick people into doing "the right thing", maybe
one should reconsider one's sense of right and wrong.

--

FF

On Feb 19, 10:51 am, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 19, 6:50 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 7:35 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> > > Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> > > Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> > > Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> > > evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> > > extraordinary."
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > What an arrogant piece of shit.
>
> > Clairvoyance??? That was never necessary. We had weapons inspectors on
> > the ground, in Iraq. Teams guided by Scott Ritter and Hans Blix
> > followed US intelligence information from site to site and found - get
> > this - NOTHING. That's right, NOTHING. It was only after these
> > failures that the concept of "mobile weapons labs" was devised. At
> > that point, Ms Clinton should have known they were making shit up. The
> > Administration's reaction to each investigative failure read like
> > satire. "We visited that site and found nothing." "Well, that's
> > because they put biological weapons on trucks and move them around..."
> > It would be funny if not for the final outcome.
>
> The AUMF was approved BEFORE UNMOVIC had boots on the
> ground. It was the AUMF that forced Saddam Hussein to open
> Iraq up for inspections. Areas denied to USCOM, like the palaces,
> were open to UNMOVIC. UNMOVIC used helicopter to arrive at
> sites within hours of receiving the latest US intel.
>

Your timeline is correct and a better question would have been "Has
your mother shown any remorse for how she handled herself during the
ramp up to war?" I assume - perhaps incorrectly given the
administration's belligerence - that Congressional intervention could
have prevented the invasion. By the spring of 2003 - yes after the
AUMF - it was clear the threat was non-existent yet opposition to the
mounting invasion was nearly moot. Mrs. Clinton was on board well into
the Iraq War. If she wants to run on experience that was amassed
during her White House years, then we must assume she had access -
either directly or through her husband - to an assessment of Desert
Fox. Did she seriously think that Iraq was capable of reconstituting
those programs while it was constrained by American force?

Jeff

Robatoy wrote:

> "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> extraordinary."
> .
> .

This is one that I'm going to side with Chelsea on. Seems everyone
forgets that little detail. Check out "Shadow Warriors" by Kenneth
Timmerman.

> .
> .
> .
> What an arrogant piece of shit.

The student? Yeah

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy wrote:
> "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> extraordinary."
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> What an arrogant piece of shit.


A stupid and a rather inaccurate question......Her vote on its own didn't do
much of anything (it would have easily passed if she had been out
campaigning that day<G>) and there has not been a million deaths nor
anywhere close to it. With 25 million people in the country 1 in 25 have not
died. Such numbers in graveyards would even put to shame Saddam's ample mass
graves .....Ignoring WMD existing or not Saddam was a very bad ruler whom
had killed many, who was responsible for even more and had clearly ignored
and violated the very cease fire he had agreed upon. Nonetheless the
appropriate answer would have defended the original vote with a possible
caveat that indeed Saddam should have been removed in 1998 when he kicked
the inspectors out of his country. There is no hope for UN effectiveness if
there is no muscle behind its resolutions....the corrupt Iraq food for Oil
UN program obviously precluded much UN muscle flexing.

Incidentally numbers are odd little critters often used or grossly inflated
for sake of argument by either side.....In Kosovo when attempting to paint
Milosivic as a "bad guy" they often claimed 100,000-200,000 deaths when
indeed when all was said and done they couldn't find 10,000 including the
ones we bombed....they also called him a dictator in spite of him being
legitimately elected three times and all seem to conveniently forget that he
voluntarily left office when he lost the fourth election.....and when trying
him for war crimes they could not make a case and simply left him in
prison(4 yrs?) until his bad ticker took him......Rod

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:46 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Her vote on its own
>> didn't do much of anything (it would have easily passed if she had
>> been out campaigning that day<G>) and there has not been a million
>> deaths nor anywhere close to it. With 25 million people in the
>> country 1 in 25 have not died. ...
>
> Do you have a basis for this other than wanting it to be true? If
> the estimates in the Lancet Studies are correct, there are several
> other countries with a higher simple mortality rate than Iraq.

The Lancet studies did not suggest a million deaths so that point is clearly
moot...... Numbers, cause or whom is responsible would seem to be the larger
problem with the Lancet survey.

I do think the Lancet conclusions are erroneous since most importantly
physical proof is lacking (bodies)....The small cluster sampling could
easily be prone to magnified error, oddly in defense of the small sampling
traditional political survey methodology is cited, of which is frequently
wrong......Soro's funding would make any conclusion suspect.....Most other
studies clearly do not support the Lancet conclusions, in fact not even
remotely close except for the OSB studies which claims the Lancet study
understates by almost half....the studies author has clearly defined
anti-war prejudice.....original Iraq baseline death rates were probably
minimized.... Strangely enough survey participant produced death
certificates are used to validate the study(a claimed 90%) when in fact
official death certificates issued only account for a very small percentage
of the surveys conclusions, strongly implying a robust counterfeiting ring
of death certificates<G>.......Rod

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> On Feb 19, 4:46 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>> > "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
>> > Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
>> > Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>>
>> > Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
>> > evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
>> > extraordinary."
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>> > What an arrogant piece of shit.
>>
>> A stupid and a rather inaccurate question......Her vote on its own didn't
>> do much of anything (it would have easily passed if she had been out
>> campaigning that day<G>) and there has not been a million deaths nor
>> anywhere close to it. With 25 million people in the country 1 in 25 have
>> not died. ...
>
> Do you have a basis for this other than wanting it to be true? If
> the estimates in the Lancet Studies are correct, there are several
> other countries with a higher simple mortality rate than Iraq.
>

Why Fred, I'm surprised that someone as widely read as yourself has not
found the numerous refutations that have show the Lancet study results to
be erroneous, used flawed methodology, was performed by an agenda-driven
researcher who got his funding from an even more agenda-driven benefactor.

[No, I'm not going to provide references, there are plenty out there that
are easy to find]

> --
>
> FF

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:11:57 -0800, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>> I don't believe the war was started on a whim. I've concluded
>> that it was NOT started to protect us because that is where
>> the evidence has lead me.
>>
>> I have concluded that this administration cannot be trusted
>> because they have been caught in so mane deceptions.
>
> The most benign explanation of why the Bush administration wanted a war
> was that some of them felt that they could establish a democracy in Iraq
> that would serve as a beacon for all the oppressive states in the middle
> east. They would all become democracies, love the US, and thus ensure
> our oil supplies.
>
> I don't know what they were smoking, but they obviously didn't understand
> how those people think :-).
>

Take a read of Kenneth Timmerman's "Shadow Warriors". He makes some
cogent arguments that the real failing of the Bush administration was not
doing what all previous administrations have done by cleaning house in the
various bureaucracies when he took office. Thus, he had people who had been
appointed by the previous administration who were adamantly opposed to his
policies in charge of implimementing his policies. He points out areas
where some of the actions taken by State Department bureaucrats after the
ground war were partially to blame for the action turning into an
occupation. Ditto for CIA career bureaucrats undermining the
administration in various ways, including deliberately leaking classified
information to the media. These actions undermined the administration in
ways that were damaging both to it and to the people serving overseas.




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

>
>> There was evidence of some shipments going to other sympathetic
>> countries,...
>
> What evidence?
>
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

Hard evidence, no, but some.

Glen

> Now you have gone off-point, as Iraq was NOT known to have
> poison gas in it's possession as of the Fall of 2002.
>
It depends upon whom you ask.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Glen

On Feb 19, 4:53 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> > Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> > Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> > Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> > evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> > extraordinary."
> > .
> > .
>
> This is one that I'm going to side with Chelsea on. Seems everyone
> forgets that little detail. Check out "Shadow Warriors" by Kenneth
> Timmerman.

What little detail?

Senator Clinton has admitted that she did NOT read the classified
portions of the October 2002 NIE when they were made available
to the Congress. So she didn't base her vote on the US intel.

An AUMF differs from a declaration of war in that it does
not compel the nation to go to war.

The AUMF was necessary to force Saddam Hussein to
open Iraq up for inspections. He did, the inspectors found
that Iraq was not a threat, and then we invaded anyways.

--

FF

On Feb 20, 4:57 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am afraid, Fred, you are going to argue with simple logic for the sake of
> argument.
> In this matter, if your trust in absolute evidence only by your own eyes
> over what many people consider common sense was not so sad, it would be
> comical.

I don't think you are familiar with the concept of logic.

--

FF

On Feb 19, 4:46 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> > Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> > Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> > Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> > evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> > extraordinary."
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > What an arrogant piece of shit.
>
> A stupid and a rather inaccurate question......Her vote on its own didn't do
> much of anything (it would have easily passed if she had been out
> campaigning that day<G>) and there has not been a million deaths nor
> anywhere close to it. With 25 million people in the country 1 in 25 have not
> died. ...

Do you have a basis for this other than wanting it to be true? If
the estimates in the Lancet Studies are correct, there are several
other countries with a higher simple mortality rate than Iraq.

--

FF

In article
<[email protected]>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:


> That snot-
> nosed Clinton crotchfruit

Awe damn, Robatoy! Now I have to clean the coffee off of the screen and
out of the keyboard.

"Crotchfruit" will now go into my thesaurus as a synonym for all to see
:-)

Joe
aka 10x

On Feb 19, 10:30 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> > Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> > Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> > Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> > evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> > extraordinary."
> > ..
> > ..
> > ..
> > ..
> > ..
> > What an arrogant piece of shit.
>
> I'm about as far from being a Clinton fan as you're likely to find, but
> the student here was just being an obnoxious prick, and not really
> trying to make a point.
>
> As for Hillary not reading the report, most senators did not read the
> report. They attended a briefing given by intelligence experts who gave
> them the meat of the report.

Trust AND verify.

>
> I don't blame her for voting the way she did, most americans were
> convinced that there was a real danger from Iraq.

I don't either because the AUMF was needed to force Saddam
Hussein to accept inspectors. When those inspections showed,
conclusively, that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program any
notion that Iraq was threat vanished. Chemical and bioweapons
just aren't in the same category.

>
> The difference between my viewpoint and hers is, like many americans,
> when they didn't find MWDs, she assumed that there had never been any
> danger at all. It was a politically expedient viewpoint for her to take.
>
> Iraq killed hundreds of thousands Iranians and its own citizens (those
> who didn't believe in the right branch of islam) with chemical weapons
> before we ever stepped foot over there.

Saddam Hussein didn't just kill Shia Iraqis, he also killed Iraqi
Kurds.

> To deny that there were MWDs, or that Iraq was working to create bigger
> and better ones, is to deny the fact that they were already using these
> weapons for years. A foolish stance founded on political desire, not
> factual evidence.

Nonsense. It recognizes that Iraq's WMD infrastructure was destroyed
in the 1991 war and subsequent UNSCOM inspections. No factories,
no weapons. One of the key elements to understanding why Iraq was
not a threat was the short shelf life of Iraqi chemical weapons. With
the exception of mustard, they degraded to ineffectiveness in months.

Another key is to recognize that even with chemical weapons, Saddam
Hussein was never able to permanently expand beyond his borders.

By the time we invaded there was no credible evidence that Iraq had
nuclear chemical or biological weapons, or that production was
imminent.

ANY nation with a chemical industry can make chemical weapons. That
Iraq had to potential to do so is virtually a tautology.

--

FF

On Feb 19, 3:20 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:00 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> There isn't however, hard evidence gathered by our inspectors to verify
> >> these claims.
> >> But as you said, given enough time, that evidence is not that hard to
> >> get rid of.
>
> > What evidence do you have that there was anything to hide?
>
> Read the previous two sentences. I think I just said there wasn't any.

Then I think you accept the argument that the case for Iraqi having
WMD was bogus.

Better late than never.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:00 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There isn't however, hard evidence gathered by our inspectors to verify
>> these claims.
>> But as you said, given enough time, that evidence is not that hard to
>> get rid of.
>
> What evidence do you have that there was anything to hide?

Read the previous two sentences. I think I just said there wasn't any.

On Feb 19, 4:28 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>...
> If you are in possession of hard evidence to support your position, I'd
> like you to scan it, or photograph it, then send it to me and some
> network news types. I'm sure they'd like to see it too.

http://www.iaea.org/googleResult.html?cx=004828748078731094376%3Am_jpm98tdns&cof=FORID%3A11&q=iraq&sa.x=0&sa.y=0&sa=Submit#1136

http://www.iraqfact.com/Niger_docs.html

http://www.unmovic.org/

--

FF

On Feb 19, 11:51=A0am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Listen, I'm not pro-war. I want us out of there. But you're making the
> same assertions made by all those who are bleating that W just WANTED a
> war, that maybe he didn't get a pony on his fifth birthday and this is
> his way of making up for it.
> It doesn't hold water.
> You've told us why there shouldn't have been a war. Why do you think
> there is a war? Is it the pony thing, or the pleasing daddy thing, or what=
?

You left out one of many other possibilities. One of them being that W
sold his soul to the big guns of special interest groups, and the war
was pay-back time. "We'll get you the job, but once in there, you owe
us."
The defense contractors, KBR, and many more 'big guns' have done
extremely well because of that war. Then again, you could be one of
those who doesn't believe The Carlyle Group exists or that they have
any influence in foreign policy. (Look at their BOD)
It has NEVER been different... follow the money. Who benefits?
The 5th birth day pony arguments, etc,....you are right, those do not
hold water.

Another possibility is pressure from a religious lobby, to bring on
the New World Order that Bush 41 talked about.

What the hell do I know... but don't limit W's motives to simple
thoughts.

r

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> extraordinary."
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> What an arrogant piece of shit.

Depends on what your definition of the word "shit" is.

B.

The question is cheap rhetorical trick

Rob, If we asked you: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" would the
answer be yes or no?

IMO, it was an appropriate response to something that happens way too much
in US politics: media types (or plants by the oposition) that ask questions
designed not to elicit an answer but to simply embarass recipient.

-Steve

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> extraordinary."
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> What an arrogant piece of shit.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Robatoy wrote:
> "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> extraordinary."
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> What an arrogant piece of shit.

Referring to the juvenile opinion the the student, of course?

Joe

On Feb 19, 3:23 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:06 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Feb 19, 11:51 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >>> us."
> >>> The defense contractors, KBR, and many more 'big guns' have done
> >>> extremely well because of that war. Then again, you could be one of
> >>> those who doesn't believe The Carlyle Group exists or that they have
> >>> any influence in foreign policy. (Look at their BOD)
> >>> It has NEVER been different... follow the money. Who benefits?
> >>> The 5th birth day pony arguments, etc,....you are right, those do not
> >>> hold water.
> >>> Another possibility is pressure from a religious lobby, to bring on
> >>> the New World Order that Bush 41 talked about.
> >>> What the hell do I know... but don't limit W's motives to simple
> >>> thoughts.
> >> So he and Dick Cheney decided that killing millions would be a cool way
> >> to make some extra cash?
> >> Jebus made him do it?
>
> > He wouldn't be the first. The Saudis certainly made a lot
> > of money from the invasion.
>
> >> Unfortunately, both sides of this debate over simplify what little
> >> factual information we're allowed to see, then villify and ridicule the
> >> other viewpoints until we're left with very little real information on
> >> which to base our opinions.
>
> > One side lied. The other sides may speculate as to why,
> > but that doesn't change the facts.
>
> You think only the people on one side of this issue are lying? I doubt
> that.

