BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 06:28 AM

Bobert,

" anfd traces of chemicals... Well, gol danged, BB, have ya considered the fact that over 30,000 bombs have been dropped on Iraq in the last 15 months? Or millions of rounds of ammunition, including many made of depleted uranium. Plus throw in the fact that Iraq'a borders have nor been secure and Bush telling the terrorist world to bring it on, it not surprising that a "trace" of chemicals have been found..."

"I never said the US used chemical weapons, not implied the US used chemical weapons. Those are you pathological interpretations."

Looks like an implication to anby reasonable person.


"We do seem to agree that UN resolutions are worthless, however, since there is no way to enforce them"

Seems to me that the US has been enforcing UN resolutions, in spite of the fact that you don't want to admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 11:18 PM

Well, T-Bird... Having read and reread yer recent rebuttla it would seem that we are both covering ground that has been covered before...

I mean no disrespect but if you don't mind, I'll pass on refighting these old differeneces in our perceptions of events.

We do seem to agree that UN resolutions are worthless, however, since there is no way to enforce them. That being a given, then why hold one party less harmless than another?

As fir the Big Three? You pick yer favorite and because of the kinda guy I am, I'll let you keep it as long as you like. If historians come 'round and try to collect it from you, you tell 'um I said you could keep it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 04:59 PM

Bobert,

With regard to your post of, 29 Jun 04 - 01:36 PM

"A UN resaolution and 89 cents will get you a 12 ounce cup of coffee at yer local convience store, my man."

This means exactly what Bobert? What the relevance? Makes no sense to me at all - Just more Bobert waffle.

"Who cares about resolutions. Not the United States. Not Isreal. Never met one not worth a good breaking..."

You are close, but missing the point entirely. Who cares about resolutions, Bobert? The UN doesn't give a damn about them once adopted, they certainly don't give a damn about enforcing them - That is the point, and THAT is what led to the invasion of Iraq.

On your specific points and predictions:

1. Flawed reasoning:
I believe that while the CIA wanted to keep the "16 words" out. The Bush administration were perfectly entitled to state what America's allies believed to be the case, and it was in that context that those words were included - go look up the speach and check.

You hear that, "Bush was intent on attacking Iraq purdy much from Day One (Paul O'Niels observation since he happened to be there.)"

Don't confuse fact with opinion - what you heard Bobert was one man's opinion. You are quite keen on what you hear, you know the "word on the street" poetic licence, just like the "heads on the sticks".

2. The US using nuclear weapons.
Another instance of you confusing fact with opinion. Remember the article on "Shock and Awe", reviewed by some obscure Doctor of Divinity from some College in Colorado and presented as representing the US's stated strategy. This then being taken up by some journalist on the west coast and rushed into print. Rather than reading it and questioning it, you Bobert, boldly proclaimed it as fact.

Plain fact of the matter is Bobert the US did not use nuclear weapons did they - you were totally wrong about that. I, on the other hand, never thought that for one minute they would, or would be in a position where they thought they'd have to.

Your reference to nuclear tests and DU munitions is just more waffle.

3. Instability in the Middle East.
Believe it or not Bobert, the middle-east is a damn sight more stable now than it has been for a long time. Take a look at all those ardent sponsors of terrorism - Libya renounced its links to international terroism, Syria and Iran - have both got their heads firmly wound in at the moment Bobert, because they know damn well what could happen to them if they resorted to their old tricks. Oh, best of all, I forgot to mention another previous sponsor of international terror, Iraq itself - how many suicide bombers has it been paying for for the last fifteen months Bobert? Where's Hama's rivers of blood Bobert?

4. Urban warfare.
You are totally wrong about that Bobert. What you have in Iraq at present doesn't come anything close to what would be described as urban warfare. The situation you have in Iraq is comparable to Northern Ireland pre-"motorman".

On the "other things to consider"

1. Inspectors weren't making progress.
Of course it depends upon whose story you want to hear - if you are into listening to stories. Saddam and UNSCOM/IAEA both told stories to the UNSC for the best part of 12 years.

UNMOVIC/IAEA went back into Iraq, after a period of absense of damn near 7 years, solely because the US Government pushed the UN every step of the way to get them back in. Resolution 1441, required no stories, it required fully compliance and total pro-active co-operation from the Iraqi authorities - read Dr. Hans Blix's reports to the UNSC there's not one where the good Dr. states that he is receiving total pro-active co-operation from the Iraqi's - in fact he complained about it from day one.

The UN was told fairly plainly by the US - you sort this out, beyond doubt pdq, or we will.

2. The "heads on sticks"
Was Bobert waffle, but delivered with such hysterical sentiment it was almost touching.

3. Just about oil
I have never said that this was about oil, but you, and others on this forum, have. The point I was trying to make was that the lot of you tend to be very good at "joining up dots" when the picture revealed reflects negatively on the US and its current administration, but completely ignore doing the same exercise from the perspective of some of the other nations involved. That indicates to me that you are totally biased and blinkered - in any given situation you only see what you want to see nothing more - hell you're not even prepared to look outside the little box you've created.

