Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:58:11 -0500, rickb308 wrote:
Thinking more along the lines of Syria or Libya. I just don't see it. Since Reagan bombed Qaddafi, Libya has been trying to rehabilitate it's image. It recently accepted responsibility for the Pam Am bombing and paid reparations. Syria and Iraq may share a hatred for Israel, but Syria sided with Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. It is true that the relationship has been improving, but not to the point that they would be willing to risk our wrath by accepting Iraq's weapons. If you want to know about the WMD, I would look closer to home, to Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans. I would suggest they cooked the intell on Iraq and I personally feel Rumsfeld should be fired. Some interesting reads: http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/09/13/p7s1.htm http://www.meib.org/articles/0103_s1.htm |
#32
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gunner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 04:50:55 GMT, "Mark Browne" wrote: snip Known. Key operating word. If we had "known", we would have gotten Saddam. We would have "known" where he was. Thanks to budget cuts, and not being able to hire "thieves", our humint assests were mighty thin on the ground. We don't "know" everything they did. Hell, we didn't "KNOW" that they buried 30 fully armed MIG fighters in the sand. We found those by accident. And we admitted they were found by accident. Would have been easy to claim we knew where THEY were. snip Saddam effectively destroyed these arms. A turbine does not take well to being buried in sand; without extensive refitting those birds will never fly again. I can't begin to imagine why he chose to comply with the orders to disarm, but not to let the inspectors verify the fact. One working theory: it may have been in Saddams best interest to make his neighbors think he still possessed them so that he could maintain some control of his political rivals. Mark Browne Were they cucooned or were they simply bulldozed over? Gunner snip The pictures I saw looked like they had just dug a ditch, pushed them in, and covered them up. The sand was in direct contact with the birds. Mark Browne |
#33
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
... Known. Key operating word. Interesting article on the limits of intelligence: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_...n_julaug03.asp The title makes it sound like left-wing stuff, but read it anyway. It was just a poor choice of title, and the shortcomings described in the article apply to ANY administration. |
#34
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim -" wrote in message et... "Mark Browne" wrote in message news:by%8b.442621$o%2.199255@sccrnsc02... snip And because they reported it, it must be true. Sounds good to me; it does dovetail rather nicely with what I have personally experienced when traveling in the middle east. This is in rather sharp contrast with much of what has been said by people of the PNAC persuasion. Lets see, the story talks about the 1980's. Even Iraq admitted to having WOMD in the 1990's in their reports to the UN. So where did they go Mark? They said they destroyed them, and so far, it seems to be the truth. So how did Saddam earn credibility in your eyes? Was it his rape and torture chambers or his mass killings of his own citizens? I am not aware Saddam raped people but in any case I do not think the poster was supporting Saddam Hussein. Where did he say that? Do you believe that if I do not support you then I must be supporting your enemy? By the way the US DID support Saddam. Rumsfeld oversaw the selling of Anthrax to Iraq. And theUS supported other regiems who tortured raped an killed people en masse. Suharto in Indonesia and Pinochet in chile spring to mind but there are many more. [snip] Perhaps you wish to go over to the middle east and show these stupid inspectors how to search of the "missing" WMDs. I have a shovel, if you want to go over and dig up the missing weapons I would be happy to borrow it to you. Until then, the preponderance of evidence is that the weapons are destroyed. How do you borrow a shovel to another person Mark? When you cant tackle the arguemt do you resort ot attacking the person? Regardless, even Hans Blix thought the WOMD existed as late as February of this year: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/ "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction, but they urged Iraq to be more cooperative. Hans Blix, executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said they were still investigating and had not ruled out the possibility that Iraq does possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Here is the original: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/blix14Febasdel.htm Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment. Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002. More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations. .... How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented. We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programmes continue to exist. The US Secretary of State presented material in support of this conclusion. Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors. Inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on evidence, which they can, themselves, examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise. [end qoutes] Blix said perhaps the most important inspection issue is determining what happened to stores of anthrax, VX nerve agent and long-range missiles that Iraq previously was known to have. So where are they? And if the US invaded Iraq for this (and they SWORE BLIND that the WMD existed) why haven't they left now? One document suggests that "some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for," but Baghdad has begun to provide more information that could help lead to answers, Blix added. Is this doccument part of the "evidence " the UK governmnet made up? [snip] He said Iraq's al-Samoud 2 model of missile exceeds the range of 93 miles (150 kilometers) allowed by U.N. resolutions. Iraqi officials have said the missile does not yet have a guidance system, which would reduce its range. They didn't exceed the range AFAIK. Can you prove they did? Blix also said a small number of empty chemical munitions had been found, "which should have been declared and destroyed." Look! The US invaded after promising loads and loads of WMD terrorist training camps etc. They didn't find any. so why dont they leave? Have you been sleeping through the last twenty or so years? I am not normally a fan of clip and paste politics, but your question does not merit the work of personally answering: Translation: I am not able to. Would that be the last twenty years when the US moved an Army into fundamentalist (women and jews cant vote) Saudi Arabia and sold Anthrax to iraq? |
#35
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gunner" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:19:00 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Jim - wrote: "Mark Browne" wrote in message news:iv_8b.443180$Ho3.71632@sccrnsc03... So where did they go Mark? Have you been sleeping throught the last twenty or so years? I am not normally a fan of clip and paste politics, but your question does not merit the work of personally answering: Translation: I am not able to. Stupid is as stupid does. Which is why Harry posts on subjects he is underqualified to comment on. You also are evidently prone to that. Ok guys..the UN report in the late 1990s, stated catagoricly that Iraq had some moderately massive amounts of WMD. Yes rumsfeld had the receipts for the anthrax he sold to Iraq. So what? Then the UN inspectors were kicked out. So you folks are claiming that Saddam, in an act of pure altruism, destroyed the WMD, when no one was looking. Where is it? You are shifting the shoe onto the other foot. The US claimed evidence for WMD and claimed they were invading because of that threat. where is the evidence? and now that the threat is gone why aren't the US? WMD that he has spent billions on developing. There is no half life on most Chemical agents. Biological ones, if not fed or left unfrozen, yes. Chemical agents e.g SARIN SOMBAN TAMUN are highly volitale and denaturate rapidly on exposure to Air. One only has to open the container and stand well clear. Within a few hours the agent is gone. I further note that you folks are claiming that Saddam used up all the WMD in the Iraq/Iran war, I am claiming thast if Saddam had wmd and had the capability to launch them in 40 minutes (which the US/UK alliance claimed) then where are they? a number (10) yrs before the UN report came out. Unless he owns a time machine and his military supply train extends backwards in time..you have a problem with this statement. Its at the least, to put it nicely..in error... I suggest you get in your time machine and look at the point where the US supplied Saddam with WMD in the first place. Oh Tempora oh Mores! |
#36
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gunner" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:11:03 GMT, "Mark Browne" wrote: They said they destroyed them, and so far, it seems to be the truth. You do seem to think a lot of your opinion about how clueless the inspectors are. Perhaps you wish to go over to the middle east and show these stupid inspectors how to search of the "missing" WMDs. I have a shovel, if you want to go over and dig up the missing weapons I would be happy to borrow it to you. Until then, the preponderance of evidence is that the weapons are destroyed. Ah..Mark..there is no evidence, other than a claim by Saddam, that they were destroyed. A paper trail. Period. And the paper trail itself had serious holes in it, given a number of WMD that simply did not appear in the claim, that the UN had indeed verified the Iraqis had in their arsenal. Ah gunner. If I accuse you of murder and you end up in court and the prosecution claim loads and loads of evidence is it then up to you to produce proof that you did not commit the murder? Or is it that you are assumed not to have done so and the prosecution have to actually produce the evidence? So where is this evidence? "I swrae your honour Exibhit A was there only last week" is not evidence. |
#37
