BS: Where are the WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 10:56 PM

Yeah, troll...but here's an interesting thing. I believe in both a strong central government AND more local autonomy. It's just a question of what the locals have autonomy over, that's all. I'm suggesting that the central government manage things which have to do with overall public security (like the legal system, the monetary system, part of the media and transportation system (but not all of them!), the military defence forces, part of the law enforcment system (but not all of it), part of the educational system (but not all of it), medical insurance for people who get ill, and so on.

I'm suggesting more local, capitalist autonomy in: farming, manufacturing, entertainment, civic and local levels of government, shopping outlets, restaurants, and so on. I'm suggesting, yes, that a strong central government pass legislation to help prevent huge monopolies and assist local small businesses.

I think it was a beautiful thing when there were many small unique companies making automobiles, for instance. There are now effectively 4 major auto manufacturers in the USA and they swallowed up all the ones that once were there before them, and I suspect that behind the scenes they are fixing prices to a great extent and doing other things that are to the detriment of a truly free market.

I think it was a beautiful thing when there were many local farmers supplying local produce, but it has become harder and harder for them to compete effectively with Agri-business, which is rather similar to Stalinist collective farms in its effect.

This is what I'm thinking along the lines of.

I don't think it's really Big Government that IS your main enemy...I think it's Big Business which is actually controlling the government in the USA today. They do it by financing campaigns and lobbying (bribing) the politicians. Government has become the handmaiden of mere commerce...and that means the destruction of the social ideals on which America was founded. Commerce has nothing to do with either freedom or justice...it has to do with control.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 08:09 PM

The modern technology works both ways. In fact all kinds of things that pushed us into a mass society way of doing things - capitalist mass society or socialist mass society, scratch them and beneath the skin there's an awful lot of unpleasnt similarities - cease to be such big problems with a bit of modern technology.

Whether Microsoft and IBM actually were cricial in kickstarting the internet - well that may be true, though I know a lot of people would challenge it, but they sure as hell aren't necessary now we've got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 12:30 AM

LH, just because I don't agree, doesn't mean that I don't listen. The problem, as I see it, is that there is little or no local autonomy because the locals gave it up; they exchanged freedom for security. They allowed the central Govt. to take over things that THEY should have been doing, generally in an effort to save money which they then spent on grandiose projects that served little useful function. No more money and now the Fed administers your utilities.
Of course you can have small groups within any large group but it becomes increasingly difficult in a technologically advanced society to kep those small groups even moderately discreet. There must, of course, be some inter-group contact, but if members owe fealty to more than one group, all sorts of conflicts crop up.
While I don't like large corporations much myself -havibg worked for on for 26 years- I can see where they do have some value. Would we have computers and the internet without companies like Microsoft and IBM? I don't think so. While small-time capitalism is good, how do you keep a Carnagie or a Perot or a Gates from expanding his holdings and forming a monopoly. It takes a strong central Govt. to do that and there goes your local autonomy down the tubes.
I think that you and I probably want the same things in the end, but disagree as to the means.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 07:50 PM

Beautiful point, McGrath! That is the crux of the matter. Most people are inclined to be cooperative and law-abiding most of the time, regardless of the existing apparatus of the state or the law...or the lack thereof.

It's a few bad apples who spoil the barrel and make everyone's life somewhat insecure...just as in school it's a few bullies who make life miserable for a lot of other people.

In recent days, I have heard numerous Iraqui witnesses to the looting who said that it is about 5% of the population who are responsible for most of the looting and violence. That is typical.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 06:23 PM

What Little Hawk wrote there reminded me of this:

How would you feel if you discovered that the society in which you would really like to live was already here, apart from a few little, local difficulties like exploitation, was, dictatorship and starvation?

The argument of this book is that an anarchist society, a society wich organises itself without authority, is always in existence, like a seed beneath the snow, buried underr the weight of teh state and its bureucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege and its injustices, nationalism andit suicidal loyalties, religious differences and their superstitious separatism.

That's the opening of an excellent book called "Anarchy in Action" by the English writer Colin Ward - it's out of print, but here's a link to a longer extract and some biographical details. Such as the fact that "Colin Ward was converted to anarchism while serving in the armed forces during World War II".

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 05:42 PM

Now, troll, don't let your desire to win debates lead you into silly statements like "Which do you suggest to whittle the numbers down to a size where your ideas would work, LH.
A hot war or a bloody plague?
Or maybe we could just drug everyone and brainwash them."

No, I do not recommend those alternatives, and never have. I am in favour of freedom, didn't you know? It is the existing $ySStem which drugs and brainwashes people every day of their lives, through commercial advertising, and the marketing of addictive substances and habits without regard to the harm done in the process.

What I recommend is: a great deal more local self-sufficiency in society, and a great deal more local autonomy...coupled with a centralized, consistent and coherent body of legal protections on an equal basis for all citizens.

The latter is exactly what normally already exists in a democratic country, by virtue of its Constitution and Bill of Rights (as in the case of Canada or the USA, for example). A centralized legal system guarantees the normal rights and obligations of the citizenry, through the action of the police, the courts, the bylaws, etc.

What we LACK desperately is more local autonomy in an economic and cultural sense. We lack local small industries owned by local people, local food production adequate to meet local needs, local artistic outlets, locally managed media, and so on. With locally empowered communities, not so dependent on giant multinationals, you have a far more democratic and flexible situation and you are not so dependent upon distant power structures.

So, you see, I am in favour of small scale capitalism. Very much so. I am opposed to mega-scale corporate capitalism, just as I am opposed to mega-scale Communist management of the economy and the arena of goods and services. They both lead to a loss of local autonomy, and situations where the right hand doesn't know (or even care) what the left hand is doing.

And my personal solution to the present situation is simply to: network with people who share my ideas in a useful manner...and if I find a group who share my ideals, to work with them as much as I can. There are such groups. I don't expect YOU to live like I do, nor will I interfere with you if you don't wish to.

Beats hell out of sitting there and saying: "That's just the way it is, and I can't change it, and anyone who disagrees with me is either a fool or a Communist of some kind."

I don't get the impression you're really even trying to think out what I'm saying most of the time.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 05:26 PM

This thread should make good fodder for some enterprising graduate student some day. Hope we've covered all the bases, and the debases.

I do think the Bush Administration (and its coalition partners) has an obligation to come up with the proof of Iraq's possession of WMD's. That allegation was presented as a major justification for war. When they do come up with something, and I expect them to find something more than an old Pre-1991 dump, then they would be wise to invite the UN inspection team to go over their discoveries.

So did you hear about the brilliant Coalition work in guarding the Iraqi Ministry of Public Health? Apparently the place was entirely trashed by looters, releasing lab animals and pathegons to the outside, spilling all kinds of chemical soups around the labs, destroying records and lab equipment. What a sorry mess! Now the whole complex is one biomedical dump...

And did you see the aerial view of the dramatic taking down of the Saddam statue in the square in Baghdad, panned back far enough so you could clearly see that no more than 100 people were involved (recruited more likely), the rest of the square being empty except for strategically placed M-1 tanks? Great video but it's insulting to see how blatently the Bush Admnistration's PR team operates.

It's probably time to attempt to start a more focused thread, although this has been the most interesting one I've found, and that despite the less than courteous postings. Good thing we don't have access to WMD's that we can post.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 05:14 PM

Depends on the hunter gatherer society. And again it depends on how much social stratification you're talking about, egalitarian needn't mean absolutely dead level.

For a glimpse of an essentially stone-age and egalitarian community in 20th Century Europe, it's worth reading Maurice O'Sullivan's "Twenty Years A-Growing"

The thread is drifting rather a long way...

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 04:50 PM

McGrath- A couple score might be four times that in a foraging band, which I think might be a significant difference. My understanding, from the Rise of Civilization class that I am currently in, is that most societies cease to be egalitarian almost immediately upon gaining the ability to hoard wealth. While stored food is not enough, any kind of access to precious materials allows for the concentration of wealth. Only in the Indus Valley, as far as modern archaelogists know, did a complex society arise that presents no evidence of social stratification. Everywhere else, a social elite arose when it became possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 04:32 PM

Actually I suspect that the numbers of people we interact with in any serious way may well not be that much more than would have been the case in hunter gatherer times. A couple of score maybe.

And my understanding is that predominantly egalitarian societies have been quite common in Neolithic cultures, and in cultures with more developed technology than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 04:21 PM

McGrath-We may interact with fewer people than we would have in the Neolithic, after towns start cropping up, but we certainly interact with more people than a foraging group, which is pretty much the only society which can exist for long periods of time and still be egalitarian. Once you become sedentary, wealth can accrue, and there goes the neighborhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 04:04 PM

Most people actually live their lives in small societies, it's just we get the illusion that we live in a big society, rather than alongside an aggregation of small societies, because we pay so much attention to all the noise from those other small societies.

The number of people we actually seriously interact with in our lives is probably no greater than it would have been in stone age times. Very likely it's smaller.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 03:50 PM

The problem is that these utopian systems only work in small societies. As soon as the society gets any size on it, it breaks down. Which do you suggest to whittle the numbers down to a size where your ideas would work, LH.
A hot war or a bloody plague?
Or maybe we could just drug everyone and brainwash them.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 12:56 PM

Well I suppose you could call that the price they pay for the "free lunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 12:41 PM

Yup. That's what happens in a $ySStem created of the elite, by the elite, for the elite. It's planned inequality...achieved through money, propaganda, and control from the top by the guys who get the free lunches. I note that they often get fat and unhealthy, live miserable family lives, and die in the end just the way the rest of us do...unprotected from mortality by their stolen wealth.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 06:31 AM

It seems to me that there are a lot of powerful people who seem to get free lunches at our expense all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 01:01 AM

Well, of course there's no such thing as a free lunch...unless one is an infant or a child, in which case there is.

The reason I have high social ideals, and confidence that they are acheivable is that I have seen small societies where it is not as you say...they were most definitely NOT founded upon the principle that says "I can get if for you for free". On the contrary, they were founded on these principles:

a) nothing worthwhile comes without effort, and everyone is expected to contribute toward that effort according to their own strengths and abilities, if they expect to share in the rewards (exceptions: infants and small children, very old people, and people who are unable to because of illness...they will be assisted by the others)

b) everyone shares equally in the material rewards accrued through those efforts. That is, we all eat equally good food, we all live in equally good circumstances, we all share the enjoyable and interesting aspects of the community in an equal fashion. (This doesn't make us automatically equal to each other. Everyone is unique. But it does give us equal access to the material benefits of community life.)

c) As for non-material rewards (love, respect, friendship, prestige, and so on) those will obviously accrue most to those who do the most to earn such rewards. That is, those who give love are likely to receive it in return. Those who are courageous and helpful and effective are likely to be highly respected, and so on. This is self-evident, and needs no enforcement of rules to make it happen.

d) everyone cares for everyone else with the same concern they would show for themselves. (the golden rule: do not inflict upon others what you would not wish to have inflicted upon you, extend the sort of kindness and good conduct toward others that you would wish to receive)

Not only is it possible for people to rise to such ideals, I've seen it accomplished beautifully within effective communities that had wise and mature leadership setting a good example. These are essentially the values that were demonstrated in many Native American tribal groups, although I don't wish to imply that Indians were "perfect" in their behaviour...they were not. But they had a far more egalitarian society than did the Europeans.

The groups I have seen which did exemplify what I'm talking about were groups who had united around a coherent spiritual ideal. That ideal did not need to be confined to a particular religion. In fact, I find that true brotherhood is only found among people who respect and can integrate all religions in a non-judgmental fashion, and there ARE such people. I'm one of them.

I realize that regular mainstream society is not capable of fully reaching such a level of brotherhood/sisterhood at this point...cos there are too many factors working against it...BUT...regular society is capable of gradually moving toward such an ideal bit by bit.

And that is what I am arguing for. Not an overnight transformation, but a few steps in the right direction...instead of perpetuating fear, division, inequality, and the worship of money above all else in life.

I agree that most political parties (and thereby most political systems) DO say to the voters: "I can get it for you for free."

They are lying when they say that. People should not be so foolish as to vote for liars.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 09:26 PM

One of the things that I learned while I was locked up on a mental ward was how to look at myself with relative honesty.
I have few illusions about myself, Little Hawk, and even fewer about other people. And I have no illusions about any political or philosophical system. They are all build on a foundation that says basically, I can get it for you for free.
TANSTAAFL

troll

TANSTAAFL? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 08:54 PM

heehee Walking Eagle;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 08:41 PM

We should have known you guys were trouble when you came here from the git-go and let you starve instead of showing you how to survive! (@;->)

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 07:55 PM

I thought that Religous freedom was the reason the first settlers came to America. The Puritans.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 07:34 PM

A thought ? Were the first caucasion settlers in the US of A refugees from Political persecution ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 07:22 PM

Comical Guest quote:"
the Americans used them against the Indians - in the French Indian wars by giving the Indians small silver jars to take back to their villages - and open them when they get back.(they contained small cuttings of small pox infected blankets, put together by soldiers who had recovered from smallpox- and were immune) "

Goooogle/Lord Amherst

"The new Governor General saw no reason to continue the French practice of allying with the native people. He dispensed of the practice of giving natives presents to ensure their loyalty. His "get tough with Indians" policy insulted and angered the native people.
Many, in turn, united under Pontiac and captured several British forts in 1763.

In letters to his subordinate officers, (Lord) Amherst suggested they "inoculate the Indians by means of [smallpox infested] blankets." Several officers followed his suggestion, which resulted in smallpox epidemics among some native communities...

Amherst returned to England in 1763. He was appointed to the British Privy Council in 1772; four years later he was created Baron Amherst. "

He warn't Uhmurrican.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: stevetheORC
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 12:59 PM

But Nukes blow your mind

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 12:34 PM

Yeah, but they're less inspiring...

I can gaze at a Nigel Tufnel poster for hours, and always find something new in it. Nigel is DEEP. He's a visionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: stevetheORC
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 11:43 AM

Nukes are easier to find

De Orc

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 10:46 AM

The reason people will tend not to trust anything the US and the UK find or report in this is because they have a strong interest in finding this stuff in order to justify the assertions made before the war. Assertions which could well have been believed in some cases, even if they do turn out to have been unfounded.

It doesn't matter whether people here believe it or not. The point is, the people who need to be convinced won't believe it. Including people who would in fact very much prefer to believe that there is real evidence, and that it hasn't been faked.

That isn't paranoia, it's being real. Governments tell lies when it suits them, they always have. All governments.

As has been pointed out, it's all speculation, and we shouldn't get too personally involved about it or heated against each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 10:28 AM

No...but I would be interested in a Nigel Tufnel poster if you can find one for me.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: stevetheORC
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 10:21 AM

Pst wanna buy a second hand nuke?? 1 carefull owner!!!

De Orc

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 12:16 AM

We are all indulging in idle speculation, troll. That is what the general public does when they discuss politics. The information we look up and quote can easily be dismissed and discounted by people of a different opinion for a variety of reasons...if they want to dismiss it. They can either deny it, question it, or say it's not relevant to the point.

We are all unable to provide what you term "definitive proof", because the very sources we get the info from may themselves be tainted, and may be lying either directly or be omission.

What it comes down to is simple: You happen to trust Big Brother (in the USA), and I don't. I am a philosophical revolutionary, and you're a loyalist of the SySStem...which you believe in, and which I don't.

In 1776 that would probably have made me an American revolutionary and you a British Empire loyalist, and you would have lost out. Maybe you will win out this time. We'll see.

One thing, though. I am never afraid to point out and even laugh at my own ego when I see it influencing what I say. I point out other's weaknesses in this respect, and I do not deny my own weaknesses in this respect. I think it's quite funny, in fact, how we all twist around like eels trying to score points on our opponents.

You oughta try some self-observation too. It's an eye-opener.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 11:14 PM

My point exactly. It's easy to dismiss someones argument by saying that he is only trying to make petty points to satisfy his ego. So much easier than addressing the question.
So I'll try again.
Why is it NOT OK that the Military has not found any WMDs yet, having been in country for a month, when it WAS ok to give the Inspectors "several months more" to try to find the said WMDs.
L.H. all the flummery about your feelings on the possession of WMDs is irrelevant to the question at hand. If you weren't going to address it, why did you get involved?
Kevin, you said,"And Troll the difference between now and when the inspections were being carried out, is that there is a crucial bit of fresh
evidence. We know that Iraqis invaded and Saddam's reguime destroyed, and there was not a single example of any of
these Weapons of Mass Destruction being used. That cannot easily be dismissed."
It is the 4easiest thing in the world to dismiss. Saddam Hussein was caught between a rock and a hard place. If on the one hand, he used WMDs to oppose the Coalition, he would be admitting to the world that the war was justified.
If on the other hand, he did >I?not he would be throwing away his only chance for a possible victory or at least a truce.
I think, personally, that his plan was to use them only as a last resort and then he was either killed or put out of commission in some way so that the necessary commands could not be given.
L.H., I assume that you can furnish definitive proof of this statement."Yes, because that was not the real reason for the war. Dead simple."
If you cannot, then it is idle speculation on your part and should be labeled as such.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 09:19 PM

"In the long run, the greatest weapon of mass destruction is stupidity."

Thomas Sowell

No shortage of that ""weapon on this forum. They have discovered a bio-chemical lab (portable) buried near an amunition storage area.
Dozens of locations have not even been investigated yet, and you people are waffling about not finding them? When they are found, you will start accusing the CIA of planting them in country too!

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 07:40 PM

---Ahem---(clearing her throat). Just a gentle reminder, folks, that all we are doing is speculating. No sense in getting all 'het' up over speculation. Save that for things that are proven, like the need for medical assistance in Iraq. So with that in mind, I intend to make a small monetary contribution to legitimate aid agencies. Just a gentle suggestion (@:->) that you kind folks think about doing likewise.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 06:04 PM

Yes, because that was not the real reason for the war. Dead simple.

Lies are believed if they are repeated often enough. Half the people in the USA seem to believe Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11, for example. You want a lie to be believed? Just imply it, suggest it, and keep suggesting it until it is believed by people who are too busy or lazy to bother actually informing themselves about much.

Some Arabs were happy when the WTC towers were hit. Yeah...so? Some Americans are happy whenever the US Air Force bombs hell out of an Arab city, and destroys its palaces and government buildings, etc...

Tell me what the difference is?

Does the happiness of some people at the discomfort of their supposed enemy justify launching a retaliatory war on those people and devastating a whole country? No, it does not.

It just leads to further trouble farther on down the road.

