No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

[Michael Petukhov]

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=21801&lang=en

No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

05 October 2003

As the first progress report from the Iraq Survey Group is released,
Cambridge WMD expert Dr Glen Rangwala finds that even the diluted
claims made for Saddam Hussein's arsenal don't stand up


Last week's progress report by American and British weapons inspectors
in Iraq has failed to supply evidence for the vast majority of the
claims made on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by their governments
before the war.

David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told congressional
committees in Washington that no official orders or plans could be
found to back up the allegation that a nuclear programme remained
active after 1991. Aluminium tubes have not been used for the
enrichment of uranium, in contrast to US Secretary of State Colin
Powell's lengthy exposition to the UN Security Council in February. No
suspicious activities or residues have been found at the seven sites
within Iraq described in the Prime Minister's dossier from September
2002.

The ISG even casts serious doubt on President Bush's much-trumpeted
claim that US forces had found three mobile biological laboratories
after the war: "technical limitations" would prevent the trailers from
being ideally suited to biological weapons production, it records. In
other words, they were for something else.

There have certainly been no signs of imported uranium, or even
battlefield munitions ready to fire within 45 minutes. Most
significantly, the claim to Parliament on the eve of conflict by Jack
Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that "we know that this man [Saddam
Hussein] has got ... chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses,
bacilli and ... 10,000 litres of anthrax" has yet to find a single
piece of supportive evidence.

Those who staked their career on the existence in Iraq of at least
chemical and biological weapons programmes have latched on to three
claims in the progress report.

First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced". Mr Straw
claimed the morning after the report's release that this agent was
"15,000 times more toxic than the nerve agent VX". That is wrong:
botulinum type A is one of the most poisonous substances known, and
was developed in weaponised form by Iraq before 1991. However, type B
- the form found at the biologist's home - is less lethal.

Even then, it would require an extensive process of fermentation, the
growing of the bug, the extraction of the toxin and the weaponisation
of the toxin before it could cause harm. That process would take
weeks, if not longer, but the ISG reported no sign of any of these
activities.

Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
"seed banks".

Second, a large part of the ISG report is taken up with assertions
that Iraq had been acquiring designs and under- taking research
programmes for missiles with a range that exceeded the UN limit of
150km. The evidence here is more detailed than in the rest of the
report. However, it does not demonstrate that Iraq was violating the
terms of any Security Council resolution. The prohibition on Iraq
acquiring technology relating to chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons was absolute: no agents, no sub-systems and no research or
support facilities.

By contrast, Iraq was simply prohibited from actually having
longer-range missiles, together with "major parts, and repair and
production facilities". The ISG does not claim proof that Iraq had any
such missiles or facilities, just the knowledge to produce them in
future. Indeed, it would have been entirely lawful for Iraq to develop
such systems if the restrictions implemented in 1991 were lifted,
while it would never have been legitimate for it to re-develop WMD.

Third, one sentence within the report has been much quoted: Iraq had
"a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the
Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment subject to UN
monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research". Note what that
sentence does not say: these facilities were suitable for chemical and
biological weapons research (as almost any modern lab would be), not
that they had engaged in such research. The reference to UN monitoring
is also spurious: under the terms of UN resolutions, all of Iraq's
chemical and biological facilities are subject to monitoring. So all
this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=450121

Source: Dr Glen Rangwala The Independent

[captain!]

they have found tons of munitions.

