 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs)
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 11 Jun 04 - 04:25 PM UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Peace Date: 11 Jun 04 - 05:45 PM This is no surprise to me. It would be really nice if someone knew to where they were shipped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jun 04 - 05:48 PM so, all of you out there will e apologizing to me, and to the US government? Why do I think not?.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:25 PM what is "The World Tribune"? and why do the Wash Post and CNN know nothing of this yet? Perhaps they are checking sources and details a bit closer? Sounds a little too easy to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:32 PM Interesting. Who publishes the World Tribune? I have been listening to the news all day and I have just surfed news services all over the world. The World Tribune seems to be the only paper carrying the story. A breaking story with this kind of political significance would have hit the broadcast media well before the print media, yet there is nothing so far. I would have thought that Fox News would jump on this like a beagle on a filet mignon. No apologies yet, BB. Verification required. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Blackcatter Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:33 PM I agree Bill. No author to the article and just some supposed quotes by UN people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Peace Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:38 PM Question is, if they had the real-time images, why didn't they strafe or bomb the weapons? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:39 PM This is very revealing. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Blackcatter Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:40 PM It's an Internet only paper, supposedly located in Virginia. Here's other "quality" writing form the paper: On a visit to West Berlin in 1987, President Reagan issued his famous challenge; "Mr. Gorbachev Tear Down This Wall!" Reagan's proactive political policies set in motion the epic events of 1989 which sounded the Joshua Trumpet heralding the fall of the Berlin Wall. Amid the joyful celebrations and popping champagne corks celebrating the collapse of the Berlin Wall was really Ronald Reagan's "Oscar night." Ronald Reagan posthumously received these Oscars in Heaven for his Presidency: Best Picture—The Reagan Presidency 1981-1988 Best Performing Actor — Defeat of the Evil Empire, Best Script — Making America proud again, Best Foreign Film — Supporting Solidarity and freedom in Poland Best Supporting Actress — Margaret Thatcher Best Special effects — Collapse of the Berlin Wall Best Documentary — America's Economic Enterprise Revival Best Short Film — Grenada Best Score — Happy Days are Here Again Gee - didn't I see that in the NY Times? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:43 PM OK. I am a patient person. Of course, since the neocons control the media, I guess they could be sitting on this, just to be able to release it about 3 weeks before the election. THAT would make the Dems a little red in the face... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Blackcatter Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:44 PM Thanks Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:45 PM Here's what the Guardian has to say about it. I'm guessing the reason FOX hasn't reported it yet is because this development proves what the UN inspectors had warned the Bush administration about: with the UN inspections still ongoing, it was possible to contain the weapons, but attacking Iraq would create a situation in which the weapons would be scattered to goodness knows where in the hands of pretty much anybody (including terrorists). And this appears to be what has happened. This looks bad for the Bush administration and its "pre-emptive war" and that is probably why it isn't being reported by major news outlets in the US. Instead of making the world safer, this war appears to have made it a lot more dangerous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Blackcatter Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:45 PM Bruce - check out Don's link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:58 PM Te only "fact" I see being reported here which is of potential interest is the notion that Iraq is exporting up to a thousand tons of scrap metal a day. If true, it would be of interest to find out where it is coming from. As for it being weapons of mass destruction, well, I just dunno when you want to decide something is probably true. Anytime anyone says it? Or perhaps when an authority says it? So far I haven't seen anything persuasive here. Least of all the story in the "World Tribune". Sheeshe! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:59 PM oh, I DO love these 'reliable sources'...*grin*.... first you throw the dart, then you draw the bullseye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Gareth Date: 11 Jun 04 - 07:15 PM Nice Try CarolC - Personaly I prefer not to trust any one source, but then any slant will do in your crusade ! Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 11 Jun 04 - 07:48 PM Hey, Gareth --I can do that too! Nice Try beardedbruce - Personaly I prefer not to trust any one source, but then any slant will do in your crusade ! Whee! clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Deckman Date: 11 Jun 04 - 07:51 PM Gareth ... Re; Your mentioning of some kind of a "crusade" of Carole C. I have read this post over several times. Maybe I'm missing something here, but just what "crusade" are you talking about? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jun 04 - 07:51 PM I am willing to wait for confirmation. But what difference does it make? A number of you would not believe it even when the mushroom cloud rises over you, and your children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 11 Jun 04 - 08:04 PM But did they outright threaten us with them? We have the most WMD's of anyone. What if some other nations up and decide we're a threat and launch a war on us. Somehow I'd think we'd think that would be wrong. It was fundamentally wrong to launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereighn(?sp) nation. That's a fact |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 11 Jun 04 - 08:24 PM I've been thinking about this kind of thing for some time now: what if we do indeed find WMDs in October? And it came to me that we weren't be in much danger from WMDs that weren't used; not much threat there. So assume that Casual O's story is true (though I'm puzzled about how Saddam shipped anything out after the war). How much were we threatened by a nation that was getting rid of its weapons? Will Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey use the stuff to make atomic bombs and raise a mushroom cloud over us? And are dual-use gadgets always weapons? I still see less excuse for attacking Iraq than we had for attacking the USSR in Reagan's administration. Even assuming that the story's true. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 11 Jun 04 - 08:43 PM Gee, perhaps the reason the so-called WMD's are in the scrapyards is because they're scrap. As in decomissioned, broken down, neglected, unmaintained, inoperable and bound for the smelter. Is a scrapped rocket engine in a junkyard in Rotterdam still a rocket engine or is it a hunk of scrap metal that used to be a rocket engine? If it's junk, who cares whether it used to be a rocket engine or a bicycle? If it's still operable or repairable, trying to fence it through a publicly accessible scrapyard doesn't seem like the most logical way to go about getting it into the hands of someone who might know what to do with it. I guess it's a possible way, but it would seem to imply a conspiracy involving numerous people. If it is still operable and it was intended to wind up in the hands of terrorists, wouldn't it have made more sense to just send it to them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 11 Jun 04 - 08:43 PM The thing is it would just be too brazenly convenient for some complex coverup to suddenly materialize pointing to "WMDs all along", and it would be perfectly possible -- I would even say probable for such a scenario to be rigged up fraudulently in order to salvage some glimmer of rightness for the Bush administration. Given Mister Bush's track record of glib and self-serving falsification on every front, I would be very disinclined to buy such a story, presented by yet another right-wing nut-case OR presented by some gun for hire from Fox. These are not sources I would expect to speak sooth. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bobert Date: 11 Jun 04 - 09:07 PM Well, folks, the guy who runs this phony baloney website that is supposed to look like a real newspaper used to work for the Moonie Wsahington Times, which is just a cut above (or below) the "National Enquirer". Now, it don't take no Wes Ginny Slide Rule to figure out that if yer such a nut that you can't even keep yer job with the right winged Wsahington Times, then you is one heck of a nutball!... During the entire Clin6ton years the The Washington Times ran at least two anti-Clinton articles on the front page every day for the entire 8 years... This paper is a joke and anyone even mildly associated with it is subject to suspicion... I can't believe that C-SPAN quotes from it... Nevermind... Yes, I can... And if ya want more proff that this story is a hoax watch the TV on Sunday morning. Now if Dick Cheney so much as dreams that Saddam did this or that he'll be on every station blasting away at Saddam. So when Cheney doesn't come on the TV Sunday then you can bet that everyone in the Bush administration, being leary of being caught in yet another big lie, has been told to stay clear of this story as if it were radiation, ahhhh, 'er something like radiation, you know, like a truck full of old galvanized duct work.... (Well, Bobert, that may look like old duct work to you, pal, but it could be melted down and used to make hardware that could be used in a nuclear weapon that Saddam could order to be shot at New York City with only 45 minute advance time!!!) Come on, give us a break with these winey excuses for invading Iraq and now occupying it until, like, ahhh, forever... Can't you Bushites ever say, "Hey, we blew it and we're sorry."? That too much to ask here? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Ebbie Date: 11 Jun 04 - 09:38 PM Also at http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=31386 "The inspectors said they didn't know whether the items, which had been monitored by the United Nations, were at the sites during the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The commission, known as UNMOVIC, said it was possible some material was taken by looters and sold as scrap." emphasis mine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 11 Jun 04 - 10:31 PM It is possible that some of that material was taken by tiptoing Ninjas in the night, transported by waterbarge to the Galapago Islands, and used to construct giant guillotines for the extinction of giant tortoises in bizarre satanic rituals using rhubarb sauce and dandelion wine in equal parts. But, ya know, we don't think it is very likely somehow... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 11 Jun 04 - 10:53 PM There ARE folks in the world that would be glad to raise "a mushroom cloud" over us, and even though it would not be easy for them, we should explore the options and be vigilant.....but criminy...NOTHING I have seen leads me to think that Iraq ever came close! Libya was closer! The Iraqi scientists that KNEW agree that all they had was some rudimentry research. We have been monitoring Iraq relentlessly for 10 years, and we still couldn't find any serious weapons. (A few rockets that were 'technically' a bit too powerful, and that 'might' have threatened Israel...if...and if....) I guess people will believe what they want to believe....there are those who still will deny the Holocaust ever happened (it must have been fun faking those B&W movies!) ah, well....maybe I'll start an internet 'news'paper that claims that all Pistaschios imported from Iran have been dusted with anthrax....want to bet I can have a panic within a week? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jun 04 - 03:31 AM I looked at this thread when it first started and ignored it because it was such a hokey story. I see it has continued and Don Firth has posted some excellent material about that "news" source. I am posting a response here that I put on another thread just now; Beardedbruce was asking for an apology (don't hold your breath, brucie). I did some research using the internet site's own links and this is what I found. Beardedbruce, you owe us all an apology for trying to insult our intelligence. You post a link to a mouthpiece for the most conservative membership of the republican party and expect us to accept that as news? The guys who are behind Bush and his obscene attack on various nations around the world? The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree. A little information about World Tribune.com, the place where you found this bit of "news": World Tribune.com Board of Advisors Arnold Beichman, International Security Timothy Brown, Latin America Bill Gertz, U.S. National Security Thomas Henriksen, Military Affairs Assad Homayoun, The Persian Gulf Christopher Holton, U.S. National Security and Economics Herbert London, Future Studies Scott McCollum, Technology Do a smallish search and you find that these guys are all part of the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank at Stanford U. In case it's too much trouble to go there to look for it, bruce, I'll put the mission statement of the group here for you:
The principles of individual, economic, and political freedom; private enterprise; and representative government were fundamental to the vision of the Institution's founder. By collecting knowledge, generating ideas, and disseminating both, the Institution seeks to secure and safeguard peace, improve the human condition, and limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals. Their way of being a "voice of experience against making of war" is a little shakey right now. Their approach seems akin to using dynamite to blow out forest fires, judging from Afghanistan and Iraq. Hoover Institute Executive Committee: Executive Committee W. Kurt Hauser, Chairman Peter B. Bedford, Vice Chairman Martin Anderson Wendy Borcherdt Paul Lewis Davies III William C. Edwards Everett Hauck Heather Higgins Herbert Hoover III Peyton M. Lake Bowen H. McCoy Robert J. Rishwain Richard M. Scaife Tad Taube Thomas J. Tierney David T. Traitel Walter E. Williams And surprise, surprise, take a look at the overview of their fellows and who turns up but Dr. Condoleezza Rice (on Leave), along with the late Ronald Reagan. George Schultz and Margaret Thatcher are on the list, along with Pete Wilson and Newt Gingrich to name a few. Bruce, just because you can find something on the Internet doesn't make it TRUE. One must always evaluate the source. SRS