All about oil, never been your position!!! What was all that ranting waffle about Dick Chaney and Halliburton, Boss Hogg and his oil industry connections - give me a break.

4. As fir the "Saddam was a bad man" argument.
I believe you asked if I thought it was a good enough reason and I replied that I thought it was - even more so in the light of the recently revealed information regarding the warning the US got from the Russians.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 02:45 PM

Teribus   Outstanding!

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 01:37 PM

polaitaly,

32.40% of the Italian male population smoke.

Italian cance deaths have an incidence rate of 145 per 100,000 people

There are 251,000 men in the Italian armed forces (excluding the navy)

Statistically 364 Italian servicemen will die of cancer.

(As Michael caine would say, "Now there's not a lot of people know that.")

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 01:09 PM

polaitaly - 30 Jun 04 - 07:44 AM

Beg to differ, "Agent Orange" was most definitely NOT a chemical weapon, and it was never designed as such, never deployed as such. "Agent Orange" was designed as a defoliant, and when its carcinogenic properties were detected its use was prohibited.

Likewise, in no way does napalm, fit the description of a chemical weapon. Napalm was an incendiary agent. The UK renounced the use of Napalm in the late 60's, but should the situation arise and Napalm was needed, with the correct gelling agent RAF and FAA aircraft could be armed with Napalm ordinance within 30 minutes - it is that easy to make.

As for the final part regarding depleted uranium - this is a classic

"...the Italian soldiers dead for cancer very likely related to the use of d.u. bullets has now reached number 24. They were all been to Bosnia or Kossovo, and they all had breathed the dust that result from the explosion of those bullets. The dust after the explosion ,after the battle , is the real danger."

How many Italian soldiers were deployed?
How many of them smoked?   
Who was firing these DU rounds at these Italian soldiers?
How many Italian soldiers were exposed to this gunfire?
What is the normal incidence rate of cancer among Italian males of that age group?

The cancer was VERY LIKELY related to the use of DU bullets, exactly what are your grounds for stating this? Because if you do not already have the answers to those questions you have no right whatsoever to make the statement.

If you do not have the answers to those questions, then it would equally true to make the sweeping statement that the cause of the cancer was (fit in whatever cause of cancer you wish).

It could also be very likely that the incidence of cancer is no higher than in the general population who have never been near a DU bullet in their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 07:57 AM

Yo, T-Bird,

I'll get back to you on DU'd when I find my info. I think you'll find it interesting. But rest assured (or not if you happen to be using DU'd as a health suppliment) them "very lows" in the studies you report look a lot more like "very highs"...

So if you are using a teaspoon of DU dust in your orange juice in the morning you might wanta stop until I unpile thatreport done by the VA physican...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: polaitaly
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 07:44 AM

The U.S. have used chemical weapons. The "orange agent" that they poured on Vietnam in thousans of tons is exactly that, a chemical weapon.And napalm, too, is a chemical weapon.Don't you think that if the Iraqui army, during the war, had bombed the US army with napalm (if they had it, and I don't think) everybody would have screamed " Chemical warfare" ? For the depleted uranium thing, the Italian soldiers dead for cancer very likely related to the use of d.u. bullets has now reached number 24. They were all been to Bosnia or Kossovo, and they all had breathed the dust that result from the explosion of those bullets. The dust after the explosion ,after the battle , is the real danger.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 06:19 AM

Bobert, some information relating to DU munitions

<
There has been a substantial amount of public discussion on the health effects of the use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions. In response to this concern the Royal Society set up an independent, expert working group to investigate the health effects of DU munitions. The Royal Society has now produced two reports and an eight-page summary covering both reports.

The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions-Part 1 (Full Report)
May 2001

The Part I report draws the following conclusions:

Except in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime.

The greatest exposures will apply only to a very small fraction of the soldiers in a theatre of war, for example those who survive in a vehicle struck by a DU penetrator. In such circumstances, and assuming the most unfavourable conditions, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer is unlikely to exceed twice that in the general population.

Any extra risks of death from leukaemia, or other cancers, as a result of exposure to DU are estimated to be substantially lower than the risks of death from lung cancer. Under all likely exposure scenarios the extra lifetime risks of fatal leukaemia are predicted to be too small to be observable.

Many soldiers on a battlefield may be exposed to small amounts of DU and the risks of cancer from such exposures are predicted to be very low. Even if the estimates of risk for these conditions are one hundred times too low, it is unlikely that any excess of fatal cancer would be detected within a cohort of 10,000 soldiers followed over 50 years.

Epidemiological studies complement assessments of actual exposures and radiation risks. Although epidemiological studies of occupational exposure to uranium are not sensitive enough to detect small increases in overall risks of cancer, they nevertheless tend to confirm the calculations of the risks derived from estimates of actual exposures to DU.