And Saddam? He could never have become what he did without massive American assistance...when they thought they needed him as a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalist, Shiites, and Iran. He became a "made-in-America" dictator, like so many others...and then he fell out of favor...like a good many others.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 05:43 PM

My opposition to this war was not "driven more by hatred of Bush and Blair than any concern for peace, or the rights and justices of the Iraqi people", and nor is that true of anyone I know. And I do not believe that we are untypical.

I suppose saying we were "driven more by hatred of Bush and Blair than any concern for peace, or the rights and justices of the Iraqi people" makes a change from saying that we were "useful idiots" (a charge which can be laid against anyone who is taken in by the lies of people they would wish to admire, and if the cap fits...)

And Troll the difference between now and when the inspections were being carried out, is that there is a crucial bit of fresh evidence. We know that Iraqis invaded and Saddam's reguime destroyed, and there was not a single example of any of these Weapons of Mass Destruction being used. That cannot easily be dismissed.

The reason we were given for this war being necessary was to get rif of these weapons, not to get rid if Saddam's regime - we were told that if that happened, it would be a lucky by-product.

In Polly Toynbee's words in today's Guardian which I quoted earlier in this thread: ""If the Iraqis got freedom and if they end up pleased with it, that was only accidental collateral good, alongside the collateral damage."

Yes, it's good that Saddam isn't there any more. But that isn't the only thing that this war has achieved, and some of the results already are not at all pleasant.

However one thing it has not achieved so far is the one thing it ostensibly set out to achieve.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 05:20 PM

I may be dense, but I don't see the hypocrisy. Asking to give the inspectors more time doesn't necessarily imply a belief either that they are there or not. It advocates a particular method of finding out.

Invading with the stated purpose of getting rid of them certainly does imply a belief in their existence, so whether they are found or not is important in evaluating on of the justifications for the invasion.

They haven't been found yet. They might still be found. It's all speculation now, but (with all due respect to those who feel it's a meaningless issue), I think the ultimate result is very improtant.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 05:13 PM

True enough, Bartholomew...but it's so irresistible to the lively and fully engaged ego.

Oooo! Got 'im with that zinger! Oooo! Betcha he crawls off and licks his wounds now! Man, I am SOOOO right, and he is SOOO lame.

Great fun for idle and opinionated minds.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 04:50 PM

The beat goes on -

There are two problems with accepting hypochrisy, platitudes and demagoguery when they can score your side a debating point. 1.The debate quickly degenerates and 2.You inevitably end up getting bit on the rhetorical ass. There can never be common ground if neither side is willing to enter honestly into a dialogue over real issues, presenting cogent arguments supported by verifiable facts.

Just throw a bunch of blather up against the same wall to see what sticks. It's all a bunch of talk. It solves nothing and it means nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 03:57 PM

troll, I have asserted all along that any country which is being menaced and attacked on a regular basis by certain larger countries has every right to build and have ANY weapons of mass destruction...just not the right to pre-emptively use them on others.

And I regard the WMD issue to be a complete red herring, which has taken various people in, you included. It didn't matter whether or not Iraq had such weapons, they were effectively almost helpless against their opposition.

Therefore, I hardly care whether they find any WMD's or not. It makes no friggin' difference.

Pakistan & India obviously feel they have a right to have weapons of mass destruction. So does Israel (but they have them secretly...or unofficially, you might say). So does anyone out there.

This is a case of a big criminal gang with oh, 500 tommy guns and hit men complaining about one little guy across the street (whom they intend to kill at the first good opportunity) maybe having a pistol hidden somewhere in his house!

It's so fucking outrageous that it's almost beyond belief.

Therefore, I assert that the hypocrisy being displayed around this issue has its larger share on your side of the argument, though it's not all there, of course.

You're just enjoying yourself scoring petty points, that's all. That's what people do when their ego is engaged. You do it, I do it, everybody does it.

Sober up and get real. WMD's were never the real reason for this war.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 03:05 PM

I don't know why your surprised Troll, this "anti-war" protest seems to have been driven more by hatred of Bush and Blair than any concern for peace, or the rights and justices of the Iraqui people.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 02:35 PM

All the anti-war crowd were screaming at the Administration to give the inspectors a few more months; that the inspectors hadn't had enough time to do their job.
We have been in Iraq less than a month, our army has spent most of that time fighting, but all we hear from the anti-war bunch is, "Why haven't they found the WMD'S yet? Because there aren't any!" or "Now they'll say they've been moved to Syria." and on and on and on.
What a bunch of hypocrits!
" Give the inspectors more time." We know they won't find anything.
"OK, you're there. Where are they?" Oh G-d. What if they find something.
I know. We can claim they were planted.
Yeah. I think 'hypocrits' is the right term.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 08:35 AM

A fitting expression I came across in an article today, which sums it up rather well: "If the Iraqis got freedom and if they end up pleased with it, that was only accidental collateral good, alongside the collateral damage."

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 10:44 PM

Possible Final Ree-Port on Pepe:

Wal, we hev completely dee-molished Pepe's former residence, the adobe hut, and kilt a fair number of wetbacks who most likely was in his gang or were sympathizers of his'n. We ain't found the danged rifle, but who cares? The important thing is, all them Mexicans now understand whut it means ta git in the way of Ranch Dee-velopment and the Winnin' of thuh Middle East. We are gonna improve the lot of the survivin' Mex's by employin' them to keep an eye on each other, and work as house servants and thet sort of thing. They are good at thet, and you kin pay 'em next to nuthin' fer doin' it too.

Pepe has disappeared like frost on a hot summer day. Vamoosed. Skeedaddled. We figger thet maybe the Arapahoes up on thuh Syrian Reserve done took him in, so we figgers to git t'gether a real big buncha cowboys and teach them Injuns a lesson they won't fergit...real soon! That's if'n they don't fall inta line fast, and cooperate fully with our lee-jitimate dee-mands, which hev been itemized on a 50-page document which Ah will not bore you with the dee-tails.

If'n we do find Pepe Ah will be sure ta let y'all know, but hell, he ain't no more important now than a flea on a donkey's ass. He is yesterday's news. Ah'm kinda goin' ta miss ol' Pepe...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,comical ali
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 08:38 PM

hey did you see those huge swords at the entrance to baghdad
bet you could take a few heads off with those wmds.
-that saddam had attempted to acquire wmds is no secret, The Nuclear Reactor in baghdad -
I find it very hard to believe that he would give up seeking to acquire them.)
Khadir Hamza , a former head of the Iraqi Nuclear Weapons program
(who had defected to the west in 91) said he is absolutely certain they will be found. why else did they give UNscom the runaround, and refuse to interview
scientist outside Iraq.?

its funny how some people want to have it both ways, stating that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, while arguing against the war in case they be used.

by the way the Japanese used bio weapons in China, in WWII - and
the Americans used them against the Indians - in the French Indian wars
by giving the Indians small silver jars to take back to their villages - and open them when they get back.
(they contained small cuttings of small pox infected blankets, put together by soldiers who had recovered from smallpox- and were immune)

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 06:00 PM

Bingo Walking Eagle! The best argument for the war (in my opinion) is that we MAY have improved the lot of many Iraqis -- and despite the right wings proclamations of success and calls for apologies from anti-war folks, I believe the jury will be out on that for months if not years. All the other reasons we've been given for the war seem to be pure fabricated hooey. Even IF it turns out in months or years that we did in fact do some good, are we comfortable having been tricked into it? Should we be happy to live in a country where our leaders intentionally mislead us so that we can be led like cattle?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 05:29 PM

Over 200 posts here folks. Keep in mind that, for us, almost everything posted is pure SPECULATION on our part. A newspapaer wrote this or a reporter said that. So, our opinions are worth exactly the same as any others.

What matters to me in this whole mess is trust. I feel my govt. lied to me in saying that Weapons of MAss Distrucion was one of the reasons we needed to go to war. Now, this reason seems to have fallen by the wayside. It matters to me that I was lied to and that our Representatives and Senators voted for this war on mostly false premisses.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: mg
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 04:11 PM

Bobert...you come across as downright mean. You have no way of knowing who is going to make it through the pearly gates and who isn't. You are not the final answer on religion, morality, etc. You are one of many people, probably each of whom thinks they are totally right. You're no more totally right than I am or George Bush. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 09:10 AM

Surely the real "conspiracy theory" was that Saddam Hussein had all these weapons he was holding in reserve and planning to pass out to terrorists around the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 03:31 AM

'Teribus asked:
Mr Happy,

Why would stuff have to be planted?

Because Mr. Happy wants to believe in conspiracy theory.

Dave Oesterreich'

dave,

from perusal of many of the foregoing post, it seems like i'm not alone in my 'delusion' of   'conspiracy theory', or of the cynical means that powerful groups will employ to gain their means to an end.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 10:02 PM

L.H.

Bush don't know any real Christains so who ever he's sending youn can bet are nothing more that wolves.........

Speaking of which, I'd give anything to witness Bush's plaedings at the Pearly Gate. "Ahhh, Pete, I killed all them folks for you, and Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit! I swear I did!".

One thing nice about knowing that in this life and beyond my spirit will not have have to share any space with the likes of George Bush. This man is spiritually bankrupt. And so are *all* those who follow him.

This ain't negotiable.

You're either for mankind or against it. Ain't no middle ground here!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 06:19 PM

And for those who have a desire for information, here is a link to Tony Blair's statement to Parliment today ( a link rather than a cut and paste. Click 'Ere

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 06:16 PM

they were probbly in the muesums.....

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 06:13 PM

o wait, ya, i forgot about thoes....are we still saposta be pretending that there over there?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 06:11 PM

well, ok, i feel stupid, what does WMD stand for?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:19 PM

They'll be "found" to have been moved to Syria... then Iran... then Libya... then heck, who knows? Canada? France? California? Ol' Shrubbie really isn't well loved out here, even now... I'm willing to bet that there's TONS of good ol' WMDs buried up in the hills, or stored in those mysterious "Naval Weapons Stations". I'm willing to bet they'd even find some REALLY nasty stuff buried up in Livermore...

They're an effective bugaboo to keep the population distracted.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:16 PM

Of course they'll rebuild for themselves, if people don't get in the way and steal the resources that could help them do it. Getting clean water and so forth is where outside help is more likely to be important, because you can't put that off more than a few days.

The suggestion that by and large the way to get Iraq back together is for them to provide the money, and for American companies to provide the expertise (for a comfortable profit) is fundamentally rubbish.

This threads seems somehow to have drifted into the field of concern of this thread, for some reason - BS: suggestions on rebuilding Iraq.

Still no sign of the weapons which were supposed to be the whole justification for this war. But I note that we keep on being promised by the politicians that they definitely will be found. Who can doubt that they will indeed be found?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:01 PM

While not at all for the war or for our increasingly blatantly obvious profiteering motives, I've not been able to find any "real" source on the supposed missionaries. Most of what I see is either obvious scare-propaganda, or stories like the one in the Sacramento Bee, questioning the motives and methods of some of the groups tagged for aid and support.

I personally think it should be a qualifier used for ANY support group. After all, there are several overtly religous groups - groups with evangelical background, even - whom have declared they're more or less "leaving the religion at home" so to speak. To me, those are the groups acting in the true "Christian" spirit... to aid those in need, regardless of faith or belief - and to act from love for humanity, not the hope of a conversion.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Cluin
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 01:23 PM

That last one can't be true, can it, LH? White man's burden, eh?
Jeez, how far exactly can they get their heads up their asses?


"Just a little further... I can almost reach my appendix..."

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 01:07 PM

Recovery will probably be very difficult. The Iraquis are a gifted people, but they're in a lousy spot right now, and have been for a long time. There is also likely to be some sporadic warfare for a while yet, I think, whether by Iraquis against the occupying forces or Iraquis against each other. Afghanistan is in a similar limbo, for much the same reasons.

Pray that Syria is not next in line for "liberation".

Vietnam, by the way, was being "liberated" for decades by foreigners. First the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and then the Americans (plus a paltry few Australians, I think). Oh, it just did wonders for the place...

I understand that Bush is sending Christian missionaries to Iraq. If so, that is an act of idiocy that may surpass anything heretofore done by his administration, and will probably result in some dead missionaries. They must believe they are fulfilling the Book of Revelations or something.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 08:42 AM

Little Hawk-I agree that without Saddam and the wars they've gone through, they'd be pretty well off. It doesn't mean they'll be able to fully recover that easily.

mary garvey-yes, if the money doesn't get misappropriated by the companies setting oil prices, or the organization handling the revenue, or the people buying construction materials (even baked-earth huts still need the high-powered heater), and the homes aren't wrecked during guerilla fighting, etc. There are a lot of things that can go wrong in even such a simple process.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: mg
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 01:55 AM

I think they have the ability and willingness to rebuild homes. For heavens sakes. Give them some credit. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:32 AM

Iraq was already doing far better than most Arab countries...way back before they were encouraged by the West to launch that war on Iran in the 80's. I have known people who travelled there prior to that, and remarked on Iraq's accomplishments in modernization. Where the Iraquis went horribly wrong (under Saddam) was in embarking on an expansionist military policy. They were heavily assisted in that by the most expasionist military aggressor in recent history, the USA (or is that Israel?). And that was their key mistake.

It has led to a series of disasters, this invasion by the "coalition of the willing-to-be-bribed and the dragged kicking and screaming" being the latest, and the absolute worst.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 11:51 PM

mary garvey-It's not that simple. The theoretical resources to do something and the ability and willingness to coordinate it are completely different things, even before you count in the effects of outside interference. There are hundreds of countries with the same resources as Iraq, many of which have suffered much less from war and tyrannical government, and have yet to raise themselves to par with so-called First World countries. We can hope that Iraq will not stay in that category too long, but it is by no means certain.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: mg
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 10:21 PM

Homes and buildings can be rebuilt. The terrible loss of the antiquties can't be replaced, but it sounds like they are going to get at least some back. The lives that are lost can't come back, and some injuries can't be recovered from. Compared to freedom, which hopefully is theirs now, subject to this and that, the loss of a modest number of buildings is nothing. Nothing, nothing. There seems to be no lack of items that could be used to make simple homes out of..sand, earth, rock...there seems to be no shortage of unemployed young people.....once the oil is flowing there will be money for repairs, hopefully all managed by the Iraqi people.   In the meantime, people will do what people have always done..live with friends or relatives, move to the country and live in a tent for a few months, go to a refuge camp. Any of these I would do myself. Let's track this. First they can't handle freedom. Next we think they can't handle money in modest amounts. Now are we thinking they can't make bricks and build some new houses? This is the cradle of civilization folks...with all sorts of educated and technical people. They can make bricks. They can make cement blocks. They probably can supply the world with glass from their sand storms alone. They can and will rebuild.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 08:12 PM

The Crow on the Cradle

Bring me a gun and I'll shoot that bird dead
That's what your mammy and pappy once said
Crow on the cradle, oh what should I do
That is a thing that I leave to you
Sang the crow on the cradle

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 08:08 PM

Anyway, it's starting to seem pretty likely that the Weapons of Mass Destruction weren't really what it was all about. A pretext rather than a reason.

Does that matter, if some of the results it produced were desirable? Does it matter if some of the other results are not so desirable?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 07:38 PM

Ask Sitting Bull.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 07:29 PM

Following LH's argument, should Cabot have not sailed from Bristol ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 01:52 AM

Yeah, Doug, you're wrong. :-) What Greg said, and for the same reasons. The Iraqui people would (maybe) be better off if:

Saddam had never come to power in the first place. (but who can say?)

They would also probably be better off if:

The USA & other countries had not built Saddam up into a big military player to take out Iran, and supplied him with weapons of mass destruction with which to kill Iranians and Kurds.

And if:

The U.N.'s recent desire to avoid war and continue inspections had been honored by the USA and UK.

And so on, and so on...

It's a very complex and very bad situation there, regardless of whether Saddam is there or not. Some people will benefit, most will not. That's the way it usually goes with power politics. A few key players benefit, and millions of ordinary people pay the price. That is what is happening right now.

If you think it is fun, and really great to have your country invaded by foreign troops, your society totally disrupted, your cities bombed, your neighbourhoods looted and burned by various mobs of your countrymen, and so on...

Try it yourself, with you on the receiving end. Then tell me afterward how great it was...if you are still alive.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 01:29 AM

Yes, troll, Greg F. came through with just about what I expected that he would ...nothing.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 01:12 AM

Truly an awesome number of casualties, Kevin. Nasty stuff, gas. Good job they outlawed its use in war.
Thank you for your response, Greg. I can understand why it was against your better judgement.

troll

BTW, you get your news from T.V.?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 08:22 PM

Here's a site giving an account of the use of gas by both sides during the Great War - including the numbers killed ot injured. What I hadn't realised was how dispropotiontely many of the victims were Russian:

Casualties From Gas - The Numbers

Country          Casualties                Death
Austria-Hungary 100,000                   3,000
British Empire   188,706                   8,109
France             190,000                   8,000
Germany          200,000                   9,000
Italy                60,000                   4,627
Russia            419,340                56,000
USA               72,807                   1,462
Others            10,000                   1,000

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 07:27 PM

Mmmmm ! Didn't Wilfred Owen have something to say on Mustard Gas ?

Gareth

You would not tell your children that sad old lie,
Dulche et Dulchorum Est, Pro Patria Morie. (SP on the Latin)

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 03:42 PM

OK Troll, I'll respond, somewhat against my better judgement; it should be obvious to you, but:

FIRST: See McGrath's response(s) above.

Then RE:
the invasion of Iraq was anything other than a positive one for the people of Iraq

1. The dead ones, the maimed ones in hospital, the orphans, the ones whose homes/businesses/livliehoods have been destroyed & etc might not agree with this sophomoric interpretation

2. It is WAY too early to tell what the ultimate outcome will be "for the people of Iraq"- positive or negative.

3. Who would be so naive as to base ANYTHING whatsoever solely on the obviously biased, staged, and pre-packaged bogus crap shown on the U.S. TV media?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:26 PM

Greg, you said, "you're wrong." Please explain what you meant. I assume that your post was in response to Dougs post "T'would appear so, troll. Following McGrath's "logic" Saddam would still be in power, and the Iraqi people would still be
subjugated by him. Based on the television images projected by the U. S. media, at least, it would be difficult to defend the
argument that the invasion of Iraq was anything other than a positive one for the people of Iraq. Or am I wrong?".
In what way was he wrong in your estimation?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 12:09 PM

No, Charlie, he really DOESN'T know any better. That's why he's so pathetic. He doesn't know, or care, that I never said any such thing.
Please don't encourage him.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 11:49 AM

To Troll:

"For those of you who have never heard of Mustard Gas and it's horrific effects on the human body, read any good medical history of WWI or talk to someone who had a grandfather who suffered from its effects after that war."