Your doubts are well-founded. I don't think that. But clearly
one lying side had the power and made the decisions.

However, the point that Iraqi chemical weapons were short-lived
has never been disputed by any parties to the controversy.
The Bush administration never even tried to rebut that, they
jsut ignored the argument.

> Seriously. Really. You realize I'm talking politics here right?
> And I wish we knew what the facts really are. Point is, we don't.

Have you any doubt at all that the yellowcake documents submitted
to the IAEA were forgeries?

--

FF

On Feb 20, 3:40 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:38 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:00:21 +0000, DS wrote:
>
> > > Shipments like that involve many people. I find it hard to believe that
> > > not one has come forward.
>
> > One simple explanation could be, SH told Syria, Iran, etc, come and get
> > them. Neither of those countries are known as being forth coming.
>
> Are you high? Do you seriously think Hussein armed his enemies?

It wold appear that Leon has taken a page from the Bush playbook,
and has adopted the Plan Nine from Outer Space argument:
"Can you prove it didn't happen?"

--

FF

On Feb 20, 2:38 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:00:21 +0000, DS wrote:
>
> > Shipments like that involve many people. I find it hard to believe that
> > not one has come forward.
>
> One simple explanation could be, SH told Syria, Iran, etc, come and get
> them. Neither of those countries are known as being forth coming.

Anybody can make up a dozen explanations.

What _evidence_ do you have that he had resumed production--
ion spite of the fact that it made no sense to stockpile weapons
with a shelf life measured in months?

--

FF

On Feb 20, 5:51 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 4:28 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Again, what evidence do you have for those claims?
> > Were they referring to 2002, or 1991?
>
> > I showed you a little teeny tiny piece of mine. Why not show
> > me some of yours?
>
> I'm a bit surprised that you included the UNMOVIC site in your evidence.

What did you think of the yellowcake documents?

> Reading the security council briefings, which went on until the
> cessation of their Iraq mission, spoke strongly to the unresolved nature
> of the issue.

There were several of what Blix referred to as 'discrepencies' where
documentation was considered to be insufficient. A major difficulty
was accounting for all dual use material that could have been
diverted to chemical weapon use, but could also have been
use legally.

Please specify the briefings (e.g. date) so we can be sure we
are looking at the same thing.

> High points:
> They looked around but didn't find much.
> They said that didn't mean they weren't there, just that they didn't
> find it. That's not surprising considering there were 130 munitions
> sites, and they didn't have a chance to look at them all.

It is also unsurprising since a negative hypothesis cannot
be logically proved. UNMOVIC could never claim Iraq had
proved that it had no WMD. Even Assuming that Iraq did
not, the best UNMOVIC could ever justifiably say is that
they didn't find any, not that there weren't any.

They visited over 400 sites, most without giving any advance
notice to the Iraqis and some by helicopter, arriving within hours
of receiving the latest US intel.

>
> Discrepancies in what the Iraqi inventory said they built, and what was
> disposed of or destroyed were at least 1000 tons of CW agent.

I ask you to specify the UNMOVIC report that said that.

As I recall,
regarding VX, UNMOVIC found trace evidence at the disposal site
consistent with the disposal of VX, but was unable to determine the
quantity. I'd like to know how you got from 'unable to determine
the quantity', to a specific figure.

> 100 tons of CW would take up a storage area around the size of an
> average swimming pool. All 1000 tons could be stored in a small
> facility. (2 of the 130 Iraqi munitions dumps are each larger than
> Manhattan.)

Aside from mustard, Iraqi chemical warfare agents couldn't
be stored at all.

>
> Iraq claims that they created very limited, experimental amounts of VX,
> one of the most powerful nerve agents in existence. And that the VX they
> created lasted only a couple of weeks before degrading.
> UNMOVIC found documentation detailing Iraq's solution to this problem,
> creating a chemical precursor to VX that has much longer shelf life.
> This precursor would require additional processing to refine it into VX,
> a quick and relatively easy procedure.

Yes, Iraq had some 'fill and fire' shells, but not VX. I'm not
clear if those had gone into production before their factories
were destroyed in 1991. They also had developed
a binary shell that mixed in flight, but there is no evidence that
advance beyond the pilot stage.

Again I ask you to specify the UNMOVIC
document in which you found this.

> UNMOVIC and UNSCOM believed that much larger quantities of this
> precursor was created.
> They close the issue by saying that "Iraq will have to further clarify
> the matter"

Which Iraq never did because we invaded.

>
> Iraq lied about the number of Al Samoud missiles they had built, the
> inspection teams found 25 undocumented ones at one point and had them
> destroyed.
>
> There are 326 SA2 missles unaccounted for.

Missiles are not chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Surface
to Air (SA2 missiles) were not proscribed. Iraq's contention was
that the al Samoud was not proscribed because it only exceeded
the permitted range without a payload. IMHO that was a good
argument. Regardless, the relented and destroyed them anyhow.

There in no question that Iraq had an active missile program
and was pushing the boundaries of their allowed range.

As you know, that is also no what we were discussing.

>
> The Muthanna facility, Iraq's main CW storage site, previously sealed in
> 1994 by UN inspectors, had been reopened and equipment and materials
> have been removed. UNMOVIC has no information about the whereabouts of
> these materials.

You are being seriously dishonest now.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/10/31/news/nation/14_47_4710_30_04.txt

Looters unleashed last year by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
overran a sprawling desert complex where a bunker sealed
by U.N. monitors held old chemical weapons, American arms
inspectors report.

Charles Duelfer's arms teams say all U.N.-sealed structures
at the Muthanna site were broken into. If the so-called Bunker 2
was breached and looted, it would be the second recent case
of restricted weapons at risk of falling into militants' hands.

.....

Under U.N. resolutions banning Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction, the U.N. inspectors who moved in after the
1991 Gulf War oversaw destruction of 22,000 chemical
weapons at Muthanna by 1998, when they withdrew from
Iraq in a dispute over access and CIA infiltration of the
U.N. operation.

When U.N. inspectors returned after four years,
Muthanna's sealed locations appeared not to have
been tampered with, Buchanan said.


IOW, when UNMOVIC inspected in 2002-03,
al Muthanna had NOT been 'reopened', but
after the US invaded THEN it was looted.

Of course UNMOVIC has no information about
the whereabouts of these materials--the US
refused to allow UNMOVIC back into the
country! (We did allow IAEA back in briefly,
to clean up after the looting at Tuwaitha.)


>
> Key scientists and other personnel to be interviewed by UNMOVIC were not
> made available for interview.

Wrong. Iraq gave permission for the interviews, the personnel them-
selves refused to be interviewed. Quite understandable as they were
afraid of the Iraqi government. UNMOVIC was arranging to interview
them outside of Iraq, and with their families too, with a promise of
asylum if necessary. (This I recal form contemporary news stories)
But the US invaded before those arrangements could be finalized.


> Regarding the destruction of missiles: "the programme of destruction was
> not completed when the inspectors were withdrawn. Fifty per cent of the
> declared warheads and 98% of the missile engines remained intact. Also,
> there was no time to assess whether the Al Fatah missile programme
> stayed within the range allowed by Security Council resolutions."

This refers to the withdrawal of inspectors in 2003, who were unable
to complete their work BECAUSE we invaded.

>
> As Hans Blix points out concerning missing items (7900 of which were
> confirmed to exist by UNSCOM, now have gone missing): "this does not
> necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might - there
> remain long lists of items unaccounted for - but it is not justified to
> jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is
> unaccounted for"
> ..
> ..
>
> Now I'll point out the obvious, that it also is not justified to jump to
> the conclusion that something doesn't exist just because it wasn't seen
> by a handful of visiting inspectors.

Now I'll point out the obvious. You are very seriously truth-
challenged when you try to pass off post-invasion looting
of Iraqi sites that were still under UNMOVIC seal prior to
the invasion, as a justification for the invasion itself.


> These are just the speaking notes for the security council briefings.
> There is no evidence here to support the assertion that Iraq was not
> hiding or continuing research or production for chemical, biological, or
> nuclear weapons. Quite the opposite, there is much here to show that
> Iraq was not being totally honest.

To the contrary, you have proven that you are dishonest.


And let's not forget that no one but Baghdad Bob ever
claimed that Iraq was totally honest. My claims have
been that the Bush administration was seriously dishonest
and that the facts on the ground in Iraq did not justify
the conclusion that Iraq was a nuclear, chemical or
biowepons threat.

--

FF

Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:51 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Listen, I'm not pro-war. I want us out of there. But you're making the
>> same assertions made by all those who are bleating that W just WANTED a
>> war, that maybe he didn't get a pony on his fifth birthday and this is
>> his way of making up for it.
>> It doesn't hold water.
>> You've told us why there shouldn't have been a war. Why do you think
>> there is a war? Is it the pony thing, or the pleasing daddy thing, or what?
>
> You left out one of many other possibilities. One of them being that W
> sold his soul to the big guns of special interest groups, and the war
> was pay-back time. "We'll get you the job, but once in there, you owe
> us."
> The defense contractors, KBR, and many more 'big guns' have done
> extremely well because of that war. Then again, you could be one of
> those who doesn't believe The Carlyle Group exists or that they have
> any influence in foreign policy. (Look at their BOD)
> It has NEVER been different... follow the money. Who benefits?
> The 5th birth day pony arguments, etc,....you are right, those do not
> hold water.
>
> Another possibility is pressure from a religious lobby, to bring on
> the New World Order that Bush 41 talked about.
>
> What the hell do I know... but don't limit W's motives to simple
> thoughts.

So he and Dick Cheney decided that killing millions would be a cool way
to make some extra cash?
Jebus made him do it?

Unfortunately, both sides of this debate over simplify what little
factual information we're allowed to see, then villify and ridicule the
other viewpoints until we're left with very little real information on
which to base our opinions.

I don't personally buy the military industrial complex made him do it
theory. There's been non-stop warring for every moment human existence.
It's a secure business to be in.

As for Jebus? Or Mo-Bomb-ad? Those may be more credible theories
considering what people are continuing to do in religions name.

On Feb 20, 4:06 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> On Feb 20, 3:22 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I haven't stated any assumptions about Iran. It is quite
> > clear that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. It is not technically
> > possible to hide a nuclear reactor or a functioning enrichment
> > operation of the scale required to produce kilogram quantities
> > of fissile material. I won't go into the technical details but
> > keep in mind that Iran went public with what had been a secret
> > program precisely because they knew they could not hide
> > their activity once they began enrichment.
>
> It is obvious that you have more than just an inkling about these
> matters.
> In the power-generating business for a short, but intense career, I
> have to ask some obvious questions.
> Using your rationale about discoverability, can you explain Dimona?

Could you specify what you would like explained?

> Does its secrecy explain nuclear thug-like behaviour and blackmail in
> the Middle East?

According to these folks:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/dimona.htm

Israel began construction there in 1958, the US noticed the
activity that same year and identified it as a nuclear facility
within two years.

By the time of the 1967 war, it was publicly asserted that Israel had
the capability of producing plutonium for at a rate sufficient to
build ~2 nuclear weapons/year.

Israel is not signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and
therefore is not prohibited by treaty from making nuclear weapons,
nor is it required to permit inspections.

The 'secrecy' in question consists simply of Israeli refusal to
confirm or deny nuclear weapons production there.

> If you KNEW that your religion was despised by those neighbours who
> already had nuclear weapons, AND knowing they have ambitions to expand
> their territory, wouldn't that in itself, be a motivator to get your
> own bombs? Using THEIR logic, why isn't Iran's nuclear ambition
> peaceful? Israel's is. Right?

My experience has been that Jews, by and large, do not despise
any other religion. Mostly they simply don't give a crap about
anyone
else's religion. It's not their problem.

As for expansionist ambitions, Israel already relinquished occupied
territory in Gaza and on the West Bank.

We don't know how many nuclear weapons are in the Israeli arsena,l
but they probably have a couple of hundred fission bombs and
a score or more of thermonuclear bombs. They have missiles
with a 1500 km range. They do not have aircraft with the range
needed to bomb Iran, but aerial refueling is a technology well-
within Israeli capability. So if Israel wanted to destroy Iran,
why haven't they?

Iran does not need a nuclear deterrent on account of Israel.
Iran is the most populous nation in the region so that none
of it's neighbors could reasonably expect to prevail in a
conventional war with Iran.

Iranian nuclear weapons _could_ be used to deter US military
action. More importantly, Iran is ruled by religious extremists
operating behind a democratic veneer. Israel extremists
seem pretty milktoast in comparison to the Iranian mullahs.

So no, the comparison between Israel and Iran is not
apt.

--

FF

On Feb 19, 4:46=A0am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:

> =A0There is no hope for UN effectiveness if
> there is no muscle behind its resolutions....