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:56:51 -0400, thunder wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:10:01 +0000, rickb308 wrote: On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 04:05:01 -0400, thunder wrote: On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 05:09:33 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: What is really scary, other than your IQ, is that no WMD's were found! Where did they go? IS a known fact he had them, even your beloved Clinton believed the fact, especially the proven fact he used them on his own people as well as Iranians. Which country is the holder of the weapons now? They scary fact is that zero has been found. Means that there was a very complete transfer out of the country. Bill Possibly, another explanation is that the UN inspectors were correct in their estimation that up to 98% of the weapons were already destroyed. Then they should have been able to point to where they were destroyed at. UN Inspectors have verified much of the destroyed weapons. The sticking point has always been the verification/documentation of the remaining weapons. There is much information on the internet about this, or do you actually believe that Iran would accept Iraq's WMD? The same weapons that they had seen first hand in the Iran Iraq War, a war that cost the Iranians 1/2 million people. Thinking more along the lines of Syria or Libya. Oh so you invaded the WRONG country then? so it is okay then. So the evidence points to Libya (who you also sold weapons to ) or Syria? So you should invade them then because it is them who are the real problem? Bit of a US and them senario eh? Also, you may want to consider that the weapons he had in the 1990s are no longer weapons. They do have a shelf live. biological, maybe. Chemical? Who knows. Iraq was known to produce three nerve agents, sarin, tabun, and VX. Sarin and tabun have a shelf live of five years. It is not known that Iraq ever stabilized VX. Known. Key operating word. Known because the US (Rumsfeld oversaw it) SOLD them Anthrax etc. Key pot calling kettle black phrase. If we had "known", we would have gotten Saddam. Th Us did know. They SOLD him the stuff. We would have "known" where he was. Thanks to budget cuts, and not being able to hire "thieves", our humint assests were mighty thin on the ground. We don't "know" everything they did. Budget cuts bollox! The Us have spent $75 billion on the currebnt Iraq invasion. Haliburton (chaneys old employer) stand to gain $7 billion. This is afet almost going bankrupt before the War. Clinto built up a trillion dollars. do you look forward to your taxes increasing now that Bush has squandered the lot? Hell, we didn't "KNOW" that they buried 30 fully armed MIG fighters in the sand. But you knew that 400 migs had been flown to Iran in 1991. Lack of evidence of something is not proof of something else. you may not know Mr x committed rape. When you find out about Mr x does that mean Mr Y must be guilty of murder? We found those by accident. And we admitted they were found by accident. Would have been easy to claim we knew where THEY were. Really? so before you knew about accidental discoveries you can predict them. i might accidentaly win the lotto next week. care to predict the numbers for me? Without the 2nd Amendment, the rest are just suggestions. The 2nd Ammendment gives Us citizens the right to bear arms. does this include nukes? How about SARIN? |
#38
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gunner" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:30:22 -0700, Tim May [snip] You do realize that all three of those princelings have died since 9/11, are you not? Do you realise that the poeple promulgating your trolling myths have not answered the valid questions they were asked Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 1953 The present Iraq thing has cost the US $75 billion. Who do you want to pay the extra taxes for this and the $1500 billion Bush squandered? |
#39
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Beacon" wrote in message
... "Gunner" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:30:22 -0700, Tim May [snip] You do realize that all three of those princelings have died since 9/11, are you not? Do you realise that the poeple promulgating your trolling myths have not answered the valid questions they were asked Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 1953 The present Iraq thing has cost the US $75 billion. Who do you want to pay the extra taxes for this and the $1500 billion Bush squandered? The fools believe that it's OK to simply sell more treasury debt to fund this mess. Somebody else will pay for it. Doesn't this smack of entitlement, the same practice that right-wing robots whine about constantly? Getting something for nothing? |
#40
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
[snip]
The fools believe that it's OK to simply sell more treasury debt to fund this mess. Somebody else will pay for it. Doesn't this smack of entitlement, the same practice that right-wing robots whine about constantly? Getting something for nothing? Obligatory Your marriage braakdown; your divorce;whether yousurvive; and can you afford a boat all this depends on what te Bush admisistration can cost you |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|