The health hazards of depleted uranium: part II
March 2002

The main conclusions of the Part II report are:
- The risks to the kidney and other organs and tissues from the use of DU in munitions are very low for most soldiers on the battlefield and for those living in the conflict area.
- In extreme conditions and under worst-case assumptions, soldiers who receive large intakes of DU could suffer adverse effects on the kidney and lung.
- Environmental contamination will be very variable but in most cases the associated health risks due to DU will be very low. In some worst-case scenarios high local levels of uranium could occur in food or water that could have adverse effects on the kidney.>>

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 02:36 AM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 08:05 PM

You know, bruce, I have dealt with a lot of folks here at Mudcat (and elsewhere) and have shown the utmost respect for folks with whom I disagree, even though I might poke a little fun. But, know what, not only are you a jerk but you are a pathological liar.

I never said the US used chemical weapons, not implied the US used chemical weapons. Those are you pathological interpretations.

No wonder folks are giving up on discussing anything with you. You don't want to discuss jack. All you want to do is lie and proclaim. Fine. Have at it, troll, and...

Congratulations... You're the first person since I started using a computer 5 years ago who I am writing off. Not because you are right, which you rarely are, but because you are sick.

Have a nice life.

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 05:42 PM

The comment was that the trace chemicals had nothing to do with DU, as your post tried to imply. Another example of your basic dishonesty. Nor are DU nuclear weapons, or WMD. Just normal, toxic debris, which no one has ever claimed indicates the presence of WMD.

Are you prepared to back up your claim that the US used chemical weapons, as implied by your post of 29 Jun 04 - 08:57 AM ?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 05:34 PM

Well, my bearded-friend. I know about the DU's. Before you arrived here I had a thread about them and also some references to a certain VA doctor who was fired from a VA hospital for conducting a study of Gulf War vets who had been exposed to the dust and were suffering from lots of physical ailments, including cancers. When he reported his initial findings up the chain of command he was laid off supposedly because he wasn't needed, in spite of the fact that the VA wasted no time in replacing him...

Now if you would like, I'll spend some time later and try to find that thread which I think you will find interesting if you are of the opinion that the dust isn't harmful. The Iraqis certainly know since they have had to live with simialar illnesses and birth deformities that are in a much higher number per capita since the first Gulf War.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 02:34 PM

Bobert:

Just a technical comment. DU stands for "Depleted Uranium". This means that the fissonable isotopes have been removed. There is a difference between DU and enriched uranium, which is used in reactors and weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 01:36 PM

And after all the academic exercises you tried to put everyone thry in the lead up to war, you do, T? Reems and reems of Teribus telling us why we should invade Iraq. Resolution this, resoultion that. Big whop. A UN resaolution and 89 cents will get you a 12 ounce cup of coffee at yer local convience store, my man.

Who cares about resolutions. Not the United States. Not Isreal. Never met one not worth a good breaking...

As fir some of the things I warned about in the lead up to the invasion, moswt have come true:

1. Flawed reasoning. Sure, Tenet took the fall but if you'll remember, he initially was very adiment in his story that he and the CIA tried to keep the "16 words" (nuclear threat) out of the State of the Union Addess. No credible evidence has been foounf by the 9/11 Commssion in the interim report that has been released between Saddam and 9/11 and yet we hear that Bush was intent on attacking Iraq purdy much from Day One (Paul O'Niels observation since he happened to be there.)

2. The US using nuclear weapons. Not only did they test a major nuclear bunker buster off the coast of Florida, but they fired thousands of rounds of DU munitions. These munitions leave radioactive dust which has been linked to the Gulf War Syndrome.

3. Insatbility in the Middle East. Thouhg you conviently leave this out this was one of the arguments I made in the lead up to the invasion.

4. Urban warfare. You also conviently leave this one out. I don't think, given Iraq today, that you can say I was wrong about this one either.

And just a few other things to consider.

1. It's not a slam dunk that the inspectors *weren't making progress. Depends on who's story you *want* to hear.

2. The "heads on sticks" was, as I have said before, poetic license. I don't think anyone took that too literally... except you. (But, hey, I'm glad I said it because it certainly has provided you with some level of entertainment.)

3. As for saying that the invasion was *just* about oil you are doing a beardedbruce on me here because unless you take one of my post completely out of context, you'll find that has not been my position, though I consider it to be a heavy factor. I have also elluded to the Wolfowitz/Peatle Plan that goes back to 1992 that was also presented to Clinton that speaks of other motivations for occupying Iraq, other than oil. So if you're going to dig up stuff I siad a year or so ago about the motivations, please dig it up in its entirety and don't pull one part out and present it as the only argument I've ever made...

4. As fir the "Saddam was a bad man" argument. If you'll recall a couple months ago, I asked you if this was yer final answer and *your* response was "yes". (Oh, I wish I knew how to do them file things now 'er you'd be reading your word right now...)