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: dianavan Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:11 AM Stilly River Sage - That was alot of work. Good on ya! You have to be vigilant about the propaganda and those that spread it. Tells you alot about the credibility of some of the posters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 12 Jun 04 - 09:52 AM I have no idea what he's going on about either, Deckman. He's been following me around the Mudcat saying loopy things about me for more than a year. He's been doing that to one or two other Mudcatters as well. Takes all kinds, I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Deckman Date: 12 Jun 04 - 10:00 AM CaroleC ...It's always nice to have admirers, but sometimes you gotta wonder? Hmmm? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 12 Jun 04 - 12:59 PM I thought the idea was to put Saddams Al-Hussein Missiles on the scrap heap and thats where they found them, so why the fuss? Unless of course he had set up a secret Netherlands based launch site. As for the SA-2, those things are ex-soviet technology from the 1960's, one of them shot down Gary Powers I think. These things are ancient anti-aircraft missiles not the bringers of mass destruction the articles imply. If you look in Janes directories or world armies, you will find them as being in the inventory of many states still as front line weapons. Big deal. Is the US going to go after them as well? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Gareth Date: 12 Jun 04 - 01:40 PM Sorry Deckman. Just to fill you in, that Nutcase CarolC, as you are aware, seems to have a vitiolic crusade against any objectivity in discussing the problems of the middle east. If, as I browse, I come across any inane comments of hers, I remark upon them. And I will continue to do so. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 12 Jun 04 - 01:51 PM See what I mean? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Deckman Date: 12 Jun 04 - 02:08 PM Only too well! Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jun 04 - 03:25 PM Nice work, Maggie! My suggestion for those who run across a story that supports their viewpoint, be it left, right, or center, is to spend a little time checking the veracity of the story before going off half-cocked and rushing to start a new thread. Be assured that someone here will check it out, and the hasty one will wind up eating crow with a slice of humble pie for dessert. Either that, or having to try to defend their position while standing on empty air over a deep canyon, like Wile E. Coyote before he makes the mistake of looking down. I know it's a temptation to rush in with a story that seems to validate your position, but the internet makes things pretty easy to check. If you fail to do so, you could be the one who makes your position look less tenable than if you had just stayed silent. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:11 PM Thanks, Don. I particularly enjoyed coming up with the dynamite/forest fire analogy. Close reading things like that mission statement can give you some interesting stuff to work with (I'm not my father's daughter for nothin'!) SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Deckman Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:12 PM SRS ... You do your Father credit. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:25 PM "...the road to peace, to personal freedom, and to the safeguards of the American system." if I wasn't so busy this weekend, I'd have a go at unpacking the unsaid but scary content of that ambiguously sanctimonious "Mission Statement". I'm afraid their notion of "personal freedom" ain't exactly what mine is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jun 04 - 05:17 PM BillD, you can drive yourself nutz "unpacking" something like that. But it is necessary in today's political environment to know about these various think-thanks, no matter what their political leanings, if for no other reason than they can be useful short-hand when you're referring to particular ideologies. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jun 04 - 11:36 PM geez, I'm going to fire my typist. Think tanks. On a separate thread Beardedbruce has suggested that because I don't answer the arguments IN the article that started this thread instead of deconstructing the publication in which the article appears (thus revealing the bias of the article) that I'm evading his question. The point of deconstructing the mouthpiece--this online "journal"--was to render the article null. To argue the points of the article on the terms of the article is to accept the context as presented by the members of this ultra-conservative think tank. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" says Bruce, "just look at the words in the form of this article." Sorry, but I won't do that. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 13 Jun 04 - 12:18 AM I think "think-thanks" is a charming conceit, even if executed in error. I think thanks at you! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Strick Date: 13 Jun 04 - 01:19 AM I'm confused. Isn't the story CarolC posted from the Guardian similar enough to almost verify the thing from the WorldTribune? Of course the Guardian says they're Al Samoud 2 missle engines, SA-2s modified for surface to surface and that suggests that they were part of the set that the Iraqis were destroying at UN "request"... Al-Samoud - GlobalSecurity.org "According to the British dossier Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction released in September 2002, it was unclear whether chemical and biological warheads had been developed for the al-Samoud/Ababil-100 ballistic missiles but given the Iraqi experience on other missile systems, the British government was judging that Iraq had the technical expertise for doing so. According to that same dossier, the al-Samoud liquid propellant missile has been extensively tested and had been deployed to military units. Intelligence indicated that at least 50 had been produced. Intelligence also indicated that Iraq had worked on extending its range to at least 200km in breach of UN Security Resolution 687. "In February 2003, U.N. inspectors evaluated two versions of the Al Samoud 2 missile using four separate computer models. Both versions were found to exceed the range limit of 150 kilometers set by the U.N. Security Council. The lighter version of the Al Samoud 2 was estimated to have a range of 193 kilometers, while the heavier version would be capable of a 162 km range. Accordingly, it was requested that all Al Samoud 2 missiles and warheads be delivered to the inspectors for destruction." Twelve of these missles were reported found in Iraq last July. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Jun 04 - 02:48 AM Do you think 12 constitutes a weapon arsenal for a nation, or an afterthought? Even as many as 50? In these numbers they are at best a token arsenal. All right. The problems with that article: I quote:
"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax." You could write a paragraph saying these materials can be used to build a rocket to the moon or 10,000 refridgerators to ship to the Sudan. If they're being used to make legitimate pharmaceuticals then they're being put to good use. They can say anything in this paragraph, because this is speculation on the part of Buchanan. There is no statement of fact regarding the items "missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters." Buchanan raises the question but then answers it himself by giving at best a guess.
Okay, what is the problem? Are you afraid the Netherlands are going to suddenly launch reconstituted missles at the U.S. or the U.K.? The Iraqis were told they had to dismantle and destroy the weapons and they did. The fact that they didn't let the U.N. watch over their shoulders was a little power-grab on the part of the Iraqis. It is called a "Power Struggle" and in this case, the U.N. nose appears to be out of joint (actually, it's mostly the U.S. nose out of joint).
As I said. They didn't know the after 1991 that the Iraqis would actually choose to destroy the stuff and now they can't prove it except to find that there is nothing to find. There is little evidence that any of it is left in the country, and what is important is that this stuff is no longer in Iraq and they seem to have fulfilled the obligation even if they didn't stick to the letter of the law in letting outsiders see what they were doing. The link above is to old news. I haven't heard any new news regarding finding Iraqi missles or "weapons of mass destruction." SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jun 04 - 06:11 AM I bet you don't like this source, either. "Even as many as 50? In these numbers they are at best a token arsenal." So, pick the 50 cities you think are expendable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:41 AM says right at the top, bruce, that this was dated Sept, 2002...lots of the guesses and info in the article were simply inaccurate, and much of the rest has changed. No one doubts Saddam was a mean fellow who would have done naughty things if he could, but you dont 'prove' much more than that with the article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 13 Jun 04 - 12:04 PM Are we now going to rehash the prolix propaganda battles of 2002? Oh come now. The paper referred to as I recall was later found to have been composed by an undergraduate college student, primarily. Or isn't that the same one? In any case rhetoric is not fact. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jun 04 - 01:18 PM Wile E. Coyote often clawed madly at the empty air, trying desperately to find something to grab onto as he hurtled toward the floor of the canyon. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Donuel Date: 13 Jun 04 - 03:52 PM Failing to confirm Saddam's Program of WMD, he did at least have a weapons program, of which the US did not even secure the stockpiles of RPG's it did find after the invasion. One thing is certain. He did have a weekly TV program in Iraq. But it is all besides the point isn't it. Perhaps Bush did repeat lies he was scripted to tell. Perhaps God did not tell him to invade Iraq. Perhaps the nuclear threat really came from Pakistan selling nukes to Iran and North Korea. Iraq seemed like a big oil rich soft target after 20 years of war and 12 years of sanctions. It seemed like we could invade with tax payer money, loot Husseins billions, siphon off some oil, hire international corporations with American CEO's to clean up the place and make a few more billions...Gosh the war supposed to pay for itself! Or at least make those in Halliburton and the Carlye Group filthier rich. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 13 Jun 04 - 05:26 PM lol, Don! and it makes little difference how many times that coyote *splats' on the floor of the canyon...he is back at the eternal game of chasing the impossible again. I suppose tenacity IS sort of admirable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Strick Date: 13 Jun 04 - 06:46 PM "Do you think 12 constitutes a weapon arsenal for a nation, or an afterthought? Even as many as 50? In these numbers they are at best a token arsenal." So you've forgotten how close Iraq came putting the Middle East in flames with not quite that many SCUDS? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jun 04 - 07:10 PM Refresh my memory, Strick. How close did Iraq come to putting th Middle East in flames with however many SCUDS? And when exactly did this happen? Oh, I remember the first Gulf War. That was Hussein trying to grab Kuwait because he thought it belonged to Iraq anyway, and he was under the impression (for some strange reason) that the U. S. and the rest of the world would just look the other way. He didn't start lobbing SCUDs at people (and a SCUD, unless carrying a nuclear warhead, which I'm not sure they can do, is not a "Weapon of Mass Distruction," it's just another kind of bomb) until everybody started screaming and throwing things at him. I presume that's not what you're talking about. Just what are you talking about? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:27 PM Don: let me rewrite some of your last statement... WWII? That was Hitler trying to grab Europe because he thought it belonged to Germany anyway, and he was under the impression (for some strange reason) that the U. S. and the rest of the world would just look the other way. He didn't start lobbing V2s at people... Do you understand my point? Or is it too subtle? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:30 PM Amos: "The paper referred to as I recall was later found to have been composed by an undergraduate college student, primarily. Or isn't that the same one?" and where is your supporting evidence for this? Or is this another statement to be taken entirely on faith, since we know you have no agenda or point of view on the subject? " In any case rhetoric is not fact. " TRUE So talk about the facts, not give us rhetoric. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:39 PM BillD: "says right at the top, bruce, that this was dated Sept, 2002...lots of the guesses and info in the article were simply inaccurate, and much of the rest has changed." As for the accuracy, I do not know if the information that those opposed to the war are giving is any more accurate- they do not seem to be able to understand that a WMD is a WMD is a WMD. AND prohibited to Iraq by the UN. So, the idea that he had the weapons in Sept 2002, and the intent, after how many years of UN inspections and prohibitions, and did not account for them between then and the recommencement of hostilities does not mean anything? "Wile E. Coyote often clawed madly at the empty air, trying desperately to find something to grab onto as he hurtled toward the floor of the canyon." "and it makes little difference how many times that coyote *splats' on the floor of the canyon...he is back at the eternal game of chasing the impossible again. I suppose tenacity IS sort of admirable. " I think that this applies very well to the people saying that Iraq had no WMD. Maybe you coyotes need to stop denying the obvious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:44 PM Beardedbruce, you are a piece of work. Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:47 PM Don: "and a SCUD, unless carrying a nuclear warhead, which I'm not sure they can do, is not a "Weapon of Mass Distruction,"" Or a chemical one, as they did, or a biological one... And yes, they CAN carry a nuclear warhead. There are man-portable backpack nukes. So, the ones he sent at Israel WERE WMD, by the definition the US has used since the end of WWII. Maybe you need to look at the rest of your "facts", since you are wrong about this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:02 AM SRDS: " Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. " I HAVE noticed that this is your method of discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:34 AM Bruce: I am not about to go delving in to the records from 2002 because you want to repeat the tactic of disingenuous disinformation which justified the nation going into the war in the first place. If you cannot remember the history of these claims, go back and do your own homework. Don't go resurrecting bogus news stories and starting debates long since closed over again. The claims about WMD were false and intentionally exaggerated to provide a casus belli in the absence of any other acceptable one. Get used to it. Your furless leader has feet of clay, and brains to match. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:43 AM from my "bogus" news story- which is the text of a report of the British Government, in case you did not bother to even look at something you might disagree with: "FOREWORD BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE TONY BLAIR MP The document published today is based, in large part, on the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The JIC is at the heart of the British intelligence machinery. It is chaired by the Cabinet Office and made up of the heads of the UK's three Intelligence and Security Agencies, the Chief of Defence Intelligence, and senior officials from key government departments. For over 60 years the JIC has provided regular assessments to successive Prime Ministers and senior colleagues on a wide range of foreign policy and international security issues. Its work, like the material it analyses, is largely secret. It is unprecedented for the Government to publish this kind of document. But in light of the debate about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), I wanted to share with the British public the reasons why I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest. In recent months, I have been increasingly alarmed by the evidence from inside Iraq that despite sanctions, despite the damage done to his capability in the past, despite the UN Security Council Resolutions expressly outlawing it, and despite his denials, Saddam Hussein is continuing to develop WMD, and with them the ability to inflict real damage upon the region, and the stability of the world. Gathering intelligence inside Iraq is not easy. Saddam's is one of the most secretive and dictatorial regimes in the world. So I believe people will understand why the Agencies cannot be specific about the sources, which have formed the judgements in this document, and why we cannot publish everything we know. We cannot, of course, publish the detailed raw intelligence. I and other Ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority. I also want to pay tribute to our Intelligence and Security Services for the often extraordinary work that they do. What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme. I also believe that, as stated in the document, Saddam will now do his utmost to try to conceal his weapons from UN inspectors. The picture presented to me by the JIC in recent months has become more not less worrying. It is clear that, despite sanctions, the policy of containment has not worked sufficiently well to prevent Saddam from developing these weapons. " ****************** You state that "The claims about WMD were false and intentionally exaggerated to provide a casus belli in the absence of any other acceptable one. " I now state that the claims you make about the causes of the attack on Iraq are false and intentionally misleading. MY statement has been shown by the facts as know at the time, and determined since then. Your statement has been repeated, but never shown toi have any basis in fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:53 AM further, from the same report: At the end of the Gulf War the international community was determined that Iraq's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles should be dismantled. The method chosen to achieve this was the establishment of UNSCOM to carry out intrusive inspections within Iraq and to eliminate its chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with a range of over 150km. The IAEA was charged with the abolition of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. Between 1991 and 1998 UNSCOM succeeded in identifying and destroying very large quantities of chemical weapons and ballistic missiles as well as associated production facilities. The IAEA also destroyed the infrastructure for Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and removed key nuclear materials. This was achieved despite a continuous and sophisticated programme of harassment, obstruction, deception and denial (see Part 2). Because of this UNSCOM concluded by 1998 that it was unable to fulfil its mandate. The inspectors were withdrawn in December 1998. 