And we can tell our children to read medical histories of the horrific effects on the human body of cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells.

Sorry, man. All weapons are horrific.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 08:59 AM

DougR-

You do know better, "to free the Iraqi people" is not the same as removing or chasing out Saddam and his chief cronies. This next phase of "liberation" is likely to be a long one and its outcome ambiguous. Sometimes I wish you were there to report on what's really happening.

Should we take up a collection, gang?

Cheerily,
Charley Noble, adrift in the Big Apple

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:26 AM

Amos, for sure "Real people are not school children". I was trying to get into one country meddling with anothers affiars on grounds of orality - more a case of one country trying to play "headmaster" to continue that type of analogy.

As for "In a theoretical universe". In one, we could perhaps all learn to live in peace and for our common good without incentives such as money. I don't think we will ever see it though and know that even I, who does not lust for power am incapable of carrying out every action I make for unselfish motives - wish I could say otherwise...

We as human beings seem to me to be the wierdest creatures in existance. I think most of us are capable of acts of great kindness but also have a dark side capable of destruction if we don't keep ourselves in check.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:10 AM

For those of you who have never heard of Mustard Gas and it's horrific effects on the human body, read any good medical history of WWI or talk to someone who had a grandfather who suffered from its effects after that war.
The ONLY country -so far as I have been able to determine- to use Mustard Gas since WWI is Iraq under Saddam Hussein, who used it on the Kurds.
In case there is anyone on the Forum who doesn't know the effects of Mustard Gas, I'll try to describe what it does. Mustard Gas causes huge blisters to form wherever it touches. These are very painful and slow to heal, leaving the victim open to secondary infection. The real pain comes when the stuff gets into the lungs; the same blisters with the pain magnified a hundredfold. If the victim lives, it is with a lifetime of pain and debilitation.
In WWI, Mustard Gas was used against troops in the trenches. Saddam Hussein used it against women and children.
By comparison, Sarin and VX are humane. They at least kill quickly.
Did I mention that Mustard Gas victims are also at increased risk for cancer if they survive the initial attack?
I have seen posts where the poster called this war to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Husseins regiem "immoral".
I can only say that I cannot concieve of a moral code that would allow a monster like Saddam Hussein to remain in power.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 12:54 AM

Okie dokie, Greggie, you think it was wrong to free the Iraqi people. So please enlighten us. Why was it wrong?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 09:27 PM

Jon:

In a theoretical universe it is possible that the Iraqis would have risen up at a point in their evolution and asserted they would not be bullied or tortured any longer. But in the real world, I would say, not likely in this generation or the next. Maybe changing the regime for them was a misjudgement, and maybe it was actually a good call -- but it was purely a best guess.

Furthermore, there is no particular logic to the notion that taking action in one case means one who acts is obligated to take similar action in all cases, or that not doing so requires explanation or justification. Real people are not school children, and they act according to their best lights when they decide to do so. Complex group decisions are even less likely to be consistent or adhere to random codes of acceptable action. To expect them to be constrained by such standards is, in my opinion, naive. This is not to say there is no such thing as right action, justice, or equity in the world. But these things come about because of individual awareness, individual to individual, not because of some playground Code of Fairness At Recess.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 08:02 PM

Thanks Charley. I'll soon be leaving town also. But I'll look for writings by Marvin R.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Another Voice
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 05:25 PM

I doubt any of you have cared for a relative who has been exposed to any of these WMD's. I and my family have. From an eye socket that needed scabbing removed daily to body ulcerations that required gold leaves to control to hospitalization for periods up to 7 years at a stretch, it is not an enviable life. Nuclear fallout is easier to deal with than the persistant chemical agents many countries hang on to. Saddam's willful, exclusive (since WW1) and willing use of these agents and the stockpiles of the precursers he so carefully failed to account for were primary reasons for the action to remove him from power. The failure to meet the requirements of prior UN mandates invoked the automatic return to a state of war without additional UN declarations. The US and GB asked for but did not need any further authorization for the actions undertaken.
Of the four countries to block additional mandates were China(suppliers of the fiber optic nexus for military control), the Russians(suppliers of forbidden shoulder fired antiaircraft missiles), the Germans(busily building heavily reinforced bunkers) and the French (suppliers of 36+ forbidden ground to air missile types). I believe that the US and GB should print all (including any of their own) corporate and government evidence found in Iraq exposing the illegal business ties that helped Saddam continue his regimes repressive ways for so long. Let those with something to hide be called to the dock for their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 05:07 PM

Mary-

Sorry, I'm out of town for a week. Marvin Resnikoff (sp?)is one of my favorite technical resource people for the long-term hazards of low-level nuclear waste.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:59 PM

When I said acceptable levels, I meant what the EPA does not consider dangerous in a municipal water supply. I assume, but don't know, that that means no appreciable effects from contaminants.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:41 PM

I am ALL for that standard. Then again, I also feel that Ol' Spongebush Shrubbypants and Blair should have been out on the field. After all, if it's worth risking anyone's life over, why isn't it worth risking THEIR lives over?

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:33 PM

"Acceptable levels" should mean a level that would be accepted acceptable for inside the Oval Office or Ten Downing Street.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:33 PM

Thanks, Barry and Wolfgang. I scanned Wolfgang's post and followed some of the links. I didn't know much about depleted uranium before this. I was, however, a little surprised that the WHO and the CDC didn't seem to be as concerned as I am about radiation pollution whether in dirty bombs, terrorist scatterings, power plants, or even a nuclear explosion. Barry, my original concern was ground water contamination, epidemiology of various diseases (not just cancer, but of course MS) and just pollution in general. Maybe Charley will shed some light on geography (rivers and water drainage) and pollution. Forum Lurker, did you read some of the CDC links? What did you think? I wonder if I used too much tunnel vision in the links I chose to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:28 PM

Honestly, depends on what the "acceptable levels" are.

If it's "no detectable difference between contaminated site and verified clean site", I'm all for it.

If they're "only a 15% elevated cancer risk" and the like - that's not so "acceptable"

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: MMario
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:21 PM

acceptable levels

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:20 PM

Barry-That seems rather contrary to what the EPA has been saying. I just finished a report on a Superfund site in Maine, where contamination was cut down to acceptable levels within a decade of the beginning of cleanup. There are certainly sites which are worse off, but very little short of radioactive waste cannot be cleaned up with a reasonable investment of effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:06 PM

Hi Mary, sorry thread drift, I thought this might interest you. One of my brother-in-law's life long friend was at a family party. This friend is a world renown soil scientists (for lack of a better or more professional term). The subject of discussion was super fund sites (of which he from time to time advises on), his comment was, it doesen't matter how much money & labor goes into one of these sites it will remain contaimated & there's not a thing anyone can do about it, it there's for good. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 09:22 AM

"..you are saying, taking it to it's logical conclusion, that, since we cannot know all the consequences of any action, we should avoid doing anything at all lest we inadvertantly cause harm."

I didn't say that, and I don't think I said anything beginning to resemble that. Yes, we have to act on the basis of our best guesses. But we have to recognise that that is what they are. This has implications.

The first implication is that, even when we are able to point to a good consequence of some action, that does not in itself prove that it is justified, even on utilitarian grounds, since there are other consequences to be taken into account.

And the second and more immediate implication for us here, is that we should avoid sneering and lashing out at other people whose judgement on these matters differs from our own. And that applies just as much to people who I might agree with as to those with whom I disagree.

And for a quote to match, it seems appropriate for me to use the words of someone with whom I do not exactly see eye to eye, Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken". Applied to all of us, in all circumnstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:08 AM

You're wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 06:22 AM

Although people, including me, may question that the removal of Saddam could be better for the people of Iraq, it is very dangerous territory.

Iraq is not alone in abuse of its people. Should the US therefore have "a legal and moral right" to remove any leaders who are not considered to be treating thier subjects "fairly"? How will they be able to justify disposing of Saddam but failing to take action against other despots? Whose standards of morality should we take? Is the US way the only right way?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 02:27 AM

T'would appear so, troll. Following McGrath's "logic" Saddam would still be in power, and the Iraqi people would still be subjugated by him. Based on the television images projected by the U. S. media, at least, it would be difficult to defend the argument that the invasion of Iraq was anything other than a positive one for the people of Iraq. Or am I wrong?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 11:33 PM

If I follow your somewhat convoluted statement, Kevin, you are saying, taking it to it's logical conclusion, that, since we cannot know all the consequences of any action, we should avoid doing anything at all lest we inadvertantly cause harm.
Is this correct?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 08:42 PM

Don't follow yur logic Kevin, but never mind.

Gareth.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 04:24 PM

"Far better to do good by misintention than to produce evil by good intention."

As I said, that's the way people justify terrorist bombing campaigns.

Whatever you do has numerous consequences, and the consequences have consequences and so on for ever. Working out the arithmetic to determine whether the good consequences out weigh the bad isn't something that can be done instantaneously; in fact I can't see how whether it can ever be possible to come up with any unambiguous answers about that kind of thing, especially if you try to allow for the other things that might have happened if you had acted differently.

It's all guesswork. And that is when, when arguing with other people of good will who come to different conclusions, it is absurd to lose your temper and throw insults and sneers. Or to respond to insults and sneers in like manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 03:54 PM

The British didn't "Invade" they Helped the Arabs kick out the the Turks. Of course they did break promises through minor official's like Lawrence and turned liberation into occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 10:03 AM

WHO fact sheet for depleted uranium

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 09:24 AM

Charley Noble said, "The low-level radiation in the environment will unfortunately continue to be a threat for thousands of years. " That's what I've been trying to document and remember for some time now. Can you give some more references? Years ago I taught a class in radiochemistry and saw a similar quote in essays presented as pro and con for nuclear power plants. Perhaps it can be documented and explained more starting with some of those sources? To me this fact overrides all the discussions about various chemical and biological weapons (that can only wipe out a generation).

An aside - I don't put much stock in the various company names or the language of instructions found with "stuff." I noticed one of the pictures on my news showed the chemical barrels with the name, Rhone-Poulenc, printed on them. Even though this is a French company, subsidized by the French government, (I know, I used to work for the incompetent __________) this fact alone is totally irrelevant to any discussions about how they got there.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 09:03 AM

Ah, yes...

"The sceens from Bhagdad are sufficient evidence of the morality and legallity of this war."

Uh, huh. The same scenes greeted the Nazis as their troops marched through the cities of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Ukraine in 1941. Thousands and thousands of cheering, flower-throwing civilians, delighted to be "liberated".

So...that is sufficient evidence of the morality and legality of Hitler's war on Russia, right, Gareth?

Ha! Ha! Ha! The people who are opposed to "liberation" do not cheer loudly (which makes them less noticeable)...and America is almost universally hated and despised in the 3rd World, as is the UK, at this point. Saddam is a temporary problem for those people. Imperialism is a longstanding problem they have faced before (when the British invaded and took Baghdad and the surrounding area), and can no doubt expect to face again...and again...and again.

The Romans used to be greeted in a similar fashion when they did their victory parades through conquered towns too, but the people who watched the legions tramp by were just waiting for the day when they could return the favour...in spades.

They hated Imperial Rome.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 07:08 AM

The sceens from Bhagdad are sufficient evidence of the morality and legallity of this war. (Gareth)

I don't agree with that. Everybody could know before the war what a type of dictator Saddam was. So scenes of genuine joy like that were to be expected. That's why I do not see that anyone who had reasons before the war to be against it should change now her position.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 06:53 AM

To deal with the thread question, wherever the truth of the alleged WMDs, it would be hard to argue that this war was anything other than one between grotesquely unequal forces. Legitimate homicide, one might say, except that it wasn't even legal. With hindsight the whole idea that he poseed any threat to the US and UK is laughable - as most of us had the foresight to see and say beforehand.

CarolC, I'm sure to have had a spat or two with you (I can't remember the details/subjects, but I seem to have got into spats with most mudcatters over the years), so I think I'm a fairly objective bystander, and I think you're winning this one hands down. Don't be bullied into going offline with it!

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:58 AM

Kevin - Far better to do good by misintention than to produce evil by good intention.

With regard to the malice originating from CarolC I do not wish it delated, but preserved as an example of the original point, and trust that with this example Mudcatters will treat all future postings from that source with the objectivity that is demonstrated.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:42 AM

"The screens from Baghdad are sufficient evidence of the morality and legality of this war."

So far as the legality is concerned I can't see what relevance they can possibly have.

It is of course tempting often enough to say "Bugger the legality, the morality is what matters". However it is worth remembering that this is the basis on which terrorist organisations justify themselves. It's a very dodgy road to go down, and God know where it is likely to take those who follow it. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Once again, the allegations that Saddam's regime had held on to Weapons of Mass Destruction, and was lying when he said they had been destroyed, was the entire basis for claiming that the war was legal. Tony Blair repeatedly said this, even when presenting regime change as a desirable side effect he hoped to see from the war.

Perhaps credible evidence will emerge that these weapons do in fact still exist, in spite of the fact that so far they have not been used. I am certain that if they do exist they will be used. The suggestion (made for example by Government Minister Mike O'Brien on BBC Question Time last night)that Saddam could have been deterred from using them because of the legal consequences of such use, in terms of war crimes, strikes me as totally absurd.

In itself, the end of Saddam (touch wood) is, of course, a good thing. However it is still far too soon to know whether this good thing will outweigh all the other consequences of the war, such as the thousands of devastated and destroyed lives, the incalculable dangers for the future regionally and globally.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:37 AM

Not much point in PMs McGrath. He hasn't got anything to say.

That's quite a vacuume you're in there, Gareth. You've got no balls, no spine, no brains, and no honor. Barry is right. You're more to be pitied than censured.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:21 AM

PMs are a much better way of having a quarrel, as opposed to an argument.

Though far the best thing to do is to write the PM, and then not send it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 04:41 AM

Carol- Should you not see a Doctor ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 01:47 AM

Another correction: The only post you have ever directed at me in a political thread is the "don't call me English one (maybe) and the "I trust Tony Blair" one.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 01:03 AM

Hey Barry! Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 12:22 AM

Good for you Carol C. There are others who also make personal attacks as a reply. Had one who called me all sorts of names because (1 Reason) I mentioned Rwanda, Uganda &, & was told that they're separate countries (duh) . I could've gone on to name more countries but found dealing with this shite not to be worth the wind. I called this person on they're personal attack & I got "sorry it wasn't intentional" crap. There has been a bit of this going on as of late. Treat it with pity, you have no need to fight like this to back yourself up. BTW Carol, IMHO you were also speaking for me, this country's government wouldn't know the truth if they were sleeping with it & they'd most likely choke on if if they tried to speak it. "IMHO" that's a world opinion. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 12:14 AM

Correction: the line "please don't acuse me of trusting Bush was not directed at me. The only post you have ever directed at me (although I don't know for sure since my name isn't in the post) is this one:

Subject: RE: BS: Vive La France
From: Gareth - PM
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:42 PM

Don't call me English !!!!!

Gareth *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:53 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth - PM
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 05:49 PM

CarolC - You were challenged by myself in other threads to back up your allegations. This you have constantly failed to do. When anyone has pinned you down you change the point.

Ok, Gareth. I have looked at all of your posts to all political threads on which I have also posted (and most non-political threads on which we have both posted) since March 13 2002, which is when the first mention of war with Iraq appeared in any threads on which I posted.

There is not one single post by you in which you have challenged me to support anything I've said, or in which you have asked me a question, other than the post in which you said "Please don't acuse me of trusting Bush". I quote that post in its entirety:

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM

Please don't acuse me of trusting Bush.

This thread was not about Bush.

I confide that a selective assasination of Saddam Hussain and his familly would be ideal but hasn't this been tried ???

BTW What is the price on Saddams head ????

Gareth

So your first post aimed at me in this thread is an unmitigated lie. You have been caught in an unmitigated lie which is also a slander and an abuse.

I asked you to provide evidence to back up your lie, and you couldn't be bothered to either back up your assertion, or withdraw it.

Then you made hateful accusations against my motives. I politely told you that you were wrong, and directed you to an accurate description of my feelings, and your response amounted to calling me a liar.

My assumption that you might have been posting while drunk is not unreasonable in light of these posts by you:

Take it from an insurance professional - Don't drink and drive. Full Stop.

Personally, in the UK, I would like to see a mandetory retest after a Drink and Drive Conviction.

Second conviction - Jail.

If I'am driving I don't drink

You may gather I walked home tonoght.

Gareth

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=806922

I also have one Golden Rule - If I'am driving I don't drink - FULL STOP ! Perhaps this might explain why I don't attend folk clubs in the Cardiff Area.

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=831111


And while you were lying about me, slandering me, and abusing me, you were also doing the very things you were accusing me of doing, ie: not supporting your assertions when challenged.

So you have been caught resorting to lies, slander, abuse, personal attacks, and hypocracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:25 PM

Sorry Forum Lurker.

You got it Gareth. The game is afoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:23 PM

Carol - You cant go head to head with a vacumn - You have been caught resorting to personal abuse, and selective misquoting.

Any further irrational abuse will be dealt with apporpriatley.


Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:23 PM

CarolC and Gareth-Could this discussion be carried out through PM's? The apparent squabbling neither edifies the rest of the forum nor helps either of your images.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:59 PM

Gareth, you started the abuse with this post:

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth - PM
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 05:49 PM

CarolC - You were challenged by myself in other threads to back up your allegations. This you have constantly failed to do. When anyone has pinned you down you change the point.

You are not interested in Peace and Harmony in the Middle East, far more concerned with your single minded and unobjective hatred of G W Bush.

I tried to respond politely in my first two responses to that post, but you continued the abuse in subsequent posts using baseless inuendo. I don't have to resort to using abuse. All I have to do is explore your posting history. From what I've seen so far, there's plenty of material to work with.

The fact is, you painted yourself into a corner with that first abusive post, and you just aren't man enough to own up to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:27 PM

Carol - You cant go head to head with a vacumn - You have been caught resorting to personal abuse, and selective misquoting.

Any further irrational abuse will be dealt with apporpriatley.


Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:14 PM

Here it is Gareth:

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM

Gareth, have you read the treatise from the group called "Project for a new American Century"?

But no answer from you. I wonder why. Could it be because you "constantly don't answer challenges. You just change the subject"? And what the hell is "medacity"?

I can follow you around and do this kind of bullshit if you want the way you're doing with me, but personally, I think it's a colossal waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:05 PM

The other thing I left out of my last post to you was the fact that you failed to answer my question to you in that Tony Blair thread. This, after you accuse me of not answering challenges.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:04 PM

What's your point, Gareth? You want to go head to head with me in thread after thread? I'm up to the challenge. Just say the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:33 PM

Dear Carol

your post above gives more than sufficient evidence on your attitude.