Well, my wife says I gotta get back to work an' I leant that arguing wid the womenz don't do much more good than arguing with you or the other knothead. (BTW, where's you get him? His head is like granite.)

Gotta git...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 12:31 PM

Bobert - 29 Jun 04 - 08:57 AM

Sorry Bobert, you would be completely wrong in your belief that I, how did you put it, limit myself because I am just a tad academic.

Now what "stuff" have either Beardedbruce, Two Bears, or myself "invented"? What "stuff" have we denied?

If anyone has proved themselves to be totally blinkered Bobert, it is yourself. Your "big picture" as you like to call it, is no such thing at all, you look at things from only one perspective, one extremely narrow view point. You neither read, or research, to establish background, or detail. All you do is trot out information from very dubious sources, that just happens to support your line of arguement. When challenged on it you launch into complete and utter waffle. Remember the thousands of Patriot missiles that were supposed to have rained down on Baghdad? Remember the 100's of thousands of Iraqi's that were supposed to have died? Remember the 'nukes' that the US were sure to use? Remember the 'heads on sticks' on the lawn of the White House?

What you mistakenly identify in me as being academic, is the trait that I do tend to pay attention to detail, whereas you do not. That makes it incredibly easy to challenge most of what you contend.

One detail for you Bobert. On the "Saddam was a bad man excuse", I think you will find that it was you who stated that it was the current US Administration who, "huddled together" and came up with that excuse/reason for invading Iraq. I merely pointed out to you that the US policy decision regarding the desireability of regime change in Iraq was established in 1998 by Bill Clinton, therefore already in place long before George W. Bush came into Office.

By all means let us, "...think back to the war buildup for a second"

1. It was not Bush who said that Iraq possessed WMD, stockpiles of chemical/biological agents and munitions - it was UNSCOM - Bush merely quoted what was clearly stated in the UNSCOM report.

2. It was Russia that, in the aftermath of 9/11, informed the US security services that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks of a similar nature on the US.

3. It was the UN, who when asked to act on enforcement of UN resolutions relating to Iraq's disarmament, proved to be totally ineffectual.

4. It was Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist Government in Iraq, that submitted a declaration to the UNSC stating that they possessed no WMD; no proscribed weapons systems; no chemical munitions; no chemical/biological agents. Even Dr. Hans Blix voiced his disappointment with regard to the contents of the declaration at the time.

To quote you Bobert - "We are all watching the same events here" - aren't we?

With regard to your view of the "big picture", all about oil, current administration all having oil industry connections and backgrounds. Oh yes, Bobert, you think yourself very good at "joining up all the dots". But you do so incredibly inconsistently, how about a few of these dots:

All about oil, current situation in Russia, who benifits from a high oil price? Those producing it, or those purchasing it? Who owed Russia billions? Who provided the US with the information about Saddam planning attacks on the US? Who delayed the submission of Resolution 1441 for months? Who would guarantee themselves a win-win situation by backing both horses in a two horse race? If it goes one way Russia wins because they get the richest economy in the world bogged down in Iraq, while taking advantage of the increase in the price of oil (Russian economic plans are based on a price of $21 a barrel, what did it go up to? something like $42 a barrel - that a good thing for Russia, or not?). If it goes the other way and Saddam remains in power, they can still sell him all he wants at ten times the going rate and they still get their oil concessions in Iraq.

You see Bobert, to your mind, and process, over this issue all that is immaterial, not worthy of consideration - that is your big picture - you look at it only from the view point that is most damaging to one man. In other words Bobert, you do not see the big picture at all, the sad thing is, I don't believe you ever will.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 11:54 AM

Well, what's your excuse, Bruce? You present no facts, no information, no good links, and make no meaningful contribution to the discussion, for as long as you've hammered away at it. You like to hear yourself talk, and you throw people's words back at them with a "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" schoolyard move that is an empty gesture. Someone called it circular logic. You've mastered it, and have sat on this tread and turned it to rhetorical mush.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 11:15 AM

GUEST GUEST:

So, anyone you disagree with is delusional?

You present no facts, no information, and make no contribution to this discussion. Come back when you are willing to show who you are, and take the responsibility for your words.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 11:05 AM

Geez, look who's talking about dishonesty. He's delusional, Bobert. Others have tried, but there's no information 2x4 that's going to whack that ass hard enough between the eyes to get his attention. Others have tried.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 10:26 AM

Bobert,

Try reading what I write, not dreaming.

I said that "By the "standards of proof" being demanded, can anyone out there "prove" that the US presently has any WMD? I mean, we could be lying you know... "

THIS DOES NOT STATE THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE US DOES NOT HAVE WMD.

You ask for evidence, refuse to consider what is presented to you, then refuse to state what would be evidence.

Yes, you are dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 10:19 AM

Dishonest, B-zer?!?!?...

Yer the one who is suggesting that the United States does not possess WMD?!?!?...

Dishonest, B-?!?!?...