That applies to these as well:

United Nations Security Council resolutions

See also: United Nations Security Council resolution
Resolution 42: The Palestine Question (5 March 1948) Requests
recommendations for the Palestine Commission
Resolution 43: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Recognizes
"increasing violence and disorder in Palestine" and requests that
representatives of "the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Arab
Higher Committee" arrange, with the Security Council, "a truce between
the Arab and Jewish Communities of Palestine...Calls upon Arab and
Jewish armed groups in Palestine to cease acts of violence
immediately."
Resolution 44: The Palestine Question (1 Apr 1948) Requests
convocation of special session of the General Assembly
Resolution 46: The Palestine Question (17 Apr 1948) As the United
Kingdom is the Mandatory Power, "it is responsible for the maintenance
of peace and order in Palestine." The Resolutions also "Calls upon all
persons and organizations in Palestine" to stop importing "armed bands
and fighting personnel...whatever their origin;...weapons and war
materials;...Refrain, pending the future government of
Palestine...from any political activity which might prejudice the
rights, claims, or position of either community;...refrain from any
action which will endager the safety of the Holy Places in Palestine."
Resolution 48: The Palestine Question (23 Apr 1948)
Resolution 49: The Palestine Question (22 May 1948)
Resolution 50: The Palestine Question (29 May 1948)
Resolution 53: The Palestine Question (7 Jul 1948)
Resolution 54: The Palestine Question (15 Jul 1948)
Resolution 56: The Palestine Question (19 Aug 1948)
Resolution 57: The Palestine Question (18 Sep 1948)
Resolution 59: The Palestine Question (19 Oct 1948)
Resolution 60: The Palestine Question (29 Oct 1948)
Resolution 61: The Palestine Question (4 Nov 1948)
Resolution 62: The Palestine Question (16 Nov 1948)
Resolution 66: The Palestine Question (29 Dec 1948)
Resolution 72: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
Resolution 73: The Palestine Question (11 Aug 1949)
Resolution 89 (17 November 1950): regarding Armistice in 1948 Arab-
Israeli War and "transfer of persons".
Resolution 92: The Palestine Question (8 May 1951)
Resolution 93: The Palestine Question (18 May 1951)
Resolution 95: The Palestine Question (1 Sep 1951)
Resolution 100: The Palestine Question (27 Oct 1953)
Resolution 101: The Palestine Question (24 Nov 1953)
Resolution 106: The Palestine Question (29 Mar 1955) 'condemns' Israel
for Gaza raid.
Resolution 107: The Palestine Question (30 Mar)
Resolution 108: The Palestine Question (8 Sep)
Resolution 111: " ... 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed
fifty-six people".
Resolution 127: " ... 'recommends' Israel suspends its 'no-man's zone'
in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " ... 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " ... determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its
attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " ... 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the
West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " ... 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967
Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967): Termination of all claims or
states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every
State in the area. Calls on Israel's neighbors to end the state of
belligerency and calls upon Israel to reciprocate by withdraw its
forces from land claimed by other parties in 1967 war. Interpreted
commonly today as calling for the Land for peace principle as a way to
resolve Arab-Israeli conflict
Resolution 248: " ... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on
Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: " ... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding
military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: " ... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in
Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: " ... 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify
Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " ... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant
violation".
Resolution 259: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission
to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " ... 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in
Jordan".
Resolution 267: " ... 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to
change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " ... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in
southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " ... 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN
resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " ... 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from
Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " ... 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " ... 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form
Lebanon".
Resolution 298: " ... 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of
Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: " ... 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against
Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " ... 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on
Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs
abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " ... 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against
Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " ... 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's
sovereignty".
Resolution 338 (22 October 1973): cease fire in Yom Kippur War
Resolution 339 (23 October 1973): Confirms Res. 338, dispatch UN
observers.
Resolution 347: " ... 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425 (1978): 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from
Lebanon". Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was completed as of 16 June
2000.
Resolution 350 (31 May 1974) established the United Nations
Disengagement Observer Force, to monitor the ceasefire between Israel
and Syria in the wake of the Yom Kippur War.
Resolution 427: " ... 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal
from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " ... 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN
peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446 (1979): 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a
'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the
Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " ... 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements
in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " ... 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all
member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's military
intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " ... 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions
of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe
the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " ... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to
abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " ... 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem
are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478 (20 August 1980): 'censures (Israel) in the strongest
terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'.
Resolution 484: " ... 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit
two deported Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on
Iraq's nuclear facility".
Resolution 497 (17 December 1981) decides that Israel's annexation of
Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel
rescinds its decision forthwith.
Resolution 498: " ... 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " ... 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against
Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 508:
Resolution 509: " ... 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces
forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 515: " ... 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut
and allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 517: " ... 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN
resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " ... 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN
forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " ... 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 573: " ... 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing
Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587 " ... 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to
withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 592: " ... 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian
students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 605: " ... 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and
practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " ... 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and
strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " ... 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the
United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 636: " ... 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of
Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: " ... 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of
Palestinians.
Resolution 672: " ... 'condemns' Israel for "violence against
Palestinians" at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: " ... 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with
the United Nations.
Resolution 681: " ... 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the
deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: " ... 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: " ... 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of
Palestinians.
Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413
Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Resolution 1559 (2 September 2004) called upon Lebanon to establish
its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon Syria to end
their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to
cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also
called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
Resolution 1583 (28 January 2005) calls on Lebanon to assert full
control over its border with Israel. It also states that "the Council
has recognized the Blue Line as valid for the purpose of confirming
Israel's withdrawal pursuant to resolution 425.
Resolution 1648 (21 December 2005) renewed the mandate of United
Nations Disengagement Observer Force until 30 June 2006.
Resolution 1701 (11 August 2006) called for the full cessation of
hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah

On Feb 18, 11:53=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> > Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> > Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> > Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> > evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> > extraordinary."
> > .
> > .
>
> =A0 This is one that I'm going to side with Chelsea on. =A0

Her tone was sooo Clintonesque, it made me want to barf. That snot-
nosed Clinton crotchfruit hides behind the 'First-Kid-No-Touch' then
snakes out and starts where Bill left off. I found it repulsive.

On Feb 20, 5:10 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:b4475917-d20d-4b1c-8f4c-2131ba2fe440@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> .
>
>
>
> > We were NOT looking the other way. We were searching the country
> > continuously.
>
> And Sadam led the way to where we could look. We could not deviate.

Huh?

>
> I never said that Saddam Hussein could be trusted
>
> > or that he didn't deserve punishment. My objection is to the cost
> > incurred by punishing him--destabilization and of civil war in Iraq,
> > and 4,000 plus American dead, the squandering of military resources
> > that could have been used to stabilize Afghanistan and to press
> > the fight against al Queda.
>
> All items mentioned above are relative.
>
> The civil war was unfortunate, s_it happens in a war.

Yes, that's a damn good reason to avoid war, isn't it?

>
> While expensive, the money spent in the last 5 years while in Iraq is
> marginally more that the money that would have been spent otherwise. Our
> military does not operate for free during all other times.
>
> 4000 troops dead very unfortunate and my heart goes out to those soldiers,
> their famlies and their friends. We will be forever endebted.. More
> American soldiers die year in other parts of the world disarming explosives.
> Because that is not the political hot bed subject few are aware of this
> fact.

I'm very interested in how you came by this fact.

> More Americans die each day in the United States.

Would you apply that logic to the attacks of September 11, 2001?

--

FF

On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 3:23 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 19, 2:06 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Robatoy wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 19, 11:51 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>...
> >>>> Unfortunately, both sides of this debate over simplify what little
> >>>> factual information we're allowed to see, then villify and ridicule the
> >>>> other viewpoints until we're left with very little real information on
> >>>> which to base our opinions.
> >>> One side lied. The other sides may speculate as to why,
> >>> but that doesn't change the facts.
> >> You think only the people on one side of this issue are lying? I doubt
> >> that.
>
> > Your doubts are well-founded. I don't think that. But clearly
> > one lying side had the power and made the decisions.
>
> > However, the point that Iraqi chemical weapons were short-lived
> > has never been disputed by any parties to the controversy.
> > The Bush administration never even tried to rebut that, they
> > jsut ignored the argument.
>
> >> Seriously. Really. You realize I'm talking politics here right?
> >> And I wish we knew what the facts really are. Point is, we don't.
>
> > Have you any doubt at all that the yellowcake documents submitted
> > to the IAEA were forgeries?
>
> Like the rest of this debacle, we're relying on the information we're
> being fed.
> The yellowcake uranium info was just one piece of many.

So can you think of anything the other sides have lied about
that were as blatant?

--

FF

On Feb 19, 11:51 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 10:30 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> As for Hillary not reading the report, most senators did not read the
> >> report. They attended a briefing given by intelligence experts who gave
> >> them the meat of the report.
>
> > Trust AND verify.
>
> In order to do that, she'd have had to take a trip herself and validate
> all the raw data. Outside of that, she just had to put her faith in the
> intelligence experts. If she had read the report, rather than just
> having the high points read to her, that would have verified nothing.

Wrong. It would have verified that the experts were telling the
truth ABOUT THE REPORT, or not. That is very important
information.

Of course as you know people DID take a lot of trips themselves
to Iraq.

>
> >> I don't blame her for voting the way she did, most americans were
> >> convinced that there was a real danger from Iraq.
>
> > I don't either because the AUMF was needed to force Saddam
> > Hussein to accept inspectors. When those inspections showed,
> > conclusively, that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program any
> > notion that Iraq was threat vanished. Chemical and bioweapons
> > just aren't in the same category.
>
> Yes. They are. they weren't just looking for nukes. Chemical and
> biological weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction depending
> on their payload and delivery system.

That is just plain wrong. A single 'small' atomic bomb can destroy
a small city, and kill or maiming most of the people in it. To
inflict
a comparable number of casualties would require many thousands
of chemical or biological bombs, missile, shells or whatever. Even
then casualties could be minimized by simply taking cover, and their
would be no damage to the city infrastructure itself

Chemical and biological weapons are _called_ WMD but it is a
misnomer. One nerve gas bomb may have enough toxin
in it to kill 10,000 people, but only if you lined them up and
injected
each with the minimal required dosage. In actual use, most
of a chemical agent lands on something other than a person
and so harms no one.

Chemical weapons
make it dangerous to enter or remain in the open in an area--
that is how they are used. During the Iran-Iraq war Iraq used
chemical weapons to concentrate the Iranian troops, but
then to kill them they used conventional artillery.

Yes, UNMOVIC was also looking for chemical and bio weapons
and they found no evidence that Iraq had retained any (nor is there
any reason why Iraq would have given the shelf life of Iraqi weapons)
nor that Iraq was making any.


>
>
>
> >> The difference between my viewpoint and hers is, like many americans,
> >> when they didn't find MWDs, she assumed that there had never been any
> >> danger at all. It was a politically expedient viewpoint for her to take.
>
> >> Iraq killed hundreds of thousands Iranians and its own citizens (those
> >> who didn't believe in the right branch of islam) with chemical weapons
> >> before we ever stepped foot over there.
>
> > Saddam Hussein didn't just kill Shia Iraqis, he also killed Iraqi
> > Kurds.
> >> To deny that there were MWDs, or that Iraq was working to create bigger
> >> and better ones, is to deny the fact that they were already using these
> >> weapons for years. A foolish stance founded on political desire, not
> >> factual evidence.
>
> > Nonsense. It recognizes that Iraq's WMD infrastructure was destroyed
> > in the 1991 war and subsequent UNSCOM inspections. No factories,
> > no weapons. One of the key elements to understanding why Iraq was
> > not a threat was the short shelf life of Iraqi chemical weapons. With
> > the exception of mustard, they degraded to ineffectiveness in months.
>
> That's interesting. I'd like to read more from an authoritative source
> about the shelf life of chemical and biological weapons. can you point
> me to one?

Scot Ritter, a retired Marine Corps artillery officer and a former
UNSCOM weapons inspector.

Here is some of his op-ed pieces:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2000/0814/p7s1.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0123/p09s01-coop.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0829/p01s03-wosc.html

"But we destroyed those chemical factories, and we destroyed the
biological facilities. Even if he hid some warheads, they would have
degenerated by now."

Note the dates of those articles.

He is not the only source, you can use your favorite search engine
to find others.


> I've read that many of the biological weapons (anthrax spores, etc) can
> last many decades when stored correctly. But then again, I'm no expert.

Yes, anthrax spores do survive for decades. It is in the same
genus as botulin and tetnus all of which survive for long periods
in soil and indeed are found naturally in soils worldwide. However
there is no evidence that Iraq ever dried and weaponized anthrax.
LIquid anthrax would not survive without continuous maintenance.
Aside from that, anthrax is not contagious, our troops are immunized
against it, and the disease responds well to antibiotics.

So as a bioweapon, anthrax would only be deadly if used against
people without access to good modern medical care, and then
only to those directly exposed to the attack.

>
> > Another key is to recognize that even with chemical weapons, Saddam
> > Hussein was never able to permanently expand beyond his borders.
>
> Right. There are two reasons for that:
> 1 - Iran fought back. Otherwise they'd be annexed.

Yes. Iraq successfully defended itself despite being
ostracised by every other nation on Earth, and also
despite the US providing military aid, including Naval
Support to Iraq.

> 2 - Kuwait didn't fight back. They WERE annexed. Kuwait is not a part of
> Iraq today because we went over there and forced them out.

Yes and I'm sure there was no doubt in Saddam Hussein's mind
that we would do it again. Hence he was no longer a threat to Kuwait.

>
> The only reason that Iraq wasn't able to expand beyond their borders is
> because two nations forced them back.

Right. Iraq was not about to invade Syria, Turkey, or Jordan either.

>
> > By the time we invaded there was no credible evidence that Iraq had
> > nuclear chemical or biological weapons, or that production was
> > imminent.
>
> > ANY nation with a chemical industry can make chemical weapons. That
> > Iraq had to potential to do so is virtually a tautology.
>
> If we had been looking only for the capability to do so, then yes. But
> that was hardly the case, was it?
>
> Listen, I'm not pro-war. I want us out of there. But you're making the
> same assertions made by all those who are bleating that W just WANTED a
> war, that maybe he didn't get a pony on his fifth birthday and this is
> his way of making up for it.

Sometimes people bleat out the truth, even if it is by accident.

> It doesn't hold water.
> You've told us why there shouldn't have been a war. Why do you think
> there is a war? Is it the pony thing, or the pleasing daddy thing, or what?

GWB's sounded like a man who knew he didn't have a case to
make. He insisted that Saddam Hussein prove Iraq was free of
WMD--a logical impossibility. He demanded that Iraq turn over
its WMD--which it could not do since it had none. GWB made
demands he KNEW Iraq could not meet.

He also claimed Iraq had obstructed teh UNMOVIC inspections,
whereas Hans Blix, in charge of those inspections, praised the
Iraqis for their unprecedented cooperation.

I don't know WHY the administration wanted regime change
in Iraq. What I do know is that the case for Iraq being a threat to
its neighbors was as phony as a three dollar bill. Crimony, Saddam
Husein didn't even control the Northern third of his own country!
The notion that Iraq was a threat to the US was even more
absurd.

We gave gave clumsily forged documents to the IAEA. Why do
that if there was a good factual basis for the claims made by the
administration?

--

FF

On Feb 19, 4:28 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 3:27 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 19, 3:20 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 19, 2:00 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> There isn't however, hard evidence gathered by our inspectors to verify
> >>>>>> these claims.
> >>>>>> But as you said, given enough time, that evidence is not that hard to
> >>>>>> get rid of.
> >>>>> What evidence do you have that there was anything to hide?
> >>>> Read the previous two sentences. I think I just said there wasn't any.
> >>> Then I think you accept the argument that the case for Iraqi having
> >>> WMD was bogus.
> >> No. I didn't say that, did I? I said I have no hard evidence.
> >> That's a different thing altogether.
>
> > OK, what non-hard evidence do you have?
>
> I have the exact same amount of hard evidence you have. None. Zero. Zip.
> Zilch. Nada.

As you know, I NEVER asked you about hard evidence.

> I have reports from talking heads, who get their information from
> various, often sketchy sources, who get their information from who knows
> where. Wikipedia maybe?
> If you are in possession of hard evidence to support your position, I'd
> like you to scan it, or photograph it, then send it to me and some
> network news types. I'm sure they'd like to see it too.

Earlier you wrote:

> There was evidence of some shipments going to other sympathetic
> countries,...

What evidence?

and:

> there were scientists that claimed to have been working on
> chemical, nuclear and biological weapons research right up until the
> time the Iraqi government shut their facilities down.

Again, what evidence do you have for those claims?
Were they referring to 2002, or 1991?

I showed you a little teeny tiny piece of mine. Why not show
me some of yours?

--

FF

Robatoy <[email protected]> writes:

> The defense contractors, KBR, and many more 'big guns' have done
> extremely well because of that war.

Yup. Here's one reference:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-10.htm
Quote:

"However, of all the administration members with potential conflicts
of interest, none seems more troubling than Vice President Dick
Cheney. Cheney is former CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company
that also provides construction and military support services - a
triple-header of wartime spoils.