13. Based on the UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council in January 1999 and earlier UNSCOM reports, we assess that when the UN inspectors left Iraq they were unable to account for: -- up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent; -- up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, including approximately 300 tonnes which, in the Iraqi chemical warfare programme, were unique to the production of VX; -- growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured); -- over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents. 14. The departure of UNSCOM meant that the international community was unable to establish the truth behind these large discrepancies and greatly diminished its ability to monitor and assess Iraq's continuing attempts to reconstitute its programmes. ***************** There is also a discussion of the SCUDs with a range of 1200 km, and the ongoing development of ones of 1200-1500 km range. Have you decided that those cities within 1500KM of any part of Iraq were expendable? If you and those who agree with you decide that something is settled, without even looking at the facts, or being aware of what a WMD is, that does not mean that the rest of us have to accept your "bogus" statements. I am willing to listen to a reaonable arguement, based on facts- UNLIKE some of you. I have not been offered that- just personal insult and broad generalizations without backing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:00 AM "The claims about WMD were false and intentionally exaggerated to provide a casus belli in the absence of any other acceptable one." WE DID NOT NEED a casus belli, under present international law. Saddam HAD violated the terms of the ceasefire, and the US was authorized AND REQUIRED to act under the 1991 ( and later) UN resolutions. WHAT PART OF THIS do you not understand? I cannot believe that you are that stupid- this must be an intentional tactic to ignore what you don't want to believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:32 AM You really do need to have the last word on this thread, beardedbruce, but I thought I'd post this remark so anyone in the future who is nuts enough to read this entire thing will know that in the face of such mind-boggling idiocy, I decided to stop posting before you give yourself a stroke. You just don't have it in you to try this critical thinking stuff, so give it up. Now say something else nasty and maybe the thread will drop off the bottom of the page. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:43 AM SRS, I have an aversion to your repeating your lies and opinions as fact, and refuseng to defend what you say. "You just don't have it in you to try this critical thinking stuff, so give it up" I am sorry that, rather than defend your warped worldview, you insist on attacking those who see something other than what you believe should be. It is a pity that you do not seem to believe in free speech, or even simple politeness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 14 Jun 04 - 02:55 AM "Saddam HAD violated the terms of the ceasefire, and the US was authorized AND REQUIRED to act under the 1991 ( and later) UN resolutions." As I recall, the UN didn't REQUIRE us to go to war. But in spite of all these peripheral issues, the bottom line is this was -- is -- not a just war. Melinda Henneberger of Newsweek says it better than I could, so I'll quote her: ----------- ...A just war must also confront a danger that is beyond question. Even when Dick Cheney said we knew exactly where the WMDs were, even when Tony Blair said Iraq could deploy them within 45 minutes, even when Colin Powell said the evidence was good enough for him, the danger was never beyond question. It is true that, as Bush said in his address on Monday evening, Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror. This was not the case, however, when we went in. A just war must be a last resort. Which was not the case in Iraq, either. Remember the United Nations weapons inspectors who wanted just a few more weeks to do their work? Yet incredibly, on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, California Republican Duncan Hunter, suggested to Tim Russert that it was the U.N. inspectors who pushed us into Iraq. "We went to war … not on the statements of Mr. [Ahmad] Chalabi but on Hans Blix," head of the U.N. inspectors, "who talked about the 8,500 liters of anthrax that Saddam Hussein put together … all of which would fit, Tim, in one pickup truck with good sideboards." Here is what Blix actually said this of the possibility that there were chemical and biological weapons in Iraq when the war began: "One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, this possibility is also not excluded." A just war also must be proportional, so that the harm inflicted does not outweigh the good achieved. Surely one of the saddest quotes I have read in recent weeks came from an American military reservist who works in a prison in civilian life and was allegedly involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib: "The Christian in me says it's wrong," he purportedly told the soldier who reported the abuses. "But the corrections officer in me says, "' love to see a grown man piss himself'." I'd really like to think that none of us is enjoying any part of this—including, among those who opposed the war, any sense that recent events are some kind of vindication, if there is any such thing, which I also tend to doubt. But aren't we all a little bit like that man, who shocks us not only with his cruelty but with his honesty? In a democracy, we are all to some extent morally complicit in the acts of our government and those who represent it. --------- clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Teribus Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:12 AM Just as well that most of the "fellow travellers" posting here never have any responsibility for the security of their nations. With their views as to what constitutes a threat, or more importantly a potential threat in being, the nations, whose security, they might be responsible for would be rendered impotent and vulnerable within a remarkably short time. Also just for the record, the declared reason for the US regarding Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, as being a threat was not based solely on it being perceived as a direct threat to the US, but to the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America and to interestes regarded as being vital to the United States of America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:21 AM "Saddam HAD violated the terms of the ceasefire, and the US was authorized AND REQUIRED to act under the 1991 ( and later) UN resolutions." "As I recall, the UN didn't REQUIRE us to go to war." I did say "act". The topic of a just war is certainly one that should be discussed. Was WWI a just war? The US entered it on the basis of a torpedo attack on one ship- hardly a danger beyond question, or a last resort. Was WWII? The US had been attacked by the Japanese- but we declared war on Germany as well. What danger did they present at that time to the US? "Remember the United Nations weapons inspectors who wanted just a few more weeks to do their work?" Yes, I do. They had stated that they could not get the REQUIRED cooperation from Iraq that was needed to insure the detection, location, and removal of prohibited weapons. Korea? A UN mandated war, still unresolved over 50 years later. Basically, wars are caused far more by treaty obligations than by "just" causes. How many of the countries in Europe wanted to go to war over the asassination of a single Grand Duke? But each had treaties, that required them to act. We have treaties now that may involve us in many conflicts- should we repudiate them all? But, the original invasion of Kuwait was the cause- that had NEVER been "ended" by treaty, there was only a ceasefire. If one wishes to discuss other actions we could have taken, that might be useful- but the US was within the bounds of international law and UN resolutions when it resumed combat operations. All the comments here, and in the press about the "illegal" war are just so much BS. Specific actions, by both sides, during this conflict may be illegal under the rules of war- but the war itself is legal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:29 AM Teribus, are you calling me a "fellow traveller?" Would that put me in the same category as Ronald Reagan, who did not attack the USSR in spite of it "being perceived as a direct threat to the US, but to the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America and to interests regarded as being vital to the United States of America"? clint (anxiously waiting) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:36 AM bb You said "act" indeed, but our act was to go to war which I believe was unjust. And I didn't say it was illegal; I said it was unjust. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:48 AM clint: You are certainly entitled to believe it is unjust. Some may disagree, but that IS one opinion. But from what one knew in 1941, was the US decision to go to war against Germany a "just" war? I am sorry if I implied that you had called it illegal- I was reacting to other posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Teribus Date: 14 Jun 04 - 04:02 AM Clint - ever heard of a certain period of the last century known as the "Cold War"? During that period the US and the USSR squared up to each other on a number of occasions. In other instances, during that period, they did fight one another by proxy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 14 Jun 04 - 04:52 AM Teribus. Yes. I remember the Cuba missile scare because I was in the reserves then & thought I'd have to go. I remember the Suez Canal flap because I was in the First Infantry Division then, and we were alerted, standing by to go. As I recall, we didn't go to war either time. And as I recall, GWB didn't attack Iraq by proxy. And to get to my point, as I recall, "fellow traveller" in those days -- when the term was first coined --meant "pro-Communist." What did you mean by it this time? "Pro Terrorist?" And were you applying it to me? If not, to whom? I believe, sir, you are confusing dissent with disloyalty. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 04 - 04:57 AM Bruce - the report you linked to is well known in Britain as "The Dodgy Dossier" and caused the Prime Minister severe embarassment when details of it came out. He tried to defend it, but ended up with egg on his face. Obviously you didn't follow the Hutton Inquiry into the Death of David Kelly - which while it limited its scope so that it didn't drw conclusions about the veracity of intelligence overall, plenty of evidence relating to this did come out at the enquiry. Search the British press for terms like "Dodgy Dossier", "Hutton Report" and "45 minute claim" and you might find out a bit more about what you are talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:24 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:26 AM I was showing what the governments had to base their decisions upon. IT DOES NOT MATTER if the report is flawed- it is what they knew at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20. The original topic of this thread was the WMDs which are being found TODAY. You are right in that I have not seen what of this report has been false. I would expect that, when the WMDs were not found ( or "acceptable" ones were not found) that all the governments involved would backpedal, and try to indicate they were given faulty inteligence. This does not mean that the weapons are not there, or are not being found- it is political spin to make themselves look better. WHat exactly was proven to be false in this report? The fact that Iraq had used WMD? The fact that Iraq had long-range missiles? The fact that large amounts of prohibited materials were unaccounted for after 12 years of UN inspections? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:28 AM bb : We didn't have much choice; Germany declared war on the US on December 11, followed by Italy, and we felt it prudent to declare war in return. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:34 AM Having no choice does not make it "just" Iraq declared war on Kuwait, who had treaties with the US. Thus, we had no choice there. Are you now saying that this is a just war? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:46 AM The whole point about intelligence is that you dont just believe everything that you come across. You have to consider the source and weigh up the veracity. Make up all sorts of scenarios and there will probably be some intelligence to back it up - doesnt make it true... The problem comes when you have governments asking for a report to support their case for war. In that case the people making the report will be under some considerable pressure (not all of it subtle) to select intelligence that supports the case and downplay that which undermines it. This changes the priorities regarding the veracity of the sources. there is also pressure to word it more strongly than they would if they were asked for an unbiased intelligence assessment of the situation. As to the legality of the war - this is obviously still in doubt amongst many top lawyers in the field: Iraq war illegal, says FO adviser who quit (Guardian) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:59 AM from the article: "Ms Wilmshurst is set to appear as a witness for 14 Greenpeace activists who have been charged with aggravated trespass after chaining themselves to army tanks at the Marchwood military port near Southampton in the run-up to war. In a previous statement, she revealed why she resigned in the run-up to war. "I did not agree that the use of force against Iraq was lawful, and in all the circumstances I did not want to continue as a legal adviser," she said." ********************* Obviously, by the standards that SRS has established, I do not need to read this or pay any attention, since it comes from an obviously partisan source. In actual fact, one has to remember that for any lawyer, ther is always and equal and opposite lawyer. I would agree there is debate on this: That does not make it illegal. If there was a real case for that, where are the actions brought under international law? I have not seen any that have stated a judgement about this being an illegal war- just a lot of statements that some individuals feel that it is. Well, I feel that I should win the lottery: That does not mean it will be so. And what specifically in the report has been proven false? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:30 AM Bearded Bruce - Maybe you should try informing yourself instead of relying on others to spoon feed you the information. Your breathtaking ignorance on the subject of this dossier (it was anything but low profile) shows that you really should take more of an interest in finding out about a subject before you rant on about it. Please do some research on the dossier yourself. Find out what Jack Straw said about it later, what the 45 minute claim refers to and the controversy surrounding it, where much of the material for it came from (whether it was credited) and when that part was written. It all should be easy to find and you may come out a little better informed to argue on the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Teribus Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:33 AM Clint - "fellow traveller" = those of a like mind. My useage of the description is not linked to anything in history. GUEST 14 Jun 04 - 04:57 AM Obviously you didn't read the findings of the Hutton Inquiry into the Death of David Kelly - or the findings of the House of Commons select committee. Both of which came to the conclusion that no political pressure was brought to bear on those tasked with the interpretation and evaluation of the intelligence information available at the time. GUEST 14 Jun 04 - 05:46 AM "The whole point about intelligence is that you don't just believe everything that you come across." Very true - neither do you discount anything you come across without compelling reason. "You have to consider the source and weigh up the veracity. Make up all sorts of scenarios and there will probably be some intelligence to back it up - doesnt make it true..." Basic failure in understanding here. Intelligence information from as many sources as possible is subject to evaluation. Sources are weighted in terms of past performance, reliability and verification through comparison to other sources. While many scenarios are considered, only two are ever presented, best case and worst case. It is then a political decision on which is taken onboard in order to formulate the policy of the Government of the day. "The problem comes when you have governments asking for a report to support their case for war. In that case the people making the report will be under some considerable pressure (not all of it subtle) to select intelligence that supports the case and downplay that which undermines it." In the case of the recent invasion of Iraq that did not happen - lots would like to think it did - but that was not the findings of two inquiries, and I dare say that will be the findings of the third as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:35 AM Also "Unfortunately, there is no international tribunal that can examine and prosecute those guilty of waging an illegal war. " according to the center for constitutional affairs. I am aware of court cases where the evidence for the illegality of was has been a focus for the defence, but has often been ruled inadmissable in court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:41 AM "center for constitutional affairs." And what are the goals and membership of this center? I am aware of court cases where the evidence for the illegality of was has been a focus for the defence, but has often been ruled inadmissable in court. and therefore not proven. You admit that the courts do not even consider the "evidence " to be admissable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:42 AM Teribus, obviously you didn't see the looks of incredulity on the faces of practically everyone who heard the same evidence as Hutton when he published his findings... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:54 AM Guest, Obviously you did not see the tears of mourning on the faces of the Iraqis after the mass graves were found. Present reports ( as per US News&World Report) are 5 to 7 million killed by Saddam. But so what? The people who had decided that the war was a bad idea had looks of incredulity. That is what we should be focusing on. "Maybe you should try informing yourself instead of relying on others to spoon feed you the information." I was asking you to present "your" side of the story. What I read in the report matches the information of previous reports. I know that Saddam had WMD- and long range missiles. If he had destroyed them, why not just let the inspectors show that, rather than blocking them for 12 years? Again, look at this from a reasonable standpoint: If it is unknown, and I assume he has them and plan accordingly, perhaps tens of thousands will die if I am wrong. If YOU assume he does not, and plan based on that, tens of millions will die if you are wrong. I did not see enough doubt in the information to risk a thousand-fold increase in the number of deaths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Teribus Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:58 AM By the bye, Clint, you mentioned that you were in the First Infantry in 1956 and in the Reserves in 1962. What training were you given in the storage, handling and arming of chemical or biological munitions. Can you remember what the colour codings were for US/NATO Chemical/Biological weapons? Also to Guest - When I first read the 45-minute claim - I knew exactly what they were referring to - the time it would take to arm a weapon, pure and simple. That weapon could be a missile warhead, bomb, artillery rocket, artillery shell or mortar shell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:03 AM Isn't it funny that the prosecution of Katharine Gun (if you dont know who she is and what she did Brucie, then find out before you reply....) was dropped when the defence announced that the illegality of the war would be part of the defence. This would have forced the government to publish in full the advice given by the attourney general about the legality of war (which up until now has been kept secret). There are strong suspicions with some evidence that he changed his advice in the run up to war under pressure from Tony Blair - because Admiral Sir Michael Boyce demanded such assurances before he would lead the country into war. Bruce I admit that know nothing of the cener for constitutional affairs, however I didn't know what court might have jurisdiction over illegal wars and that was the only quote I could find referring to it. Are you aware of any court that would have jurisdiction? The nearest would be the International Criminal Court, but that could only be concerned with the conduct during the war, not the fighting of the war itself, and it would only have jurisdiction over the UK, not the US as they refused to sign up to it (and bullied other countries into agreeing not to hand over their soldiers to it if I remember correctly). Obviously the US was a bit more realistic about their future conduct than the UK was when it signed up to the treaty... There will always be differences of opinion in law, but when the vast majority of international lawyers believe it to be illegal, and very few legal, and one of the ones who said it was legal was the one was asked to give advice to the government and probably changed his advice under pressure.... Starts to look a little fishy... An article that discusses the attorney generals position |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:20 AM Teribus - whether you knew what the 45 minute claim referred to is irrelevant, because didn't Blair and Hoon claim they didn't and when the press published stories based on what turned out to be false premises, nobody in the government or security forces saw fit to correct the notion. Surely that couldn't be because it was deliberately ambiguously worded so that the press would blow it up and scare people into supporting the war? Bruce, mass graves have nothing to do with it. The legal case for going to war was not based on Saddams atrocities. Atrocities like that occur around the world and we sit and do nothing about them. Why suddenly decide that these atrocities should lead to war in Iraq, but not in Burma, China, Indonesia, Zimbabwe and many other countries. Why do our countries in some cases even support the very regimes that commit these appalling crimes. Because it was only relevant to the governments when they realised they could use it to gain some extra support for the war. If they were actually reall going to war to protect people from further appalling atrocities why there and then? Why not attack Iraq immediately after the atrocities were discovered (many years ago)? Doesn't make any sense to me. Also, if something is unknown, you have a duty to assess the liklihood of each scenario, if either one is going to lead to death. Not just assume one is true because it would lead to more loss of life if true. You might have been asking for my point of view, but in your arguments, you displayed a breathtaking ignorance of issues of major importance. Thats why I told you to go and do some research. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:20 AM "There will always be differences of opinion in law, but when the vast majority of international lawyers believe it to be illegal, and very few legal," And here I thought it was the JUDGES that made rulings of law. Silly me. The vast majority of people in Asia feel that Taiwan is a part of mainland China- Does this mean that the US should throw away our treaty obligations to support Taiwan as an independent state? Perhaps we should look to the UN- You know, the ones who put Sudan on the Human Rights commission? I do not claim to have the answers to all the questions- Hell, I don't even know all the questions. But I know people who have had missiles with chemical warheads, WMD by the US definition, attacking them and their families. If there is a chance to prevent this from happening again, I do not think we would be morally right to sit back and allow it. I am sorry if that upsets some of you: Perhaps if it hits closer to home for you, you might think more about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Teribus Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:31 AM GUEST 14 Jun 04 - 06:42 AM Sorry Guest, on any subject, I will form my own opinion on the facts as they are available, as they are presented and as they stand up to full investigation. My opinion will not be affected by the looks of incredulity on the faces of anyone. Lots of people in the UK and elsewhere, thought that the Hutton Inquiry, in particular, would vindicate the stand taken by Gilligan and the BBC - it resoundingly did not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:33 AM Bruce if you really are coming from a humanitarian perspective then thats great, but maybe you ought to look a little deeper in the issues and ask a few questions. For example, why Iraq? Why then? Why not some other country at some other time? If you can find me answers to them then I will be more inclines to listen to your point of view. Or are you of the opinion that the real reasons and timing for Iraq being attacked are irrelevant to you as long as one of the tyrants is gone - you don't mind what the ulterior motives were as long as one of the bastards is taken out of action? I really want to know, I find it helpful to know what premises a person is arguing from when I discuss issues with them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:38 AM "The legal case for going to war " As I have stated, we were already AT war. The 1991 invasion of Kuwait ended with a ceasefire: When the terms of that ceasefire were violated, the state of war remained in place. All the posturing and resolutions in the UN were for political, not legal reasons. "Also, if something is unknown, you have a duty to assess the liklihood of each scenario, if either one is going to lead to death. Not just assume one is true because it would lead to more loss of life if true." I did not see enough doubt in the information to risk a thousand-fold increase in the number of deaths. I did not assume it was true- just more likely given the information available. "You might have been asking for my point of view, but in your arguments, you displayed a breathtaking ignorance of issues of major importance. Thats why I told you to go and do some research. " The research I have done indicates that the best estimates were that Saddam did have WMD. I was giving you the chance to present other information that I did not find. Since the "SRS information acceptability " rules state that any information that comes from a source that disagrees with one's opinions need not be looked at, I may just have missed something. I have seen nothing presented to indicate that. I have stated that the US SHOULD have gone into Iraq, and other places such as Rwanda and Sudan. But those people who now bemoan the loss of life in Iraq are the same ones ( with the exception of CarolC) that don't want the US to be the world's policeman, and prevent such atrocities. But Iraq and N. Korea are the only ones with "active" wars ( and the ceasefire in Korea has not been broken) We do not have the right under present law to invade a country without the UN resoluins ( that we had in Iraq) unless they attack us , or a country we have treaty commitments with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:42 AM crossposted- did my last paragraph help any? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:54 AM But what if the information you were provided with was skewed by a government who wanted to go to war anyway for other reasons. And what if they skewed the information to get the support of you and others like you? Would that change your opinion at all? There seems little doubt that the impression you were given was wrong - since you seem to have the impression that he had working nuclear capability (capable of killing millions imminently). But why were you so convinced? Who convinced you? What info specifically were you told about that convinced you that it was so likely that it was worth killing around 10,000 innocent people to protect the millions you believed were imminently going to die if nothing was done? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 04 - 07:58 AM I take it from you crosspost that you do believe that the ulterior motives of the governments dont matter as long as one bastard is taken out? Am I right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Jun 04 - 10:36 AM Obviously, by the standards that SRS has established, I do not need to read this or pay any attention, since it comes from an obviously partisan source. No, beardedbruce, I did not say that. I have pointed out many times that you must evaluate the source. If you investigate and find it is partisan but it is accurate, that is one thing. If it is partisan and there purely for misinformation (meant for non-discriminating folks like you to find and jump on), that is something else entirely. FYI: There was a long and very detailed article on the suicide of David Kelly in The New Yorker a few months back. Okay. Back to the nastiness. Guest is doing a good job of revealing your shortcomings, Bb. Go, Guest! SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 14 Jun 04 - 12:22 PM beardedbruce, I terminate any further discussion with those take what I say and restate it to favor their own viewpoint, and then try to refute what I say on that basis. That is an illogical and irrational mode of debate, and the refuge of those whose own argument lacks foundation. Nor will I discuss things with someone who resorts to abuse when someone states something with which they disagree. I've splintered lances with a few who act that way, but I no longer play that game. Besides, I was asking Strick, not you, and Strick chose not to answer. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:07 PM I'm with Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: DougR Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:36 PM Boy, the poster of this thread really knows how to get you lefties wound up. Even a suggestion that WMDs might have existed when we invaded Iraq and set the Iraqi people free causes great anguish and political constipation among the neo-lefties. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:48 PM The research I have done indicates that the best estimates were that Saddam did have WMD Unfortunately, those were not the best estimates, but the most flawed ones. They relied on underhanded Iranian agents and accepted their information without verification; they relied on undergraduate analytical skills and ignored assessments presented by professionals in UNMOVIC and others. Time and time again the facts were shoved to one side, distorted, mis-evaluated, altered or twisted ion order to provide a casus belli. Those who treat war as a board game, without compassion for their own or the other side's human pieces, will argue that the technical interpretation of Hussein's position was sufficient to justify military enforcement. The UN did not appear to support this interpretation. The US decided (Bush decide,m anyway) that he could act without consensus. He unilaterally unleashed the violence and destruction of war for personal reasons -- meaning, to support his friends and family. He did not have a viable diplomatic excuse for war. He had not been attacked, nor was he under threat. His disregard for human life in unleashing the massive forces of the US Armed Forces is equaled only by his dense inability to provide any adequate explanation for doing so. As far as I am concerned it was premeditated assault with a blunt instrument, intentionally resulting in the death of individual human beings. Absent legal process for the declaration of war and moral grounds for the prosecution of war, that spells murder. As a result of his wooden-headed refusal to take counsel with anyone who had a brain, children have died in the sand. Mothers have been shot down by boys young enough to be their children. Fathers have been erased from their families. Poof, bang, zap. Good show, George. And you have the unmitigated gall, or inconceivable density, to pretend that this is humanly justifiable? Ptui. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:51 PM ". . . you lefties . . ." Real easy for some folks to catagorize other folks and dismiss what they say on that basis. Makes thinking unnecessary. (I woke up cranky this morning) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Bill D Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:20 PM "...the best estimates were that Saddam did have WMD" oh, he had WMMMD! that's Weapons of Moderate, Medium and/or Minor Destruction. Back 10 years or so, he had more,(especially gas) and no doubt craved more--but NO ONE had serious evidence that he had anything 1½ years ago worth staring THIS mess over. Those who wanted an excuse to get rid of him all talked in circles, believing any flawed bit of gossip and ambiguous reports, slowly convincing and supporting each other until their circular reasoning let them justify themselves in their own minds! Sorry, but the ability to lie to yourself convincingly does not constitute justification for spending mulit-billions and thousand of lives and running your country's reputation into the dirt...If all he had done was authorize commando teams to 'get' Saddam, I might have even had grudging respect for the goal. ...so, what's next? N. Korea? Kim Jung Il seems to REALLY have some big toys, and is actually making threats....oh...right...Kim has no oil. What, me? Cynical? naaawwwww... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:24 PM Maybe it -is- a bogus story - I don't know any more than the rest of you - but a lot of people also thought the idea that the world was round was pretty bogus too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:14 PM bruce: "Having no choice does not make it "just" " Declaring war in self-defense makes it just. I think everyone is entitled to defend themselves. "Iraq declared war on Kuwait, who had treaties with the US. Thus, we had no choice there. Are you now saying that this is a just war? I'm saying it was ok to declare war on Germany in 1941.Iraq declaring war on Kuwait is different from Iraq declaring war on the US, and a whole lot different from Germany declaring war on the US. Even GWB never said "They attacked Kuwait; therefore we are forced to invade." I cannot believe anyone would support this US war in Iraq just because of the invasion of Kuwait. I'm not talking law; I don't know if the war is legal or not. I'm talking ethics or maybe morality. I believe the war is wrong, and I've been trying to say why in these many posts. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Nerd Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:20 PM The best part of Casual Observer's orignal document is that it's such a farcically bad attempt at fraud that even Fox news won't touch it. Just look at it. It makes the claim that Saddam Hussein was shipping weapons out of Iraq only in the headline and lead. After that, no supporting evidence for this claim is given. All the editorializing--that part written with no attribution to a writer--talks about WMDs and the like. All the parts that are attributed to experts of any kind (the evidence) are clearly speaking about scrap metal and dual-use items like fermenters, which every pharmaceutical lab has. The existence of scrap metal in other countries is actually evidence that Saddam Hussein DID dismantle his WMD facilities. What the UN team was obviously talking about in its quotes was the danger that the materials of Iraq's KNOWN WMDs and dual-use items that WERE inspected by the UN and dismantled according to UN and US demands, would end up being reassembled elsewhere. This would be bad, but you can't really blame Iraq. In fact, as some here have suggested, this material getting all over the world is quite probably a direct result of the war. Remember, thinking people on the left do not deny that Saddam Hussein once had WMDs. The question is when he had what. Did he have any significant WMDs at the time we invaded? Scrap metal in Holland can't tell us that. There is significant sleight of hand going on in the editorial material, too. For example, the words WMD are used to describe, for example, "ballistic missile sites." What does this mean? Silos? Launch sites? Factories? None of these are WMDs. Ballistic Missiles themselves are not WMDs unless fitted with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads. Once again, it starts with claims about WMDs but quickly equivocates toward WMD programs and sites and materials and delivery methods. The bottom line is: No nuclear weapons were found. No biological weapons were found. No chemical weapons were found. In other words, no WMDs were found in Iraq, and none were found to have been exported. (By the way, this story's nonsensical thesis is that Saddam Hussein exported WMDs out of Iraq Before, During and After the war. A war which is still going on. While Saddam sits in a prison cell. What the hell does this even mean?) Here are just the quotes: "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," "It's being exported. It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal. The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks." "It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for. You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax." "The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere. We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors." Notice that EVERY quote but the first is about scrap metal from dismantled missiles and items like fermenters, found in other countries. The first quote makes it clear that these are NOT WMDs, because there ARE checks at Iraq's borders for explosive or radioactive materials. NO quote even SUGGESTS that a bona fide Iraqi WMD was found in Iraq or anywhere else. The one item that they are specific about was scrap from a missile "replete with UN tags." So how can you claim this was a WMD that Hussein concealed from inspectors? Then Beardedbruce pulls out the "dodgy dossier," in which the UK's intelligence services quoted a college student's research as though it were by their own agents, causing a scandal which may yet help to bring down the Blair government. Bruce cites the dossier as if it is the gospel truth. When it's pointed out that it's not the truth? "It doesn't mater if it was the truth! It's what the UK government believed at the time!" Hey, guys, in 1800 the British government believed that Irish people were inferior; that Jews were inferior; that all Catholics were traitors unless they took loyalty oaths, etc. etc. Why? Because they wanted to believe that ideologically. The point? It DOES matter if it's true! The dossier is based on terrible undergraduate level research, and its claims, like the infamous claims about uranium from Niger, were already known to be false by many in the UK intelligence community. Hence the widely publicized scandal. In the end, this whole thread is pretty ridiculous, and people on right AND left are just too wound up. Hey folks, we aren't going to all agree! Let's not get nasty about it! And let's also not dredge up bargain-basement "evidence" for our claims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,clint Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:33 PM Teribus : "By the bye, Clint, you mentioned that you were in the First Infantry in 1956 and in the Reserves in 1962." I brought that up because you asked (rather condescendingly, I thought) "- ever heard of a certain period of the last century known as the 'Cold War'?"and you said "US and the USSR squared up to each other on a number of occasions." I thought it would lend more weight to my words when I told you that indeed I do know all that; I was around then. "What training were you given in the storage, handling and arming of chemical or biological munitions. Can you remember what the colour codings were for US/NATO Chemical/Biological weapons?" None. I was a radio operator in charge of a three-man communications group for a combat engineer company, and I don't remember a whole lot of technical details about that - that was nearly a half-century ago, and we were still using WWII commo equipment, like the notorious "Angry Nine" radio. Now spring your trap. clint --that was very good, Nerd |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 15 Jun 04 - 10:42 AM No trap Clint, my reference to the "Cold War" was in response to something you said to the effect that President Reagan had the same justification to attack the USSR as your current President had for attacking Iraq. My question relating to chemical/biological weapons was asked out of interest. Quite a number of people posting to Iraq related forums are firmly of the belief that the US supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical/biological weapons during the Iran/Iraq War. I have asked ex-service members here the same question I asked you regarding US/NATO chemical/biological weapons - the result resounding silence. You see, I have stated in other threads regarding this issue that, in the entire time I spent in the forces at NO time were we EVER given any training in the handling, arming, storage or deployment of any chemical/biological weapons. Probably for the very good reason WE didn't have ANY. We caried out plenty of exercises regarding operating in a "chemical" environment, damage control exercises, citadel tests, exercising cleansing stations and parties, again for a very good reason, we KNEW that the USSR; China and the forces of the Warsaw Pact DID have such weapons - they sold the weapons and the technology to their "client" states in the middle-east, not the US. Now perhaps some of those who spout this rubbish about the US supplying Saddam Hussein with chemical/biological weapons can tell me how you can supply something that you neither use or have? Nerd, 14 Jun 04 - 06:20 PM From the tenor of your arguement are you categorically stating that nothing was shipped out of Iraq? Please Nerd, don't get hung up on the WMD thing, for I must admit that I have not got the foggiest notion what you would define as a WMD, or a WMD capability, as being. In my understanding it encompasses the following: - The ability to manufacture, test and store the agent itself. - The capability to "weaponise" that stored agent. - The design and manufacturing capability to produce the warheads/bombs/rockets/shells to deliver that "weaponised" agent. - Possession of weapons systems capable of delivering the aforementioned munitions. Now, have I left anything out - Oh, yes - the research and development teams and facilities to undertake the above and enhance the ability and efficiency of those weapons systems. The point Nerd seems to miss, is, that according to Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi's who submitted their formal, full and final declaration relating to WMD, stocks of agent, weapon systems, programmes, etc, as defined in UNSC Resolutions, on December 7th 2002, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THESE - That is what THEY said. What was there and known about, dual-use equipment included, had been tagged by either UNSCOM (pre-1999) or by UNMOVIC. The instructions are clear, do not tamper with it, do not re-assemble it, do not remove it, do not transport to any other location, pending their destruction. That was the requirement - not met of course, very few UNSC requirements were ever met by the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein. Now to Nerd, "..scrap metal and dual-use items like fermenters," don't seem to amount to much - well they're pretty harmless aren't they, not indicative of anything untoward - Really? Your stance is idiotic and incredibly naive. All I can say is thank Christ you are not looking out for, or responsible for, anything even closely related to the security of your country. Then, without barely pausing for breath, Nerd, re-examines all this scrap that he has just dismissed as not being evidence of the existence of Iraqi WMD, and comes out with the following: "The existence of scrap metal in other countries is actually evidence that Saddam Hussein DID dismantle his WMD facilities." Sort of begs the rather obvious question "Then why didn't he tell the UNMOVIC inspectors", after all sold for scrap, he could have shown them the receipts, transport dockets, everything - no problem - but he didn't. Sorry chum, what kind of weird ass-about-face logic is that - it (the scrap metal) either has something to do with WMD, or it hasn't - you cannot argue it both ways - and remember Nerd the Iraqi's were not supposed to have had ANY of this. Then we get the classic: "What the UN team was obviously talking about in its quotes was the danger that the materials of Iraq's KNOWN WMDs and dual-use items that WERE inspected by the UN and dismantled according to UN and US demands, would end up being reassembled elsewhere. This would be bad, but you can't really blame Iraq." YOU CAN'T REALLY BLAME IRAQ - who the hell else are you going to blame? It was the clearly defined responsibility of the Iraqis to destroy this stuff, just as it was the clearly defined responsibility of the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspectors to supervise, witness and verify its destruction. UNSCOM reported what WMD were in existence but unaccounted for in January 1999, that report was based on information supplied by the Iraqi authorities themselves. Did he have any significant WMDs at the time we invaded? His declaration of 7th December, 2002 didn't shed any light on that according to Dr. Hans Blix, who voiced his dissappointment at the content of that declaration. The "scrap metal in Holland" does tell us that equipment the Iraqi's should not have had had been moved out of the country by the Iraqi regime. Now if they moved "scrap metal", why is it so inconceivable that other things were not similarly exported? Oh yes! Nerd says that couldn't have happened because loads were examined for traces of radioactivity or explosives. A question for you Nerd, exactly what radioactive, or explosive trace signature would you expect to get from chemical/biological warfare agent, in either its weaponised or component form? I'll be interested in your response to that one. According to the debriefing of Dr A. Q. Khan, he stated that he assisted with the removal of items transferred from Iraq to Syria and on to Pakistan by air - wonder exactly what that consisted of? What was Dr. Khan's area of expertise again? Could be we are not talking about anything that was radioactive here, what about computer hard drives, files, etc, relating to an Iraqi nuclear programme? Possible or not? Whatever cock-eyed definition Nerd uses to describe what he would call WMD. Based upon what he contends they are not, I would say that you would have no WMD without research and development programmes, you would have no WMD without manufacturing facilities, you would have no WMD without the delivery systems. And no Nerd, the bottom line to date is this: - No nuclear weapons have been found and I don't think they will be. Whether or not there was a programme running to ressurect Iraq's nuclear programme is still open to question. - Chemical/biological weapons in the form of unfilled munitions have been found by both UNMOVIC inspectors and Coalition Forces. - Delivery system development programmes (post 1998) for proscribed weapons were discovered. - Missiles that were prohibited by UNSC Resolutions were discovered by UNMOVIC. - In the face of supposedly tight UN sanctions 384 illegally imported rocket motors were discovered by UNMOVIC. - A shell, rigged as IED, containing Sarin was discovered by Coalition Forces. In other words, while the stockpile of WMD agents, munitions and delivery systems as stated by UNSCOM have not been found. It is clear that items have been exported from Iraq during the run up to the invasion, the exact extent and nature of the complete list of items exported is not known at present. You see Nerd, there is nothing nonsensical in the story's suggestion that Saddam Hussein exported items in the run up to the invasion, his good friends, the French and the Russians, ensured that he had plenty of time to do that. Remember the U-2 Surveillance, required under the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441, that Saddam effectively blocked from day 1 of the UNMOVIC inspections? Now I wonder why he did that? Oh, yes, Nerd turns his attention to the "dodgy dossier" - the very same "dodgy dossier" that stated that on evaluation of work being carried out at a missile testing site it was probable that Saddam Hussein was developing missiles of a range longer than that allowed by UN Resolutions - dead "dodgy" that wasn't it Nerd - turned out to be perfectly true, but that probably didn't suit your arguement to make mention of it - oversight? Now, let's look at this college student's research. Which was in actual fact a post-graduate thesis, written in the aftermath of "Desert Storm". The post-graduate students work related to Iraqi security services, misinformation, concealment programmes and means of deception. The research material for this thesis consisted of some 3,000,000 documents captured after "Desert Storm". The author was disappointed that HM Government hadn't credited him with the work, but stated when asked, that the content of the dossier, and his thesis, were still relevant, he did comment on the fact that the British intelligence agencies had taken some departments of a single Iraqi Security/intelligence unit and mistakenly identified them as being seperate organisations, apart from that everything was pretty much spot on. You see Nerd the post-graduate student's work had nothing to do with detail relating to WMD, only their concealment, Iraqi Security Forces and the disemination of false information regarding WMD. Nerd then has the gall to come out with: "The dossier is based on terrible undergraduate level research," Who on earth told you that Nerd. What trendy kule left-wing rag did you grab that line from. Hate to say this Nerd, but its your own research that's terrible. The author wasn't an undergraduate at all was he? Do they hand out Masters Degrees to post-graduate students submitting terrible undergraduate level work as their Thesis? Is that how good universities are in the US? The work was rather well received if memory serves me correctly from what I've read about it - pity Nerd didn't have the sense to do the same. Yeah, well done indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 15 Jun 04 - 11:15 AM Here's a casual observation from my POV. Whenever there's a story that supports the right wing in any way, it's immediately jumped on, by the left, as being propaganda. Granted, sometimes it is. We know that. But sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the facts are right there and people will still deny them. In reverse, anytime there's a story that bashes the left, again, it's propaganda, regardless of the facts. On the other hand, stories that support the left are immediately embraced by the left as fact without any further exploration, while extolling the virtues of questioning the government, the media, etc. And of course, right-wingers do the same. What if you all just reserved judgment until you found the facts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Jun 04 - 11:25 AM Ah, let's add sweeping generalization into the mix, eh, Casual Observer? It's just as odious as anything else you've suggested in that recipe for agrument. There is no neutral stance in these discussions, so self-appointed privileged positioning is out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 15 Jun 04 - 11:27 AM At the end of the day, with all this bickering going on, no Nuclear, Biological or chenical weapons have been produced by either Bush or Blair to justify the invasion. BeardedBruce, can you give more information on the missile borne chemical weapons attacks your friends suffered, dates places etc, I'd like to know you are not just making it up. As for a scud being armed with a conventional explosive warhead being called a WMD, can I have your source for this. As you seem so fond of facts, you now have the chance to provide some yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 15 Jun 04 - 11:45 AM It is neither odious nor privileged. It's simply an observation, nothing more. That's all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 15 Jun 04 - 12:09 PM Stilly River Sage 15 Jun 04 - 11:25 AM "There is no neutral stance in these discussions, so self-appointed privileged positioning is out." SRS, a question, is that quote of yours above a sort of way of saying: "You are either with us or against us"? Seemed to recall somebody saying that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and being slated for it. I would have thought having introduced the thread to provoke discussion under the name "Casual Observer", CO has adopted a very neutral position, as is his/her right. Another question SRS, reading through most BS threads related to US politics, Iraq, GWB (I insist on capitalising his initials) what CO states appears to be fairly accurate - in other words an impartial casual observation. So why are you attacking CO for it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Nerd Date: 15 Jun 04 - 12:11 PM Teribus You really can talk a blue streak. Your ad hominem attacks (calling people naive and stupid) are tiresome, even I'm sure to people who generally agree with you. I shall not respond in kind. As someone pointed out on this