Your Selective quoting of me is not very clever, and provides certain evidence of your medacity

The actual post !

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth - PM
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM

Please don't acuse me of trusting Bush

And the Bit that Carol omitted in order to support her inaccuracies

But I do trust Blair

I must appologise if you do not understand irony, or plain english, crptic comments are not your forte - But then abuse, such as accusing me of being drunk, is a typical tactic of those whose arguments are lost.

The sceens from Bhagdad are sufficient evidence of the morality and legallity of this war.

Gareth - Yes! - In my name.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:59 AM

Thanks Charley. I'll have a look around.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:56 AM

Carol- There was a short article in my local newspaper today from Knight Ridder News Service, Doha, Qatar, which mentioned the 20 rockets and the other two rockets with chemical weapon symbols that the marines supposedly dug up, buried in cement outside a school in central Iraq. Maybe you can find it on the internet and post a link.

Got to run!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:17 AM

True enough, it's good to see happy people. I don't know how that balances against that little boy with his arms blown off and his family wiped out, or busloads of women and children wiped out. Is it only one thousand civilians killed outright?

But remember the argument that illegal violence is justified because it can produce good results, and that the people killed by carrying out bombings are a worthwhile sacrifice, is the argument that is used by terrorists to justify their activities.

And the only argument ever made for this war having any legality at all was that it was necessary because Saddam had stocks of weapons of mass destruction, and there was no other way of getting rid of them other than aborting the inpection process and going immediately to war.

Today I saw a suggestion that, if there are any chemical and bioogucal weapons still around in Iraq, they are likely to be in the hands of people who are even more likely to be ready to pass them over to Al Qaida style people.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:54 AM

Charley, have you seen anything about those 20 missles from any source other than NPR, or people quoting NPR?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:22 AM

The U.S. armed forces are still taking their time verifying the chemical nature of what they found buried at an agricultural compound. However, they did report that the containers had labels indicating that the contents were standard agricultural pesticides produced in Jordan. Sure, it's entirely possible that these containers were recycled and filled with something more sinister. I would be happiest if "Hans Blix and company" were brought in soon to do the verification.

There are still the 20 missles that were recently captured that some suspect contain poisonous chemicals, and the two missles that were dug up with chemical symbols labeling their exterior which may yet prove to be the real thing.

Haven't run across any serious follow-up on what was found at the Ansar militants' compound in the North.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:55 AM

I agree that any non combatant death is one too many and that deaths are lamentable. For many of those Iraqis killed by this war it was oinservice to their country and not necessarily to Saddam. They may have died from a sense of duty and nothing more. Or they had been sold a bill of goods by Saddam and Muslim fakers and died for 100 hundred virgins and a sweet life here after.

But there is one perspective we are forgetting. In the battle of Iwo Jimo 350 US Marines of Easy Co. went up a hill, fighting all the way, raised a flag, and ony 50 lived to board ship after the fight.

The Battle of the Bulge cost 19,000 Casualties.

These two battles were straight up fights. No WMDs were used, just men with guns and tanks. It is because of staggering loses like these that Harry Truman decided to use atomic bombs to put the end to the conflict completely. That is a moralistic debate that can't be won by either side I don't believe. And even now, nearly sixty years later I am chilled by the thought of that war. But from a convential wars stand point and tallied in loss of life, combatant and civilian,   the War in Iraq is comparitivly low. Certainly nowheres near that of Dresden or The Battle of Britain or Gettysburg or Antietam or Fredericksburg.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:02 AM

I should add that by "ordinary Iraqis", I mean the ones who have not been killed or crippled mentally or physically by this war.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:45 AM

Hans Blix and crew are the only ones I trust McGrath.

Anyway, WMDs aside. The one thing I have been wrestling with is the fact that Saddam is not a nice person and whether or not, although I disagree with this war and am skeptical over motives and costs in terms of hatered from Muslims world wide, that ordinary Iraqis may still get a better life than they did under his regime.

I've just read this. That the US has bombed and killed 11 Afghan civilians. Is this to be American Liberation? That after a conflict is over that the US will still be free to drop bombs where ever they think a threat may be and, to kill innocents in the proccess and think that "sorry" is good enough?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:34 AM

Why should you think that I would "approve of their neutrality" in the case of France, Germany or Russia, Doug?

In fact I imagine that a German team especially would do a first rate job, and I personally would be likely to trust its findings - but the point is, the purpose of this exercise would be to have inspectors who couldn't be accuse of bias, and I am sure that there are other Americans as well as Doug who would not be ready to accept German inspectors.

Perhaps same would apply to the most obvious solution, which would be to call back into play Hans Blix and company, so far as some people are concerned, but I think most people in most countries would see that as a fair way of proceeding, and it could be done quickly.

If that's not good enough, how about a joint Irish-South African team?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 02:40 AM

Sure, McGrath, invite somebody impartial in to check out the WMDs. How about France, Germany and Russia? I'd imagine you would approve of their neutrality wouldn't you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Tom D.
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 12:51 AM

About that NPR story of late yesterday afternoon....

All other cites appear to be back to the NPR report and I am not aware of any other follow-up. Was this a bogey?

Tom D.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: reggie miles
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 12:37 AM

The weapons of mass distraction can easily be flown in by us if we don't find any there. We can plant 'em in some out of the way bunker and call it it a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 11:34 PM

I follow you, Dave, but I don't think those are the real reasons behind the war at all. That's cos I don't trust or believe the US government's spokesmen when they give supposed reasons for their actions, and maybe you do trust and believe them. If so, that is where we differ.

Don - Thanks. :-) I am actually neither a liberal nor a conservative, I'm a radical (for lack of a better word). I believe in freedom, coupled with individual & collective responsibility, and I see both liberals and conservatives attacking those concepts on a regular basis (although they would claim otherwise).

Every society is a tricky dance between freedom and responsibility. Those who can dance harmoniously can achieve a great deal.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 10:41 PM

Little Hawk said:

It is not a crime to have a weapon, it is a crime to use it unlawfully in an act of civil crime or international aggression.

Two statements there. I agree with both statements.

BUT!

First, what's at stake here is not just somebody in the abstract having weapons. It is somebody who, after being defeated in an agressive war, AGREED to give up such things, and was obligated both by the applicable UN resolutions and their own agreement, but who has repeatedly waffled, delayed, concealed, denied, and obstructed the UN's attempts to find out whether they in fact have them. Not the same situation as say Israel or the United States or the UK or India or Pakistan or prospectively North Korea. (Actually I've included some countries there which have nuclear arms but don't as far as I know have chemical and biological weapons, but that doesn't really bear on this immediate subject; "WMDs" is the subject.)

Second: The putative possessor here has shown that it not only will not live up to its agreements about such things, as referred to above, but will use such things both on foreigners AND ON ITS OWN CITIZENS.

So while the two statements are true, they don't amount to any kind of an argument that applies.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:42 PM

Little Hawk,

I don't assume you are a Liberal. I assume you are just a guy with an opinion that may or may not be the same as mine. Altho' I must say you have remarkably clear thoughts for liberal. :-)

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:35 PM

"Even if WMDs are discovered, many of you will swear they were planted by the coalition forces. Sad, but true."

So to avoid that suspicion, assuming that it would be unjustified, it makes a lot of sense to get some guys in who are going to be trusted, because they haven't any reason to fake the evidence. That can't be the USA and it can't be the UK.

It is now pretty generally accepted that, on Bloody Sunday, fake evidence was planted to provide "proof" that the people killed had been in possession of guns and nail bombs. Proof that was accepted as Gospel by the now discredited Widgery Report.That kind of thing happens. And it does enormous harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 03:14 PM

Latest word on Pepe:

Wal, we cain't find him. A lot of them other Mex's in the neighborhood are makin' demonstrations against our cowboys, but who cares? We got 'em outgunned 500 to one. One thing that yew might ree-member is...Pepe used ta kill Injuns fer us, way back when. Yup, Pepe was a fair to middlin' Injun killer, but he failed ta wipe out thet pesky I-Ran Apache tribe whut lives to thuh East of town. Them I-Ran Apaches just hate ranchers, and have been knowed ta kidnap white women and subject them ta the most hideous things that Ah would be ashamed ta even speak of it. We hired thet Pepe ta put t'gether a Mexican gang, back in the early '80's and go wipe them Apaches off the map. Wal, he give it a try. He kilt numerous of them Red Devils fer us, but in thuh end they done routed his gang and drove 'em back to town! We kinda lost faith in the usefullness of Pepe since then. Specially after he took over the town bakery, without even askin' us! Wal, we kicked his boys outa that bakery REAL good! Kilt so many of 'em thet yew couldn't even see the road fer dead wetbacks.

We figgered Pepe would get back inta line after that, but he didn't! He is the most stubborn cuss Ah hev ever laid eyes on, and thet's fer sure.

Now, word is thet the Apaches hate us even more than they do Pepe. Since we have got all these cowpokes t'gether in one place, I figure we'll go git them goldurn Apaches next, right after we got Pepe pushin' up daisies, which oughta be any time now...if'n we kin find him.

But first we may take out them Arapahoes up on the Syrian reservation. They been supplyin' Pepe with hot peppers and tacos, and besides, they're just a bunch of heathen Injuns!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:58 PM

Don,

Yes, that is my view regarding private ownership of guns.

I might add to that, that NO law will ever make life totally safe, nor will it make all people totally law-abiding. Laws are an attempt to regulate a situation, within certain reasonable limits. There should be certain restrictions on who is allowed to purchase a firearm...

You should have to take and pass a firearms safety course first, and you should be free of various types of criminal records (I won't bother going into specifics...I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself), and you should be over a certain minimum age requirement.

Other than that, I will say of firearms as I did of WMD's: "It is not a crime to have a weapon, it is a crime to use it unlawfully in an act of civil crime or international aggression."

Same principle exactly. I feel the same way about illegal drugs too. Possession (and private use) of the drug should NOT be deemed a crime. Trafficking in illegal substances...and commiting criminal acts under the influence of any drug (legal or illegal) SHOULD be considered a crime, just the same as it is in the absence of the drug.

You may imagine that I am "liberal", but I am just as well aware of liberal hypocrisies as I am of conservative hypocrisies.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:20 PM

The protests are against the larger offenders, methinks.

Not to cloud the issue, but in Western society, there's a general tolerance for open dissent (unless you're an Oakland Longshore worker - then just stay out of the crossfire and pray) that isn't as prevalent outside the US and Europe. But in either case, the US is by far the most powerful, the biggest offender - therefore, it makes sense in pretty much every way if (according to the bizzare metaphors thrown around in war coverage) you get the "largest" domino to fall, the rest will follow the precedent.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 01:38 PM

Where are the headlines and protests about Saddam Husseins violations of the Kyoto Accords.
Or is that an honor accorded the US alone.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 08:26 AM

The mysterious barrels found buried at the Iraqi town of Hindiyah may just be the usual chemical waste dump found in agricultural areas. Our own record of disposing of highly toxic but aged pesticides in this country used to be the subject of headlines in the 1970's and 1980's. I would expect this debate to seesaw back and forth for at least another week. CNN last night was again using the story as evidence of the real thing. And the follow-up story in this morning's newspaper appears inconclusive to me; I'm really not sure if the reports are talking about the same "dump" site.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 07:25 AM

Even if WMDs are discovered, many of you will swear they were planted by the coilition forces. Sad, but true - DougR

Its worse than that. I've always thought it likely the Iraq has chemical weapons, if only because there are precious few examples of any country giving up weapons they have previously owned except for something 'better'. But of course it would be a massive problem for the coilition if no chemical weapons are found - so much so that someone would be willing to fake the evidence: its happened many times in the past. So I am not even sure what evidence would convince me one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:46 AM

In this war, it usually takes roughly about 48 hours until any newsflash is either corroborated by fairly independent journalists or found not to be based on facts. So, it is a waste to post each bit from the ticker as if it was final proof. Be patient and wait.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:39 AM

True, Don. Even if WMDs are discovered, many of you will swear they were planted by the coilition forces. Sad, but true.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 12:53 AM

"It is not a crime to have a weapon, it is a crime to use it unlawfully in an act of civil crime or international aggression."

Interesting point of view here Little Hawk, Is this also your view regarding private ownership of guns?

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 12:15 AM

I agree that it makes little or no difference whether or not WMD's are found in Iraq, because:

It is not a crime to have a weapon, it is a crime to use it unlawfully in an act of civil crime or international aggression.

Thus the whole original issue of whether or not Iraq "has WMD's" was spurious from the start. But you will not get any recognition of that in the USA administration, because they don't care. They feel that they have the right to preemptively attack and occupy and govern any country that might someday attack them or help somebody else to someday attack them. At this point, that gives the USA carte blanche to attack almost every country in the World! And that is now clearly perceived in most countries too. The USA is a giant rogue state which accuses little countries of being rogue states (which may or may not be true in a given case), and then attacks them on mere suspicion of future eventualities! That is unprovoked aggression. And it's against people who might someday commit the sort of crimes that the USA freely practices on others whenever it wants to.

The WMD thing is a spurious argument concocted to provide a moral fig leaf for an act of naked aggression, following 12 years of desultory aggression and economic warfare against a badly defeated small country.

The only thing Iraq has EVER done to the USA was to fail to conquer Iran in the 1980's. And to fail to obediently follow USA orders since the first Gulf War.

Al Capone rubbed out people not willing to cooperate, and so does the USA. Same attitude, same technique. First bribe, then blackmail, then threaten. If that doesn't work, kill.

Saddam is just a former hit man who failed to complete the hit (on Iran), and then went into business for himself (in Kuwait). The Mob kills guys like that. Depend on it. Independent operators are not allowed to pull heist's on the Big Boss's turf.

It's just as seamy and vulgar as that, and it has nothing to do with democracy in any sense whatsoever. In fact, Bush's administration is doing its level best to dismantle and destroy American democracy in every way it can. The only thing that's holding them up is that they have not managed to fool everyone in the USA, and Americans don't easily give up their freedoms, unless they are mesmerized by a foreign threat...which is where guys like Saddam come in so handy to the lads who have their guns trained on your Constitution.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 11:33 PM

"The lie about the documents from Niger (which turned out to have been forged) are a big part of the case the Bush administration used to convince Congress to pass legislation allowing Bush to attack Iraq."

As with the above, another case of poorly handled information on the part of the intelligence community, although that might be being awfully unfair to some members of the US intelligence services, as reports exist that some analysists were unhappy about the way this information burst into the public domain. To make this a lie, it would have to be proved that the CIA (or who ever) deliberately started rumours about Iraqi approaches to the Government of Niger regarding sales of Uranium Cake years ago. That Saddam Hussein has been interested in a nuclear weapons programme cannot be disputed, this interest has been well documented over the past 25 years. You would then have to prove that members of the current American Administration knew that these documents were forgeries prior to presenting them to the public. I do not think such proof exists on either count.

Here is an article that was originally published in the Baltimore Sun on April 4, 2003. It addresses concerns that the intelligence gathering agencies have about the way the Bush administration is using/misusing information about Iraq:

"Some former intelligence officers and historians say they are seeing a worrisome pattern of Vietnam-style politicization of intelligence, with pressure to play up the threat from Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and to minimize the potential for Iraqi resistance and the threat the war poses to regional stability.

They note complaints from current CIA analysts as well as glimpses of deeply flawed evidence used by the administration to make the case for war, including documents purporting to show Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons. The documents turned out to be forgeries, as CIA analysts had warned before the alleged uranium quest was used by President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to illustrate the looming danger from Iraq".

"Patrick G. Eddington, a former CIA analyst, said current agency officers have contacted him and other agency veterans in recent weeks with complaints of political influence.

"We've heard from multiple sources inside the agency about the pressure to conform," says Eddington, who resigned from the agency in 1996 after accusing superiors of covering up evidence of possible causes of gulf war syndrome. "They say they feel pressure to shape estimates to support the administration's positions - or at least not contradict the administration's positions.""

Some Worry U.S. May Bend Facts for Policy:
Analysts pressured to spin reports to support White House position, veterans say

Here's an article from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: Cooking Intelligence for War

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:43 PM

Well said, Don.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:22 PM

It makes absolutely no difference whether WMDs are discovered or not. Some of us will swear to and support the truth of it and some of us will insist in was placed there by Coalition forces to make the Iraqis look bad and justify the invasion.

In a rare moment where I was happy with his comments, Rumsfeld today said he wouldn't confirm any WMD's had been found or even say something suspicious was found. Not until he had confirmation in either direction. (I hate it when I have to agree with someone I don't like or even trust.)

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:22 PM

Well, that's *is* progress, Carol. Man, if Gareth has cracked then the rest will be close behind him.

Something about someone yelling from the back of the crowd, "Hey, the Empereor has no pants!"

Once the world starts to figure out that the Bush administartion is no more than a house of cards, then it's over for this sad episode of American history...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:47 PM

It appears that even our friend Gareth doesn't trust Bush. Or at least that's what he seems to be saying in this post to another thread:

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth - PM
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM

Please don't acuse me of trusting Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:40 PM

Ahhhhh, like with the media being manipulated with their "embeddedness" with Bush's war machine, like who is going to really believe what ever trumped up WMD that that Bush/Blair say they have found? Ahhhh, just a show of hands will do here, folks...

What choice do they have? None!

Bush: "Ahhh, we're real sorry. We messed up. We *thought* you all had a bunch of WMD and weere getting ready to attack us! Really! We had it from reliable sources. Like I said, sorry. If there's any thing we can do, just ask. Yeah hear?"

LIke how many folks think that this little speech is in Bush's future?

Yeah right.

You can bet that there's some real shakey stuff going on right now to come up with something other than a worn out army fighting with ancient equipement...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:28 PM

Well so far, we all think that both govts would do anything to save their ass, including lie to us. We also think that the reasons for invading Iraq have become so convoluted that no one can figure it out. Depressing, isn't it?

I'm not sure about "all" but that seems to capture my feelings.

Changing the subject for a second, one thing that really got to me today was on the BBC news this evening. A young (?12 year old) boy with no arms left and most of his family wiped out. I believe what he was saying was along the lines of "please give me new arms or just let me die".

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:25 PM

It seems clear that our 600 SAT-score Resident got him a letter from a Nigerian banker and figgered it was too good to pass up, huh?

"Hello,

Although you do not know me I hope you will extend to me the courtesy of reading this serious business proposition which may be greatly to our mutual benefit.

