BS: Where are the WMDs?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 02:29 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:56 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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