"A few weeks ago, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers awarded a no-bid
contract to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq to Kellogg Brown and
Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract was granted
under a January Bush administration waiver that, according to the
Washington Post, allowed "government agencies to handpick companies
for Iraqi reconstruction projects."

"The contract, which was not announced until more than two weeks after
it was awarded, was open-ended, with no time limits and no dollar
limits. It was also a "cost-plus" contract, meaning that the company
is guaranteed to recover costs and then make a guaranteed profit on
top of that. Its value is estimated at tens of millions of dollars."

On Feb 19, 4:19=A0pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 19, 3:23 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 19, 2:06 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Robatoy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 19, 11:51 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> Unfortunately, both sides of this debate over simplify what little
> >>>>>> factual information we're allowed to see, then villify and ridicule=
the
> >>>>>> other viewpoints until we're left with very little real information=
on
> >>>>>> which to base our opinions.
> >>>>> One side lied. =A0The other sides may speculate as to why,
> >>>>> but that doesn't change the facts.
> >>>> You think only the people on one side of this issue are lying? I doub=
t
> >>>> that.
> >>> Your doubts are well-founded. =A0I don't think that. =A0But clearly
> >>> one lying side had the power and made the decisions.
> >>> However, the point that Iraqi chemical weapons were short-lived
> >>> has never been disputed by any parties to the controversy.
> >>> The Bush administration never even tried to rebut that, they
> >>> jsut ignored the argument.
> >>>> Seriously. Really. You realize I'm talking politics here right?
> >>>> And I wish we knew what the facts really are. Point is, we don't.
> >>> Have you any doubt at all that the yellowcake documents submitted
> >>> to the IAEA were forgeries?
> >> Like the rest of this debacle, we're relying on the information we're
> >> being fed.
> >> The yellowcake uranium info was just one piece of many.
>
> > So can you think of anything the other sides have lied about
> > that were as blatant?
>
> Not off hand.
> Can you prove that the yellowcake papers were lies purposefully
> propogated by W, and not just bad information given to him as they've
> claimed?
> I know you can't. Neither can I. We don't have access to the real facts
> here. You can believe what you believe with all your heart, but
> verifiable facts are in short supply.

I'm thinking Betty Crocker is behind the whole viral advertising
campaign to sell her lemon cake.

I keep trying to make my basic point. That is that we do not have enough
information to come to the conclusions that many people, including
yourself, have come to.

It's good to keep digging, questioning, but to pretend that you have it
all down pat, to KNOW that the prez started the war on a whim, that he
did not believe that Iraq was a threat and invaded anyway, is just folly.

I know that is how you want to feel. That is what you want to believe.
Fine and dandy, it really doesn't matter to me.

I for one, think that some of the information the administration based
their decisions on, while faulty, was trusted by them.

I don't support the war. I want the US out of the middle east.

I also don't believe the conspiracy theories.

I'm not going to continue arguing the same points over again.
We're beyond 'ad nauseum', I don't have time or motivation for 'ad
infinitum'.

On Feb 20, 3:40 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:38 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:00:21 +0000, DS wrote:
>
> > > Shipments like that involve many people. I find it hard to believe that
> > > not one has come forward.
>
> > One simple explanation could be, SH told Syria, Iran, etc, come and get
> > them. Neither of those countries are known as being forth coming.
>
> Are you high? Do you seriously think Hussein armed his enemies?

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b66ea687-5301-451e-968a-5268f33b1dd1@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 9:38 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:00:21 +0000, DS wrote:
>>
>> > Shipments like that involve many people. I find it hard to believe
>> > that
>> > not one has come forward.
>>
>> One simple explanation could be, SH told Syria, Iran, etc, come and get
>> them. Neither of those countries are known as being forth coming.
>
> Are you high? Do you seriously think Hussein armed his enemies?

No, I was just paying attention to what was happening.

Leon wrote:
> "DS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:FCCuj.40612$9j6.16304@attbi_s22...
>
>
>> The difference between my viewpoint and hers is, like many americans, when
>> they didn't find MWDs, she assumed that there had never been any danger at
>> all. It was a politically expedient viewpoint for her to take.
>
>
> If an advesary called you on the telephone and told you that he was coming
> over to take your car and destroy it but he waited several months before
> showing up to do so, given that you had months before he would show up,
> would you hide it in a very safe place?
> IMHO it takes about 2 cents worth of common sense to realize that with SH
> having several months of warning that he would naturally hide his weapons.
> I would. I think some that do not believe that are easily deceived.

I don't think they're that easily deceived. Hillary and the rest of the
congresscritters are generally smart people. Generally selfish,
egotistical, elitist people, but intelligent.
They spin all of this information to suit their political agendas and
aspriations. Both parties. They aren't the ones being deceived.

There was evidence of some shipments going to other sympathetic
countries, there were scientists that claimed to have been working on
chemical, nuclear and biological weapons research right up until the
time the Iraqi government shut their facilities down.

There isn't however, hard evidence gathered by our inspectors to verify
these claims.
But as you said, given enough time, that evidence is not that hard to
get rid of.

On Feb 19, 6:50 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:35 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> > Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> > Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> > Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> > evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> > extraordinary."
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > What an arrogant piece of shit.
>
> Clairvoyance??? That was never necessary. We had weapons inspectors on
> the ground, in Iraq. Teams guided by Scott Ritter and Hans Blix
> followed US intelligence information from site to site and found - get
> this - NOTHING. That's right, NOTHING. It was only after these
> failures that the concept of "mobile weapons labs" was devised. At
> that point, Ms Clinton should have known they were making shit up. The
> Administration's reaction to each investigative failure read like
> satire. "We visited that site and found nothing." "Well, that's
> because they put biological weapons on trucks and move them around..."
> It would be funny if not for the final outcome.

The AUMF was approved BEFORE UNMOVIC had boots on the
ground. It was the AUMF that forced Saddam Hussein to open
Iraq up for inspections. Areas denied to USCOM, like the palaces,
were open to UNMOVIC. UNMOVIC used helicopter to arrive at
sites within hours of receiving the latest US intel.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:30 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As for Hillary not reading the report, most senators did not read the
>> report. They attended a briefing given by intelligence experts who gave
>> them the meat of the report.
>
> Trust AND verify.

In order to do that, she'd have had to take a trip herself and validate
all the raw data. Outside of that, she just had to put her faith in the
intelligence experts. If she had read the report, rather than just
having the high points read to her, that would have verified nothing.

>> I don't blame her for voting the way she did, most americans were
>> convinced that there was a real danger from Iraq.
>
> I don't either because the AUMF was needed to force Saddam
> Hussein to accept inspectors. When those inspections showed,
> conclusively, that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program any
> notion that Iraq was threat vanished. Chemical and bioweapons
> just aren't in the same category.

Yes. They are. They weren't just looking for nukes. Chemical and
biological weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction depending
on their payload and delivery system.

>> The difference between my viewpoint and hers is, like many americans,
>> when they didn't find MWDs, she assumed that there had never been any
>> danger at all. It was a politically expedient viewpoint for her to take.
>>
>> Iraq killed hundreds of thousands Iranians and its own citizens (those
>> who didn't believe in the right branch of islam) with chemical weapons
>> before we ever stepped foot over there.
>
> Saddam Hussein didn't just kill Shia Iraqis, he also killed Iraqi
> Kurds.
>> To deny that there were MWDs, or that Iraq was working to create bigger
>> and better ones, is to deny the fact that they were already using these
>> weapons for years. A foolish stance founded on political desire, not
>> factual evidence.
>
> Nonsense. It recognizes that Iraq's WMD infrastructure was destroyed
> in the 1991 war and subsequent UNSCOM inspections. No factories,
> no weapons. One of the key elements to understanding why Iraq was
> not a threat was the short shelf life of Iraqi chemical weapons. With
> the exception of mustard, they degraded to ineffectiveness in months.

That's interesting. I'd like to read more from an authoritative source
about the shelf life of chemical and biological weapons. can you point
me to one?
I've read that many of the biological weapons (anthrax spores, etc) can
last many decades when stored correctly. But then again, I'm no expert.

> Another key is to recognize that even with chemical weapons, Saddam
> Hussein was never able to permanently expand beyond his borders.

Right. There are two reasons for that:
1 - Iran fought back. Otherwise they'd be annexed.
2 - Kuwait didn't fight back. They WERE annexed. Kuwait is not a part of
Iraq today because we went over there and forced them out.

The only reason that Iraq wasn't able to expand beyond their borders is
because two nations forced them back.

> By the time we invaded there was no credible evidence that Iraq had
> nuclear chemical or biological weapons, or that production was
> imminent.
>
> ANY nation with a chemical industry can make chemical weapons. That
> Iraq had to potential to do so is virtually a tautology.

If we had been looking only for the capability to do so, then yes. But
that was hardly the case, was it?

Listen, I'm not pro-war. I want us out of there. But you're making the
same assertions made by all those who are bleating that W just WANTED a
war, that maybe he didn't get a pony on his fifth birthday and this is
his way of making up for it.
It doesn't hold water.
You've told us why there shouldn't have been a war. Why do you think
there is a war? Is it the pony thing, or the pleasing daddy thing, or what?

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Feb 20, 5:51 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 19, 4:28 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Again, what evidence do you have for those claims?
>>> Were they referring to 2002, or 1991?
>>> I showed you a little teeny tiny piece of mine. Why not show
>>> me some of yours?
>> I'm a bit surprised that you included the UNMOVIC site in your evidence.
>
> What did you think of the yellowcake documents?
>
>> Reading the security council briefings, which went on until the
>> cessation of their Iraq mission, spoke strongly to the unresolved nature
>> of the issue.
>
> There were several of what Blix referred to as 'discrepencies' where
> documentation was considered to be insufficient. A major difficulty
> was accounting for all dual use material that could have been
> diverted to chemical weapon use, but could also have been
> use legally.
>
> Please specify the briefings (e.g. date) so we can be sure we
> are looking at the same thing.

No. You're obviously arguing just for argument's sake.
You sent the link, so I'll assume you know what's in it.

>
>> High points:
>> They looked around but didn't find much.
>> They said that didn't mean they weren't there, just that they didn't
>> find it. That's not surprising considering there were 130 munitions
>> sites, and they didn't have a chance to look at them all.
>
> It is also unsurprising since a negative hypothesis cannot
> be logically proved. UNMOVIC could never claim Iraq had
> proved that it had no WMD. Even Assuming that Iraq did
> not, the best UNMOVIC could ever justifiably say is that
> they didn't find any, not that there weren't any.
>
> They visited over 400 sites, most without giving any advance
> notice to the Iraqis and some by helicopter, arriving within hours
> of receiving the latest US intel.
>
>> Discrepancies in what the Iraqi inventory said they built, and what was
>> disposed of or destroyed were at least 1000 tons of CW agent.
>
> I ask you to specify the UNMOVIC report that said that.
>
> As I recall,
> regarding VX, UNMOVIC found trace evidence at the disposal site
> consistent with the disposal of VX, but was unable to determine the
> quantity. I'd like to know how you got from 'unable to determine
> the quantity', to a specific figure.

Read the documents you referenced.

>
>> 100 tons of CW would take up a storage area around the size of an
>> average swimming pool. All 1000 tons could be stored in a small
>> facility. (2 of the 130 Iraqi munitions dumps are each larger than
>> Manhattan.)
>
> Aside from mustard, Iraqi chemical warfare agents couldn't
> be stored at all.
>
Fantasy.

>> Iraq claims that they created very limited, experimental amounts of VX,
>> one of the most powerful nerve agents in existence. And that the VX they
>> created lasted only a couple of weeks before degrading.
>> UNMOVIC found documentation detailing Iraq's solution to this problem,
>> creating a chemical precursor to VX that has much longer shelf life.
>> This precursor would require additional processing to refine it into VX,
>> a quick and relatively easy procedure.
>
> Yes, Iraq had some 'fill and fire' shells, but not VX. I'm not
> clear if those had gone into production before their factories
> were destroyed in 1991. They also had developed
> a binary shell that mixed in flight, but there is no evidence that
> advance beyond the pilot stage.
>
> Again I ask you to specify the UNMOVIC
> document in which you found this.
>
The same one you sent.

>> UNMOVIC and UNSCOM believed that much larger quantities of this
>> precursor was created.
>> They close the issue by saying that "Iraq will have to further clarify
>> the matter"
>
> Which Iraq never did because we invaded.
>
Yep. I'm sure they would have done a 180 and given up all information we
requested had we not.

>> Iraq lied about the number of Al Samoud missiles they had built, the
>> inspection teams found 25 undocumented ones at one point and had them
>> destroyed.
>>
>> There are 326 SA2 missles unaccounted for.
>
> Missiles are not chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Surface
> to Air (SA2 missiles) were not proscribed. Iraq's contention was
> that the al Samoud was not proscribed because it only exceeded
> the permitted range without a payload. IMHO that was a good
> argument. Regardless, the relented and destroyed them anyhow.
>
> There in no question that Iraq had an active missile program
> and was pushing the boundaries of their allowed range.
>
> As you know, that is also no what we were discussing.
>
They're delivery platforms for what we're discussing. If they weren't,
the inspectors wouldn't have been concerned with them.

>> The Muthanna facility, Iraq's main CW storage site, previously sealed in
>> 1994 by UN inspectors, had been reopened and equipment and materials
>> have been removed. UNMOVIC has no information about the whereabouts of
>> these materials.
>
> You are being seriously dishonest now.
>
> http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/10/31/news/nation/14_47_4710_30_04.txt
>
> Looters unleashed last year by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
> overran a sprawling desert complex where a bunker sealed
> by U.N. monitors held old chemical weapons, American arms
> inspectors report.
>
> Charles Duelfer's arms teams say all U.N.-sealed structures
> at the Muthanna site were broken into. If the so-called Bunker 2
> was breached and looted, it would be the second recent case
> of restricted weapons at risk of falling into militants' hands.
>
> ......
>
> Under U.N. resolutions banning Iraq's weapons of mass
> destruction, the U.N. inspectors who moved in after the
> 1991 Gulf War oversaw destruction of 22,000 chemical
> weapons at Muthanna by 1998, when they withdrew from
> Iraq in a dispute over access and CIA infiltration of the
> U.N. operation.
>
> When U.N. inspectors returned after four years,
> Muthanna's sealed locations appeared not to have
> been tampered with, Buchanan said.
>
>
> IOW, when UNMOVIC inspected in 2002-03,
> al Muthanna had NOT been 'reopened', but
> after the US invaded THEN it was looted.
>
> Of course UNMOVIC has no information about
> the whereabouts of these materials--the US
> refused to allow UNMOVIC back into the
> country! (We did allow IAEA back in briefly,
> to clean up after the looting at Tuwaitha.)
>

Ah. Looters. got it. Glad it definitely wasn't the Iraqis that went in
there and took that stuff. Couldn't have been them that 'looted' their
weapons supplies.