thread, there are portable backpack nukes. Thus you simply cannot define any system capable of delivering a WMD to be a WMD itself. ANY system, including a person, is capable of doing that. Rockets are NOT WMDs, they are just delivery systems, like a truck or a backpack. Even if they were banned materials, or had longer ranges than allowed by the UN, it is inaccurate to say, as this article says, that WMDs were shipped out of Iraq. Here is the upshot of what even YOU said, ungrammatical though it may be: In other words, while the stockpile of WMD agents, munitions and delivery systems as stated by UNSCOM have not been found. It is clear that items have been exported from Iraq during the run up to the invasion, the exact extent and nature of the complete list of items exported is not known at present. So what you're saying is: "No one knows." "Items" have been exported, but no one knows what "Items" they were. Does this not strike you as a little thin to pin a headline of "WMD exported from Iraq" on? The TRUE headline would be "we still have no conclusive evidence that WMD were exported from Iraq in the run-up to the war." Not a very good headline, that. When I said we can't blame Iraq I meant that it's OUR ATTACK that has destabilized Iraq's borders. I meant that even in the Saddam days, the Iraqi government was not in full control of its borders. You might as well blame the US government for anything smuggled in or out of the US. Perhaps I was wrong about it being an undergraduate student. Sorry about that. (Everyone makes mistakes, but luckily I didn't invade a foreign country based on mine!) But it having been a grad student doesn't change the upshot much. I don't know if you have a post-graduate degree, Teribus, but to someone who does [Masters and PhD], the claim that a student covered three MILLION documents in his thesis, or even read them en route to his PhD, is obviously farfetched. I could just as well claim that "the research materials for my dissertation consisted of the Research Libraries Information Network," since I had access to all that through ILL, or that it consisted of "everything in the English Language," since the linguistic parts of my thesis were relevant to the whole language. It's a meaningless claim. How many of these documents did he actually read? And as to the question of whether undergraduate level research has ever resulted in a Masters degree, you should read some of the theses I have seen. A graduate student's research is generally not considered ready to cite broadly. Here's why. In academia, the way research is vetted is through the publication process, not the PhD granting process. When a paper is submitted to a journal, it is given to three (or so) of the top experts in that particular field, who decide if it is worthy of publication or not. They don't know who the author is, and their own identities are protected, so they cannot be affected by personal feelings about the author and they don't have to worry about the author knowing who said what. When a book is submitted to a publisher, the same process ensues (though sometmes the author's name is revealed). When you are getting a PhD, your thesis is read by whichever people YOU selected as your committee: generally, the faculty members at your university who would be the most sympathetic to your arguments (this does vary from place to place, but my description is a common model). A Masters thesis is often read by just one faculty member, but often by two or three. All these people know you very well personally and have a personal stake in your success. They know that any harsh criticism will hurt your feelings and that you will know it came from them. Furthermore, the level of scholarship they expect is lower. Practically all PhDs get the comments "this is good enough to graduate, but if you publish this you'll want to do this, this and that before you submit it." So the difference: a PUBLISHED work has been read anonymously by some of the world's top experts, and judged good enough to be published. A THESIS has often been read by whoever is most sympathetic at your own University, usually your personal friends and mentors, and judged good enough for you to graduate--usually the same as "not quite good enough to publish." Finally, the post-graduate researcher (what we would call a grad student in the USA) "was disappointed that HM Government hadn't credited him with the work." In other words, the dossier was plagiarized! From a "not quite good enough to publish" thesis, which was, incidentally and by your own admission, about ten years old. Now, why wouldn't they credit him? There's only one reason I can think of: it would be immediately apparent to anyone in the academic or intelligence communities that an unpublished piece of student work was NOT conclusive enough for the intelligence community to count on. Sure the student who wrote it said it was still relevant, but this is hardly evidence. ("This just in: Ashcroft claims Ashcroft never lied.") What do you think he's going to say? "No, it was crap then and it's crap now?" And if it was such good and relevant research, how come he didn't publish it in ten years? Even academic publishing isn't THAT slow! Finally, as to your point that the dossier wasn't dodgy because it contained ONE verfiable fact, well, I applaud the author. He got something right. Champagne for everybody! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 15 Jun 04 - 12:42 PM GUEST, 15 Jun 04 - 11:27 AM "At the end of the day, no Nuclear, Biological or chenical weapons have been produced by either Bush or Blair to justify the invasion." Was that ever a requirement? The objective from the point of view of the United Nations going back over the last 14 years was to effect the total elimination of the WMD possessed by Iraq, in a verifiable manner, in order that that country would no longer pose a thread to the peace and stability of the region. That process was clearly defined to include: - Elimination of all Iraqi WMD, both nuclear and chemical/biological. - Elimination of the munitions and weapons systems that could deliver them. - Eradication of all research and development programmes relating to those weapons. - Destruction of all proscribed munitions and weapons systems - Destruction of all precursor chemicals and chemical/biological agents. Now the stocks, WMD agents, weapons systems, etc were detailed by UNSCOM in 1999. Now let's see how far down that list the international community has progressed in the last 15 months: 1. Does Iraq possess any nuclear weapons - No it does not. 2. Does Iraq currently have any research and development work related to attaining a nuclear weapons capability running - No it does not. 3. Does Iraq possess, in being, or in development, weapons systems capable of deploying nuclear weapons - No it does not. 4. Does Iraq possess any chemical/biological weapons - No it does not. 5. Does Iraq currently have any research and development work related to attaining a chemical/biological capability running - No it does not. 6. Does Iraq possess, in being, or in development, weapons systems capable of deploying chemical/biological weapons - No it does not. Seems to me that we are a fair way down that road? Thanks to the US. Left to the UN and UNMOVIC 4, 5 & 6 above would still be "black holes", I believe that Dr. AlBaradei was well on the way to establishing points 1 to 3 above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 15 Jun 04 - 01:02 PM Bush, Blair and their various minions spent a great deal of effort trying to convince the world that Saddam was on the cusp of using WMD and still had huge stockpiles ready. So while Terribus may be right in his quotes above, for me and many others the existence of these weapons has become probably the most important issue. If I am to be asked to support what has happened in Iraq I Demand to see the huge stockpiles of WMD and I bet quite a few others do as well. Since GWB's efforts to stabilise the region we have seen an upsurge in violence, too many deaths and injuries, widespread destruction in a country in a country that can ill aford any further damage, Torture and a blatent disregard for human rights on the part of the coalition, Money being fed to GWB's croney companies in the oil industry, the good name of the US and UK beeing damaged in the eyes of many around the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 15 Jun 04 - 01:12 PM Well Nerd, I am pleased to see that you are beginning to grasp the type of threat, perceived by the US intelligence services, that Iraq potentially posed with Saddam Hussein in power - others have not. No, the TRUE headline would be: "No conclusive evidence exists as to whether, or not, WMD were exported from Iraq in the run-up to the war." Still doesn't duck the fact that all that has been found was "stuff" that the Iraqi's said they did not have, were not supposed to have - but they did didn't they. The Thesis was critically reviewed, and as stated previously, fairly well received. The research material was classified, i.e. not in the public domain, so your comparison is not really relevant. I will find out if it was "published" and get back to you, although with a security classification, the distribution would be rather limited. If memory serves me correct it took something in the order of five years to write. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 15 Jun 04 - 02:00 PM "at NO time were we EVER given any training in the handling, arming, storage or deployment of any chemical/biological weapons. Probably for the very good reason WE didn't have ANY" I never got any training in arming, storage or deployment of atomic weapons either. Doesn't prove we didn't have any. Not long ago I read a report in the paper about stocks of nerve gas slated for destruction and the concern of the people living nearby. This is the same stuff that was accidentally released some years ago & luckily killed only a flock of sheep. In Nevada, I believe. I'll look up dates & places when I get time -- busy day today -- but maybe someone else can be more specific. I believe there have been problems with the storage & disposal of chemical & biological weapons in the past. We must have had some to dispose of. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 15 Jun 04 - 02:04 PM The objective from the point of view of the United Nations going back over the last 14 years was to effect the total elimination of the WMD possessed by Iraq, in a verifiable manner, in order that that country would no longer pose a thread to the peace and stability of the region. If they've only been moved around a bit, they haven't really been eliminated, have they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Nerd Date: 15 Jun 04 - 02:31 PM Come on, Teribus. Jack Straw, the foreign minister, publicly admitted that using this dossier was an "extremely embarrassing" error, yet some people just can't let it drop. As I understand it, if a graduate student wrote his thesis on it, the thesis is available from the University in unpublished form. There sould not be classified materials in the thesis itself. And if the materials it was based on were classified, then how did he get access to them as a mere grad student? Anyway the fact that you are pissing around in the dark with statements like "classified, i.e. not in the public domain" proves you haven't a clue. "Public domain" is a copyright distinction, and has nothing to do with the information being classified. Your bald assertion that it was "critically reviewed, and fairly well-received" is meaningless on two counts. What counts as "critically," and what counts as "fairly well"? THIS is why publication in a referreed journal is required before someone will take claims seriously. Almost anything can claim to have been "critically reviewed" and "fairly well received." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jun 04 - 04:09 PM Picking a fairly sizable nit: Lemme see, now. Covering three million documents. That's quite a daunting task. Let us assume that each document is no longer than one typewritten page, although many documents, particularly government or academic documents can run many pages, sometimes up to book length. Nevertheless, let us assume one page per document. Let us further assume that each page contains no more than 250 words. If one types single space with one inch margins on a normal 8 ½ by 11 inch letter size sheet using one of the common fonts, 500 or more words per page is not unusual, but let's be generous and assume no more than 250 words per page. The average person (no dyslexia or anything like that) manages to read an average of about 250 words per minute, therefore it follows that the average person could read one of these documents per minute. At that rate, 3,000,000 documents would obviously take a total of 3,000,000 minutes to read. That's 60 documents per hour; 1,440 documents per day ; 10,080 documents per week; 524,160 documents per year. We find that it would take 5 years, 8 months, 3 weeks and some change to cover all those documents. And this assumes that our intrepid student takes no time out to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, or take notes. He or she would be pretty gaunt and hollow-eyed by then, n'est-ce pas? 'Course documents in Arabic might not take quite that long to read. Shall we get real? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Nerd Date: 15 Jun 04 - 10:31 PM Well, before Teribuws returns in triumph to tell us that the student's work WAS published, it turns out that it was...but not in an actual academic journal. It was published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs, a vanity internet publication of a single professor, Barry Rubin, which in addition to the journal offers several of Rubin's self-published books. In academia, internet journals are generally taken less seriously than actual paper publications, and thus attract less reliable research. Journals "owned and operated" by one person, as MERIA claims to be, are accorded even less respect. The fact that our student chose to publish there strongly suggests he could not publish elsewhere. No disrespect to Professor Rubin, who by all accounts is a serious scholar, but one person should not have that much power over a journal's contents--especially since Rubin is also a right-wing Israeli hawk who writes a conservative column for the Jerusalem Post. A political perspective is fine, but not when you have autocratic authority over the contents of what is ostensibly an objective scholarly publication. BTW, while in grad school I did not even bother to publish in internet journals because it does your career no good--no one takes it seriously. I did, however, publish in some one-man operations--though none where the editor was so clearly positioned politically--and those papers have much less impact on my CV than the ones published in serious journals. So our student, Ibrahim Al-Marashi (who still seems to be a student as far as I can tell, not having graduated yet) apparently couldn't get this into a real journal. Al-Marashi, by the way, has had some interesting things to say on the matter. He complains that his research was "sexed up," by which he means that Downing Street lied about Iraq supporting terrorist groups like Al-Qaida, which he claims they did not, and about numerous other matters in his work. I quote him: These two dossiers have undermined serious research conducted by think-tanks and policy centres. Number 10 should leave the publications of such reports to professionals who have devoted their careers to such work. The September 2002 dossier stated that 45 minutes is all Iraq needed to arm and deploy a chemical or biological weapon. Publishing such a figure only proves that Downing Street is not a proper research institution. No professional analyst would publish a figure such as this, based on only one source. This time span does not take into account the complicated Iraqi chain of command and the technical requirements needed to prepare and launch such a weapon. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/06/05/do0501.xml) In fairness, Al-Marashi says that more time is needed to assess whether Iraq had violated relevant UN sanctions concerning WMDs. In other words, while Al-Marashi may be more hawkish than some of our leftists, he too disagrees with the article Casual Observer posted here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: freda underhill Date: 15 Jun 04 - 10:56 PM Meanwhile, back in 1974, an Iraqi delegation "led by Dr Mohammed Al Shukri of the Iraqi Ministry of Industry, but operating under the cover of representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, visited Pfaulder Corporation of Rochester, New York, a specialist in chemical plant manufacture." Saddam Hussein, The Politics of Revenge, Said K Aburish p 137 goes on to describe the tooing and froing between Iraq and the US that led to the US passing on to the Iraqi government blueprints for their first chemical weapons plant. The author cites letters, and documents which involved both the US government and MI5. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Jun 04 - 11:11 PM Good work, Nerd! Saves me the trouble of going looking for that--it can require a good-sized block of time to track this stuff down (one first has the read the darned thread to find the reference and backtrack. . .) We owe you one! In graduate school I was fortunate to have a couple of essays published in print journals in my field. But I went the peer review route you describe. Regarding the publication of theses and disseratations, my university routinely puts them on the web now, but I think you need to be in the university domain (or by proxy server) to access them. They still also go to Michigan for the microfiche route, but many schools are choosing to do both now. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 07:29 AM CarolC: "If they've only been moved around a bit, they haven't really been eliminated, have they? " TRUE- and that is a result of the delay and attempt to get a consensus in the UN. If the US had acted unilateraly, without months of debate and warning, we might have found them still in place- but that is not how we do things.... I wonder why? ************* As for many of the conmments here, I find that the idea of free speech and people presenting opinions that are not in agreement with some posters seems to be quite a threat to some of you. Personnal attacks do not help to determine the truth of the situation. If those who believe that WMD have not yet been found, and that Iraq did not have prohibited material that could be used to develop WMD, in violation of the ceasefire, would please define WHAT they would consider as a WMD that WOULD have justified the US attack, I would appreciate it. As for my friends, they are Israelis, who cameunder SCUD attack during the 1991 war. I guess that means they are not human enough for you folks to consider. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:32 AM Geeze, BB, do you believe crap like that? I also have friends who are Israelis, but that doesn't mean a SCUD consitutes a weapon of mass destruction in the sense normally used in this kind of senseless debate. I believe it was you who said something about personal attacks. What do you think a remark like that is?? Take a chill pill. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:37 AM Amos, A SCUD with chemical warhead is, by definition, a WMD, in spite of what you might want us to believe. "that doesn't mean a SCUD consitutes a weapon of mass destruction in the sense normally used in this kind of senseless debate." Geeze, Amos, do you believe crap like that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:46 AM TRUE- and that is a result of the delay and attempt to get a consensus in the UN. If the US had acted unilateraly, without months of debate and warning, we might have found them still in place- but that is not how we do things.... I wonder why? Not quite, beardedbruce. The UN inspectors were doing a good job of containing and eliminating Saddam's weapons. They wanted to finish the job they started. They warned that an attack on Iraq by the US (and the coalition of the coerced) before they finished the job, would probably accomplish the exact opposite of the results the US said it wanted (elimination of WMDs), and that, instead, whatever WMDs still existed would probably end up in the hands of the wrong people, including terrorists. And this appears to be exactly what has happened. I'd say the UN inspectors were right about this one. We should have let them finish their job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:51 AM I'm sorry. I don't think I have ever read of chemical warheads being used on SCUDS although I know they can be fitted to them. Can you provide me with some information on this practice? It was not used by Iraq against Israel, I am fairly sure. A A couple of references: ""The Iraqis had four versions: Scud itself (180-km range), longer-range Scud (half warhead weight, extra range attained by burning all propellant immediately rather than steadily through the flight of the missile), Al Hussein (650-km, attained by reducing warhead weight to 250 kg and increasing the fuel load by 15 percent), and Al Abbas (800-km, achieved by reducing warhead weight to 125 kg, with 30 percent more fuel)." http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/YuenWong.shtml The Iraqis developed four versions: Scud, longer-range Scud, Al Hussein, and Al Abbas. Apart from the almost unmodified weapon these were not successful missiles as they tended to break up in flight and had small warheads. General Characteristics DIA SS-1b SS-1c SS-1d SS-1e NATO Scud-A Scud-B Scud-C Scud-D Deployment Date 1957 1965 1965 1980s Withdrawn 1978 Range 130 km 300 km 575-600km 700 km CEP (NATO estimate) 4,000 m 900 m 900 m 50 m http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/s/sc/scud.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:59 AM CarolC, I respectfully have to disagree with you. If the UN inspectors were doing such a good job, where did the stockpile of chemical warheads found come from? Why were they finding new prohibited material right up to when they left? Amos, "I'm sorry. I don't think I have ever read of chemical warheads being used on SCUDS although I know they can be fitted to them. Can you provide me with some information on this practice? It was not used by Iraq against Israel, I am fairly sure." I was not there, so I must depend on my friend's statements that there were chemical warfare warnings because of the chemical warheads on SCUDs that impacted near their home. And your figures prove only that 125KG of chemicals, biologicals, or nuclear weapons could be delivered 800 km. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: TIA Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:02 AM Clint Keller - You are absolutely right in your recollections. Fact is, there are eight chemical weapons disposal facilities newly built or being built in the US (to dispose of US chemical weapons). The army has a Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program (CSDP), which, of course, would be a silly thing to have if we didn't have a chemical weapons stockpile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:05 AM I respectfully have to disagree with you. If the UN inspectors were doing such a good job, where did the stockpile of chemical warheads found come from? Why were they finding new prohibited material right up to when they left? The vast majority of Saddam's WMDs had already been accounted for, and in most cases, dealt with accordingly. But the UN inspectors themselves said that they were not finish with the job. They said that they needed more time. They had a very good track record, and should have been given that time to finish the job. Had they been given the opportunity to do so, we wouldn't be worrying about these materials having gotten into the wrong hands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:13 AM IMO, that conclusion is subject to (valid) debate. But I agree that there should be concern about where all these "non-existant" WMD components and prohibited material are going. What I do not understand is how those people who say it did not exist are now saying that it is spreading uncontrolably due to the attack: IF it did not exist, it cannot go anywhere IF it did exist, the US was justified in attacking Iraq, IMO. So what is it to be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Nerd Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:30 AM Where you're wrong, beardedbruce, is that it's the warhead, not the missile, that is a WMD. Finding missiles is not finding WMD. You put in one of your posts up above that there are backpack nukes. Thus if you truly defined "systems capable of delivering WMD" such as SCUD missiles as WMD, every Iraqi truck, car, moped, plane, chopper, wheelchair, and citizen was a WMD. The media, like CO's original article, like to exploit people's ignorance about this so they can say "WMD found" when all they have found is a delivery system which can be used to deliver conventional weapons, chemical weapons, or even propoganda bombs. When you find the actual warheads, you have found a WMD. As for there being a chemical weapons alert in Israel, this is not the same thing as there actually having been chemical weapons used there. I went to a school in NYC that endured about one bomb threat a year, and was evacuated accordingly, but there was never a bomb there. So, can anyone corroborate chemical weapons used in Israel? Just wondering.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:31 AM During the attacks on Israel by Iraq with Scud missiles during the first Gulf war there were several initial reports that chemical warheads had been used, these reports were later found to be in error, only conevntional explosive warheads were used, producing as far as I recollect no Israeli fatalities even though they fell on built up areas. If 125kg of nerve agent had fallen on any built up area then there would have been enourmous numbers of casualties, only a few miligrams of Sarin, GB, VX or Tabun is needed to kill, and if a persisntant agent had been used then the Israelis would have had large areas that would have been rendered uninhabitable for months while they attempted a clean up operation. No reports of that happening that I can find. Beardedbruce your information in this case is in error, while the panic and terror caused by the first reports was real enough, the reports of chemicals were in the end not true. The US president had a hard time convincing the Iraeli Prime Minister at the time, not reatliate to the HE warheads, do you seriously think he would have been successful if chemmical warheads had been landing on Tel-Aviv? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:39 AM IF it did exist, the US was justified in attacking Iraq, IMO. That just doesn't make any sense. If attacking Iraq is likely to produce the exact opposite result from the one you say you want, there really can not be any justification for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 16 Jun 04 - 12:08 PM I have been looking into the SCUD issue a bit further. From what I have found so far, there is a no official record of SCUD-Bs carrying chem warheads being used. During the Gulf War under Bush Sr., there were recorded instances of soldiers being affected with symptoms consistent with chem weapons. There were instances reported of soldiers later being told not to report it; nbeing told it was hemmorhoids; and even, in a couple of cases, reportedly dying from symptoms that began. Most of these center around an Iraqi artillery attack that occurred on January 22. I have no way of confirming any of this. However, the anecdotes I have read sound genuine enough. There is a report that Syria developed a chemical warhead for the SCUD-B. It should be noted that SCUD missiles have notoriously poor accuracy and using one to deliver a chem or bio warhead would practically guarantee civilian deaths, as there is no way to aim it with any precision. As far as I know, there is no evidence of Iraq presently possessing any chemical warheads, whether for SCUDS or other delivery systems, except the one Sarin shell that was reported recently. If I understand it correctly that shell was not part of a stockpile of current weapons but was left-over from the Gulf War I era. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:06 PM Amos: In regards to the SCUD having a chemical warhead, I was told that the sensors indicated a chemical attack. I could certainly be wrong- but I have more faith in the testimony of my friends than I do of a press ( and government) trying to reduce the tensions over the attack. As I keep repeating, the Iraqi stockpile of empty warheads, which were designed specifically for chemical weapons, and would have been filled just prior to use, were found. I state again: If the specialized container is not the WMD, and the actual chemicals are so easy to make that anyone could do it, and the (prohibited) material required to make it was in Saddam's possesion, WHAT WOULD YOU ACCEPT as a WMD? "It should be noted that SCUD missiles have notoriously poor accuracy and using one to deliver a chem or bio warhead would practically guarantee civilian deaths, as there is no way to aim it with any precision." Exactly... I do not see that there was any other intent. And don't say he would not have used them: Hitler used the V2 with even less accuracy. CarolC: "That just doesn't make any sense. If attacking Iraq is likely to produce the exact opposite result from the one you say you want, there really can not be any justification for it. " True- but I have never said that it would produce the exact opposite result: THAT is the claim of those who deny that the WMD even exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:20 PM Nerd: "Where you're wrong, beardedbruce, is that it's the warhead, not the missile, that is a WMD. Finding missiles is not finding WMD" I have never said otherwise. I have referred to WMD ( weapons ) and prohibited materials ( including the manufacturing facilities and the delivery systems. PLEASE read what I posted! I have tried to be careful in my statements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:27 PM I just knew beardedbruce would pull in Hitler and his V2 program as a way to divert the error of his previous posts, he does this all the time, mention Hitler that is! THERE WERE NO CHEMICAL WARHEADS DROPPED ON ISRAEL DURING THE FIRST GULF WAR, IN THIS YOUR FRIENDS ARE WRONG. The news reports at the time show many Israelis wearing gas masks but no other protection during this period, if they had been attacked by nerve agents that would have provided very little protection as such agents are quite capable of passing through the skin to attack the victim, normal street clothes would have been of no use either. If you need reminding of the effects of even a low grade chemical weapon attack, remember the Tokyo subway attacks, several dead and many injured, we saw nothing like that in Israel. Surely any such act would have given GWB the undeniable ammunition he needed to quell almost any critic, yet he never did, it never happened. The Prime minister of Israel would have reatliated, lets face it, they retaliate in the face of world opinion whenever they like anyway. False alarms happen all the time with electronic detection equipment, that they did so then is no suprise surely, it has happened several times in Iraq since when coalition forces have found chemical weapons only to state later (usually rather quietly) that it was a false alarm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:28 PM True- but I have never said that it would produce the exact opposite result: THAT is the claim of those who deny that the WMD even exist. No it's not. It's the argument that is being made by the article in the opening post of this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Amos Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:36 PM I don't think anyone is claiming that chem warheads were used on Israel. The locations where the chem alarms were reported to have gone off, and the subsequent maximum MOPP alarms sounded, and the anecdotes of serious symptoms, were during Gulf War 1, not in Israel but in Iraq or Kuwait. There is no information indication that SCUDs were involved -- they could have used artillery shells, for all I know. BB, I hear you about first-hand information. Especially where the military is ocncerned. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:39 PM So, you concede the article is true? "The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003. The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program. The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared. " How do the weapons shipped out prior to the attack reflect on proliferation caused by the attack? And that goes back to my point: "TRUE- and that is a result of the delay and attempt to get a consensus in the UN. If the US had acted unilateraly, without months of debate and warning, we might have found them still in place- but that is not how we do things.... I wonder why?" So what is it? The inspectors were doing such a great job, but the attack would spread out all the WMD and prohibited material, even before the attack, although we should have given the inspectors more time? It seems to me that the spread could only have been stopped by uimmediate, unannounced action. Like a Nuclear strike. Is that what you think we should have done? Or given more time for Saddam to ship things out? Or what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 16 Jun 04 - 01:58 PM BeardedBruce, I would rather that the inspectors had been given a year or two extra to do the job, rather than the 750+ list of US dead that you seem to accept as a price worth paying, not counting god knows how many others who died or suffered serious injury. A quick hint from history about how well airborne photographs can be manipulated to show just what the interpreter feels needs to be shown. The British employed a Magician to fool the Germans throughout the war, he developed blow up rubber tanks and a whole range of other fake weapons, the Germans accepted that they were real and reacted as they thought was appropriate, wasting time and resources. When the British first got pictures of the V2 at Penemunde it was first thought to be a giant torpedo, its easy to see what you want to see no matter how good you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: kendall Date: 16 Jun 04 - 02:04 PM All this tap dancing around the facts is boring. No one died when Clinton lied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 02:06 PM And your explaination of why Saddam, under UN sanctions, would WANT to have a fake site? I regret all the casualties- but I can see the possible use of WMD as causeing far more. Should we just wait until the WMD were used, then nuke the entire region? THAT is what I suspect the previous administration would have done, after more than decimating US force levels, and from the use of cruise missles to attack suspected targets. My contention is that no matter how long we gave the inspectors, we would not have gotten rid of the WMD. In 12 years, they kept finding more... how long before you say enough? I do not want the next generation having to deal with the failure of the US in 1991 to finish the job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Jun 04 - 02:16 PM kendall: "No one died when Clinton lied. " 1. just when he used cruise missles on aspirin factories to get everyone's mind off his lies 2. Noone died when Nixon lied, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: CarolC Date: 16 Jun 04 - 02:26 PM beardedbruce, as far as I can see, that article does not in any way show or even suggest that WMD were being moved out of Iraq during the time when the UN inspectors were still in Iraq doing their job. Perhaps you can find some verification for this assertion of yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST Date: 16 Jun 04 - 02:32 PM Between the first and second gulf wars No scuds etc. were launched at neighbouring states, so what makes you think he was going to do it anyway, you make it sound inevitable. WE all saw how he operated when cornered, make a lot of noise but do nothing, rather than loose his position he would have preffered to remain the big fish in the little pond, a similar situation to Ghadaffi. If over 12 years the inspectors kept finding more material then at least that was 12 years that the Iraqi's were not using them. No casualty list arose from their admittedly slow inspection work. It was the interpreters who said it was a missile site not Saddam, they drew their own conclusions, maybe with a little pressure from above. If the site was photographed in May 2003, then I am actually amazed there was much of anything to see after the rather intensive air campaign had already hit just about everything of military value. We can both be shown a picture but we may see different things in it according to our own preconceptions. It was not so long ago that US intelligence saw a dangerous group of armed Islamists getting ready to fight, Shame those at the wedding had to pay the price for poor interpretation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 16 Jun 04 - 05:07 PM No one died when Clinton lied... except for his career... Didn't that pesky Somalia thing happen on his watch? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Jun 04 - 05:59 PM And how did Clinton lie to us about Somalia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 17 Jun 04 - 11:33 AM The point not being that he lied, but that people died while he was President on account of his military decisions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:01 PM According to what I've been able to dig up, the Somalia thing was a UN humanitarian operation. Some thirty countries were involved, sending in a peacekeeping force of 28,000, 5,300 of which were Americans. That was back in the days when the US considered itself part of the international community. Clinton did not invade Somalia on his own hook the way George W. Bush invaded Iraq. In fact, the troops were originally committed to Somalia by George Herbert Walker Bush, and Clinton inherited it. No comparison. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: TIA Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:18 PM Thanks for the clarification CO, and the historical context Don Firth. My (non-rhetorical) question still stands - did he lie to us about Somalia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:22 PM Because Clinton was Commander-in-Chief of the military, doesn't that make him ultimately responsible for military operations that occurred during his administration, whether or not he actually orchestrated said operations himself? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Don Firth Date: 17 Jun 04 - 12:45 PM Here's a hypothetical: George W. Bush invades Iraq, makes a mess. "Insurgents" keep blowing up car bombs and shooting at Americans and the Iraqis who cooperate with them. In November 2004, John Kerry wins the election, and on January 20th, 2005, he assumes office. On January 25th, "insurgents" blow up a car bomb in front of a Baghdad hotel, killing a whole bunch of American troops, diplomats, and members of the press. Since Kerry is now Commander-in-Chief of the military and this happens on his watch, does that make him ultimately responsible? It strikes me that if something bad happens while you're trying to clean up someone else's mess, it's pretty hard to say that you are responsible. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: TIA Date: 17 Jun 04 - 01:26 PM Yes, but did he lie to us about Somalia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... From: Nerd Date: 17 Jun 04 - 01:54 PM BeardedBruce, we are arguing at cross purposes. I was arguing that the article posted by CO was poor propaganda. I wasn't really arguing against your slightly more measured stance. Once again, the headline: UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after Even by the lead, they have equivocated to "WMD components." Which components? Why, the ones that do not cause mass destruction, of course. By the time we get to the quotes, it turns out they are talking about scrap metal from dismantled weapons--scrap that obviously WAS revealed to the UN inspectors because it was "replete with UN tags." Also, some fermenters that we have no evidence were ever part of WMD manufacture. Are these items actually the same as "weapons of mass destruction?" I have been arguing that no, they are not. Now, you claim: I have referred to WMD ( weapons ) and prohibited materials (including the manufacturing facilities and the delivery systems. Fair enough. I was not arguing against this. I concede that there may have been some prohibited items found. Indeed, I think it's pretty inevitable. Nevertheless, I think the prohibited items that HAVE been found are a less serious matter than you do. We were not told by our President before this war that Iraq had "some prohibited delivery systems." We were told they had weapons of mass destruction and fed hysterical language about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud. There has since been no evidence that it was true or that the mushroom cloud was even a remote possibility. (I confess, by the way, that I am suspicious of your handling of evidence. You disregard the military's pronouncements on whether chemical weapons were used on Israel but accept as gospel their pronouncements as to what was found in Iraq. It seems to me you simply believe whatever supports your ideology, regardless of who makes the claim.) Many Americans were also led to believe that 9/11 and Iraq were somehow linked, which both the "dodgy dossier" author AND now the 9/11 commission, have found to be false. But that's a topic for another thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: Don Firth Date: 17 Jun 04 - 04:38 PM TIA, I know of no particular lie about Somalia that Clinton might have made. I can't find anything on it, or that he was even accused of lying about anything having to do with Somalia. If you do know of something, please enlighten me. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: artbrooks Date: 17 Jun 04 - 05:09 PM GUEST, Clint Walker: it was in the spring of 1968, perhaps March or April, in Skull Valley, Utah (northeast of Dugway, northwest of Salt Lake City). I was there at the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 18 Jun 04 - 02:40 PM Hypothetically speaking, if Kerry keeps US troops in Baghdad on his watch, and a bombing occurs, then yes, I'd say he was responsible; because as President, he can choose to remove the troops. Just like Clinton could have chosen not to send troops to Somalia. Now, if there are no US troops present in Baghdad in this hypothetical situation, then no, the President wouldn't be responsible. I don't think Clinton lied about Somalia, and I already said that wasn't my point. However, he did lie about bringing troops home from Kosovo one year. He had said, in public, they would be home before Christmas, and then later decided they needed to stay longer. Some people considered that a lie, anyway; I imagine some of you will just say it was a change of heart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: Amos Date: 18 Jun 04 - 02:49 PM It was a tactical change due to developing military situations. Under the circumstances, it could have been really dumb NOT to. Bush had a lot more room to plan in regarding Iraq than Clinton did, because Clinton didn't start his war. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:39 PM No, but he didn't do much to prevent it, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:49 PM Nerd: " You disregard the military's pronouncements on whether chemical weapons were used on Israel but accept as gospel their pronouncements as to what was found in Iraq. It seems to me you simply believe whatever supports your ideology, regardless of who makes the claim.)" I take into account the fact that I have firsthand testimony, by people who were there. It seems to me that YOU disregard the military's pronouncements on what was found in Iraq, but accept as gospel the prononcements on whether chemical weapons were used on Israel... Different point of view. We can agree to disagree, until more facts are known. "There has since been no evidence that it was true " ( in ref, WMDs in Iraq:) If one refused to accept any evidence that there were, then there will not be. I have repeatedly asked what evidence would be acceptable, and never gotten an answer. Why is that? Are those who think that chemical weapons are not WMD so worried that we will find something that even they have to accept as a WMD? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: TIA Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:24 PM CO's post read: "No one died when Clinton lied... except for his career... Didn't that pesky Somalia thing happen on his watch? " Although CO has clarified, and said that there was no intended implication in this post that Clinton did lie, the linking of these two comments carried (for me, and I'm truly sorry if I misinterpreted) an attempt to equate Bush lying us into Iraq with Clinton's handling of Somalia. My goal has been to determine whether there is any comparison at any level. Don Firth's historical context helped to answer, and the last issue for me was whether there was any record or even accusation of a lie by Clinton. I knew/know of none. Now to beardedbruce's question: "...what evidence would be acceptable...?" We were told repeartedly that if we did not invade Iraq, there would be a mushroom cloud over our heads, or unmanned drones would deliver chemical or biological weapons to our shores, or at least our allies, or Saddam would build and give nukes to Bin Laden. I would accept as evidence of a truly imminent danger from Iraqi W's of MD the discovery of facilities to make nasty stuff and/or relatively recent (not 10 or 20 year old) nasty stuff, and the vehicles to deliver it nearby and in working order. We were not told before the invasion that it was necessary because there were a few old Iran-Iraq war era chemical mortar rounds, and decrepit rocket parts, and trucks that might be used to incubate nasty microbes -- or possibly to make weather balloon gas. In short I want to see what we were told we would see, and in the quantities and readiness that we were told they would be before I say "yeah, looky here, you were right." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jun 04 - 06:39 PM a stockpile of chemical warheads, for existing Iraqi artillary? The facilities to manufacture the chemicals to put in the warheads? Long range rockets, prohibited under UN sanctions? But thank you for at least having the decency to define what you would accept as proof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: Nerd Date: 19 Jun 04 - 02:03 AM Hi BeardedBruce. I did not accept as gospel what the military said about chemical weapons in Israel. There has, in fact, been no evidence at all of this except for your testimony that you've heard it from people who were in Israel. Your friends' evidence was not, by the way, "firsthand" in the traditional sense; the only way to know firsthand if there were chemical weapons would be to see people die before your eyes, and I seriously doubt if your friends did. They heard it on the news or what-have-you, just like we did, and as people have pointed out above, those early reports were soon shown to be mistaken. In the Television Age, their knowledge is no more privileged than anyone else's, unless they literally witnessed death by sarin. I also did not discount the statements of the military as to what they found. I have conceded that prohibited items were found. I do not think they constitute WMD. It's the mass destruction that matters to me. For me, therefore, WMD is simply this: enough of a chemical toxin to kill thousands of people alongside a weapon that was designed or adapted to deliver it enough of a biological agent to kill thousands of people alongside a weapon that was designed or adapted to deliver it An atomic or nuclear bomb sufficient to kill thousands of people alongside a weapon that was designed or adapted to deliver it. I have actually never endorsed or used the term WMD myself, because so many people take it to mean chlorine bleach and ammonia, or mustard gas, or any number of primitive chemical agents that most chemical laboratories or most countries' militaries have. This makes it easy to claim your enemies have WMD. I haven't seen anything in Saddam's remaining arsenal that could have inflicted "mass destruction." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 19 Jun 04 - 10:39 AM A mushroom cloud over our heads? Unmanned drones loaded with anthrax? Uranium imported from Niger? You're welcome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: GUEST,TIA Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:35 PM Yes, indeed. We should all looky here . ("...Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq's foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program...") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: bobad Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM Is anyone surprised by this news? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Apr 06 - 04:09 PM What? Did they find those booby-trapped Brittney Spears inflatable dolls at last? What a despicable way to kill Americans! Only Saddam Hussein could come up with something so...so...diabolical! I understand that more than 50 American soldiers and oil industry reps have fallen prey to the seductive charms of these cunningly designed exploding dolls, left scattered around Iraq in camouflaged arms caches. The press, of course, has kept it all pretty hush-hush, because it's an embarrassing way for an American soldier or businessman to die, and they don't want to talk about it. Understandable. There is no doubt that those Iraqi WMD are among the most awful weapons ever manufactured...even worse than the terrible stuff the Poles had in '39, which prompted the Germans to make a pre-emptive strike on them, as explained by Hitler and Goebbels. Check the historical records. I think that if the Poles had gone so far as to manufacture similar dolls in large numbers, only making them look like Marlene Dietrich, that the Germans would have lost the war in '39, and the Poles might then have gone on to blackmail the entire world. A close-run thing, eh? Thank God we have strong-willed leaders who have the courage to attack and overrun other countries before they get a chance to attack us! Yes, indeedy. ;-P Hail to the Chief! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Jul 06 - 11:11 PM Conspiracy theorists (a possibly growing crowd) may be interested in the July 2006 Issue of Vanity Fair magazine: The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed By CRAIG UNGER. I can't offer any comment on accuracy, etc., and I'm not familiar with either the magazine or the author of the article; but it appears to summarize1 many of the claims that have been made, in one place. 1 (summarized in a scant 26 or so pages - use the printer friendly version) The article was brought to my attention when one of the "key(?) characters" in the article, Silvio Berlusconi, reportedly was indicted on a number of charges quite recently. The Vanity Fair website promises an article on Ramblin' Jack "next week," which will probably be more interesting to most people. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: CarolC Date: 08 Jul 06 - 01:26 AM Nice disclaimer, JiK! Thanks for posting the article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: JohnInKansas Date: 08 Jul 06 - 02:12 AM In the same Vanity Fair issue, (with the same disclaimers, of course): Blair's Big Brother Legacy by Henry Porter might also be worth a look. It sort of comes right out and says some of what a few have suggested here. Seeing it all put together in one I'll note that my brief look at this unfamiliar magazine did reveal that not all their articles are negative. Their spread on Sandra Bullock made her appear quite the nice young lady. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: dick greenhaus Date: 08 Jul 06 - 05:41 PM To me, at least, the most pretty obvious proof that there weren't any WMDs is the fact that Hussein didn't try to use any. Unless someone can suggest to me what he might have been waiting for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: Teribus Date: 08 Jul 06 - 06:54 PM "Churchill lived in far more testing times than ours" And most here would have vehemently opposed what he had to say and would have shouted him down as a war-monger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: gnu Date: 08 Jul 06 - 07:26 PM Gee... I just re-read the first post to this thread... I thought everyone knew they were shipped to Syria. Shortly after the invasion, Blair and his buddy appeared arm in arm on TV.... smiling profusely. Laughing gas? Muammar's the word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well, looky here... (Iraqi WMDs) From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton Date: 09 Jul 06 - 11:41 AM Everyone knows that what they call WMD's were useless remnants. It's a red-herring. Frank Hamilton |