Yer the one who, inspite of the Bush administrations intense desire to find evidence of WMD, hasn't been able to find eufficient evidence to present that is credible to the vast majority. Heck, had they then the PR folks would be running up and down the streets with it but what are we hearing from them? Nuthin', that's what...

Dishonest, Bearded-one?!?!?...

No, my friend, I am being completely honest is asking, as is the majority of the world's population, for the evidence...

... or is that too much to ask?..

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 09:07 AM

Bobert,

"what was left is looking more and more like the antique cannisters, that Sladge says ain't up to the task, anfd traces of chemicals... Well, gol danged, BB, have ya considered the fact that over 30,000 bombs have been dropped on Iraq in the last 15 months? Or millions of rounds of ammunition, including many made of depleted uranium."

You are the one stuck on antique cannisters, not me. I stated the chemical warheads, which sledge and I have discussed. There may be some doubt, as the media, that you seem to depend on for all your information, has not provided an adaquate description- The ones I have seen specify CHEMICAL warheads. If this is not so, sobeit- but the information available is what I am working with, not my own imagination.

The trace chemicals are of chemical weapons- you are implying that the US has been using chemical weapons???? I challange you to either provide some justification for this charge, or retract it.

The point of my message was that you have stated that the US has WMD because we used them in 1945.... So my conclusion that you would think Saddam has them since he used them in the 1990s is valid. It is you who are dishonest about the whole topic, and not making any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 08:57 AM

See, there both you knotheads go either inventin' stuff 'er denying stuff...

First to you, T-Bird, since we go back a little further. Now we were wrangling on this very topic just a month ago on some thread 'er another and you *did* state that you were down to the "Saddam was a bad man" excuse for the invasion. Okay, you migh not have said it exactly that way but it seems that I, an well as a few others, had you conered on the issue and that was the impression I got. Now you know perfectly wel;l that I ain't gonna go back and reread every danged war thread and you also know that I don't do all that fancy stuff like many of you do in creating these little files to yank out of the filing cabinet to throw back at folks but.... I'm sure someone who does remmebers the thread and maybe they'll yank it out of their filing cabinet and put it in this thread. Then you can go about doing your Clinton "depends on the definution of is is" act and we can start the entire process over with you.... Yer purdy good at that "angels on the end of a pin" stuff, you know....

Now, as fir yer understudy, the bearded one. You gotta take him aside and give him a few pointers 'cause he makes absolutely no sense at times. I say to him that there doesn't appear to be a vast body of evidence to support his WMD claims and he says "Yes there was!" real loud and expects everyone to just believe him. Crips, if there was don't you think the Bush PR folks would have made a real case for this? So Sledge even takes him to task on the specifis and the bearded-one demonstrates once again the adage that a little learning is a dangerous thing and ends up not knowing just what he was professing to know about WMD. Then I point out that a bunch of old canisters bried in the desert and some traces of chemiclas does not exactly constitute too scarey a WMD program then he say that with the level of proof I, and millions of others are asking for, is so stringent that even proving the United Sates has WMD would be difficult???

I mean, can you belive that one, T-Bird. Like I said, he needs a little side bar. Maybe you could give him some homework assignments like you do me...

But now the gull of it is that it looks like the bearded-one is changing his story to: "The reason we attacked Iraq is because it used to have WMD's!" Well, yeah, BB, they did. We gave 'um to them, they used them up on the Iranians and Kurds and what was left is looking more and more like the antique cannisters, that Sladge says ain't up to the task, anfd traces of chemicals... Well, gol danged, BB, have ya considered the fact that over 30,000 bombs have been dropped on Iraq in the last 15 months? Or millions of rounds of ammunition, including many made of depleted uranium. Plus throw in the fact that Iraq'a borders have nor been secure and Bush telling the terrorist world to bring it on, it not surprising that a "trace" of chemicals have been found...

Now think back to the war buildup for a second if you will. What if Bush had warned that Saddam posessed a trace of WMD in his big sales presentation, BB? How would that have gone over?

And, back to you, T-zer. I don't make stuff up. We're all watching the
the same events here. Sure maybe I don't type as well as you'd like and I have on occasion gotten one tiny bit of the stroy incorrest. But on the big picture, I don't think you can find too much of what I say that is out of the mainstream in terms of infornation that is available. I believe you limit yourself because you may be just a tad academic. Academics sometimes can't see the forest thru the trees becuase of their narrow focus of interest. I know I have no right to ask it of you but I think you migh benefit from tuning your danged pudder radio to Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" radio program for the big picture, plus a lot of *inform*ation that apparently has escaped your scope...

Now, if it makes you two knotheads happy to thing that ol' Bobert just makesa stuff up, knock yer knothead selves out... I know it ain't true. Most folks here know it ain't true. And deep inside you you know it ain't true...

