 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 11 Jun 04 - 04:25 PM UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Peace Date: 11 Jun 04 - 05:45 PM This is no surprise to me. It would be really nice if someone knew to where they were shipped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jun 04 - 05:48 PM so, all of you out there will e apologizing to me, and to the US government? Why do I think not?.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:25 PM what is "The World Tribune"? and why do the Wash Post and CNN know nothing of this yet? Perhaps they are checking sources and details a bit closer? Sounds a little too easy to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:32 PM Interesting. Who publishes the World Tribune? I have been listening to the news all day and I have just surfed news services all over the world. The World Tribune seems to be the only paper carrying the story. A breaking story with this kind of political significance would have hit the broadcast media well before the print media, yet there is nothing so far. I would have thought that Fox News would jump on this like a beagle on a filet mignon. No apologies yet, BB. Verification required. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Blackcatter Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:33 PM I agree Bill. No author to the article and just some supposed quotes by UN people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Peace Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:38 PM Question is, if they had the real-time images, why didn't they strafe or bomb the weapons? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:39 PM This is very revealing. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Blackcatter Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:40 PM It's an Internet only paper, supposedly located in Virginia. Here's other "quality" writing form the paper: On a visit to West Berlin in 1987, President Reagan issued his famous challenge; "Mr. Gorbachev Tear Down This Wall!" Reagan's proactive political policies set in motion the epic events of 1989 which sounded the Joshua Trumpet heralding the fall of the Berlin Wall. Amid the joyful celebrations and popping champagne corks celebrating the collapse of the Berlin Wall was really Ronald Reagan's "Oscar night." Ronald Reagan posthumously received these Oscars in Heaven for his Presidency: Best Picture—The Reagan Presidency 1981-1988 Best Performing Actor — Defeat of the Evil Empire, Best Script — Making America proud again, Best Foreign Film — Supporting Solidarity and freedom in Poland Best Supporting Actress — Margaret Thatcher Best Special effects — Collapse of the Berlin Wall Best Documentary — America's Economic Enterprise Revival Best Short Film — Grenada Best Score — Happy Days are Here Again Gee - didn't I see that in the NY Times? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:43 PM OK. I am a patient person. Of course, since the neocons control the media, I guess they could be sitting on this, just to be able to release it about 3 weeks before the election. THAT would make the Dems a little red in the face... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Blackcatter Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:44 PM Thanks Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:45 PM Here's what the Guardian has to say about it. I'm guessing the reason FOX hasn't reported it yet is because this development proves what the UN inspectors had warned the Bush administration about: with the UN inspections still ongoing, it was possible to contain the weapons, but attacking Iraq would create a situation in which the weapons would be scattered to goodness knows where in the hands of pretty much anybody (including terrorists). And this appears to be what has happened. This looks bad for the Bush administration and its "pre-emptive war" and that is probably why it isn't being reported by major news outlets in the US. Instead of making the world safer, this war appears to have made it a lot more dangerous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Blackcatter Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:45 PM Bruce - check out Don's link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:58 PM Te only "fact" I see being reported here which is of potential interest is the notion that Iraq is exporting up to a thousand tons of scrap metal a day. If true, it would be of interest to find out where it is coming from. As for it being weapons of mass destruction, well, I just dunno when you want to decide something is probably true. Anytime anyone says it? Or perhaps when an authority says it? So far I haven't seen anything persuasive here. Least of all the story in the "World Tribune". Sheeshe! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:59 PM oh, I DO love these 'reliable sources'...*grin*.... first you throw the dart, then you draw the bullseye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Gareth Date: 11 Jun 04 - 07:15 PM Nice Try CarolC - Personaly I prefer not to trust any one source, but then any slant will do in your crusade ! Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 11 Jun 04 - 07:48 PM Hey, Gareth --I can do that too! Nice Try beardedbruce - Personaly I prefer not to trust any one source, but then any slant will do in your crusade ! Whee! clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Deckman Date: 11 Jun 04 - 07:51 PM Gareth ... Re; Your mentioning of some kind of a "crusade" of Carole C. I have read this post over several times. Maybe I'm missing something here, but just what "crusade" are you talking about? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jun 04 - 07:51 PM I am willing to wait for confirmation. But what difference does it make? A number of you would not believe it even when the mushroom cloud rises over you, and your children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 11 Jun 04 - 08:04 PM But did they outright threaten us with them? We have the most WMD's of anyone. What if some other nations up and decide we're a threat and launch a war on us. Somehow I'd think we'd think that would be wrong. It was fundamentally wrong to launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereighn(?sp) nation. That's a fact |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 11 Jun 04 - 08:24 PM I've been thinking about this kind of thing for some time now: what if we do indeed find WMDs in October? And it came to me that we weren't be in much danger from WMDs that weren't used; not much threat there. So assume that Casual O's story is true (though I'm puzzled about how Saddam shipped anything out after the war). How much were we threatened by a nation that was getting rid of its weapons? Will Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey use the stuff to make atomic bombs and raise a mushroom cloud over us? And are dual-use gadgets always weapons? I still see less excuse for attacking Iraq than we had for attacking the USSR in Reagan's administration. Even assuming that the story's true. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 11 Jun 04 - 08:43 PM Gee, perhaps the reason the so-called WMD's are in the scrapyards is because they're scrap. As in decomissioned, broken down, neglected, unmaintained, inoperable and bound for the smelter. Is a scrapped rocket engine in a junkyard in Rotterdam still a rocket engine or is it a hunk of scrap metal that used to be a rocket engine? If it's junk, who cares whether it used to be a rocket engine or a bicycle? If it's still operable or repairable, trying to fence it through a publicly accessible scrapyard doesn't seem like the most logical way to go about getting it into the hands of someone who might know what to do with it. I guess it's a possible way, but it would seem to imply a conspiracy involving numerous people. If it is still operable and it was intended to wind up in the hands of terrorists, wouldn't it have made more sense to just send it to them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 11 Jun 04 - 08:43 PM The thing is it would just be too brazenly convenient for some complex coverup to suddenly materialize pointing to "WMDs all along", and it would be perfectly possible -- I would even say probable for such a scenario to be rigged up fraudulently in order to salvage some glimmer of rightness for the Bush administration. Given Mister Bush's track record of glib and self-serving falsification on every front, I would be very disinclined to buy such a story, presented by yet another right-wing nut-case OR presented by some gun for hire from Fox. These are not sources I would expect to speak sooth. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bobert Date: 11 Jun 04 - 09:07 PM Well, folks, the guy who runs this phony baloney website that is supposed to look like a real newspaper used to work for the Moonie Wsahington Times, which is just a cut above (or below) the "National Enquirer". Now, it don't take no Wes Ginny Slide Rule to figure out that if yer such a nut that you can't even keep yer job with the right winged Wsahington Times, then you is one heck of a nutball!... During the entire Clin6ton years the The Washington Times ran at least two anti-Clinton articles on the front page every day for the entire 8 years... This paper is a joke and anyone even mildly associated with it is subject to suspicion... I can't believe that C-SPAN quotes from it... Nevermind... Yes, I can... And if ya want more proff that this story is a hoax watch the TV on Sunday morning. Now if Dick Cheney so much as dreams that Saddam did this or that he'll be on every station blasting away at Saddam. So when Cheney doesn't come on the TV Sunday then you can bet that everyone in the Bush administration, being leary of being caught in yet another big lie, has been told to stay clear of this story as if it were radiation, ahhhh, 'er something like radiation, you know, like a truck full of old galvanized duct work.... (Well, Bobert, that may look like old duct work to you, pal, but it could be melted down and used to make hardware that could be used in a nuclear weapon that Saddam could order to be shot at New York City with only 45 minute advance time!!!) Come on, give us a break with these winey excuses for invading Iraq and now occupying it until, like, ahhh, forever... Can't you Bushites ever say, "Hey, we blew it and we're sorry."? That too much to ask here? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Ebbie Date: 11 Jun 04 - 09:38 PM Also at http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=31386 "The inspectors said they didn't know whether the items, which had been monitored by the United Nations, were at the sites during the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The commission, known as UNMOVIC, said it was possible some material was taken by looters and sold as scrap." emphasis mine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 11 Jun 04 - 10:31 PM It is possible that some of that material was taken by tiptoing Ninjas in the night, transported by waterbarge to the Galapago Islands, and used to construct giant guillotines for the extinction of giant tortoises in bizarre satanic rituals using rhubarb sauce and dandelion wine in equal parts. But, ya know, we don't think it is very likely somehow... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 11 Jun 04 - 10:53 PM There ARE folks in the world that would be glad to raise "a mushroom cloud" over us, and even though it would not be easy for them, we should explore the options and be vigilant.....but criminy...NOTHING I have seen leads me to think that Iraq ever came close! Libya was closer! The Iraqi scientists that KNEW agree that all they had was some rudimentry research. We have been monitoring Iraq relentlessly for 10 years, and we still couldn't find any serious weapons. (A few rockets that were 'technically' a bit too powerful, and that 'might' have threatened Israel...if...and if....) I guess people will believe what they want to believe....there are those who still will deny the Holocaust ever happened (it must have been fun faking those B&W movies!) ah, well....maybe I'll start an internet 'news'paper that claims that all Pistaschios imported from Iran have been dusted with anthrax....want to bet I can have a panic within a week? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jun 04 - 03:31 AM I looked at this thread when it first started and ignored it because it was such a hokey story. I see it has continued and Don Firth has posted some excellent material about that "news" source. I am posting a response here that I put on another thread just now; Beardedbruce was asking for an apology (don't hold your breath, brucie). I did some research using the internet site's own links and this is what I found. Beardedbruce, you owe us all an apology for trying to insult our intelligence. You post a link to a mouthpiece for the most conservative membership of the republican party and expect us to accept that as news? The guys who are behind Bush and his obscene attack on various nations around the world? The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree. A little information about World Tribune.com, the place where you found this bit of "news": World Tribune.com Board of Advisors Arnold Beichman, International Security Timothy Brown, Latin America Bill Gertz, U.S. National Security Thomas Henriksen, Military Affairs Assad Homayoun, The Persian Gulf Christopher Holton, U.S. National Security and Economics Herbert London, Future Studies Scott McCollum, Technology Do a smallish search and you find that these guys are all part of the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank at Stanford U. In case it's too much trouble to go there to look for it, bruce, I'll put the mission statement of the group here for you:
The principles of individual, economic, and political freedom; private enterprise; and representative government were fundamental to the vision of the Institution's founder. By collecting knowledge, generating ideas, and disseminating both, the Institution seeks to secure and safeguard peace, improve the human condition, and limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals. Their way of being a "voice of experience against making of war" is a little shakey right now. Their approach seems akin to using dynamite to blow out forest fires, judging from Afghanistan and Iraq. Hoover Institute Executive Committee: Executive Committee W. Kurt Hauser, Chairman Peter B. Bedford, Vice Chairman Martin Anderson Wendy Borcherdt Paul Lewis Davies III William C. Edwards Everett Hauck Heather Higgins Herbert Hoover III Peyton M. Lake Bowen H. McCoy Robert J. Rishwain Richard M. Scaife Tad Taube Thomas J. Tierney David T. Traitel Walter E. Williams And surprise, surprise, take a look at the overview of their fellows and who turns up but Dr. Condoleezza Rice (on Leave), along with the late Ronald Reagan. George Schultz and Margaret Thatcher are on the list, along with Pete Wilson and Newt Gingrich to name a few. Bruce, just because you can find something on the Internet doesn't make it TRUE. One must always evaluate the source. SRS