>
>> Key scientists and other personnel to be interviewed by UNMOVIC were not
>> made available for interview.
>
> Wrong. Iraq gave permission for the interviews, the personnel them-
> selves refused to be interviewed. Quite understandable as they were
> afraid of the Iraqi government. UNMOVIC was arranging to interview
> them outside of Iraq, and with their families too, with a promise of
> asylum if necessary. (This I recal form contemporary news stories)
> But the US invaded before those arrangements could be finalized.
>
>
>> Regarding the destruction of missiles: "the programme of destruction was
>> not completed when the inspectors were withdrawn. Fifty per cent of the
>> declared warheads and 98% of the missile engines remained intact. Also,
>> there was no time to assess whether the Al Fatah missile programme
>> stayed within the range allowed by Security Council resolutions."
>
> This refers to the withdrawal of inspectors in 2003, who were unable
> to complete their work BECAUSE we invaded.
>
>> As Hans Blix points out concerning missing items (7900 of which were
>> confirmed to exist by UNSCOM, now have gone missing): "this does not
>> necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might - there
>> remain long lists of items unaccounted for - but it is not justified to
>> jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is
>> unaccounted for"
>> ..
>> ..
>>
>> Now I'll point out the obvious, that it also is not justified to jump to
>> the conclusion that something doesn't exist just because it wasn't seen
>> by a handful of visiting inspectors.
>
> Now I'll point out the obvious. You are very seriously truth-
> challenged when you try to pass off post-invasion looting
> of Iraqi sites that were still under UNMOVIC seal prior to
> the invasion, as a justification for the invasion itself.
>

I did no such thing. I was responding to your question, not trying to
justify the war. I can't justify the war.
You're just trying to justify your bitter feelings about the
administration by spinning every fact as proof of evil.
Try looking at things outside of your blinders.

>
>> These are just the speaking notes for the security council briefings.
>> There is no evidence here to support the assertion that Iraq was not
>> hiding or continuing research or production for chemical, biological, or
>> nuclear weapons. Quite the opposite, there is much here to show that
>> Iraq was not being totally honest.
>
> To the contrary, you have proven that you are dishonest.

Not in any way. These points were all taken from the briefing notes.
You're really stretching here.
I thought you were enjoying yourself and applying logic for a good
discussion. Clearly you're just arguing for arguments sake, and when
your logic fails you, degraded to insults. Sorry for you. Waste of time
for me.

>
> And let's not forget that no one but Baghdad Bob ever
> claimed that Iraq was totally honest. My claims have
> been that the Bush administration was seriously dishonest
> and that the facts on the ground in Iraq did not justify
> the conclusion that Iraq was a nuclear, chemical or
> biowepons threat.
>
> --
>
> FF

Robatoy wrote:
> "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> extraordinary."
> ..
> ..
> ..
> ..
> ..
> What an arrogant piece of shit.

I'm about as far from being a Clinton fan as you're likely to find, but
the student here was just being an obnoxious prick, and not really
trying to make a point.

As for Hillary not reading the report, most senators did not read the
report. They attended a briefing given by intelligence experts who gave
them the meat of the report.

I don't blame her for voting the way she did, most americans were
convinced that there was a real danger from Iraq.

The difference between my viewpoint and hers is, like many americans,
when they didn't find MWDs, she assumed that there had never been any
danger at all. It was a politically expedient viewpoint for her to take.

Iraq killed hundreds of thousands Iranians and its own citizens (those
who didn't believe in the right branch of islam) with chemical weapons
before we ever stepped foot over there.
To deny that there were MWDs, or that Iraq was working to create bigger
and better ones, is to deny the fact that they were already using these
weapons for years. A foolish stance founded on political desire, not
factual evidence.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:00:21 +0000, DS wrote:

>
> Shipments like that involve many people. I find it hard to believe that
> not one has come forward.

One simple explanation could be, SH told Syria, Iran, etc, come and get
them. Neither of those countries are known as being forth coming.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 19, 3:23 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 19, 2:06 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 19, 11:51 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Unfortunately, both sides of this debate over simplify what little
>>>>>> factual information we're allowed to see, then villify and ridicule the
>>>>>> other viewpoints until we're left with very little real information on
>>>>>> which to base our opinions.
>>>>> One side lied. The other sides may speculate as to why,
>>>>> but that doesn't change the facts.
>>>> You think only the people on one side of this issue are lying? I doubt
>>>> that.
>>> Your doubts are well-founded. I don't think that. But clearly
>>> one lying side had the power and made the decisions.
>>> However, the point that Iraqi chemical weapons were short-lived
>>> has never been disputed by any parties to the controversy.
>>> The Bush administration never even tried to rebut that, they
>>> jsut ignored the argument.
>>>> Seriously. Really. You realize I'm talking politics here right?
>>>> And I wish we knew what the facts really are. Point is, we don't.
>>> Have you any doubt at all that the yellowcake documents submitted
>>> to the IAEA were forgeries?
>> Like the rest of this debacle, we're relying on the information we're
>> being fed.
>> The yellowcake uranium info was just one piece of many.
>
> So can you think of anything the other sides have lied about
> that were as blatant?

Not off hand.
Can you prove that the yellowcake papers were lies purposefully
propogated by W, and not just bad information given to him as they've
claimed?
I know you can't. Neither can I. We don't have access to the real facts
here. You can believe what you believe with all your heart, but
verifiable facts are in short supply.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:27 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 19, 3:20 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 19, 2:00 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> There isn't however, hard evidence gathered by our inspectors to verify
>>>>>> these claims.
>>>>>> But as you said, given enough time, that evidence is not that hard to
>>>>>> get rid of.
>>>>> What evidence do you have that there was anything to hide?
>>>> Read the previous two sentences. I think I just said there wasn't any.
>>> Then I think you accept the argument that the case for Iraqi having
>>> WMD was bogus.
>> No. I didn't say that, did I? I said I have no hard evidence.
>> That's a different thing altogether.
>
> OK, what non-hard evidence do you have?

I have the exact same amount of hard evidence you have. None. Zero. Zip.
Zilch. Nada.
I have reports from talking heads, who get their information from
various, often sketchy sources, who get their information from who knows
where. Wikipedia maybe?
If you are in possession of hard evidence to support your position, I'd
like you to scan it, or photograph it, then send it to me and some
network news types. I'm sure they'd like to see it too.

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:562e3e28-3b2b-469a-b6a4-c4efa8b18ee9@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> It wold appear that Leon has taken a page from the Bush playbook,
> and has adopted the Plan Nine from Outer Space argument:
> "Can you prove it didn't happen?"


Common sense keeps me out of trouble. I'll stick with what works. You can
look the other way and wait for proof until it hits you right between the
eyes.

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b4475917-d20d-4b1c-8f4c-2131ba2fe440@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
.
>
> We were NOT looking the other way. We were searching the country
> continuously.

And Sadam led the way to where we could look. We could not deviate.

I never said that Saddam Hussein could be trusted
> or that he didn't deserve punishment. My objection is to the cost
> incurred by punishing him--destabilization and of civil war in Iraq,
> and 4,000 plus American dead, the squandering of military resources
> that could have been used to stabilize Afghanistan and to press
> the fight against al Queda.

All items mentioned above are relative.

The civil war was unfortunate, s_it happens in a war.

While expensive, the money spent in the last 5 years while in Iraq is
marginally more that the money that would have been spent otherwise. Our
military does not operate for free during all other times.

4000 troops dead very unfortunate and my heart goes out to those soldiers,
their famlies and their friends. We will be forever endebted.. More
American soldiers die year in other parts of the world disarming explosives.
Because that is not the political hot bed subject few are aware of this
fact. More Americans die each day in the United States.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:20 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 19, 2:00 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> There isn't however, hard evidence gathered by our inspectors to verify
>>>> these claims.
>>>> But as you said, given enough time, that evidence is not that hard to
>>>> get rid of.
>>> What evidence do you have that there was anything to hide?
>> Read the previous two sentences. I think I just said there wasn't any.
>
> Then I think you accept the argument that the case for Iraqi having
> WMD was bogus.

No. I didn't say that, did I? I said I have no hard evidence.
That's a different thing altogether.

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:06eac1d4-aea4-45c5-9b98-e2752fd5e1b6@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> How about this:
>
> You tell me to be afraid of someone because he is going to
> throw a pot of boiling water on me. I ask you, "Where's the
> pot, and where's the water?" You say you don't know.
> How scared should I be?

Are you sick/ill today? Did your house burn down today? Did you total your
car today? Will you ever die?
Do you have health insurance? Do you have home owners insurance? Do you
have auto insurance? Do you have life inusrance?
Why have any of the insurance plans if you are not at this time experiencing
areason to file a claim?


>
>> A similar comparison, SH did have weapons of mass destruction and used
>> them
>> on his people. But that was then, it may be different now, October 2002.
>> We do know that he banned weapons inspectors from his country during that
>> period of time. If you have nothing to hide why shun the inspectors?
>
> Posturing. Spies.

Probably but not as likely as something to hide.

>
>>
>> There is a point where further explanation of a common sense deduction
>> needs
>> no further explanation. That person either gets it or he never will.
>
> I'll repeat a point here, maybe you'll get it.
>
> Suppose, in 2002, Saddam Hussein had lots of Sarin, VX,
> Anthrax and so one. Could he use them to attack the United
> States? No. Could he use them to attack his neighbors?
> Sure, and he would succeed in uniting the rest of the world
> against him to remove him once and for all. Could he have
> used them against the Kurds or Shia, sure and with the same
> consequences.

If you will recall, the US has embassies and military installations all of
that region. Those could be hit as easily as Iraq's neighbors.

>
> So even IF he had chemical and biological weapons, it would
> not be worth our while to invade Iraq for that reason.

And that is assuming that Iran's only had those type weapons. A nuke program
bould have been disposed of like he did then he flew his fighter planes into
Iran to keep them from being destroyed.



>
> While on the topic of logic, what would be the rationale
> behind making and stockpiling weapons that had a shelf
> life measured in months?

If that program is/was an on going process the weapons would ahve been
current and the older outdated weapons recycled. Typically a nation does
not build a weapon and stop, it continues and keeps them up to date. Who
would know if the weapon was a dud or a live round? The Carter admistration
used to relocate nukes in the US so that no one would actually know where or
how many there wold be.

"DS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:FCCuj.40612$9j6.16304@attbi_s22...


> The difference between my viewpoint and hers is, like many americans, when
> they didn't find MWDs, she assumed that there had never been any danger at
> all. It was a politically expedient viewpoint for her to take.


If an advesary called you on the telephone and told you that he was coming
over to take your car and destroy it but he waited several months before
showing up to do so, given that you had months before he would show up,
would you hide it in a very safe place?
IMHO it takes about 2 cents worth of common sense to realize that with SH
having several months of warning that he would naturally hide his weapons.
I would. I think some that do not believe that are easily deceived.

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b4397e67-1407-4a4d-b19f-435491dee6a7@t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Are you high? Do you seriously think Hussein armed his enemies?
>>
>> Iran did give safe have to Saddam's Air Force when the $#!+ hit the fan.
>
> Hussein played that in a manner he thought most advantageous. His
> small air force did not stand a chance against the US but it could be
> played politically. He told CNN that Tehran offered sanctuary to the
> Iraqi planes in a gesture of Muslim solidarity. Baghdad was
> politically isolated and the well-publicized move provided him with an
> opportunity to dispense that notion. Rather than watch his planes burn
> on the ground, he moved them abroad for political gain. Tehran
> accepted them because A. they wanted free planes and B. they'll never
> turn down an opportunity to provoke Washington.
>

You just answered you question.

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Take a read of Kenneth Timmerman's "Shadow Warriors". He makes some
> cogent arguments that the real failing of the Bush administration was
> not doing what all previous administrations have done by cleaning
> house in the various bureaucracies when he took office. Thus, he had
> people who had been appointed by the previous administration who were
> adamantly opposed to his policies in charge of implimementing his
> policies. He points out areas where some of the actions taken by State
> Department bureaucrats after the ground war were partially to blame
> for the action turning into an occupation. Ditto for CIA career
> bureaucrats undermining the administration in various ways, including
> deliberately leaking classified information to the media. These
> actions undermined the administration in ways that were damaging both
> to it and to the people serving overseas.
>
I have no idea who Kenneth Timmerman is (since the last name is Dutch for
Carpenter, it must be the obligatory reference to woodworking), and of
course didn't read that book. However, you CANNOT blame "bureaucrats"
for the Bush administrations concious decisions to forgo complete help
from Turkey during the invasion, the decision not to have a real
political system in place to govern the liberated Iraqi state after the
invasion, the decision to not guard arms and ammunition depots or civil
infrastructure (power plants etc), the decision to completely dismantle
the Iraqi police etc system (no matter how reprehensible, in a police
state you need police in place, albeit with the control of your own top
people). All those decisions were or should have been decided
differently than they were. Now we have a smoldering fire in Iraq that
is being controlled by a disenchanted US military at great costs in lives
of very ordinary US citizens. Military hospitals are overwhelmed, VA
hospitals stretched beyond imagination, and the worst is the mental
illness inflicted upon the poor grunts. We will have to deal with that
for the next 50 plus years. How many soldiers have been rotated through
Iraq? What is the percentage of PTSD and mental illness resulting? Who
is going to pay? We need to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. Let's
devalue the dollar another 50% or so, so the cost of living goes up for
the poor. Probably won't affect me too much - I invested in the stock
market <grin>.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Feb 20, 4:01 am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 9:38 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:00:21 +0000, DS wrote:
> >>> Shipments like that involve many people. I find it hard to believe that
> >>> not one has come forward.
> >> One simple explanation could be, SH told Syria, Iran, etc, come and get
> >> them. Neither of those countries are known as being forth coming.
>
> > Are you high? Do you seriously think Hussein armed his enemies?
>
> Iran did give safe have to Saddam's Air Force when the $#!+ hit the fan.

They were happy to get free planes.

Saddam Hussein's warplanes were of no use to him, we could
shoot them down as fast as he could get them off the ground,
provided we hadn't destroyed them on the ground first.

Can you say the same about chemical shells and rockets
that could be used?

Aside from that, why would the Iranians or Syrians want
chemical weapons that were going to deteriorate to
uselessness in a couple of months?