Again, I'll admit to an occasional lack lack of know2ledge on a tiny, tiny little insignificant part of the story but I'm purdy much on the boigger picture... (the Kuwait once being part of Iraq... I'll confess to that right up, T... )

Fire away... I can handle it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 07:25 AM

Bobert:

"No, bearded-one, the United States does *not* have any WMD's. Hiroshama was nuthing but a figment of the imagination...

...and here's yer cookies and milk. Nighty, night..."

BUT you have said that the use of WMD by Saddam on his own people, documented, photographed, et al does not meann he had WMD.... SO MAKE UP YOUR MIND!


You have just told me that you know Saddam has WMD, but for your own political reasions you will lie and deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 06:39 AM

Bobert - you are perfectly correct in stating, in your post of 27 Jun 04 - 11:22 PM, that:

"Fact by proclamation is not evidence... Heck, it's not even fact... What it is is Fiction by Proclamation..."

You should know, Bobert - you do it all the time - want an example from the same post as quoted?

"I mean, look at even Teribus who is the Number One Bush apologist. He's even thrown in the towell on the WMD and moved on to the "Saddam was a bad man" excuse for attacking Iraq..."

When exactly did I, "throw in the towel on the WMD" Bobert? You proclaim it as fact - now tell me when?

Every single instance of material discovery that supports an existing WMD capability mentioned by Beardedbruce and Two Bears has been borne out by fact - all of these involve equipment and material that the Iraqi's proclaimed to the world that they did not have, despite being warned repeatedly of the consequences, should they try to conceal there presence.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 08:11 PM

No, bearded-one, the United States does *not* have any WMD's. Hiroshama was nuthing but a figment of the imagination...

...and here's yer cookies and milk. Nighty, night...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 08:18 AM

Media reporting to date has often been a bit poor, today we have had reports of the murderer Zaqawi being captured, no he wasn't , yes he was then NO he hasn't. They are all to ready to spew out reports before checking their veracity.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 03:07 AM

Agreed about the airburst- but wwould the HE need an additional delayed charge to ignite the dispersed explosive? PAVE systems did.

Casings would be different for HE vs Shrapnal vs Chemical- just not sure if the media would get it right.

older thread on WMD

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:59 AM

To make it an effective chemical weapon the fusing would require an airburst, these fuse types have been around for over a century, so nothing new or too high tech there, they ahve also been employed for airburst shrapnel rounds.

I also recall reading that the Soviets did have a large stockpile of pre-filled chemical rounds in storage, whether it was a good idea or not is another matter, they did many things that we would not consider very bright, Saddam followed soviet doctrine in many military matters, it can be safely said that he is also not the brightest lightbulb around.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:48 AM

so, the design should be different from a chemical projectile. I do not have enough data to rule this out, but it needs further information.

Thanks.

I presume there would be a delayed ignition charge, then? That would be an obvious difference from a chemical weapon. No info in the press reports at that level of detail.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:37 AM

As far as I know Artillery rounds didperse their agent by using a bursting charge to shatter the case and allow a cloud of agent to drop onto the target so the prime thing would be an airburst set fuse with a charge suitable for use as a bursting charge, to achieve good effect it would need to be bigger than a standard detonater.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:27 AM

Yes, but would the warhead using them be dsigned to disperse the liguid? I do not know- the PAVE systems were liquid/gas, but only in a statioanry/dropped package, not artillary.

Yes, they should be, and I am sure that our chemical suits are available to the unit level in Europe- but we expected a chemical attack from the Soviet Union. Where did Saddam expect an attack from?
Do the surrounding countries have that level of chemical protection for their troops? ( Any country that plans to use chemical weapons better have the protective gear for their own troops)

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:21 AM

Chemical suits should allways be where the troops are, just like any other piece of kit.

Liquid explosives are quite common, so much so they are often used in demolitions or construction, the new tunnel being pushed under the Alpes has made extensive use of them, a trickle down from military use.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:18 AM

By the "standards of proof" being demanded, can anyone out there "prove" that the US presently has any WMD? I mean, we could be lying you know...

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:12 AM

The "shell casings" were the specific warheads for chemical weapons, To the best of my knowledge, these are NOT usable for HE, or anti-armour, use, just as a delivery means for chemical weapons. Anyone have firsthand knowledge about these? I am limited by the fact that I have only ( multiple) news reports of what was found. As far as I know, there are no liquid HE artillary warheads.

The finding of the chemical warfare suits at other than a storage facility ( they were in an HQ unit near the front line/border, and at a hospital being used as a local /unit level depot) does give one thought.

But at least you want to discuss the facts of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:05 AM

Thanks for highlighting your evidence.

Empty shell casings, if thin walled, then they are just as easy to call them high capacity high explosive. If you chemical pumps were founf next to them then thats another matter.

Chemical warfare suits, something possessed by just about evry modern army around the globe, use of these weapons does not indicate ownership of chemical weapons.

Just as BB did, I served in my country's military and did NBC training, lots of it, so I do have some knowledge of the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 01:57 AM

Ebbie,

Your post is an example of Tactic 2...