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: dianavan Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:11 AM Stilly River Sage - That was alot of work. Good on ya! You have to be vigilant about the propaganda and those that spread it. Tells you alot about the credibility of some of the posters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 12 Jun 04 - 09:52 AM I have no idea what he's going on about either, Deckman. He's been following me around the Mudcat saying loopy things about me for more than a year. He's been doing that to one or two other Mudcatters as well. Takes all kinds, I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Deckman Date: 12 Jun 04 - 10:00 AM CaroleC ...It's always nice to have admirers, but sometimes you gotta wonder? Hmmm? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 12 Jun 04 - 12:59 PM I thought the idea was to put Saddams Al-Hussein Missiles on the scrap heap and thats where they found them, so why the fuss? Unless of course he had set up a secret Netherlands based launch site. As for the SA-2, those things are ex-soviet technology from the 1960's, one of them shot down Gary Powers I think. These things are ancient anti-aircraft missiles not the bringers of mass destruction the articles imply. If you look in Janes directories or world armies, you will find them as being in the inventory of many states still as front line weapons. Big deal. Is the US going to go after them as well? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Gareth Date: 12 Jun 04 - 01:40 PM Sorry Deckman. Just to fill you in, that Nutcase CarolC, as you are aware, seems to have a vitiolic crusade against any objectivity in discussing the problems of the middle east. If, as I browse, I come across any inane comments of hers, I remark upon them. And I will continue to do so. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 12 Jun 04 - 01:51 PM See what I mean? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Deckman Date: 12 Jun 04 - 02:08 PM Only too well! Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jun 04 - 03:25 PM Nice work, Maggie! My suggestion for those who run across a story that supports their viewpoint, be it left, right, or center, is to spend a little time checking the veracity of the story before going off half-cocked and rushing to start a new thread. Be assured that someone here will check it out, and the hasty one will wind up eating crow with a slice of humble pie for dessert. Either that, or having to try to defend their position while standing on empty air over a deep canyon, like Wile E. Coyote before he makes the mistake of looking down. I know it's a temptation to rush in with a story that seems to validate your position, but the internet makes things pretty easy to check. If you fail to do so, you could be the one who makes your position look less tenable than if you had just stayed silent. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:11 PM Thanks, Don. I particularly enjoyed coming up with the dynamite/forest fire analogy. Close reading things like that mission statement can give you some interesting stuff to work with (I'm not my father's daughter for nothin'!) SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Deckman Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:12 PM SRS ... You do your Father credit. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:25 PM "...the road to peace, to personal freedom, and to the safeguards of the American system." if I wasn't so busy this weekend, I'd have a go at unpacking the unsaid but scary content of that ambiguously sanctimonious "Mission Statement". I'm afraid their notion of "personal freedom" ain't exactly what mine is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jun 04 - 05:17 PM BillD, you can drive yourself nutz "unpacking" something like that. But it is necessary in today's political environment to know about these various think-thanks, no matter what their political leanings, if for no other reason than they can be useful short-hand when you're referring to particular ideologies. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jun 04 - 11:36 PM geez, I'm going to fire my typist. Think tanks. On a separate thread Beardedbruce has suggested that because I don't answer the arguments IN the article that started this thread instead of deconstructing the publication in which the article appears (thus revealing the bias of the article) that I'm evading his question. The point of deconstructing the mouthpiece--this online "journal"--was to render the article null. To argue the points of the article on the terms of the article is to accept the context as presented by the members of this ultra-conservative think tank. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" says Bruce, "just look at the words in the form of this article." Sorry, but I won't do that. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 13 Jun 04 - 12:18 AM I think "think-thanks" is a charming conceit, even if executed in error. I think thanks at you! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Strick Date: 13 Jun 04 - 01:19 AM I'm confused. Isn't the story CarolC posted from the Guardian similar enough to almost verify the thing from the WorldTribune? Of course the Guardian says they're Al Samoud 2 missle engines, SA-2s modified for surface to surface and that suggests that they were part of the set that the Iraqis were destroying at UN "request"... Al-Samoud - GlobalSecurity.org "According to the British dossier Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction released in September 2002, it was unclear whether chemical and biological warheads had been developed for the al-Samoud/Ababil-100 ballistic missiles but given the Iraqi experience on other missile systems, the British government was judging that Iraq had the technical expertise for doing so. According to that same dossier, the al-Samoud liquid propellant missile has been extensively tested and had been deployed to military units. Intelligence indicated that at least 50 had been produced. Intelligence also indicated that Iraq had worked on extending its range to at least 200km in breach of UN Security Resolution 687. "In February 2003, U.N. inspectors evaluated two versions of the Al Samoud 2 missile using four separate computer models. Both versions were found to exceed the range limit of 150 kilometers set by the U.N. Security Council. The lighter version of the Al Samoud 2 was estimated to have a range of 193 kilometers, while the heavier version would be capable of a 162 km range. Accordingly, it was requested that all Al Samoud 2 missiles and warheads be delivered to the inspectors for destruction." Twelve of these missles were reported found in Iraq last July. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Jun 04 - 02:48 AM Do you think 12 constitutes a weapon arsenal for a nation, or an afterthought? Even as many as 50? In these numbers they are at best a token arsenal. All right. The problems with that article: I quote:
"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax." You could write a paragraph saying these materials can be used to build a rocket to the moon or 10,000 refridgerators to ship to the Sudan. If they're being used to make legitimate pharmaceuticals then they're being put to good use. They can say anything in this paragraph, because this is speculation on the part of Buchanan. There is no statement of fact regarding the items "missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters." Buchanan raises the question but then answers it himself by giving at best a guess.
Okay, what is the problem? Are you afraid the Netherlands are going to suddenly launch reconstituted missles at the U.S. or the U.K.? The Iraqis were told they had to dismantle and destroy the weapons and they did. The fact that they didn't let the U.N. watch over their shoulders was a little power-grab on the part of the Iraqis. It is called a "Power Struggle" and in this case, the U.N. nose appears to be out of joint (actually, it's mostly the U.S. nose out of joint).
As I said. They didn't know the after 1991 that the Iraqis would actually choose to destroy the stuff and now they can't prove it except to find that there is nothing to find. There is little evidence that any of it is left in the country, and what is important is that this stuff is no longer in Iraq and they seem to have fulfilled the obligation even if they didn't stick to the letter of the law in letting outsiders see what they were doing. The link above is to old news. I haven't heard any new news regarding finding Iraqi missles or "weapons of mass destruction." SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jun 04 - 06:11 AM I bet you don't like this source, either. "Even as many as 50? In these numbers they are at best a token arsenal." So, pick the 50 cities you think are expendable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:41 AM says right at the top, bruce, that this was dated Sept, 2002...lots of the guesses and info in the article were simply inaccurate, and much of the rest has changed. No one doubts Saddam was a mean fellow who would have done naughty things if he could, but you dont 'prove' much more than that with the article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 13 Jun 04 - 12:04 PM Are we now going to rehash the prolix propaganda battles of 2002? Oh come now. The paper referred to as I recall was later found to have been composed by an undergraduate college student, primarily. Or isn't that the same one? In any case rhetoric is not fact. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jun 04 - 01:18 PM Wile E. Coyote often clawed madly at the empty air, trying desperately to find something to grab onto as he hurtled toward the floor of the canyon. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Donuel Date: 13 Jun 04 - 03:52 PM Failing to confirm Saddam's Program of WMD, he did at least have a weapons program, of which the US did not even secure the stockpiles of RPG's it did find after the invasion. One thing is certain. He did have a weekly TV program in Iraq. But it is all besides the point isn't it. Perhaps Bush did repeat lies he was scripted to tell. Perhaps God did not tell him to invade Iraq. Perhaps the nuclear threat really came from Pakistan selling nukes to Iran and North Korea. Iraq seemed like a big oil rich soft target after 20 years of war and 12 years of sanctions. It seemed like we could invade with tax payer money, loot Husseins billions, siphon off some oil, hire international corporations with American CEO's to clean up the place and make a few more billions...Gosh the war supposed to pay for itself! Or at least make those in Halliburton and the Carlye Group filthier rich. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 13 Jun 04 - 05:26 PM lol, Don! and it makes little difference how many times that coyote *splats' on the floor of the canyon...he is back at the eternal game of chasing the impossible again. I suppose tenacity IS sort of admirable. |