--

FF

On Feb 20, 3:22=A0pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:51 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:06ea=
[email protected]...
>
> > > How about this:
>
> > > You tell me to be afraid of someone because he is going to
> > > throw a pot of boiling water on me. =A0I ask you, "Where's the
> > > pot, and where's the water?" =A0You say you don't know.
> > > How scared should I be?
>
> > Are you sick/ill today? =A0Did your house burn down today? =A0Did you to=
tal your
> > car today? =A0Will you ever die?
> > Do you have health insurance? =A0Do you have home owners insurance? =A0D=
o you
> > have auto insurance? =A0Do you have life inusrance?
> > Why have any of the insurance plans if you are not at this time experien=
cing
> > areason to file a claim?
>
> > >> A similar comparison, =A0SH did have weapons of mass destruction and =
used
> > >> them
> > >> on his people. =A0But that was then, it may be different now, October=
2002.
> > >> We do know that he banned weapons inspectors from his country during =
that
> > >> period of time. =A0If you have nothing to hide why shun the inspector=
s?
>
> > > Posturing. =A0Spies.
>
> > Probably but not as likely as something to hide.
>
> > >> There is a point where further explanation of a common sense deductio=
n
> > >> needs
> > >> no further explanation. =A0That person either gets it or he never wil=
l.
>
> > > I'll repeat a point here, maybe you'll get it.
>
> > > Suppose, in 2002, =A0Saddam Hussein had lots of Sarin, VX,
> > > Anthrax and so one. =A0Could he use them to attack the United
> > > States? =A0 No. =A0Could he use them to attack his neighbors?
> > > Sure, and he would succeed in uniting the rest of the world
> > > against him to remove him once and for all. =A0Could he have
> > > used them against the Kurds or Shia, sure and with the same
> > > consequences.
>
> > If you will recall, the US has embassies and military installations all =
of
> > that region. =A0Those could be hit as easily as =A0Iraq's neighbors.
>
> As you will recall, =A0US embassies in Tanzania, Kenya and Beruit
> and our Marine barracks at the Beruit airport were destroyed by
> truck bombs. =A0I think you will agree that it would have been far
> more difficult to shell the building with enough artillery, or to
> drop enough aerial bombs on them to cause similar casualties.
>
>
>
> > > So even IF he had chemical and biological weapons, it would
> > > not be worth our while to invade Iraq for that reason.
>
> > And that is assuming that Iran's only had those type weapons. A nuke pro=
gram
> > bould have been disposed of like he did then he flew his fighter planes =
into
> > Iran to keep them from being destroyed.
>
> I make typos too.
>
> I haven't stated any assumptions about Iran. =A0 It is quite
> clear that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. =A0It is not =A0technically
> possible to hide a nuclear reactor or a functioning =A0enrichment
> operation of the scale required to produce kilogram quantities
> of fissile material. =A0I won't go into the technical details but
> keep in mind that Iran went public with what had been a secret
> program precisely because they knew they could not hide
> their activity once they began enrichment.
>
>
>
> > > While on the topic of logic, what would be the rationale
> > > behind making and stockpiling weapons that had a shelf
> > > life measured in months?
>
> > If that program is/was an on going process the weapons would ahve been
> > current and the older outdated weapons recycled. =A0 Typically a nation =
does
> > not build a weapon and stop, it continues and keeps them up to date.
>
> Iraq was atypical because the Iraqi factories were destroyed in the
> 1991 war, =A0and the surviving equipment destroyed or confiscated
> by UNSCOM. =A0As inspections were not permitted between 1998
> and 2002 it WAS prudent to suspect that Iraq might have resurrected
> its programs.
>
> I fully supported using the threat of military force =A0to renew the
> inspection program. =A0Because Iraq complied with the demand,
> and no evidence of nuclear weapons or any prospects for producing
> one in the foreseeable future, was found, =A0I did not support the
> invasion.
>
> If you feel that Saddam Hussein's =A0past history alone was sufficient
> justification, what point is there to discussing the 2002-03
> inspections
> at all.
>
> > Who
> > would know if the weapon was a dud or a live round? =A0The Carter admist=
ration
> > used to relocate nukes in the US so that no one would actually know wher=
e or
> > how many there wold be.
>
> There is no evidence that Iraq had enough fissile material to make
> a nuclear weapon. =A0In 1998 when inspectors left Iraq there were 500
> tonnes of yellowcake =A0at Tuwaitha where it had been monitored
> by the IAEA since the late 1970's. =A0When inspectors returned in
> 2002-03, it was still there, untouched, along with ~2.5 tonnes of
> low-enriched Uranium (reactor fuel) and other quantities of other
> isotopes either left over from the destroyed Osirak reactor project,
> or from various other projects.
>
> Iraq had four years without inspections to use those materials
> and yet it did not.
>
> When the US invaded, the Iraqi troops abandoned the facilty
> (after all, that is what we told the Iraqi armed forces to do
> if they wanted to live). =A0THEN the site was looted. =A0The US
> called in the IAEA to clean up the mess. =A0All but a trival
> quantity of the yellowcake was recovered as the looters had
> stolen the barrels and left the yellowcake behind, dumping it
> on the ground. =A0None to the other materials inventoried by
> the IAEA were missing.
>
> --
>
> FF

On Feb 20, 3:22 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> I haven't stated any assumptions about Iran. It is quite
> clear that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. It is not technically
> possible to hide a nuclear reactor or a functioning enrichment
> operation of the scale required to produce kilogram quantities
> of fissile material. I won't go into the technical details but
> keep in mind that Iran went public with what had been a secret
> program precisely because they knew they could not hide
> their activity once they began enrichment.
>

It is obvious that you have more than just an inkling about these
matters.
In the power-generating business for a short, but intense career, I
have to ask some obvious questions.
Using your rationale about discoverability, can you explain Dimona?
Does its secrecy explain nuclear thug-like behaviour and blackmail in
the Middle East?
If you KNEW that your religion was despised by those neighbours who
already had nuclear weapons, AND knowing they have ambitions to expand
their territory, wouldn't that in itself, be a motivator to get your
own bombs? Using THEIR logic, why isn't Iran's nuclear ambition
peaceful? Israel's is. Right?


> When the US invaded, the Iraqi troops abandoned the facilty
> (after all, that is what we told the Iraqi armed forces to do
> if they wanted to live). THEN the site was looted. The US
> called in the IAEA to clean up the mess. All but a trival
> quantity of the yellowcake was recovered as the looters had
> stolen the barrels and left the yellowcake behind, dumping it
> on the ground. None to the other materials inventoried by
> the IAEA were missing.
>
Hey, they tried. Then Israel's bigger brother shows up (regardless of
what made them come over there). They threw their hands up in the air
and walked away to fight another day THEIR way.... hence the civil war
in Iraq.
But, then again, as I have said before, what-the-fuck do I know?

<zips up Nomex suit>

On Feb 19, 12:22 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "DS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:FCCuj.40612$9j6.16304@attbi_s22...
>
> > The difference between my viewpoint and hers is, like many americans, when
> > they didn't find MWDs, she assumed that there had never been any danger at
> > all. It was a politically expedient viewpoint for her to take.
>
> If an advesary called you on the telephone and told you that he was coming
> over to take your car and destroy it but he waited several months before
> showing up to do so, given that you had months before he would show up,
> would you hide it in a very safe place?
> IMHO it takes about 2 cents worth of common sense to realize that with SH
> having several months of warning that he would naturally hide his weapons.
> I would. I think some that do not believe that are easily deceived.

How did he return the restored factories to their former ruined
bombed-
out condition?

With the exception of mustard, Iraqi chemical weapons were short
lived. It would make no sense to hide them or, and this is very
important,
to stockpile them in the first place. During the Iran-Iraq war Iraq
moved
its chemical weapons from the factory to the front and used them
within
a couple of weeks after manufacture.

Why stockpile weapons that will be ineffective when it comes time
to use them?

If he had hidden weapons, why didn't he use them against us; was
he saving them for the NEXT US invasion?

Some people claim he sent the Syria. I'll allow as Saddam Hussein
was not the most brilliant military planner but I doubt even he would
ship his most fearsome weapons out of his own reach on the eve
on invasion.

--

FF

On Feb 20, 10:45 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> I keep trying to make my basic point. That is that we do not have enough
> information to come to the conclusions that many people, including
> yourself, have come to.
>
> It's good to keep digging, questioning, but to pretend that you have it
> all down pat, to KNOW that the prez started the war on a whim, that he
> did not believe that Iraq was a threat and invaded anyway, is just folly.
>
> I know that is how you want to feel. That is what you want to believe.
> Fine and dandy, it really doesn't matter to me.
>

Since you did not include any references, I don' t know to whom
you intend this to apply.

I want to feel proud of my President and my country.

I don't believe the war was started on a whim. I've concluded
that it was NOT started to protect us because that is where
the evidence has lead me.

I have concluded that this administration cannot be trusted
because they have been caught in so mane deceptions.

> I for one, think that some of the information the administration based
> their decisions on, while faulty, was trusted by them.
>

And yet, now that you have seen the yellowcake documents,
do you really think they thought they were genuine?

Why on earth would they trust Curveball, a person described
as a crazy drunk, while rejecting information from a prominent
defector and their own highly placed mole in the Iraqi government?

They didn't err by trusting unreliable sources. They deliberately
used or rejected intelligence based on the desired conclusion.

They bribed reporters, held fake news conferences, and even
planted a fake reporter in the White House press corps.

When Hans Blix, in his report to the UIN security council
calls the Iraqi cooperation 'unprecedented', and means
it in a good way, and then Bush says that Iraq has refused
to cooperate with UNMOVIC a very clear conclusion can
be reached.

Maybe I have it all wrong. Maybe black is white, up is down,
good is evil. Maybe after Pearl Harbor was bombed we
should have declared war on Brazil. Maybe the Pope
smokes pot.

Maybe we are all butterflies dreaming we are people.
The possibilities are endless. But they are not
equally probable.

> I don't support the war. I want the US out of the middle east.
>
> I also don't believe the conspiracy theories.
>
> I'm not going to continue arguing the same points over again.
> We're beyond 'ad nauseum', I don't have time or motivation for 'ad
> infinitum'.

IOW you know better than to repeat an argument that
has been rebutted, or repeat a lie that has been exposed
as such.

That puts you ahead of the current administration.

--

FF

On Feb 19, 11:01 pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 9:38 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:00:21 +0000, DS wrote:
> >>> Shipments like that involve many people. I find it hard to believe that
> >>> not one has come forward.
> >> One simple explanation could be, SH told Syria, Iran, etc, come and get
> >> them. Neither of those countries are known as being forth coming.
>
> > Are you high? Do you seriously think Hussein armed his enemies?
>
> Iran did give safe have to Saddam's Air Force when the $#!+ hit the fan.

Hussein played that in a manner he thought most advantageous. His
small air force did not stand a chance against the US but it could be
played politically. He told CNN that Tehran offered sanctuary to the
Iraqi planes in a gesture of Muslim solidarity. Baghdad was
politically isolated and the well-publicized move provided him with an
opportunity to dispense that notion. Rather than watch his planes burn
on the ground, he moved them abroad for political gain. Tehran
accepted them because A. they wanted free planes and B. they'll never
turn down an opportunity to provoke Washington.

While Iraq's small air force was incapable of slowing US forces, the
same cannot be said of this supposed arsenal of chemical weapons. Had
it existed, it would have been useful in his hands and a threat in
Tehran's possession. So, sure, he moved a small air force to Iran for
what he felt was political gain but do you seriously think he'd arm
Tehran with WMD so deadly they made Bush wet himself and they kept you
up at night?

On Feb 20, 8:56 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:562e3e28-3b2b-469a-b6a4-c4efa8b18ee9@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> ...
>
> > It wold appear that Leon has taken a page from the Bush playbook,
> > and has adopted the Plan Nine from Outer Space argument:
> > "Can you prove it didn't happen?"
>
> Common sense keeps me out of trouble. I'll stick with what works. You can
> look the other way and wait for proof until it hits you right between the
> eyes.

We were NOT looking the other way. We were searching the country
continuously. I never said that Saddam Hussein could be trusted
or that he didn't deserve punishment. My objection is to the cost
incurred by punishing him--destabilization and of civil war in Iraq,
and 4,000 plus American dead, the squandering of military resources
that could have been used to stabilize Afghanistan and to press
the fight against al Queda.

But the invasion of Iraq did worse than divert resources, it
also gave al Queda an opportunity to expand.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden were rivals who
disagreed on at least one major point. Bin Laden wanted to
attack 'the far enemy' (the US) first and thereby cut off
support to 'the near enemy', secular Muslim governments.
Al-Zarqawi wanted to attack the near enemy first.

So al-Zarqawi left Afghanistan and established himself in
Iraqi Kurdistan where he was implicated in attacks against
the regime of Saddam Hussein. After the US invasion in
2003, he declared his allegiance to bin Laden and began
attack the foreign occupation forces. Al Queda in Iraq
arose in response to the US invasion.

--

FF

On Feb 19, 9:38 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:00:21 +0000, DS wrote:
>
> > Shipments like that involve many people. I find it hard to believe that
> > not one has come forward.
>
> One simple explanation could be, SH told Syria, Iran, etc, come and get
> them. Neither of those countries are known as being forth coming.

Are you high? Do you seriously think Hussein armed his enemies?

On Feb 20, 8:51 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:06eac1d4-aea4-45c5-9b98-e2752fd5e1b6@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > How about this:
>
> > You tell me to be afraid of someone because he is going to
> > throw a pot of boiling water on me. I ask you, "Where's the
> > pot, and where's the water?" You say you don't know.
> > How scared should I be?
>
> Are you sick/ill today? Did your house burn down today? Did you total your
> car today? Will you ever die?
> Do you have health insurance? Do you have home owners insurance? Do you
> have auto insurance? Do you have life inusrance?
> Why have any of the insurance plans if you are not at this time experiencing
> areason to file a claim?
>
>
>
> >> A similar comparison, SH did have weapons of mass destruction and used
> >> them
> >> on his people. But that was then, it may be different now, October 2002.
> >> We do know that he banned weapons inspectors from his country during that
> >> period of time. If you have nothing to hide why shun the inspectors?
>
> > Posturing. Spies.
>
> Probably but not as likely as something to hide.
>
>
>
> >> There is a point where further explanation of a common sense deduction
> >> needs
> >> no further explanation. That person either gets it or he never will.
>
> > I'll repeat a point here, maybe you'll get it.
>
> > Suppose, in 2002, Saddam Hussein had lots of Sarin, VX,
> > Anthrax and so one. Could he use them to attack the United
> > States? No. Could he use them to attack his neighbors?
> > Sure, and he would succeed in uniting the rest of the world
> > against him to remove him once and for all. Could he have
> > used them against the Kurds or Shia, sure and with the same
> > consequences.
>
> If you will recall, the US has embassies and military installations all of
> that region. Those could be hit as easily as Iraq's neighbors.

As you will recall, US embassies in Tanzania, Kenya and Beruit
and our Marine barracks at the Beruit airport were destroyed by
truck bombs. I think you will agree that it would have been far
more difficult to shell the building with enough artillery, or to
drop enough aerial bombs on them to cause similar casualties.

>
>
>
> > So even IF he had chemical and biological weapons, it would
> > not be worth our while to invade Iraq for that reason.
>
> And that is assuming that Iran's only had those type weapons. A nuke program
> bould have been disposed of like he did then he flew his fighter planes into
> Iran to keep them from being destroyed.

I make typos too.

I haven't stated any assumptions about Iran. It is quite
clear that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. It is not technically
possible to hide a nuclear reactor or a functioning enrichment
operation of the scale required to produce kilogram quantities
of fissile material. I won't go into the technical details but
keep in mind that Iran went public with what had been a secret
program precisely because they knew they could not hide
their activity once they began enrichment.