I am Subrosa Inkarnata, third daughter of the late Nigerian prince Skayumem Inkarnata, who was killed in riots in our central city only eight months ago. Before he died my father left me 500,00 pounds of uranium oxide which he had saved over the years that he was employed by the Nigerian government...."

Good shew, Georgie!! That college degree sure turned out to be good for sumpn after all!




A

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 08:56 PM

Well so far, we all think that both govts would do anything to save their ass, including lie to us. We also think that the reasons for invading Iraq have become so convoluted that no one can figure it out. Depressing, isn't it?

I know one thing, the U.S. would do well to have those weapons tested in some other country (perhaps France or Germany?)to keep things on the up and up, as much as they were/are. SERIOUS mistake not to test them in some other counrty, in this ol' Cherokee Hillbillys educated opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 05:47 PM

I'm completely open minded as to whether these unused stocks of weapons are there to be discovered. But discoveries made by the occupying forces are a pretty unsatisfactory sort of evidence in themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 05:31 PM

I think we're still waiting for confirmation on that one, Charley.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 05:28 PM

Thanks, Sean, I needed that link! But, you know, I won't be too surprised if they stumble across the real thing. And I doubt if DougR will be too surprised if they don't find anything.

Now how about them 20 chemical loaded missles?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 03:50 PM

I'm going to answer this one first:

"Without that lie, there are serious questions about whether or not he would have gotten that authorization from Congress."

Pure conjecture, based upon what Carol would have liked to have seen. The support the President got in both houses was greater than the support his father received for "Desert Storm". The massive support, current, at the time the President went to the Senate and House of Representatives was not solely based on the prospect of the Iraqi regime acquiring material from Niger - the important aspect was the perception that Iraq was still pursuing programmes directed at acquiring WMD, chemical/biological and nuclear.

This response is pure conjecture on Teribus' part. He has no way of knowing what I have or have not seen, read, or heard on this subject. My assertion is based on what I have heard and read coming from members of Congress themselves. Here's a synopsis:

Who Lied to Whom? Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq's nuclear program?

"Last September 24th, as Congress prepared to vote on the resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to wage war in Iraq, a group of senior intelligence officials, including George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq's weapons capability. It was an important presentation for the Bush Administration. Some Democrats were publicly questioning the President's claim that Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed an immediate threat to the United States. Just the day before, former Vice-President Al Gore had sharply criticized the Administration's advocacy of preëmptive war, calling it a doctrine that would replace "a world in which states consider themselves subject to law" with "the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States." A few Democrats were also considering putting an alternative resolution before Congress."

"Two days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing before a closed hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also cited Iraq's attempt to obtain uranium from Niger as evidence of its persistent nuclear ambitions. The testimony from Tenet and Powell helped to mollify the Democrats, and two weeks later the resolution passed overwhelmingly, giving the President a congressional mandate for a military assault on Iraq."

Now, if Teribus had actually read my post, instead of projecting his own fantasies of what I said into my post, he would have noticed that I said:

"The lie about the documents from Niger (which turned out to have been forged) are a big part of the case the Bush administration used to convince Congress to pass legislation allowing Bush to attack Iraq. Without that lie, there are serious questions about whether or not he would have gotten that authorization from Congress.

I did not say "proof". I said "serious questions". And serious questions there are. Before the Bush administration used these forged documents as its main "proof" of Saddam's WMDs, there was opposition to passing legislation authorizing Bush to wage a first strike attack on Iraq. After the presentation of this "evidence" all opposition in Congress disappeared.

Here's what some members of Congress have to say about it:

"There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) wrote last Friday to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

"In a letter sent to Bush on Monday, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) asked for a full accounting of "what you knew about the reliability of the evidence linking Iraq to uranium in Africa, when you knew this, and why you and senior officials in the administration presented the evidence to the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people without disclosing the doubts of the CIA.""

Washingtonpost.com

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 03:24 PM

NPR must be really desperate for (US) government money. Big business advertising not paying enough?

Maybe we should export Susan Stamberg.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 02:58 PM

Don't go ringing the "smoking gun" bell so fast...

The first "smoking gun" isn't - it's bug spray.

Weapons of Mass Gardening

The report includes that all the "victims" who stumbled on the find are doing just fine now.

No word on the "ready to fire" shells yet. But the supposed treasure trove in the barrels was nothing more serious than what you find at Home Depot. Or are we now protecting the lives of innocent Iraqi tomato bugs?

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Terry K
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 02:12 PM

Don't you people keep up with the news?

Did you not see the coalition troops entered Iraqi primary schools and found heaps of protractors, compasses and slide rules?

Proof enough that Saddam is stockpiling weapons of maths instruction.

OK, all groan now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 01:45 PM

Gee, Douggie, looks to me like Saddam didn't USE them either- or, I mean, they wouldn't have been sitting there to "find", you know?

You don't you count the agent orange the US is and has been dumping on Columbian peasants for years, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 01:24 PM

For those looking at their map of Iraq from the National Geographic the site of these supposed poison gas barrels was south of the central Iraqi town of Hindiyah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad.

"20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons", I haven't run across that story yet.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 12:41 PM

Charlie: had the Iraquis cooperated with the inspectors, they WOULD have found them. The point is, they told the U. N. they did not have them, and it appears that Bush's charge that they did was correct.

Greg F: when was the last time the U. S. USED any of those chemical or biological weapons?

L. H.: I can't speak for Teribus or troll or others, but I aim to please! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 12:41 PM

This is what Reuters has to say about the news item Amos linked to above:

"The U.S. news station National Public Radio, reporting what appeared to be a separate discovery, said U.S. forces found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons.

NPR said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire."

It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport.

Officers from the 101st Division were unable to confirm the report and U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar had no immediate comment."

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 11:21 AM

Here ya go. Fully loaded chemical munitions. Why am I not surprised?

But I do not believe for a minute GWB "knew" about them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:27 AM

The U.S. currently maintains stockpiles of close to 30,000 tons (yep, tons! Count 'em!) of "chemical agents" including Sarin and other nerve gasses that it admits to (and who knows how many additional tons that it doesn't publicly admit to) much of it leaking and endangering civilian populations, as the folks near Umatilla in Oregon, Tooele in Utah, the leaking Army WETEYE nerve gas canisters in Denver, Colorado, and other locations across the country can attest.

If mere possesion is a crime, we'd damn well better get the U.S. invaded and occupied ASAP- if only to protect its own citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:23 AM

I'll be impressed if "they" turn up substantial quanities of nasty chemical stuff, rather than an occasional bottle sitting on a shelf. Hopefully, "they" will examine this site very carefully and invite some outside professional analysts to observe.

However, this story may be radically changed in a day or so and it may just turn out that the dozen or so soldiers who got sick have food poisoning.

Pity that the UN inspectors hadn't surveyed this particular site earlier this year.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:44 AM

What would make him certain that the US or the UK wouldn't use them anyway? : "These people have said they won't use weapons like those, so of course I must believe them, because I know they would never tell a lie."

In addition of course there are other potential enemies, such as Iran, Israel and Turkey,

Given that it will be extremely valuable politically for stocks of unused chemical or biological weapons to turn up, and extremely embarrassing if they don't, if this is claimed to have happened, it clearly can't be a question of just taking the word of the governments involved - more espeically if it does turn out, as everyone must hope, that there is no use of made these weapons in face of the invasion. Any evidence will need to be verified by people who do not have anything to win or los

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: JedMarum
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:41 AM

... it has tested positive for sarin gas.


Troops, POWs and journalists at the facility have all tested positive for the poisons and many were experiencing symptoms of exposure. They were not searching for the WMD - this was an initial visit to the place. The exposure would have been only to the residual amounts of agent in the environment. If there is any WMD left at the faility, in significant quantity, I'm sure it'll take a much more thorough search to locate them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:40 AM

Hey, Doug and troll and teribus - thanks for providing a loyal opposition on these threads. It makes for a pretty boring discussion when everybody agrees 100% on something, and it's a situation usually only seen in fanatical religious groups...or dictatorships.

Besides, it gives the rest of us useful exercise in developing and defining our own views... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 08:55 AM

Hmmmm! A warehouse in a captured military compound 60 miles south of Bagdad full of 55-gallon drums and a dozen or so U.S. troops stricken with vomiting and dizziness! I suppose those symptons could just be anxiety but they may have stumbled upon the real thing. Don't know what your newspaper have to say but mine do not make good breakfast reading.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 06:01 AM

Saddam would supply his troops with masks and other anti-chemical warfare protection even if he didn't have any of these agents available to use. Although he might be certain himself that the US/UK troops wouln't use them, I'm sure that he would want his own forces (and civilians) to believe that they would. It's all part of the propaganda demonising the enemy that both sides have engaged in.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 02:20 AM

Ebbie, my wife just returned from a week in Japan where she visited our son and his wife, She bought lots of small gifts to give to various people including the parents who volunteer in her classes.
One of the gift items that she bought was a bunch of little change-purses in a blue and white batik. I spent part of today helping her remove tags from those purses.
They were marked, in English, "Made in China".

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 01:14 AM

Back to the original question: suppose we wait a few weeks and see?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 11:50 PM

CarolC;

Please don't waste your time working up a comprehensive response. After guests, I'm sure you could use a good feet-up.



The little boy called "wolf" because he thought the villagers had told him to call wolf even when it was just a dog, and even though they told him "don't cry wolf", he says he must follow their earlier instructions.

The next time he cried "wolf", it was because he was misled by another littler boy who mistakenly said "I think there's a wolf".

Then he said (well okay, maybe his assistant said) "when will you believe there's a wolf, when there's a dead sheep over your head?" But the villagers still haven't seen a dead sheep.

Then he said "I will only cry wolf if I see an wolf", but he cried "wolf" and told the villagers it was because he smelled a wolf.

What the hell is wrong with those villagers? They sense a credibility problem!

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 12:26 PM

Well, it's always nice to start the new day with a good laugh... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 11:43 AM

I think Gareth might have got CarolC mixed up with some other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 09:44 AM

CarolC - You were challenged by myself in other threads to back up your allegations. This you have constantly failed to do. When anyone has pinned you down you change the point.

Back again. Gareth, if you can't provide any specific examples of my having done this, your accusation has no credibility. It would appear that you are the one who doesn't back up allegations when challenged.

As for your last post, I am assuming you were drunk when you made it, because it makes no sense whatever.

With regard to Teribus' points, I'll start working on answering them after my guests leave and I can devote some time to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 06:42 PM

Provide sufficient evidence of what? What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 06:07 PM

Bit long CarolC Digging thru 6000+ posts, and as at the moment I'am workin 12 on 12 off I dont have that much time.

But yes the specifics are there, your full comments in

"Another comment from the Front line", ang "Muslem Sargent..." provide sufficient evidence.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 04:26 PM

Ebbie: English is the predominant language of international trade. Unless the country in question has a specific law or regulation requiring that its own language be used on imported products, English marking is the likely choice for the most cost-efficient means of production.

I don't think the language employed on these products will leead you anywhere in tracking the route used to get there.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:53 PM

Come on, you guys. You can do better than that.

* For instance, you could suggest that these are gas masks that are left over from the Iran-Iraq war.
* You might conjecture that English speaking countries are Germany's best customers.
* Or...?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:49 PM

Dave O, that is not the impression that the article gives. I transcribed it verbatim.

And I think readers should be able to decipher 'Gebildet in Deutschland'.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:49 PM

Good point, Dave. I Never thought of that angle.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:30 PM

It's quite likely (seems to me) that the journalist reported the English translation rather than the actual text on the items.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:21 PM

A good question, Ebbie. Probably the easiest was to find out would be to cantact the company in Germany and ask.
Another reason presents itself however. Since trade with Iraq was proscribed, the gas masks probably had to come in through another country rather than straight from Germany to Baghdad. In fact, they likely made several stops before arriving at their final destination.
A possible route might be Germany to Ireland (or any other English speaking country) to Turkey or Jordan and on to Iraq.
Illegal but common enough and not especially sinister.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 02:18 PM

Time Magazine, April 7 edition, has a report entitled 'Battle Scars of a Fallen Airbase' in which there is a paragraph:

"Behind the newly erected surgical unit, hospital chief Colonel Harry Warren shows me three large crates full of Iraqi gas masks found on the base; stamped inside the unused masks are the words MADE IN GERMANY."

My question: Does/Did Germany market all their gas masks with English language, rather than German, markings? If so, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 11:26 AM

LOL! "Don't Cry For Me, little Niger...the Truth is I never left you...all through my wild lies...my fabrications...I kept my promise...I led the nation (to war)" - Colin Powell

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 09:33 AM

Teribus et al-

On point 4, Iraqi-Niger Uranium Cake, this half-baked forgery which even our intelligence service considered suspect before the Bush cabal decided to use it as a major basis for its appeal to the United Nations to win approval for "use of force" against Iraq, I agree with you that it doesn't necessarily constitute a "lie." No, it's more an example of arrogant misrepresentation of the facts before an international body, and subsequently regurgitated to Congress where it helped to convince a strong majority to support "use of force." Colin Powell can be proud of his role in this pivotal moment in our nation's history.

You can have your cake but please clean up the crumbs after you've finished wolfing it down.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 04:02 AM

Apologies hit the submit button too quick:

The last point that Carol makes,

"Without that lie, there are serious questions about whether or not he would have gotten that authorization from Congress."

Pure conjecture, based upon what Carol would have liked to have seen. The support the President got in both houses was greater than the support his father received for "Desert Storm". The massive support, current, at the time the President went to the Senate and House of Representatives was not solely based on the prospect of the Iraqi regime acquiring material from Niger - the important aspect was the perception that Iraq was still pursuing programmes directed at acquiring WMD, chemical/biological and nuclear.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:51 AM

MGOH,

""I believe that he will order their use when he decides that all is lost"

After all that was always the official American policy during the Cold War - "second-strike capacity" was the term used."

During the "cold-war" the term used was "second-strike capability" and it's purpose was to deter a pre-emptive strike - nothing whatsoever to do with a "when all is lost scenario", in fact in that scenario, if you have a "second-strike capability", your logical step would be to get in contact with those who launched the first attack and invite them to surrender on the premise that you have lost everything while they still have everything to lose - the doctrine was called "mutually assured destruction" - it was effective - it worked.

What CarolC presents as, "Other lies about this action in Iraq:", on examination, not lies at all, take a look at them and clearly identified reasons can be found for the changes in emphasis.

1. Regime Change:

"They said "We're not looking for regime change. We just want Saddam to dissarm." Then they said that nothing short of regime change would suffice."

The first statement regarding disarmament was what Resolution 1441 was about. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime were to be given one last chance to disarm and honour its obligations to the UN.

Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime, however, did not take that last opportunity. The international community still require the disarmament of Iraq, undertaken in a manner that can be verified beyond doubt. If those in power in Iraq won't comply with that requirement, then it is logical that that regime must be replaced with one that will co-operate with the international community. Now that is not a lie, the change has been brought about by changing circumstances (In this case the Iraqi Regime saying we invite the inspectors back and will co-operate with them fully - then not following through with that commitment).

2. Weapons of Mass Destruction & Liberation

"They said, "This is about weapons of mass destruction." Then they said it's about liberating the Iraqi people."

Both are mentioned in previous UN Security Council Resolutions dating back to 1991. At no point has the American Administration ever changed its stance on either. Have they ever said, "This is no longer about WMD it is now about liberating the Iraqi people" - I don't believe they have - Again where is the lie?

3. Saddam Hussein/Al Qaeda Links

"They lied about having proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, when they had no proof at all."

At the time they believed through their intelligence sources that a link existed, that people senior in Al Qaeda had contacts in Baghdad. That senior Al Qaeda figures had been in Iraq is not in dispute - the reasons for them being there was subject to the wrong evaluation. But that was what it was - poor, or highly speculative evaluation - Not a lie, because at the time that is what was believed to be the case. The threat lay not in the existing linkage, but the potential that that link was in the process of being formed.

4. Iraqi-Niger Uranium Cake

"The lie about the documents from Niger (which turned out to have been forged) are a big part of the case the Bush administration used to convince Congress to pass legislation allowing Bush to attack Iraq."

As with the above, another case of poorly handled information on the part of the intelligence community, although that might be being awfully unfair to some members of the US intelligence services, as reports exist that some analysists were unhappy about the way this information burst into the public domain. To make this a lie, it would have to be proved that the CIA (or who ever) deliberately started rumours about Iraqi approaches to the Government of Niger regarding sales of Uranium Cake years ago. That Saddam Hussein has been interested in a nuclear weapons programme cannot be disputed, this interest has been well documented over the past 25 years. You would then have to prove that members of the current American Administration knew that these documents were forgeries prior to presenting them to the public. I do not think such proof exists on either count.


Without that lie, there are serious questions about whether or not he would have gotten that authorization from Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 07:37 PM

Thanks LH.

Gareth, I direct you to this post of mine from two days ago. It is the only post you will find from me in which I have taken anything even resembling a stance on this war:

Another Comment from the Front Lines

(Wait a few seconds to load to the correct post.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 07:33 PM

Jeeper LH,

Yet another minute of political agreement! Is it possible that you are secretly a moderate?

My feeling about Bush is this. He couldn't fix the economy he and his energy ilk destroyed with Enron, Harken Oil, California electrical voltage, while making tidy personal profits. So he deflected it by going to war with Saddam. It is only in his great good luck that Saddam deserves to be, dare I say it? Yes I dare. DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD. That gives Bush even the smallest of credence. Why is it so easy for the right to believe Kosovo was Clinton's way of deflecting the Lewinsky affair and not believe that the selfrighteous GW Bush to capable of the same thing, only over money rather than a piece of consenting tail?

Face it Little Hawk, its not the diverse politicians you and I hate, its the hypocrites in politics we despise.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 07:20 PM

Gareth - Naw... I know Carol, and she is genuinely motivated by a desire for peace, brotherhood, and equality. She is motivated toward every good and decent human virtue you or I could name. Her outrage springs from belief in morality, not a committment to hatred. She does not at all strike me as a person who hates. If you bother to investigate her allegations, you will find plenty of backup for them...but why would you? People seldom bother to look up factual backup for positions they disagree with...they do the precise opposite.

Don - We have exactly the same problem with political parties in Canada...they oppose other parties' policies not on moral principle, but just in order to score points and make the other guys look bad. It's a wretchedly hypocritical exercise all the way around.

And it happens internationally too. I have been reading material which makes it pretty plain to me that the French, Russians, and Germans primary motivation for opposing the USA launching this war were stemming from their own financial and strategic interests in Iraq and the Middle East, not from their love of international law, peace, and justice.

However, it has proven convenient for them that the US/UK position is so clearly without legal basis or moral justification. It puts the French, Russians, and Germans in a good position to have some real moral fervour behind their own self-serving policies.