I NEVER SAID I had any information anyone else did not. I DO NOT have any political reason to not talk about what I have noted during the last 12 years in news reports, various websites, and UN and other government reports. The way the liberal press jumps on this administration, noone in it should make the mistake of any speculation. And I am afraid that, as can be seen here, most people do not have an adaquate knowledge of the tactical and strategic uses of WMD. I am not sure that anyone WANTS them to be educated- it brings up far more questions than answers.

I have stated the facts upon which I have based my conclusions. I have seen no refution of those facts, just personal attacks. These facts are available for anyone to verify, if they would bother. The fact that no one seems to want to discuss facts indicates to me that regardless of the truth, there will be those who refuse to allow any discussion that might lead to their own viewpoint being found wrong.

And who says "bush doesn't know, rumsfeld doesn't know, powell doesn't know, kimmet doesn't know"? They all claim to know- people just have been making the unsubstantiated accusation that they were all lying: " You're hoping that if this (specious) material is repeated often enough someone will begin to believe it is true. "

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 01:43 AM

But, beardedbruce, you haven't addressed the implications of my question. Are you seriously suggesting that you- out of all the people, in the USA, in the U.K, in Iraq itself, who have been going to innumerable meetings on the subject and consulting 'experts' all over the place for more than a year- are the one who knows these facts? bush doesn't know, rumsfeld doesn't know, powell doesn't know, kimmet doesn't know... but Bruce, the Beard, does know? Wow.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 01:15 AM

Classic BeardedBruce

"or are you saying that the "proper" choice was to wait and just see what happened?"

Tactic 1: Put words in peoples' mouths. This is called the Straw Man Fallacy. I have NEVER advocated doing nothing.

"I really would like to know what we should have done. ANd what you would do with the inevitable results of that choice."

Tactic 2: Couch pure speculation as fact, and proceed on that premise. These sentences essentially say "what does TIA think we should we have done, and how would he react to his inevitable failure?" BB, when did you stop beating your wife?

It really is impossible to carry on a useful discussion, and it has nothing to do with the politics of left vs. right.

BB, I might like you in person, and might enjoy your music, so I mean nothing personal, but these political/historical/philosophical discussions get very Alice Through the Looking Glass.

See you above the line.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 12:48 AM

Ebbie,

I do not claim to have any information that the rest of you do not have access to, if you were willing to accept it. No, it is not a big, obvious mushroom cloud. I think that there is a lack of critical thinking here. I am asked "why didn't Saddam use the wmd?" as if that means not using it means he did not have it. Well, WHY DIDN'T he comply with the UN resolutions for 12 years? THAT obviously, by the logic being used, means that he did have WMD to hide.

The question is, where are they? Or did they just evaporate into thin air? Some seem to believe that the fact that they have not been found ( or that the parts found are not "acceptable") means that they were never there- others think they may have been removed, or hidden. Why is it so horrible to even try to find out the facts of the matter, that so many of you insist on such attacks on anyone who even asks the questions? Are you really so frightened of the answers?

If you want to deny anything I have brought up is true, DO SO! But all I see are blanket denials that there could be any reason for invading Iraq. Are my facts false? SHOW ME: To the best of my knowledge, they are accurate representations of what I have found in multiple news sources. Could I be wrong? Of course- BUT you have to give me a reason to decide that, not just tell me you don't like my conclusions.

I can think of several reasons that evidence of the existance of WMD might not be publicized- none that lead to any happy conclusions. I will not speculate here, as I have no evidence one way or the other on what unpublicized evidence anyone might have.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 12:25 AM

beardedbruce, it appears that you have information that the bush administration would love to have. Are you just that smart or do you have a pipeline to Iraqi facts? Stop and think about it- if your 'facts' were factual, we, the people, would be bombarded by the evidence. And it just ain't so- the bushies are clearly on the defensive on this matter.

Big talk do not evidence make. Ask Bill O'Reilly.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 11:36 PM

BTW, the best market for the evidence would be Kerry- He would pay a lot more to hide it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 11:30 PM

Bobert,

You do not present any facts, or refute anything of what I have said.
The statement that my facts are fiction does not make them so.

Were there artillary shells designed for chemical weapons found in the initial attack?

YES

Were there stockpiles of Chemical warfare equipment found in the initial attack?

YES

Have there been prohibited delivery systems found in Iraq after the October (?) 2002 resolutions?

YES

Was Saddam a risk to the security and saftey of the United States and those with whom we have treaty obligations?

THAT is the question I would like to see answered here: not these personal attacks.

And let me say to you: "You just spew out stuff and figure everyone is going to believe you??? "

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 11:22 PM

And I'm finding myself with both SRS and TIA, B-zer... With every post of yours your credibility slides even further down that slippery slope. At this point, I'm not too sure you can bring it back.