>
> > While on the topic of logic, what would be the rationale
> > behind making and stockpiling weapons that had a shelf
> > life measured in months?
>
> If that program is/was an on going process the weapons would ahve been
> current and the older outdated weapons recycled. Typically a nation does
> not build a weapon and stop, it continues and keeps them up to date.

Iraq was atypical because the Iraqi factories were destroyed in the
1991 war, and the surviving equipment destroyed or confiscated
by UNSCOM. As inspections were not permitted between 1998
and 2002 it WAS prudent to suspect that Iraq might have resurrected
its programs.

I fully supported using the threat of military force to renew the
inspection program. Because Iraq complied with the demand,
and no evidence of nuclear weapons or any prospects for producing
one in the foreseeable future, was found, I did not support the
invasion.

If you feel that Saddam Hussein's past history alone was sufficient
justification, what point is there to discussing the 2002-03
inspections
at all.

> Who
> would know if the weapon was a dud or a live round? The Carter admistration
> used to relocate nukes in the US so that no one would actually know where or
> how many there wold be.

There is no evidence that Iraq had enough fissile material to make
a nuclear weapon. In 1998 when inspectors left Iraq there were 500
tonnes of yellowcake at Tuwaitha where it had been monitored
by the IAEA since the late 1970's. When inspectors returned in
2002-03, it was still there, untouched, along with ~2.5 tonnes of
low-enriched Uranium (reactor fuel) and other quantities of other
isotopes either left over from the destroyed Osirak reactor project,
or from various other projects.

Iraq had four years without inspections to use those materials
and yet it did not.

When the US invaded, the Iraqi troops abandoned the facilty
(after all, that is what we told the Iraqi armed forces to do
if they wanted to live). THEN the site was looted. The US
called in the IAEA to clean up the mess. All but a trival
quantity of the yellowcake was recovered as the looters had
stolen the barrels and left the yellowcake behind, dumping it
on the ground. None to the other materials inventoried by
the IAEA were missing.

--

FF

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b66ea687-5301-451e-968a-5268f33b1dd1@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 9:38 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:00:21 +0000, DS wrote:
>>
>> > Shipments like that involve many people. I find it hard to believe
>> > that
>> > not one has come forward.
>>
>> One simple explanation could be, SH told Syria, Iran, etc, come and get
>> them. Neither of those countries are known as being forth coming.
>
> Are you high? Do you seriously think Hussein armed his enemies?
>
He flew many of his fighters to Iran. He expected to get them back at the
end of the war. But he didn't.

On Feb 19, 4:19 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 19, 3:23 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 19, 2:06 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Robatoy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 19, 11:51 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> Unfortunately, both sides of this debate over simplify what little
> >>>>>> factual information we're allowed to see, then villify and ridicule the
> >>>>>> other viewpoints until we're left with very little real information on
> >>>>>> which to base our opinions.
> >>>>> One side lied. The other sides may speculate as to why,
> >>>>> but that doesn't change the facts.
> >>>> You think only the people on one side of this issue are lying? I doubt
> >>>> that.
> >>> Your doubts are well-founded. I don't think that. But clearly
> >>> one lying side had the power and made the decisions.
> >>> However, the point that Iraqi chemical weapons were short-lived
> >>> has never been disputed by any parties to the controversy.
> >>> The Bush administration never even tried to rebut that, they
> >>> jsut ignored the argument.
> >>>> Seriously. Really. You realize I'm talking politics here right?
> >>>> And I wish we knew what the facts really are. Point is, we don't.
> >>> Have you any doubt at all that the yellowcake documents submitted
> >>> to the IAEA were forgeries?
> >> Like the rest of this debacle, we're relying on the information we're
> >> being fed.
> >> The yellowcake uranium info was just one piece of many.
>
> > So can you think of anything the other sides have lied about
> > that were as blatant?
>
> Not off hand.
> Can you prove that the yellowcake papers were lies purposefully
> propogated by W, and not just bad information given to him as they've
> claimed?
> I know you can't.

Can you find anyone who has examined the documents and
said they were NOT fake? I know you can't.

> I know you can't. Neither can I. We don't have access to the real facts
> here. You can believe what you believe with all your heart, but
> verifiable facts are in short supply.

Can you find any credible source who disputes the _central_
argument, that Iraqi chemical weapons were short-lived?
I know you can't.. Can you find many sources who say they
were short-lived? I know you can.

--

FF

On Feb 20, 12:38 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 4:46 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Her vote on its own
> >> didn't do much of anything (it would have easily passed if she had
> >> been out campaigning that day<G>) and there has not been a million
> >> deaths nor anywhere close to it. With 25 million people in the
> >> country 1 in 25 have not died. ...
>
> > Do you have a basis for this other than wanting it to be true? If
> > the estimates in the Lancet Studies are correct, there are several
> > other countries with a higher simple mortality rate than Iraq.
>
> The Lancet studies did not suggest a million deaths so that point is clearly
> moot...... Numbers, cause or whom is responsible would seem to be the larger
> problem with the Lancet survey.

Huh?

>
> I do think the Lancet conclusions are erroneous since most importantly
> physical proof is lacking (bodies)....

Your basis for concluding that a significant number of the death
certificates were fake (no body) is what, exactly?

> The small cluster sampling could
> easily be prone to magnified error, oddly in defense of the small sampling
> traditional political survey methodology is cited, of which is frequently
> wrong......

Of course it's wrong, the question is, how wrong?

> Soro's funding would make any conclusion suspect.....Most other
> studies clearly do not support the Lancet conclusions, in fact not even
> remotely close except for the OSB studies which claims the Lancet study
> understates by almost half....the studies author has clearly defined
> anti-war prejudice.....original Iraq baseline death rates were probably
> minimized.... Strangely enough survey participant produced death
> certificates are used to validate the study(a claimed 90%) when in fact
> official death certificates issued only account for a very small percentage
> of the surveys conclusions, strongly implying a robust counterfeiting ring
> of death certificates<G>.......Rod

A robust counterfeiting ring of death certificates? For what purpose?

--

FF

On Feb 21, 12:11 am, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:45 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I keep trying to make my basic point. That is that we do not have enough
> > information to come to the conclusions that many people, including
> > yourself, have come to.
>
> > It's good to keep digging, questioning, but to pretend that you have it
> > all down pat, to KNOW that the prez started the war on a whim, that he
> > did not believe that Iraq was a threat and invaded anyway, is just folly.
>
> > I know that is how you want to feel. That is what you want to believe.
> > Fine and dandy, it really doesn't matter to me.
>
> Since you did not include any references, I don' t know to whom
> you intend this to apply.
>
> I want to feel proud of my President and my country.
>
> I don't believe the war was started on a whim. I've concluded
> that it was NOT started to protect us because that is where
> the evidence has lead me.
>
> I have concluded that this administration cannot be trusted
> because they have been caught in so mane deceptions.
>
> > I for one, think that some of the information the administration based
> > their decisions on, while faulty, was trusted by them.
>
> And yet, now that you have seen the yellowcake documents,
> do you really think they thought they were genuine?
>
> Why on earth would they trust Curveball, a person described
> as a crazy drunk, while rejecting information from a prominent
> defector and their own highly placed mole in the Iraqi government?
>
> They didn't err by trusting unreliable sources. They deliberately
> used or rejected intelligence based on the desired conclusion.
>
> They bribed reporters, held fake news conferences, and even
> planted a fake reporter in the White House press corps.
>
> When Hans Blix, in his report to the UIN security council
> calls the Iraqi cooperation 'unprecedented', and means
> it in a good way, and then Bush says that Iraq has refused
> to cooperate with UNMOVIC a very clear conclusion can
> be reached.
>
> Maybe I have it all wrong. Maybe black is white, up is down,
> good is evil. Maybe after Pearl Harbor was bombed we
> should have declared war on Brazil. Maybe the Pope
> smokes pot.
>
> Maybe we are all butterflies dreaming we are people.
> The possibilities are endless. But they are not
> equally probable.
>
> > I don't support the war. I want the US out of the middle east.
>
> > I also don't believe the conspiracy theories.
>
> > I'm not going to continue arguing the same points over again.
> > We're beyond 'ad nauseum', I don't have time or motivation for 'ad
> > infinitum'.
>
> IOW you know better than to repeat an argument that
> has been rebutted, or repeat a lie that has been exposed
> as such.
>
> That puts you ahead of the current administration.
>
> --
>
> FF

Game. Set. Match.

On Feb 20, 2:59 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> A stupid and a rather inaccurate question......Her vote on its own didn't
> >> do much of anything (it would have easily passed if she had been out
> >> campaigning that day<G>) and there has not been a million deaths nor
> >> anywhere close to it. With 25 million people in the country 1 in 25 have
> >> not died. ...
>
> > Do you have a basis for this other than wanting it to be true? If
> > the estimates in the Lancet Studies are correct, there are several
> > other countries with a higher simple mortality rate than Iraq.
>
> Why Fred, I'm surprised that someone as widely read as yourself has not
> found the numerous refutations that have show the Lancet study results to
> be erroneous, used flawed methodology, was performed by an agenda-driven
> researcher who got his funding from an even more agenda-driven benefactor.

Nope. I've read many criticisms of the conclusions of the two
studies,
mostly by people who didn't even understand the conclusions in the
first place.

>
> [No, I'm not going to provide references, there are plenty out there that
> are easy to find]
>

No surprise there.

--

FF

On Feb 19, 12:40 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> What the hell do I know... but don't limit W's motives to simple
> thoughts.
>

Indeed,he is not nearly as stupid as he sounds. His success is
the result of way too many people misunderestimating him.

--

FF

On Feb 20, 8:27 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:01 pm, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Jeff wrote:
> > > On Feb 19, 9:38 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:[email protected]...
>
> > >>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:00:21 +0000, DS wrote:
> > >>> Shipments like that involve many people. I find it hard to believe that
> > >>> not one has come forward.
> > >> One simple explanation could be, SH told Syria, Iran, etc, come and get
> > >> them. Neither of those countries are known as being forth coming.
>
> > > Are you high? Do you seriously think Hussein armed his enemies?
>
> > Iran did give safe have to Saddam's Air Force when the $#!+ hit the fan.
>
> Hussein played that in a manner he thought most advantageous. His
> small air force did not stand a chance against the US but it could be
> played politically. He told CNN that Tehran offered sanctuary to the
> Iraqi planes in a gesture of Muslim solidarity. Baghdad was
> politically isolated and the well-publicized move provided him with an
> opportunity to dispense that notion. Rather than watch his planes burn
> on the ground, he moved them abroad for political gain. Tehran
> accepted them because A. they wanted free planes and B. they'll never
> turn down an opportunity to provoke Washington.
>
> While Iraq's small air force was incapable of slowing US forces, the
> same cannot be said of this supposed arsenal of chemical weapons. Had
> it existed, it would have been useful in his hands and a threat in
> Tehran's possession. So, sure, he moved a small air force to Iran for
> what he felt was political gain but do you seriously think he'd arm
> Tehran with WMD so deadly they made Bush wet himself and they kept you
> up at night?

Case in point, in 1991 when Iraq did have WMD stocks Saddam Hussein
did NOT move those out of his country. He did disperse them from
their centralized storage facilities.

So, if the object of the invasion was to prevent WMD from falling into
the
hands of 'terrorists', it was a particularly bad strategy.

In fact, several sites with materials declared to and sealed by the UN
were looted AFTER the invasion, including Iraq's primary nuclear
research
site, Tuwaitha, where ~500 tonnes of yellowcake had been safely stored
under IAEA supervision for over twenty years.

--

FF

On Feb 19, 2:06=A0pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> So he and Dick Cheney decided that killing millions would be a cool way
> to make some extra cash?

I don't think The Decider decided anything. He had no choice. He OWED
them.
When you sell your soul.... you OWE. He has no real feelings left.
Sold them. He's dead inside. Typical for a megalomaniac with an
inferiority complex.

Cheney on the other hand, is one piece of work. There is nothing I
would put past him.
Nothing.

I trust my gut feeling on that one.

r

On Feb 20, 12:58 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:> How about this:
>
> > You tell me to be afraid of someone because he is going to
> > throw a pot of boiling water on me. I ask you, "Where's the
> > pot, and where's the water?" You say you don't know.
> > How scared should I be?
>
> A simile more to the point:
> He tells you that someone is going to spray poison gas on you.
> This someone has sprayed poison gas on his family and his neighbors
> before, that fact is undisputed.

So far so good.

> This someone is known to have poison
> gas in his possession.

Now you have gone off-point, as Iraq was NOT known to have
poison gas in it's possession as of the Fall of 2002.

> This someone has declared publicly that he will use poison gas on you.

Again, off-point as Saddam Hussein did not declare that.

>
> You ask "where's the gas", He says "I don't know".

Now add:

The suspect and his house have been recently searched, no
poison gas found. He is under surveillance.

> Should you be unconcerned because he doesn't know exactly where this
> person has his poison gas?

One should always be concerned about someone with a
criminal history. One should also always be concerned
about one's own actions. When the person submits to
a search of his house and his person and is under continuing
surveillance it is perhaps not appropriate to start a fight
with his family.

--

FF

On Feb 19, 3:27 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 3:20 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 19, 2:00 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> There isn't however, hard evidence gathered by our inspectors to verify
> >>>> these claims.
> >>>> But as you said, given enough time, that evidence is not that hard to
> >>>> get rid of.
> >>> What evidence do you have that there was anything to hide?
> >> Read the previous two sentences. I think I just said there wasn't any.
>
> > Then I think you accept the argument that the case for Iraqi having
> > WMD was bogus.
>
> No. I didn't say that, did I? I said I have no hard evidence.
> That's a different thing altogether.

OK, what non-hard evidence do you have?

--

FF

On Feb 20, 5:30 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 5:51 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 19, 4:28 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Again, what evidence do you have for those claims?
> >>> Were they referring to 2002, or 1991?
> >>> I showed you a little teeny tiny piece of mine. Why not show
> >>> me some of yours?
> >> I'm a bit surprised that you included the UNMOVIC site in your evidence.
>
> > What did you think of the yellowcake documents?

What did you think of the yellowcake documents?

> ...
>
> > Please specify the briefings (e.g. date) so we can be sure we
> > are looking at the same thing.
>
> No. You're obviously arguing just for argument's sake.
> You sent the link, so I'll assume you know what's in it.
>

As I thought. Your source is not UNMOVIC, more likely
NewsMax and you know better than to admit it.

> ...
>
> >> Discrepancies in what the Iraqi inventory said they built, and what was
> >> disposed of or destroyed were at least 1000 tons of CW agent.
>
> > I ask you to specify the UNMOVIC report that said that.
>
> > As I recall,
> > regarding VX, UNMOVIC found trace evidence at the disposal site
> > consistent with the disposal of VX, but was unable to determine the
> > quantity. I'd like to know how you got from 'unable to determine
> > the quantity', to a specific figure.
>
> Read the documents you referenced.
>

As I wrote above, regarding VX (and anthrax) the documents I
referenced stated that it was not possible to determine the quantity
that was destroyed as the disposal site.