I'm speaking of politicians in Europe, not of the ordinary public. The ordinary public mostly do not know about the hidden agendas of their governments, and genuinely ARE morally outraged by the war. Likewise, I suspect that most Americans who support the war are equally unaware of their government's hidden (but not too well hidden) agendas.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 06:49 PM

CarolC - You were challenged by myself in other threads to back up your allegations. This you have constantly failed to do. When anyone has pinned you down you change the point.

I'm not aware of any cases where you have challenged me and I haven't answered. If you will point them out to me, I will do my best to answer them.

You are not interested in Peace and Harmony in the Middle East, far more concerned with your single minded and unobjective hatred of G W Bush.

You're making this up out of whole cloth. I don't hate anyone, and I challenge you to find any posts from me that indicate that I hate GW Bush. I have no respect for him as a politician, but I have little or no respect for most politicians, including Bill Clinton.

But regardless, it's not for you to tell me what's in my heart. Just as it's not for me to tell you what's in your heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 05:51 PM

I remember the incubator stories and the promises made and broken from the first Gulf War. I suspect that lieing to supports ones own ends is a Bush Family trait. It goes all the way from The savings and loan scandals right down to forging perscriptions. I have to look into the other things Carol mentioned. I am not aware of the Niger/Iraq connection. I am aware that the French sold the Iraqia breader reactors and technology for enriching Uranium. I am also aware the Germans sold the Iraqis the msachinery and raw materials to make long range cannon barrels and other similar tubes. Saddly I am also familiar with the notion an American was instumental in some weapons designs the Iraqis were interested in.

In one of the rare moments that I agree with Little Hawk politically, the names and labels are misleading. In fact they mean nothing.

We have over here a government that has become so polarized that the republicans will vote against anything proposed by the democrats and vice versa, no matter how worth, only to make the other party look bad.

There aren't enough brave souls in government willing to stand on their own and speak out.

Here is a new direction to debate. It is highly accepted that Hussein used Gas and Bio weapons on his own people. He has done so against ethnic Kurds in the north and Iranians to the East. He has used selected starvation and torture of political dissenters long before Gulf 1 to control his ethnic and opposition populations.

The UN seemed un willing to react to this dilema in any meaningful way beyond sactions. Syria was either uncaring or a silent ally ( I ignored the chance to say "Silent Ali"). Jordan and Iran may be too evenly matched with Iraq to venture against them militarily. Is it right morally to stand back and let this man do as he has done to his own people? Or should some Big Stck, The US or anyone for that matter, go to Iraq and spank the Guy?

Mean while I'll chase down the stuff Carol mentioned.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 05:49 PM

CarolC - You were challenged by myself in other threads to back up your allegations. This you have constantly failed to do. When anyone has pinned you down you change the point.

You are not interested in Peace and Harmony in the Middle East, far more concerned with your single minded and unobjective hatred of G W Bush.

Saddam Hussain has to go. Diplomatic means have been sabotaged. War is the lesser of two evils in this case.

Gareth - YES! In my name !

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 04:50 PM

(chuckle...) The patently obvious (that the US government frequently tells outright lies, and eveb more frequently lies by omission) is still not obvious to those who don't want to think about it, and would rather think about something else...like how evil Saddam is...which is also so obvious that a dead wallaby could figure it out.

Like I've said before, people seek out only the facts that justify their own preconceived prejudices...and they ignore, deny, or dismiss as unimportant the facts that don't. And life goes on.

Meanwhile the System robs all of us daily as it conveniently maneuvers us into wasting our time and energy fighting each other across the phony liberal/conservative divide. Divide and conquer. "You can always get one half of the poor to kill the other half for you." The ordinary public IS the poor...worldwide. That includes you and me and Doug R, but we're not as poor as ordinary Third World people yet...so some of us consent willingly to be led by the nose by the Powers That Be...and others put up with it resentfully. You can call the former "conservatives" and the latter "liberals", if you want. The labels are misleading.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 04:15 PM

So right, Carol C. Thanks for not backing down. Someday, the knee-JERKS will even look something up. (And he knows who I'm referring to. :) It ain't you, Don)

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 03:56 PM

Other lies about this action in Iraq:

They said "We're not looking for regime change. We just want Saddam to dissarm." Then they said that nothing short of regime change would suffice.

They said, "This is about weapons of mass destruction." Then they said it's about liberating the Iraqi people.

They lied about having proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, when they had no proof at all.

An unbelievable number of people here in the US firmly believe that Saddam Hussien is responsible for 9/11, because the US government has mislead them into believing that.

The lie about the documents from Niger (which turned out to have been forged) are a big part of the case the Bush administration used to convince Congress to pass legislation allowing Bush to attack Iraq. Without that lie, there are serious questions about whether or not he would have gotten that authorization from Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 03:54 PM

But fair enough, not just the USA.

"Why is this lying bastard lying to me?" is the rule to keep in mind when listening to most statesmen journalist Claud Cockburn coined that adage). You can tell when they are lying, because their lips move.

Not 100 per cent true - but if you start from that assumption, you can adjust it as and when that seems appropriate.

In England there's a rule under which, many years after the event, the state papers get released. Not all of them, because they lock some of them up for a lot longer, and they cull them as well, especially since the shredder was invented, and I'm sure even more so with electronic storage system. But even with what we do get to see, it's impressive how consistently we find out they were lying through their teeeth.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 03:38 PM

I don't have to speak for anyone in this instance. The facts back me up. One example would be the forged documents about the sale of WMD related stuff from Niger to Iraq that the US government was using as a big part of its "proof" of Saddam's WMDs. Another example would be the "Saddam and the baby incubator" stories. Another example would be the "Barak's generous offer" big lie. And then there's the Gulf of Tonkin big lie.

And then there's the lie the US government told to the Kurds in Iraq after the last Gulf war about how, if they would start a popular uprising against Saddam, the US would back them up. And of course, they were slaughtered because the US didn't follow up on its promise. And then there were the promises of financial aid to Turkey to help with the refugee problem in that country as a result of the last Gulf War, which the US reneged on. And then, after this last military action in Afghanistan, President Bush tried to renege on his promises of financial aid to that country. Congress has partially addressed that problem, but it hasn't been fully rectified yet.

It goes on and on. The US has no credibility in the world because it lies and breaks its promises. Telling lies and breaking promises are the only things that the US can be absolutely counted on to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 03:16 PM

Wow Carol. Thats pretty strong. Cite the lies for me that I may investigate them further. Understand this, I think Mr. Bush needs to be investigated for a few stock and land swindles regarding oil and savings and loans. (Silverado and Harken Oil ring a bell) But I am unaware of any, and that you may underline, lies specific to Iraq and the proposed invasion there of. If you are going to cite WMD's as a lie, don't. They have neither been substantiated or un at this point.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 03:04 PM

Does anybody ever "speak for everybody"? Or even imagine they do.

"IMO" is surely nearly always redundent, since how can any opinion expressed be anything else? And sticking an "H" in is surely a smidgeon dishonest. If we were really humble, would we be posting here in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 02:45 PM

Carol C: there you go again! Your forgot to add a IMHO to your last post. Certainly you don't speak for everybody.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 02:44 PM

"I believe that he will order their use when he decides that all is lost"

After all that was always the official American policy during the Cold War - "second-strike capacity" was the term used.

And that's why I very much hope Saddam hasn't got Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 02:17 PM

I didn't catch quite all of it but last night on Charlie Rose, an historian warned that in one of the recent wars (1973-1991) Saddam had issued a standing order that if all appeared lost, to send all the remaining missiles to Israel. He said that in Saddam's mind Israel is still the most important, most hated enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 01:14 PM

Charley Noble. The gear is apparently of recent vintage which rather kills the Iran angle and the US has no record of ever having used Chem or Bio agents. And If Saddam doesn't have any Chem weapons, then there's nothing to protect his troops FROM so why would he need the gear?
I advanced a reason for his not using them on earlier in this thread but it was just advanced for the sake of showing a reason why he would not use them even ifhe had them.
I believe that he will order their use when he decides that all is lost; to take as many of the enemy with him as possible.
Thus he will, in his own mind if not in the minds of the Arab world, be a victor even in defeat, a modern-day Islamic hero, another Saladin if you will, who died trying to raise Arabic culture and power to their rightful pre-eminent place in the world.
He will be a role model for Islamic youth for centuries to come and his name will be revered.

yeah.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 01:08 PM

Just a thought of a possible scenario why Iraq might have chemical and or biological weapons or unweaponized materials and hasn't or might not use them.

There have been reports (how credible, I have no idea) that Saddam has removed to Syria. Just possible that those in actual charge on the home front have no stomach for using that kind of weapon. This scenario would work also if Saddam is dead.

Yes, I am convinced that the badness, the bloodthirstiness if you will, of the Iraqi regime is much more widespread than one man, what with his sons and other high Baathists. So I suppose his removal, whether to furrin parts or in a more permanent manner, is not too likely an explanation. I did say "possible scenario".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 01:00 PM

The reason it's so easy to believe the US government might be lying about anything to do with Iraq, and so difficult to believe they might be telling the truth, is because they've been caught in the act of lying about it so many times since they started agitating for waging a first strike attack against that country. The US can't be trusted to tell the truth because the US doesn't tell the truth.

The US has destroyed any credibility it ever had on the subject (if it did ever have any) with it's own dishonest tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 12:49 PM

I'm all for what mary said. And I'd like to see it catch on among the leaders on both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: mg
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 12:19 PM

I hope he means that he personally will commit the martyrdom act and not his poor troops.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 12:15 PM

"We will commit a non-conventional act on them, not necessarily military," Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf said at a news conference. "We will do something that will be a great example for these mercenaries." ... Asked if Baghdad planned to use weapons of mass destruction, he said: "No, not at all. But we will conduct a kind of martyrdom operation." Reuters/Yahoo

What do you think will happen today (tonight in Baghdad)? 'Non-conventional' act(s) sounds ominous.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 10:05 AM

I'm quite ready to believe that Saddam might have these chemical-war stocks. It's just that I hope he hasn't, because then he won't use them. And if he doesn't use them, I'd see that as a pretty strong indication he doesn't have any usable weapons of that sort. It seems pretty simple to me.

There are really only two things you can do with weapons of mass destruction - you either are open about the fact you have them, and hope to use them as a deterrent, or you keep quiet about them and hope to use them as a secret surprise weapon. Pretending you don't have them, in an unconvincing way that gets you attacked, and then not using them when you are attacked, that's just daft, and Saddam may be crazy but I don't think he's not daft.

Of course it's conceivable that he might have them stashed away, but that through some combination of circumstances he won't be able to use them, or even will choose not to use them. However, since that seems pretty improbable, it would need fairly strong evidence before that could be credible. Perhaps it will be forthcoming.

As for manufacturing and planting evidence - well it wouldn't be the first time. Politics, both domestic and international,is a pretty dirty business sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 09:44 AM

The various protctive gear and other anti-chemical warfare paraphernalia that coalition forces claim to have found abandoned by Iraqi troops, may have been stored for protection from Iranian chemical or biological attack or from U.S. attack, or they may be for protection from the Iraqi's own nasty stuff. We certainly won't know with any degree of certainty till long after this phase of the war is over.

I'm not particularly surprised that Iraqi troops would abandon such cumbersome equipment in their haste to get out of harm's way.

And I also agree with Barry that what's happening in Iraq right now rivals those old tales from Revelations.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 09:04 AM

Teribus asked:
Mr Happy,

Why would stuff have to be planted?

Because Mr. Happy wants to believe in conspiracy theory.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 07:11 AM

It apparently doesn't matter what evidence may support to some people. Now , if a large cache of Bio-weapons are discovered by anybody it will be assemed to have been planted by the US to justify the war.

NPR has reported a large site containing weapons, suits and suspicous powder has been discovered near Bahgdad. Since this was just discovered by the US it will be assumed to be a plant and this debate will be endless.

Why is it easy to assume the US was wrong and there are no WMDs. And easy to accept that Iraq had none in the first place and had no plans outside it's borders and wasn't a harbor for terrorists and a financial and technilogical support for them as well.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 05:06 AM

Mr Happy,

Why would stuff have to be planted?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 03:38 AM

seems very odd to me that the iraqi troops abandoned their nbc suits & gas masks.surely these are the last items a soldier or anyone else involved in such a conflict where use of nucular/chemical/biological weapons by iraq or their enemies, is a real threat.

also the fact that injectors were found along with the other ppe gives me the impression that along with others views above about the possibility of stuff being planted by coalition forces to give credence to the propaganda war, is likely.

i heard that usa & other un members had agreed to sign a resolution limiting or banning the use of land mines.

the use of cluster bombs- clearly a WMD & indiscriminate at that- means that most of the bomblets explode on impact- but a good number of them hit the ground & lie dormant- as in the same way as landmines- waiting for a child to pick them up or a ordinary man or woman to step on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: mooman
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 02:08 AM

The latest research suggest that trace amounts of nerve agents present after the destruction of dumps and stores combined with the inoculation used to protect against them are a fairly likely source of gulf war syndrome. This (US) research suggests that a percentage of people are much more sensitive to the effects of sarin and similar agents and that this, combined with the effects of the antidote which affects similar metabolic pathways, could have caused some neural damage (several types of typical damage observed according to genotype).

Concerning DU, the predominant evidence, as CarolC and others have repeatedly pointed out, is from dust resulting from fragmentation and vapourisation. DU is an alpha emitter and holding a lump of it will do you no harm. In tiny particles lodged in the alveoli it is a much different story.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 12:25 AM

Saddam's waiting to use his WMDs when the coalition forces are waiting outside his door? Really?

Why didn't he use them when they were lined up in Kuwait?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 09:56 PM

The sanctions never worked only hepled to kill off a good deal of the population. Starvation & thirst will keep a population far from being resistent, Saddam probaby has been thanking us for the last 12 yrs. We always knew (from our relationship over the many yrs) that he didn't give a care for the people & neither did anyone one else that knew of him. Did the US/UK/UN/NATO/ANYONE think it would have an effect on Sad-man. Where we hoping even back then that the masses would rise up against him after we pulled out, if we did then I'd say that the Kurds are standing on shifting quick sands about now. Whisper when you speak of the theory of the WMD's were moved into Syria (I quoted other's before saying "the road to Damascus is through Baghdad", Iran's only just over the ridge from there) though I've heard it reported that it would be impossible to move that kind of equipment unnoticed through that kind of terrain(?). The assumption may be all that Shrub & co. need to continue in laying seige to Syria. Aren't there a few songs that warn "God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more rain but fire next time". I can imagine this hell fanning the fuel while all end up dying in the hellfire of the burning desert. Maybe they did have a pipeline back then to the future. The irony would be that the death of civilization happening in the same place where it first began. Bush may be the one & only holiness in the mid east left, cause his Christ may die in grief after he soils the soil that his Lord toiled over. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 09:14 PM

Dave I had nothing against the threat of military action. I suspect that helped the Inspectors. What I fail to see is the reason why, at a time when the UN inspectors were reporting progress and asking for more time, this was not granted. That's what I mean by pressure and all the evidence I see suggests it was working.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 08:54 PM

GUEST,Jon said:



"Not for me Don. I'd still argue that the correct course of action was (with pressure) to allow the UN to do their job."

Okay, so what do you mean, "with pressure"? If they know military action is ruled out, and they've defied what economic pressure has been attempted to be applied (as they have), what kind of pressure is possible? Really the only kinds of pressure that can be applied in the diplomatic field for a case like this are military and economic, and you want to rule out one and the other has proved ineffectual.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 08:37 PM

Right, McGrath. Dead simple. Too simple for those who wanted a war, regardless of WMD's or no WMD's.

Pepe is still hangin' on. Fact is, we-all are beginnin' to wonder if'n he's even in that house...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 06:51 PM

Iraq claimed to have destroyed all its stocks of chemical and biological weapons. Of course this may well have been a lie. However Hans Blix was careful to point out that the lack of adequate documentary and other evidence that the weapons had been destroyed was not proof that the weapons still existed.

He was in the process of gathering further evidence, and wished for enough time to complete his work, when the USA, with UK backing, pulled the rug from under the inspection process.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 06:32 PM

Suppose that Saddam or his Sons or who ever is acting in power in Iraq where to use Gas and Bio-weapons right now as a last ditch weapon against the Coalition troops:

Would that justify the US/British invasion?

Not for me Don. I'd still argue that the correct course of action was (with pressure) to allow the UN to do their job.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 05:41 PM

Carol C:

Thanks for your posting above on the hazards of depleted uranium fragments. It's probably true that this ammunition is not designed to explode into shrapnel but if it causes a M-1 tank to blow up I would think there would be a cloud of debris.

The article I posted from the Los Angeles Times was written by "Susanna Hecht is a professor in the School of Public Policy and Social Research at UCLA. She is head of the environmental analysis and policy program." I don't know what academic qualifications Teribus has but Susanna should know what she is talking about. My own academic qualifications are in the field of urban geography, at the doctoral level, but my reservations about the hazards of low-level radiation comes from over 15 years of working with community groups concerned with nuclear power plants and nuclear waste dumps.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 05:30 PM

Not wishing to fuel the fires of debate further, but I shall.

Suppose that Saddam or his Sons or who ever is acting in power in Iraq where to use Gas and Bio-weapons right now as a last ditch weapon against the Coalition troops:

Would that justify the US/British invasion?

Would that be acceptable use of military resource?

Is there any consideration given to the evidence that the Iraqis are torturing and executing POWs or is that just an Arab thing they do so it's OK?

Spent uranium bullet casings are awful and effective and they do give off radiation and it is bad that the US uses them. We should never ever have started with them and they should be stopped in their use.

But the fact is this, we never have used DU bullets, or gas, or bio-weapons on our own citizens. And thousand of people every year risk their lives to come here to stay. How many do the same to go to Iraq, or Cuba, or Korea, or Somali, or China, or almost anywhere else?

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 03:06 PM

As far as what the World Health Organization (WHO) has to say about DU, Teribus and I have been on this merry-go-round before. This is what the WHO has to say about areas contaminated with DU:

"Following conflict, levels of DU contamination in food and drinking water might be detected in affected areas even after a few years. This should be monitored where it is considered there is a reasonable possibility of significant quantities of DU entering the ground water or food chain.

Where justified and possible, clean-up operations in impact zones should be undertaken if there are substantial numbers of radioactive projectiles remaining and where qualified experts deem contamination levels to be unacceptable. If high concentrations of DU dust or metal fragments are present, then areas may need to be cordoned off until removal can be accomplished. Such impact sites are likely to contain a variety of hazardous materials, in particular unexploded ordnance. Due consideration needs to be given to all hazards, and the potential hazard from DU kept in perspective.