Fact by proclamation is not evidence... Heck, it's not even fact... What it is is Fiction by Proclamation... You are very much like Bush. You just spew out stuff and figure everyone is going to believe you??? Now I'm not a psychiatrist or of even a psycologist so I'm not going to venture into just what might have happened in yer past that has given you this feeling that if you proclaim it, it's true but like lots of folks here, we'd like to see actual evidence that goes beyond other folks proclamations of unfounded stories...

Is that asking too much?

And don't go playing that game on me about just who within a 125 mile range I wanted killed by Saddam. That's just a smokescreen to try to buy you some time in coming forth with your evidence. BTW, when you come up with it, I'd suggest that you get in touch with the Bush PR team. They'll make you a rich beardedbruce, sho nuff they will...

I mean, look at even Teribus who is the Number One Bush apologist. He's even thrown in the towell on the WMD and moved on to the "Saddam was a bad man" excuse for attacking Iraq...

Now if you have this sentimental attachment to the WMD Lie then fine, but for gosh sakes, don't impose it on the rest of us. It's bogus... Plus, like I said, it ain't helping your credibilty...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 11:19 PM

TIA,

I seem to recall I thanked you for an honest answer, and said I would look for evidence that you would accept. I am sorry if you thought it was sarcastic: that was not the intent towards you.

The point of proof is what is being debated_ if every time something is found to support what the Left does not want to believe they declare that it is not sufficient, I think that we are entitled to know what would be acceptable proof to them- Or are you saying that regardless of what is found, your beliefs about the situation are greater than what may actually be the case?

If this is hostile, perhaps one should look at the comments that have been posted about some of us, just because we have a diferent view of what is happening. Why is it that freedom of speech is never allowable for the people you disagree with? I have been asking for a discussion of the facts: I get insult and the statement that the facts don't matter unless they come from the proper source.

Did the US have other choices than to invade Iraq? Certainly. But, would the administration have been correct in following those other paths? THAT is what we are trying to determine. I have seen nothing to lead me to believe that further inspections would have changed the situation- IMO the delay caused by trying to get consensus in the UN has increased the risk to the US and the world.

I would love to see the facts discussed, rathre than people's beliefs.

"repeatedly assert a false paradox fallacy of "it was either invade Iraq or submit to his world domination", or "invade Iraq or allow him to slaughter his own people", or "invade Iraq or stick your head in the sand"."

or are you saying that the "proper" choice was to wait and just see what happened? I really would like to know what we should have done.

ANd what you would do with the inevitable results of that choice.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 11:03 PM

BeardedBruce:

I clearly and directly answered your "what would constitute proof" question and got a very cryptic, possibly sarcastic, possibly snotty, certainly dismissive answer.

Many people have disputed and/or asked for proof of your facts, and typically get an answer that boils down to "because I say so".

You repeatedly assert a false paradox fallacy of "it was either invade Iraq or submit to his world domination", or "invade Iraq or allow him to slaughter his own people", or "invade Iraq or stick your head in the sand".

These things are the source of the hostility.

I'm with SRS on this one. Bye-bye.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 10:11 PM

Bobert,

The artillary shells that were found in storage were not antique.

The "nasty chemical" are always loaded just prior to use, for safty reasons.

They would then have been transported to wherever the proper artillary was, and fired. Those SPECIFIC WMD would have only been a danger to Turkey, Israel, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran...

I ghave to assume that you do not consider those people to be worth keeping UN resolutions for?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 10:06 PM

So let me see if I have this correct, You say these anitque cannisters were to be dug up, filled with nasty chemicals (none of which have been found) and then, ahhhh, hmmmm? This is where it really gets tough to follow yer logic, bb, but then what happens? Saddam fires 'um at us with one of his missles that only go 125 miles?

Is this yer final answer for invading Iraq?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 09:57 PM

Bobert,

"Part two: If Saddam had all these things why didn't he use them to try to defend himself? Hmmmmmm?"

If you knew anything about the use of chemical weapons, you would know that they are effective only in the case of an initial attack on an unprepared opponant. The impact on prepared troops is to make things more difficult, but that applies to one's own troops as well. NOONE has ever planned to use chemical weapons in a defensive war. They are offensive weapons, and weapons of terros against unprepared civilian populations, such as his Kurdish insurgents. If he had used them in, say, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, we would have used our WMD on him.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 09:38 PM

SRS,


I think the following might well apply more to you than to those trying to have a discussion of facts, here.

" You're hoping that if this (specious) material is repeated often enough someone will begin to believe it is true. "

" You wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you in the ass. I'm outa here again--no one who has a healthy respect for intelligent discourse is going to waste much time arguing with you ..."

" It becomes clear that you have no capacity for anything but reductive circular arguments, always coming back to your own illogical conclusions as the "proof" that you were right to begin with. "

"Parroting empty declarations is getting a tad, ahhhh, boring. Not only that, those making them are beginning to prove that a fool is not known until he opens his mouth... Again, no offense. Just an observation and perhaps a little advice. You're not helping your cause..."