They also make it clear that the discrepencies did not prove that
Iraq had chemical weapons, that benign explanations were also
possible--but not yet proved. They kept pressing Iraq for more
evidence and Iraq kept finding it. Blix described it as a continuing
process.

>
> ...
> >> 100 tons of CW would take up a storage area around the size of an
> >> average swimming pool. All 1000 tons could be stored in a small
> >> facility. (2 of the 130 Iraqi munitions dumps are each larger than
> >> Manhattan.)
>

The fact that it would be easy to hide something is not evidence
that something is hidden.

Something that would not be so easy to hide would be the factories
used to produce WMD. As David remarked, no factories, no weapons.
Since Iraq did not rebuild the factories destroyed in 1991, where
would
they have made the weapons you suppose they might have hidden?

> > Aside from mustard, Iraqi chemical warfare agents couldn't
> > be stored at all.
>
> Fantasy.
>

Nonsense. Even high purity Sarin and Cyclosarin have a shelf
life of ~ 5 years. The Iraqi weapons were NOT high purity and
had drasticly shorter shelf lives. By 2002, Muthana had been
out of operation for 11 years.

>
>
> >> Iraq claims that they created very limited, experimental amounts of VX,
> >> one of the most powerful nerve agents in existence. And that the VX they
> >> created lasted only a couple of weeks before degrading.
> >> UNMOVIC found documentation detailing Iraq's solution to this problem,
> >> creating a chemical precursor to VX that has much longer shelf life.
> >> This precursor would require additional processing to refine it into VX,
> >> a quick and relatively easy procedure.
>
> > Yes, Iraq had some 'fill and fire' shells, but not VX. I'm not
> > clear if those had gone into production before their factories
> > were destroyed in 1991. They also had developed
> > a binary shell that mixed in flight, but there is no evidence that
> > advance beyond the pilot stage.

But I see now that is not what you meant. Many chemical
weapons have the same precursors and intermediate compounds
as pesticides that Iraq was allowed to produce. So there is
no doubt that Iraq COULD quickly produce chemical weapons
from material that was not proscribed per se. I suppose it
may be possible that during the inspections hiatus Iraq could
have made chemical weapons or precursors in its civilian
pesticide factories. Evidence that they did, is lacking.

As you will recall, I pointed that out early on. For any country
with a chemical industry it is virtually a tautology that they COULD
produce chemical weapons in short order.

>
> > Again I ask you to specify the UNMOVIC
> > document in which you found this.
>
> The same one you sent.

I didn't SEND any. I posted three links and two of them
lead to scores of documents. I don't think you are
relying on them at all.

> ...
>
> >> Iraq lied about the number of Al Samoud missiles they had built, the
> >> inspection teams found 25 undocumented ones at one point and had them
> >> destroyed.
>
> >> There are 326 SA2 missles unaccounted for.
>
> > Missiles are not chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Surface
> > to Air (SA2 missiles) were not proscribed. Iraq's contention was
> > that the al Samoud was not proscribed because it only exceeded
> > the permitted range without a payload. IMHO that was a good
> > argument. Regardless, the relented and destroyed them anyhow.
>
> > There in no question that Iraq had an active missile program
> > and was pushing the boundaries of their allowed range.
>
> > As you know, that is also no what we were discussing.
>
> They're delivery platforms for what we're discussing. If they weren't,
> the inspectors wouldn't have been concerned with them.

My point is that we do not significantly disagree about the Iraqi
missile program. It has been suggested, and I think the idea
makes good sense, that Iraq had put its resources into missile
development and postponed further development of chemical
and nuclear weapons until later.

I also make no claim that Saddam Hussein was honest
or trustworthy. Iraqi cooperation was forced by the threat of
military action. I do claim that Saddam Hussein was desparate
to avoid a US invasion.

>
>
> >> The Muthanna facility, Iraq's main CW storage site, previously sealed in
> >> 1994 by UN inspectors, had been reopened and equipment and materials
> >> have been removed. UNMOVIC has no information about the whereabouts of
> >> these materials.
>
> > You are being seriously dishonest now.
>
> >http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/10/31/news/nation/14_47_4710_30_...
>
> > Looters unleashed last year [e.g. in 2003, FF] by the
> > U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
> > overran a sprawling desert complex where a bunker sealed
> > by U.N. monitors held old chemical weapons, American arms
> > inspectors report.
>
> > Charles Duelfer's arms teams say all U.N.-sealed structures
> > at the Muthanna site were broken into.
> > ... U.N. inspectors who moved in after the
> > 1991 Gulf War oversaw destruction of 22,000 chemical
> > weapons at Muthanna by 1998, when they withdrew from
> > Iraq ...
> > When U.N. inspectors returned after four years,
> > Muthanna's sealed locations appeared not to have
> > been tampered with, Buchanan said.
>
> > IOW, when UNMOVIC inspected in 2002-03,
> > al Muthanna had NOT been 'reopened', but
> > after the US invaded THEN it was looted.
>
> > Of course UNMOVIC has no information about
> > the whereabouts of these materials--the US
> > refused to allow UNMOVIC back into the
> > country! (We did allow IAEA back in briefly,
> > to clean up after the looting at Tuwaitha.)
>
> Ah. Looters. got it. Glad it definitely wasn't the Iraqis that went in
> there and took that stuff. Couldn't have been them that 'looted' their
> weapons supplies.
>

Don't change the subject. You wrote "The Muthanna facility,
Iraq's main CW storage site, previously sealed in
1994 by UN inspectors, had been reopened ..." while
carefully neglecting to mention that it was 'opened' by
looters AFTER the US invasion.


Plainly you deliberately omitted that crucial fact because
you wanted to fool the reader into thinking that it had
been put back into operation by Saddam Hussein between
1998 and 2002.

When UNMOVIC returned to Iraq in 2002-03 Muthana had
not been rebuilt or repaired. It had NOT been reopened.


> ..
>
> > Now I'll point out the obvious. You are very seriously truth-
> > challenged when you try to pass off post-invasion looting
> > of Iraqi sites that were still under UNMOVIC seal prior to
> > the invasion, as a justification for the invasion itself.
>
> I did no such thing. I was responding to your question,
> not trying to
> justify the war. I can't justify the war.

I never asked you if Muthana was looted after the US took
over responsibility for security in Iraq.

So what exactly was the question to which you were
responding?

> ...
>
> >> These are just the speaking notes for the security council briefings.
> >> There is no evidence here to support the assertion that Iraq was not
> >> hiding or continuing research or production for chemical, biological, or
> >> nuclear weapons.

Of course not. Logic does not permit the proof of a
negative hypothesis. That is why George W Bush
demanded that Iraq prove it had no WMD. He knew
that it was a demand that could not be met no matter
how well Iraq cooperated with UNMOVIC.

> >> Quite the opposite, there is much here to show that
> >> Iraq was not being totally honest.
>
> > To the contrary, you have proven that you are dishonest.
>
> Not in any way. These points were all taken from the briefing notes.
> You're really stretching here.
> I thought you were enjoying yourself and applying logic for a good
> discussion. Clearly you're just arguing for arguments sake, and when
> your logic fails you, degraded to insults. Sorry for you. Waste of time
> for me.
>

You wrote "The Muthanna facility,
Iraq's main CW storage site, previously sealed in
1994 by UN inspectors, had been reopened ..." while
carefully neglecting to mention that it was 'opened' by
looters AFTER the US invasion.

Plainly you deliberately omitted that crucial fact because
you wanted to fool the reader into thinking that it had
been put back into operation by Saddam Hussein between
1998 and 2002.

That is dishonest. That is no stretch.

When UNMOVIC returned to Iraq in 2002-03 Muthana
had NOT been reopened.

--

FF

On Feb 20, 12:58 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:> How about this:
>
> > You tell me to be afraid of someone because he is going to
> > throw a pot of boiling water on me. I ask you, "Where's the
> > pot, and where's the water?" You say you don't know.
> > How scared should I be?
>
> A simile more to the point:
> He tells you that someone is going to spray poison gas on you.
> This someone has sprayed poison gas on his family and his neighbors
> before, that fact is undisputed. This someone is known to have poison
> gas in his possession.
> This someone has declared publicly that he will use poison gas on you.
>
> You ask "where's the gas", He says "I don't know".
> Should you be unconcerned because he doesn't know exactly where this
> person has his poison gas?

I could look around his impoverished shack and conclude that
concurrently he doesn't have the resources needed to produce and spray
it on me since he's been under house arrest for more than a decade so
fsck him. Why destabilize the entire neighborhood because he insists
on grandstanding about poison in order to keep his neighbor I. Ran at
bay...?

On Feb 19, 2:06 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 11:51 am, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > us."
> > The defense contractors, KBR, and many more 'big guns' have done
> > extremely well because of that war. Then again, you could be one of
> > those who doesn't believe The Carlyle Group exists or that they have
> > any influence in foreign policy. (Look at their BOD)
> > It has NEVER been different... follow the money. Who benefits?
> > The 5th birth day pony arguments, etc,....you are right, those do not
> > hold water.
>
> > Another possibility is pressure from a religious lobby, to bring on
> > the New World Order that Bush 41 talked about.
>
> > What the hell do I know... but don't limit W's motives to simple
> > thoughts.
>
> So he and Dick Cheney decided that killing millions would be a cool way
> to make some extra cash?
> Jebus made him do it?

He wouldn't be the first. The Saudis certainly made a lot
of money from the invasion.

>
> Unfortunately, both sides of this debate over simplify what little
> factual information we're allowed to see, then villify and ridicule the
> other viewpoints until we're left with very little real information on
> which to base our opinions.

One side lied. The other sides may speculate as to why,
but that doesn't change the facts.

--

FF

On Feb 19, 2:00 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
> > "DS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:FCCuj.40612$9j6.16304@attbi_s22...
>
> >> The difference between my viewpoint and hers is, like many americans, when
> >> they didn't find MWDs, she assumed that there had never been any danger at
> >> all. It was a politically expedient viewpoint for her to take.
>
> > If an advesary called you on the telephone and told you that he was coming
> > over to take your car and destroy it but he waited several months before
> > showing up to do so, given that you had months before he would show up,
> > would you hide it in a very safe place?
> > IMHO it takes about 2 cents worth of common sense to realize that with SH
> > having several months of warning that he would naturally hide his weapons.
> > I would. I think some that do not believe that are easily deceived.
>
> I don't think they're that easily deceived. Hillary and the rest of the
> congresscritters are generally smart people. Generally selfish,
> egotistical, elitist people, but intelligent.
> They spin all of this information to suit their political agendas and
> aspriations. Both parties. They aren't the ones being deceived.

I agree. They were afraid of being smeared as weak or disloyal.

>
> There was evidence of some shipments going to other sympathetic
> countries,

There is evidence that Iraq's upper class fled the country on the
eve of the invasion. I find that unremarkable. If you have access
to information that Saddam Hussein moved his chemical weapons
infrastructure or even weapons themselves out of the country
please let us know what it is.

>
> there were scientists that claimed to have been working on
> chemical, nuclear and biological weapons research right up until the
> time the Iraqi government shut their facilities down.

Which facilities and in what years were they shut down?

>
> There isn't however, hard evidence gathered by our inspectors to verify
> these claims.
> But as you said, given enough time, that evidence is not that hard to
> get rid of.

What evidence do you have that there was anything to hide?

--

FF

On Feb 18, 7:35 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Has your mother shown any remorse for the fact that her vote cost
> Iraqis a million of their lives?" a student asked Chelsea Clinton on
> Monday at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
>
> Ms. Clinton replied: "She cast a vote based on the best available
> evidence. Perhaps you had clairvoyance then, and that's
> extraordinary."
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> What an arrogant piece of shit.

Clairvoyance??? That was never necessary. We had weapons inspectors on
the ground, in Iraq. Teams guided by Scott Ritter and Hans Blix
followed US intelligence information from site to site and found - get
this - NOTHING. That's right, NOTHING. It was only after these
failures that the concept of "mobile weapons labs" was devised. At
that point, Ms Clinton should have known they were making shit up. The
Administration's reaction to each investigative failure read like
satire. "We visited that site and found nothing." "Well, that's
because they put biological weapons on trucks and move them around..."
It would be funny if not for the final outcome.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:28 pm, DS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Again, what evidence do you have for those claims?
> Were they referring to 2002, or 1991?
>
> I showed you a little teeny tiny piece of mine. Why not show
> me some of yours?

I'm a bit surprised that you included the UNMOVIC site in your evidence.
Reading the security council briefings, which went on until the
cessation of their Iraq mission, spoke strongly to the unresolved nature
of the issue.
High points:
They looked around but didn't find much.
They said that didn't mean they weren't there, just that they didn't
find it. That's not surprising considering there were 130 munitions
sites, and they didn't have a chance to look at them all.

Discrepancies in what the Iraqi inventory said they built, and what was
disposed of or destroyed were at least 1000 tons of CW agent.
100 tons of CW would take up a storage area around the size of an
average swimming pool. All 1000 tons could be stored in a small
facility. (2 of the 130 Iraqi munitions dumps are each larger than
Manhattan.)

Iraq claims that they created very limited, experimental amounts of VX,
one of the most powerful nerve agents in existence. And that the VX they
created lasted only a couple of weeks before degrading.
UNMOVIC found documentation detailing Iraq's solution to this problem,
creating a chemical precursor to VX that has much longer shelf life.
This precursor would require additional processing to refine it into VX,
a quick and relatively easy procedure.
UNMOVIC and UNSCOM believed that much larger quantities of this
precursor was created.
They close the issue by saying that "Iraq will have to further clarify
the matter"

Iraq lied about the number of Al Samoud missiles they had built, the
inspection teams found 25 undocumented ones at one point and had them
destroyed.

There are 326 SA2 missles unaccounted for.

The Muthanna facility, Iraq's main CW storage site, previously sealed in
1994 by UN inspectors, had been reopened and equipment and materials
have been removed. UNMOVIC has no information about the whereabouts of
these materials.

Key scientists and other personnel to be interviewed by UNMOVIC were not
made available for interview.

Regarding the destruction of missiles: "the programme of destruction was
not completed when the inspectors were withdrawn. Fifty per cent of the
declared warheads and 98% of the missile engines remained intact. Also,
there was no time to assess whether the Al Fatah missile programme
stayed within the range allowed by Security Council resolutions."

As Hans Blix points out concerning missing items (7900 of which were
confirmed to exist by UNSCOM, now have gone missing): "this does not
necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might – there
remain long lists of items unaccounted for – but it is not justified to
jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is
unaccounted for"
..
..

Now I'll point out the obvious, that it also is not justified to jump to
the conclusion that something doesn't exist just because it wasn't seen
by a handful of visiting inspectors.
These are just the speaking notes for the security council briefings.
There is no evidence here to support the assertion that Iraq was not
hiding or continuing research or production for chemical, biological, or
nuclear weapons. Quite the opposite, there is much here to show that
Iraq was not being totally honest.