Small children could receive greater exposure to DU when playing in or near DU impact sites. Their typical hand-to-mouth activity could lead to high DU ingestion from contaminated soil. Necessary preventative measures should be taken.

Disposal of DU should follow appropriate national or international recommendations."

World Health Organization

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 02:29 PM

I would tend to agree that the inoculations were the most probable source for most cases of Gulf War Syndrome.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 02:16 PM

Wolfgang, my answer to your question is in my previous post to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 02:08 PM

Agent Orange counts as a weapon of mass destruction. I think B-52 saturation bombing runs and napalm do too, but that's just my opinion.

Latest on Pepe: We are 4 feet from that dirty Mexican's door and we kilt his dog and his parrot, but he's still holdin' out somehow. Did Ah mention thet he is swarthy, and has a evil lookin' mustache? He is BAD. REAL BAD. Evil. Lecherous. Unamerican. Perverse. We are gonna cook his biscuits.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 12:03 PM

Charley,

Thanks for the article, Don Frith and I have been round this loop on another thread. Your article says that the findings (whose it does not mention) are controversial - the WHO disputes the above in it's entirety. The only DU munitions used during "Desert Storm" were 30mm armoured piercing cannon shells and 120mm FSAPDS rounds - they are solid they do not explode.

In Kosovo, the WHO carried out environmental tests in areas where this type of ammunition, and the very first bombs utilising depleted uranium were used, and came up with a report that disputes what is contained in your article.

The USAF Live Firing Range at Nellis where these munitions have been tested, and where pilots carry out live fire training exercises for years, was subject to an extensive environmental study monitored by the US wild-life and fisheries department. The result - environmental impact to the range, it's surroundings and ground water - nothing, no effect whatsoever.

It's just a case of pick whatever article you want to believe and go with it.

I believe that there were, in total 646,000 US servicemen involved in "Desert Storm", of which there are around 185,000 either classified as suffering from Gulf War Syndrome, or seeking compensation for the condition. I don't know what the numbers are for the UK, but taking those rough figures from the US. Out of the 646,000 approximately one-half would be support and logistics, Head-quarters staff and Signals. The remaining half would be the combat troops, tanks, artillery, infantry, combat engineers, signals, air.
Maximum exposure time was around 100 hours, not all of the above would have come into contact with, or even passed through, areas where Iraqi tanks/armoured vehicles were hit. Taking every prospective case that means out of approximately 323,000 men, 185,000 secumbed to the illness, however all combat troops were inocculated as a precaution to protect them from any possible chemical/biological attack - those inoculations were experimental - given the numbers involved and the exposures, I would tend to go for inoculation rather than DU dust.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 12:03 PM

Quote from troll on weapons of mass destruction":

"We used ours once, nearly 60 years ago..."

Troll, are you defining wmd as specifically nuclear? I would argue with that definition -- nuclear may be the weapon of MOST massive destruction, but it is not the only wmd. Please check this url for American uses of wmd - check since WWII.

www.sumeria.net/politics/usa.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 11:30 AM

Kevin,

"In the run up to the war the argument was frequently presented that in these circumstances the burden of proof that he did not have WMDs should lie on Saddam's regime."

Please correct me if I am wrong, but having accepted the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein's regime were required to make a full and accurate declaration on their WMD stocks, weapons and weapons programmes (7th December, 2002). That declaration was considered to be inadequate by the heads of the UN inspection teams as it cast no further light on what had happened to outstanding WMD stocks and weapons that were known to exist in 1998 (UNSCOM report January 1999)

Now as far as is known that still remains to be the case, and will continue to be the case, even if no WMD's are found in the aftermath of this war, once Saddam Hussein has been removed from power.

So your contention that:

"...in the wake of a war in which they had not been used, the burden of proof would surely have to lie on those who claimed that he did have those weapons, but had failed to use them."

Is absolutely ridiculous, because according to information held, and accepted, by the United Nations, there are clear points of difference between the UNSCOM report and the latest Iraqi declaration. All anybody wanted to know was what happened to the outstanding items detailed, between December 1998 and March 2003. People within the Iraqi government, civil service and military were the only people who could fully answer the issues and questions posed by the UN weapons inspectors and they were afforded every chance to do so - they didn't.

There is no question at all about there being any burden of proof on the part of the US or UK governments to prove that those weapons are there - The entire Security Council of the United Nations in January 1999 knew they were there - What that same international body want to know now is where are they now? What has happened to them?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 11:19 AM

At the risk of providing too much information on "the effects of depleted uranium shells" I'm posting an entire article from a recent Los Angeles Times:

Sunday, March 30, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times

       Uranium Warheads May Leave Both Sides a
       Legacy of Death for Decades
       by Susanna Hecht
      
       Although the potential human cost of the war with Iraq is obvious, not many people are aware of a hidden risk that may haunt us for years.

Of the 504,047 eligible veterans of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, about 29% are now considered disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the highest rate of disability for any modern war. And most are not disabled because of wounds.

These guys were rough, tough, buff 20-year-olds a decade ago. The vast majority are ill because of a complex of debilities known as the Gulf War syndrome.

These vets were exposed to toxic material from both sides, including numerous chemicals, fumes and weird experimental vaccines. But the largest number of the more than half a million troops eligible for VA
benefits -- 436,000 -- lived for months in areas of the Middle Eastern desert that had been contaminated with depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that continues to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of nuclear power plants and various military activities.

The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the stuff: load it into warheads.

Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not really fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally effective "warhead penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified positions. When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of DU that can be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and pollute ground water.

If the penetrators do not explode, their casings gradually oxidize, releasing DU into the environment.

DU warheads are essentially dirty bombs -- not very radioactive, but poisonous, and this is why there is an increasing global outcry against using DU in combat as tips for armor-piercing rounds as well as in artillery shells and Tomahawk missiles, among others.

Such warheads were used very successfully by the U.S. in the Gulf War, when more than 350 tons of depleted uranium were dropped on Iraq, and later in Kosovo when about 13 tons of DU were exploded in the conflict there.

The "Balkan syndrome" that emerged among the military and civilians after the U.S. bombing there bears a similarity to the Gulf War syndrome.

Though the findings are controversial, many scientists now see these afflictions as the result of heavy metal poisoning and possibly exposure to very low levels radiation.

DU is implicated in respiratory and kidney problems, rashes and, longer-term, bone cancer, as well as damaged reproductive and neurological systems.

Iraqi civilians -- many more than the 100,000 who died in the conflict or as a result of the war -- also suffer from a range of similar health problems.

Families of soldiers should be very worried.

A huge amount of ordnance has already been unleashed in Iraq, and there is no way of knowing how many thousands of tons of depleted uranium will find "permanent storage" in the rubble of Iraq, its soil and the bodies of its people and U.S. occupying forces.

It is certain, however, that the legacy of contamination will add billions to the cost of reconstruction -- and our lack of generosity in Afghanistan is instructive about the sincerity of our pledges in this area. The stingy benefit package the Gulf vets got, even during boom times, is yet another cautionary tale.

The rosy fantasies of a democratized Arab world might make for good sound bites. But the reality of widespread DU use brings to mind the epitaph for the Punic Wars: "They made a desolation and called it
Peace."

Susanna Hecht is a professor in the School of Public Policy and Social Research at UCLA. She is head of the environmental analysis and policy program.

                               Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

Not nice to think about but that's the stuff we're discussing. As a long time anti-nuclear power activist I'm very familar with our government's attempts to minimize the long term impact of exposure to low-level radiation. But who knows? Maybe our soldiers, their soldiers, and civilians will be luckier this time around. Too bad the Bush Administration international policy cabal aren't there on the ground as part of this great experiment.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 11:13 AM

Kevin, above all else, Saddam is a past master at the art of survival so, yes, I do believe that he could be making those kinds of calculations. Whether he would be right or wrong would, of course, remain to be seen, but there is nothing wrong with the theory.
Consider, all his old henchmen would back him since his restoration to power would carry them along with it. His tribe is strong and tribal loyalty runs deep in that culture. He would not need tanks and planes to control the country at first, just ruthless followers and he seems to have those in plenty. When he did need planes and tanks, I'm sure that there are countries who would be willing to sell to him in return for oil contracts worth billions of dollars.
And so forth. A little far-fetched?
Maybe.
Are you willing to bet the farm?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 10:38 AM

"There are other reports surfacing now"

Is it too much to expect that when someone comes up with that kind of thing they should take a few minutes to find a reliable source it and link to it? It doesn't take long.

Troll - you seriously think that Saddam is making those kind of calculations about world opinion and has some idea he might be able to make a comeback after being obliterated by Bush and Co?

Yes, there would be suspicious people around if no WNDs turn up after the killing is done, or if they do for that matter, but what good is that going to be to Saddam by that time? As the saying goes, "Stone dead has no fellow"...

I think the "impossibly high standard of proof" I indicate is very moderate and reasonable. It's the kind of standard of proof you'd expect in an ordinary case where the police were involved in a raid.

In the run up to the war the argument was frequently presented that in these circumstances the burden of proof that he did not have WMDs should lie on Saddam's regime. But in the wake of a war in which they had not been used, the burden of proof would surely have to lie on those who claimed that he did have those weapons, but had failed to use them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 10:34 AM

Jon,

"Let's say we win this war then find the weapons were moved to Syria. What then?"

If that proved to be the case, I don't think we would hear anything about it. Bashir Assad would very quietly give them up, a cache of weapons would be found in the western desert area of Iraq, and they would be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision.

Charley,
Among things unaccounted for in the UNSCOM report, there were 20 Al-Hassan missiles (650 km range). Under present circumstances I don't think Assad would go along with playing host to Iraqi missiles being placed in Syria to launch at Israel - He's not that daft.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 09:36 AM

My deep source for my comment that "There are other reports surfacing now that Saddam's chemical weapons of mass destruction were trucked into Syria. Maybe, maybe not." is our local newspaper, the Portland Press Herald. The reports are supposed to be based on interviews with Iraqi defectors. There was also a suggestion that some "missiles" were also transfered so they might better be targeted on Israel.

One never knows whether such reports are based on any "real events" or deliberately fabricated by Iraqi defectors seeking to enhance their status as informants, or the deliberate fabrication of a U.S. inspired disinformation plan.

Do not underestimate the long term danger of depleted uranium shells. Once they've exploded, there will invariably be particles dispersed into the environment that will be breathed in by whoever is passing by when that environment is disturbed. A major explanation for Gulf War Syndrone for Iraqi and coalition forces is their exposure to depleted uranium. The low-level radiation in the environment will unfortunately continue to be a threat for thousands of years. But depleted uranium shells are just great for smashing up tanks and fortified positions!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 09:15 AM

Hi Terribus, I would imagine that if any such reports had been recieved, the matter should have been reported to the UN as part of the investigation. I've no idea where it would go from there.

I would agree that shipping the weapons into Syria does not constitute disposing of the weapons and that if such a move had taken place, there would be a high risk of them being returned. It would however remove any remaining niggles that any may have that there was an urgent need to disarm Iraq.

Let's say we win this war then find the weapons were moved to Syria. What then? Perhaps we would need to invade Syria who will pass the weapons on to Iran who before they are invaded somehow ship the weapons out to North Korea...

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 09:02 AM

People's line of reasoning always proceeds directly from their preconceived prejudices. The same is true of their pursuit and analysis of facts. A carefully chosen assembly of facts can generally be gathered to support any given viewpoint whatsoever.

This is as true of me, Bobert, and CarolC as it is of teribus, troll, DougR and/or Wolfgang. It is equally true of politicians and media commentators.

And, my oh my, it is amusing to watch...on those rare occasions when one can step back a little and detach from all the sound and fury.

One day (perhaps) we will all have a good laugh over it. Well, I will, anyway... :-)

Carry on, chaps! Most impressive lines of reasoning.

"Oh yeah?" "Well, by golly, take that!" "And furthermore...!"

And remember, if facts aren't enough, sheer persistent verbosity may wear down the opposition...when it does, your ego will have scored a major victory, and you can celebrate by buying yourself a designer coffee at Starbucks. :-)

Latest report on Pepe (driven by my prejudices):

Wal, we are durn near ready to kick in Pepe's door, havin' fired off 80,000 rounds of ammunition, includin' 50 cannonballs. We regrets ta report thet the cannon blowed up real good on the 51st round, and 2 cowboys was killed and 16 wounded by shrapnel. Pepe is gonna pay dearly for that when we git him. It wouldn't of happened if he had just given up from the start. We still ain't found the rifle.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 07:36 AM

Hi Jon,

As I said I have not read anything about this anywhere, so I do not what reports Charley Noble was referring to, or to whom they were made, or when they were made. For arguements sake, if they were correct, on what grounds could you approach the Syrian Government to investigate the matter? UN sanctions exist that require Iraq to rid itself of WMD in a clearly verifiable way - just trucking them over the border to Syria, so that they can be trucked back at a later date does not fulfil the UN requirement.

Another thing that has occured to me - How many U2 surveillance flights actually took place, or were there any?

With regard to the possibility of Saddam's WMD being in Syria, I would imagine that apart from the Syrian Government saying that they are there, the best information will come from Iraqi's who actually took part in the removal, or Mossad (their intelligence network inside Syria has normally been fairly good in the past).

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 06:30 AM

Reports from Iraqi defectors stated that the stuff was being moved around.

From what Charley says the reports seem to infer by the use of "were" that this stuff was moved into Syria sometime between discussions starting up regarding the new resolution and inspection teams actually starting work. The activity could explain why Iraq was so reluctant to allow U2 surveillance flights earlier, it finally conceded that these could take place but by that time the stuff could already have been out of the country.

This gets more and more puzzling. If I'm understaning this, we get reports indicating that Iraq has moved it's WMD to Syria but rather than investigate this, attack Saddam over WMD that we have reason to believe he no longer posses?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 06:20 AM

Kevin, you demand an imposibly high standard of proof. The only way you'll believe that Saddam has WMD is if he uses them against the Coalition Forces. If he does, though, he loses the sympathy of the world because it will be obvious to all that he lied.
If he doesn't use them and they are discovered after the War is over, he wins because obviously the US planted them, therefore the US /UK Coallition is discredited, Saddam is vindicated. and he regains power in Iraq with the blessing of the world. He is then free to go his merry way and develop whatever WMDs he pleases since there will be none to oppose him.
And if you've thought of it, you can damn-well said bet Saddam has too.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 06:12 AM

Charley Noble, mentioned the following in another thread;

"There are other reports surfacing now that Saddam's chemical weapons of mass destruction were trucked into Syria. Maybe, maybe not."

I personally have not come across anything in print on this but it got me thinking about it.

Syria and Iraq are both governed by Ba'ath Party regimes so there is a political commonality that would permit such action.

Reports from Iraqi defectors stated that the stuff was being moved around.

From what Charley says the reports seem to infer by the use of "were" that this stuff was moved into Syria sometime between discussions starting up regarding the new resolution and inspection teams actually starting work. The activity could explain why Iraq was so reluctant to allow U2 surveillance flights earlier, it finally conceded that these could take place but by that time the stuff could already have been out of the country.

Another thing regarding WMD, what the UNMOVIC and IAEA teams went back into Iraq to determine was;

1. Are weapons programmes still in operation, either at the stage of production, development of weaponisation, development of delivery systems, or is research still active.

2. What had happened to the stocks and weapons that were known to exist at the time of UNSCOM's departure in 1998.

In a way I hope this stuff is in Syria, because if it is, Saddam cannot use it. One of the main advantages of the US/UK military build up was that once the the ultimatum had expired action could be taken immediately - which would mean that Saddam did not have time to get the stuff back and into position for possible use against US/UK forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 05:25 AM

I think what people were saying that they anticipated that at >I>after the invasion was completed, if Saddam had not used WMDs evidence that he had in fact had them would be planted.

Still early days. If the alleged cast-iron evidence that he had them is accurate, we can expect that they will be used before long. If they aren't, that would be a pretty strong indication that in fact they don't have them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 05:13 AM

Where are the WMDs? That's an interesting question but not only to those who claimed Saddam had them but also to the other faction. I'm surely not the only one remembering that a couple of days ago or a few weeks ago there was a thread in which posters said they'd be sure that very quickly after the invasion (no, I don't want to discuss my use of this word) WMDs would be detected, namely being planted by the allied forces.

I'd like to see the response of these people here too, for the lack of evidence for WMDs should give those people something to think.

Have you been wrong? Does the US army tell here the truth? Have they been too busy in the first days to plant the evidence?

Come on, same as I enjoy reading the responses and rationalisations of those who believed in the reality of WMDs I'd love to read the rationalisations of those who were sure the USA would plant them.

So, where are the WMDs?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 03:15 AM

Guest Boab:

"There are reputable medical sources which say that much of the poor health statistics in Iraq, for instance [poor health, birth defects and much more] can almost certainly be traced to the use of this abominable poison during the last Iraqi conflict"

If such exists I'd dearly like to see it. The statistics often quoted by your reputable medical sources have been debunked, their base is seriously flawed. Also none of the health problems that predominate in the southern areas of Iraq are present in the north of the country. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with what Saddam and the Ba'ath regime have been doing in the south of Iraq over the past 12 years - deliberate poisoning of ground water - loss of the Ma'dan fishing industry (60,000 tons of fish per year) - nope, none of that would affect the health of those living there, it must all be down to to what the UN coalition forces did in less than 100 hours, 12 years ago, about 80 kilometers to the west in open desert - Sorry Boab I don't buy that.

US military are obligated by US law to eradicate all chemical and biological stocks and weapons by 2007. Most of the munitions stored are for obsolete weapons, no longer used by the US military. The whereabouts of such stocks is known, they are routinely inspected and are currently being destroyed as part of a programme to meet the 2007 deadline. The US also provides storage and carries out controlled destruction of such items for other signatories to the CWC - all well documented, all well audited.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 02:49 AM

Troll's rhetorical question as to whether or not the Geneva Convention banned cluster bombs is pretty similar to asking if Jesus Christ ever tried to ban cigarettes! For someone who has "very little knowledge about depleted uranium shells" and "seem to recall something about their use in Yugoslavia", he seems perfectly capable of churning out a screed [part truth part nonsense] about the mechanical qualities of the substance. Does he know any exservice people who claim ---with great conviction---to be suffering from the effects of exposure to this stuff? I do. There are reputable medical sources which say that much of the poor health statistics in Iraq, for instance [poor health, birth defects and much more] can almost certainly be traced to the use of this abominable poison during the last Iraqi conflict. Weapons of mass destruction are much in evidence in Iraq today; they all seem to be in use by the "coalition of the willing'. Strange, by the way, how "chemical weapons" were never officially classified as "W.M.D."s till it was thought that Saddam might have them. [Not that I wouldn't support a ban on such weapons. And it's worth while noting that the U.S. refused to do just that.] Let's all pray that very soon an optimistic pronouncement by Tommy Franks, Rumsfeld or Bushie-tail Blair will turn out to be the truth for a change, and all the killing will stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 02:04 AM

When did the Geneva Convention ban cluster bombs? It is my impression that they are being used only in uninhabited areas where units of the Republican Guard are dug in. If anyone has different credible information, please share it.
I have very little knowledge about depleted uranium shells but I seem to recall something from their use in the former Yugoslavia that they are only dangerous if the fragments are pulverized to a fine dust and then inhaled. They are not designed to pulverize but to fragment.
I've dealt with pieces of depleted uranium and the stuff is HARD. You cannot cut it with a file and it's impossible to drill with normal shop tools. You CAN grind it but you'll wear out an 8 inch carborundum wheel before you make much impression.
To answer your question, Guest pdc, the US has the most WMDs (probably) and Saddam Hussein has used them the most often. We used ours once, nearly 60 years ago, and Saddam has used his at least twice that we know of. Once in the Iraq/Iran War, and again against his own people. Both of these times were within the last 25 years. Whether any other countires have used them since WWI, I don't know.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 01:41 AM

Sorry -- that should have read "depleted uranium shells," not bombs. The illegal bombs the US is using are called "cluster bombs." This from Yahoo News:

The United States is showering targets in Iraq (news - web sites) with the most unpredictable weapons in its arsenal: tiny cluster bombs so deadly they can demolish a tank, but so erratic they can take years to blow up.

The U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar, said it is investigating reports that cluster bombs killed at least 11 civilians in Hillah, a city 60 miles south of Baghdad and the scene of heavy fighting.

The military acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that cluster bombs were being deployed. Human rights groups have called for their ban, and their use during the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) is particularly sensitive because of the stated aim of the U.S.-led force to minimize civilian casualties.

"Cluster bombs have a very bad reputation, which they deserve," said Colin King, author of Jane's Explosive Ordnance Disposal guide and a British Army bomb disposal expert from the 1991 Persian Gulf War (news - web sites)....

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 01:27 AM

And further on weapons of mass destruction...check this site, if it's still up -- a lovely piece on the US using depleted uranium bombs in Iraq, which is shameful.


www.sundayherald.com/32522

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 01:09 AM

An alternate question:

What country in the world has the most weapons of mass destruction, and uses them most often?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 03 Apr 03 - 12:29 AM

Lurker, I think that he was buying protective gear in the '90's, long before bush became President.
"Why would it be improbable that Saddam would think along the ines "Well, If I did it, why should I assume they won't if it suits
them"?"
You have a good point there, Kevin, but I don't believe that that's the real reason for all the chem protection gear. To protect HIS troops from gas that THEY release, that I'll buy. Remember, he needs the Republican Guard for protection as much against his own people as he does against outside forces. Remember the uprisings in '91. He doesn't even trust his own inner circle. Last year he placed several of his high ranking Ministers under house arrest for no apparent reason.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 11:25 PM

Yup. Yew cain't be too keerful, so us cowpokes are searchin' the hills and the whole danged town, jest in case Pepe hid thet thar rifle someplace out thar. We figger we will find it soon enough. We still ain't got inta his home, but it is lookin' worse for wear. One of our boys got bit by a rattler while scourin' the hills fer Pepe's Weapons of Mass Dee-struction, and it is definitely Pepe's fault! He trained that snake. We are gonna git him fer that. If our boy dies, Pepe is guilty of murder. Murder of a white man is whut I mean. Murder of an Ay-merican citizen. He will hang...if'n we don't shoot him fust.

We appear to have shot his 12 year old daughter in the crossfire. It's his own danged fault fer not comin' out and giving hisself up to justice!

He has got a lot to answer fer.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 09:36 PM

There are no WMD's in Iraq, at least not yet. In 91 we left Iraq in shambles & proceeded to slowly squeeze the country with sanctions. They were lucky that they could afford to get a barrel a day oil out of the ground so they could eat never mind embark in a nuke/bio/chem programs. But really this Sad-mam, IMHO, would've used any & all of these weapons in his last gasp to ward off the invaders by now if he had them, he hasn't even got a scud to toss, no? Why not? Did he forget where he hid them or did he just lose the instruction manuels (probably were written in english so he couldn't read then (dirty trick), maybe they were stolen by Syria (we'll soon find out), or sold to the Russians (here comes that ol cold war threat again)? If he didn't have them yesterday & he didn't have them today, he's sure as hell gonna have them tommorrow. (2 negitives make a possitive?). I do believe we've got our big toe on the mid east soil with Afgan but with Iraq we'll be sitting on the throne ready to crown boot washer & next we'll have another Israeli/Palestine & the Kurds will be sucking wind in the north while the dust buries those in the south & they can both eventually gang up on the bastard who's been left behind in the middle. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 09:26 PM

Come on, people! We're talking about searching an area the equivalent of France! And under wartime conditions, too!

What's more, we've got to remember that Saddam had four years of no inspections in which to hide whatever. Moreover, if the chemical and/or biological agents have not been made into actual shells/bombs/whatever they would be easily transported and hidden. A tank semitrailer full of this stuff could be easily moved from one place to another. Iraq has shown very little concern for safety/security with such things, even regarding threats to their own population, so the materials may be hidden in places without the extended containment facilities that we would expect here. This would facilitate the moving around of such stuff.

There is an area, still under Iraqi control, which is deeply dug in (as in tunnels and mines) and remote. The coalition people know about where it is, and it is one of the best bets for where the smoking gun lies hidden.   Eventually we'll find out if that's where the stuff is.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 08:43 PM

Troll-While I certainly don't think that Saddam is morally opposed to the use of nerve gas, recall that our own fearless leader has stated his willingness to use such weapons on Iraq if deemed necessary. A man as paranoid as Saddam would quite likely take such threats seriously enough to purchase countermeasures.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 07:36 PM

"The discovery of numerous caches of chem protection suits and atropine auto-injectors does make me wonder just who the Iraqis thought was going to use chemical weapons on whom."

Any potential enemy who happened to have them. That could mean the USA, Russia, Iran, Israel...

Why would it be improbable that Saddam would think along the ines "Well, If I did it, why should I assume they won't if it suits them"?

As Doug said, we'll see soon enough, one way or the other. The idea that in a life and death situation Saddam is going to refrain from using weapons he has at his disposal, just in order to embarass the invaders politically, does not seem too plausible. After all, if he was running the invasion it seems fair to assume he'd plant the required evidence if it was needed, and he'd be likely to take it for granted his enemies would do the same. So there'd be very little political gain to be made in any case.

If he does have them I think it is quite likely he'd use them initially in such a way that it appeared that it was the Americans who were deploying them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 06:20 PM

Here is a link to a BBC article from 24 Jan. 03
http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/03_Unrest/030124.Saddam.preps.chem.w.html

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 06:07 PM

The atropine auto-injectors were probably some of those that Iraq purchased from Germany last year. As I recall, they bought several million doses of the nerve gas antidote. The instructions may well have been in English because the Germans hoped to sell them to the US after 9/11. No proof, you understand, but it does explain the English instructions.
The Iraqi buyers may not have noticed the slip or they may have been in too much of a hurry to close the deal before the US found out about it. I am not srue whether atropine was on the proscribed list or not.
The discovery of numerous caches of chem protection suits and atropine auto-injectors does make me wonder just who the Iraqis thought was going to use chemical weapons on whom. Since they don't seem to balk at breaking any of the rest of the articles of the Geneva Convention, I see no reason to suppose that they wouldn't break the one concerning poison gas.
After all, it wouldn't be the first time.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 05:46 PM

I would prefer that we find the nasty things. I would like to be able to believe my government, I REALLY would but...

One good thing is that news media is not letting Rumsfeld et. al go off message on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 09:08 AM

Not a single chemical warhead,
Can't find them with the infrared,
Wherever can they be,
Let's ask Uncle Ned!

But why not save ourselves a lot of trouble and just ask DougR?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 09:04 AM

As alluded to by the rumour Don mentions, the country that is apparently next on the agenda for "shaping the strategic environment in the Middle East" is Syria.

What? Can't find the WMDs in Iraq? No problem, we'll just "roll back" Syria, and when we don't find the WMDs there, we'll attack Iran and look for them there. Of course, we'll have to leave an occupying force in all of those countries just in case they try to start up some sort of WMD program at some point in the future, and we'll have to take control of their resources to pay for our efforts. But hey, no problem. It's no skin off our nose. They're all just a bunch of terrorists (and future terrorists) anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: mooman
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 08:20 AM

Sorry...here it is

Chemical weapons and Iraq

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: mooman
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 08:18 AM

And here's a link that muddies an already muddy situation even more:

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: mooman
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 08:09 AM

I personally still cannot understand why the US has not signed the Bioweapons Convention and, in July 2002, scuppered an important initiative at the UN to strengthen the Bioweapons Convention by adding mandatory inspections to verify that no nations were developing illegal bioweapons. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 07:35 AM

I heard a radio interview with a man who has a newsletter called The International Security Weekly, or words to that effect. He spoke of a recent test conducted between Syria and Iraq (Recent means while this war has been going on) and witnessed by satilite where trucks were driven accross the border from Syria, into Iraq, placed into procsrcibed locations and positions and then after a certain amount of time the trucks returned to Syria.

According to this gentleman these very trucks were seen crossing the border into Syria at the time of the Great Search for WMD. And they haven't returned before this test for any reason. The gent further states that these trucks appear to be the type used to carry and launch SCUD missles and they were postioned at locations that would be consistent with missle launches on Israel.

I have no clue whether or not he is a loon or a true intelligence anylist. BUt his story is just as believeable as some of the other equally odd stuff we have heard , read, and written showing the US as a bunch of Cowboys with thoughts of free oil and empire in the minds.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 03:58 AM

Little Hawk, I'll make sure that the rifle found in Pepe's house has been fired. He won't be around to say it wasn't him that fired it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 03:29 AM

A day of two ago there was a newscast showing some of the injections the Americans had found at an Iraq training camp, demonstrating that the Iraqis must have WMD.

Oddly enough, the instructions on the leaflet saying what it protected against and presumably how to use it were in English. These Iraqis must be really cunning to produce leaflets in a language they can't read specially to confuse the propaganda machines...

Even more oddly, I haven't see that particular shot anymore either.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,BOAB
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 03:09 AM

Saddam definitely DID have some. But during the final days of the leadup to war, Bush was more or less demanding that he give up the last peashooter. I seriously doubt the existence of any significant presence of any such weapons in Iraq over the past few years---although there is certainly evidence of their presence there now! Patience, Donald, Troll Dick,Tony, Doug et al----"evidence" of WMD will be found. It has to be, if the warriors are ever to be able to face the human race again.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:58 AM

What's to talk about? Saddam said they had none!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:54 AM

Time wil tell.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:41 AM

This very day, on Terry Gross's NPR program "Fresh Air" she spoke with Joseph Cirincione, (see if this link takes you there). In the program promo it says he

specializes in defense and proliferation issues at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is senior associate and director of the Non-Proliferation Project. He will discuss the evolution of the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq. Its origins begin with a small group of influential officials and experts in Washington, D.C., who were calling for regime change in Iraq long before Sept. 11, 2001.

Gross asked him about what happens if conventional weapons come into contact with these Weapons of Mass Destruction--and the answer is chilling and quite lucid. It sounds, from his specualtion, that the U.S. is trying to hit the delivery systems (the devices that launch WMDs) and not the warheads themselves. Hit one of those nasty things when it's "hidden" in a city full of innocent bystanders, and you condemn them all to death or a horrible life.

On a different NPR interview today, I heard an interview with a journalist from The New Yorker discuss how the Iraqi citizens he has met during this war have been very clear that they don't confuse him, an American journalist, with his government. I was pleased to hear him say that the Iraqi citizens who heard Michael Moore's remarks at the Academy Award ceremonies were heartened by his remarks. Yesss!

Weapons of mass destruction? The only ones we know for sure about are the ones held by the U.S.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:41 AM

Ah kin guaran-dam-tee that a rifle will be found in Pepe's hovel when they finally reduce it to a pile of smoking debris. It will be a rifle that Pepe never fired, for some mysterious reason, but it will be there...

By the way, I forgot to mention that those other two Mexicans Pepe killed...well...the big cattle rancher paid him to "take out" those guys, but things were different back then. Pepe was on the payroll, you see? So it was sort of okay under those circumstances. True, it was murder...and it was really quite nasty...but those guys he killed didn't like big ranchers. They were a threat to community life.

Pepe became a threat to community life later. That was because he didn't turn out to be as good at killing the other Mexicans as one might have hoped he would, and then the bugger went inta business fer himself, and started trying to buy a rifle somewhere. Frankly, he was a big disappointment.

Wal, the siege is still goin', and Pepe and his family are provin' more resourceful than expected, but they are only a buncha lousy wetbacks, right? Shouldn't take too long to smoke 'em out. Let's git to it! Ah think we'll jest haul one o' them Alamo type cannons inta town, and blast him clean outa that Adobe hut, that's whut we'll do. Damn right!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 11:38 PM

Saddam will only use his WMDs when he knows that all is lost. He probably thinks that if he can just hold on long enough, world opinion will force a halt to the war, leaving him in power.
If he uses chem or bio weapons otherwise, he proves that Bush and Co. were right all along.
It was reported tonight that a unit in the northern approaches had found "equipment and documents" that indicated the presence of chemical weapons.
By the way, most modern countries have bio and chem warfare labs. Why? simple. You have to be able to study chem/bio agents in order to figure out ways to counter them. Yes, I know that they are illegal for use in warfare under the Geneva Convention. That didn't stop the Iraqis or the Iranians from using them, did it?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 10:34 PM

Well danged, L.H.! I think you have it purdy mcu boiled down to the basics.

But what's your take on the Bush administration wiggling out of their situation? Planted evidence? If Vegas were puttin' odds on "planted evidence", what do you figure the odds would be"

9-2? That's about what it would take to get any betters....

And, BTW, good luck, Pepe...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 08:10 PM

Saddam's big mistake was in NOT acquiring undeniably deadly weapons of mass destruction before being attacked (like nukes). If he had done so, he would almost certainly not have been attacked.

This is like Pepe, the Mexican, who had nothing but a knife and a shovel, but he was on some very valuable land that the cattle baron wanted for his ranch. The cattle baron got concerned that Pepe might actually get hold of a rifle, and everyone knows that dirt-poor Mexicans are not the kind of people who should EVER be permitted to have that sort of firepower. It was also known that Pepe had a bad temper, had beaten his wife on occasion, and had given some of the other dirt-poor Mexicans a tough time, having killed one or two in disagreements. So...the cattle baron spread the word that Pepe was most likely hiding a rifle somewhere, and sent 50 heavily armed gunmen to "take out" that nasty Pepe. Pepe is now holed up in his adobe hut, which is riddled with bullet holes, but he is still defiant. One of his kids succeeded in nailing a cowboy in the eye with a rock, before getting blown to kingdom come. Two more cowboys have suffered blows to the head with brooms and frying pans while trying to kick down Pepe's door. Pepe and his family are using totally unfair and dastardly fighting tactics, but the posse expects to have him strung up soon...maybe in a week or so...or a couple of months...or a year. Stay tuned.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:55 PM

McGrath:

Well, if Saddam doesn't use them and we don't find them, is there any chance at all that the Bush made up this stuff as grounds to carry out a sinister plan in the Middle East? Could that be? And in that case, would Bush owe the Iraqi people an apology for killing a couple hundred thousand of them?

Jusy curious as to protocol here....

"Ahhh, sorry, Saddam. Even though you're a bad, bad man, we were wrong and shouldn't have blown up your country. Real sorry. Hear?"

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:53 PM

Nope, don't have 'em. I even checked my refrigerator. Many unknown things lurk there, but no WMDs. And this Ind'un ain't lyin' neither.

On a serious note, I hope they have been destroyed. Serious egg on our face if we can't prove it though.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:33 PM

If Saddam has them, they'll be used. If they aren't used, he hasn't got them to use.

So naturally I hope he hasn't got them to use. Touch wood. We'll see soon enough, I imagine.

Unused stocks? That doesn't sound too credible to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:57 PM

I still reserve judgement on this one. They may exist and if they do, I think they would probably come into play in Baghdad.

The one thing I feel confident on, used or otherwise, is that WMD will be found when the war is over.

Take that how you please.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: gnu
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:55 PM

Thanks LH, I feel better now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:49 PM

Lurker - Hmmmm. Yes, this means that Uncle Scrooge McDuck may well have some WMD's too. This is a bit worrisome, but I think as long as we leave his money bin alone, he will not use them. Same logic applies to Iraq, presuming they had any WMD's, but they probably do not.

It would be nice if we could make the whole World safe simply by bombing and terrorizing everybody who doesn't do exactly what we want them to, and who agrees to remain poor and powerless to boot, but it's a pipedream. You can never have safety when poverty...and tremendous wealth and excess...exist side by side in the same community...and when poverty is perpetuated by the people in charge of that community, in order to feather their own nests.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:44 PM

They had that man Perle on the telly last night - he said if they didn't find any it would mean they must have been buried or destroyed when they bombed Saddam's palaces. I remember when it was suggested that one of the reasons the records of the alleged stocks weren't available might be because of previous raids which had taken place, but noone seemed to find that too plausible.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:37 PM

Little Hawk-You forgot everyone with enough cash to buy the warheads from former Soviet satellite countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:21 PM

Walking Eagle: Prove to me that you DON'T have them!

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:16 PM

They're at the major USA and British military bases, on their aircraft, on their ships, in their bio-warfare labs, and so on. Oh, and the Russians, Israelis, French and Chinese have a goodly number of them too. Enough to kill a couple of billion people, I expect. Pakistan and India have a few of them. North Korea may have 1 or 2. That fairly well sums it up.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: gnu
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 05:53 PM

Syriously, where could they be ?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 05:39 PM

They're not under the bed,
There's nothing in the shed,
Wherever can they be,
Let's ask Fred!

They're not under the spread,
There's nothing in the head,
Wherever can they be,
Let's ask Ed!

Charley Noble

Subject: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 05:29 PM

Hey! Maybe they are hidden under my bed! No, not there. I'll check my basement, No, not there either. They must be out in my shed. Nope.
I wonder where they are? Have any of you seen them lately?