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=21801&lang=en
>
> No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes
>
> 05 October 2003
>
> As the first progress report from the Iraq Survey Group is released,
> Cambridge WMD expert Dr Glen Rangwala finds that even the diluted
> claims made for Saddam Hussein's arsenal don't stand up
>
>
> Last week's progress report by American and British weapons inspectors
> in Iraq has failed to supply evidence for the vast majority of the
> claims made on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by their governments
> before the war.
>
> David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told congressional
> committees in Washington that no official orders or plans could be
> found to back up the allegation that a nuclear programme remained
> active after 1991. Aluminium tubes have not been used for the
> enrichment of uranium, in contrast to US Secretary of State Colin
> Powell's lengthy exposition to the UN Security Council in February. No
> suspicious activities or residues have been found at the seven sites
> within Iraq described in the Prime Minister's dossier from September
> 2002.
>
> The ISG even casts serious doubt on President Bush's much-trumpeted
> claim that US forces had found three mobile biological laboratories
> after the war: "technical limitations" would prevent the trailers from
> being ideally suited to biological weapons production, it records. In
> other words, they were for something else.
>
> There have certainly been no signs of imported uranium, or even
> battlefield munitions ready to fire within 45 minutes. Most
> significantly, the claim to Parliament on the eve of conflict by Jack
> Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that "we know that this man [Saddam
> Hussein] has got ... chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses,
> bacilli and ... 10,000 litres of anthrax" has yet to find a single
> piece of supportive evidence.
>
> Those who staked their career on the existence in Iraq of at least
> chemical and biological weapons programmes have latched on to three
> claims in the progress report.
>
> First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
> reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
> Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced". Mr Straw
> claimed the morning after the report's release that this agent was
> "15,000 times more toxic than the nerve agent VX". That is wrong:
> botulinum type A is one of the most poisonous substances known, and
> was developed in weaponised form by Iraq before 1991. However, type B
> - the form found at the biologist's home - is less lethal.
>
> Even then, it would require an extensive process of fermentation, the
> growing of the bug, the extraction of the toxin and the weaponisation
> of the toxin before it could cause harm. That process would take
> weeks, if not longer, but the ISG reported no sign of any of these
> activities.
>
> Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
> botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
> laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
> Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
> "seed banks".
>
> Second, a large part of the ISG report is taken up with assertions
> that Iraq had been acquiring designs and under- taking research
> programmes for missiles with a range that exceeded the UN limit of
> 150km. The evidence here is more detailed than in the rest of the
> report. However, it does not demonstrate that Iraq was violating the
> terms of any Security Council resolution. The prohibition on Iraq
> acquiring technology relating to chemical, biological or nuclear
> weapons was absolute: no agents, no sub-systems and no research or
> support facilities.
>
> By contrast, Iraq was simply prohibited from actually having
> longer-range missiles, together with "major parts, and repair and
> production facilities". The ISG does not claim proof that Iraq had any
> such missiles or facilities, just the knowledge to produce them in
> future. Indeed, it would have been entirely lawful for Iraq to develop
> such systems if the restrictions implemented in 1991 were lifted,
> while it would never have been legitimate for it to re-develop WMD.
>
> Third, one sentence within the report has been much quoted: Iraq had
> "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the
> Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment subject to UN
> monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research". Note what that
> sentence does not say: these facilities were suitable for chemical and
> biological weapons research (as almost any modern lab would be), not
> that they had engaged in such research. The reference to UN monitoring
> is also spurious: under the terms of UN resolutions, all of Iraq's
> chemical and biological facilities are subject to monitoring. So all
> this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories.
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=450121
>
> Source: Dr Glen Rangwala The Independent

[Fred J. McCall]

(Michael Petukhov) wrote:

:First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
:reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
:Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced".

:Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
:botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
:laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
:Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
:"seed banks".

But when the US CDC sends such things to Iraq, your ilk trumpet the
claim that we're sending them biological weapons stocks....

[Dav1936531]

>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>
>
>No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes
>05 October 2003

<<<<Also from the AP on 10-05-03>>>>>>>>>>

Kay Says Iraq Weapons May Still Be Found

By DAVID HO--The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Weapons hunters in Iraq are pursuing tips that point to the
possible presence of anthrax and Scud missiles still hidden in the country, the
chief searcher said Sunday.

David Kay told Congress last week that his survey team had not found nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons so far. But he argued against drawing
conclusions, saying he expects to provide a full picture on Iraq's weapons
programs in six months to nine months.

While lacking physical evidence for the presence anthrax or Scuds, Kay said
tips from Iraqis are motivating the search for them.

Critics, including many in Congress, say Kay's findings do not support most of
the Bush administration's prewar assertions that the United States faced an
imminent, serious threat from Iraq's Saddam Hussein because of widespread and
advanced Iraqi weapons programs.

President Bush has said the U.S.-led war on Iraq was justified despite the
failure to find weapons.

Kay reported that searchers found a vial of live botulinum bacteria that had
been stored since 1993 in an Iraqi scientist's refrigerator. The bacteria make
botulinum toxin, which can be used as a biological weapon, but Kay has offered
no evidence that the bacteria had been used in a weapons program.

The live bacteria was among a collection of ``reference strains'' of biological
organisms that could not be used to produce biological warfare agents.

Kay said Sunday the same scientist told investigators that he was asked to hide
another much larger cache of strains, but ``after a couple of days he turned
them back because he said they were too dangerous. He has small children in the
house.''

Kay said the cache ``contains anthrax and that's one reason we're actively
interested in getting it.'' Kay, speaking on ``Fox News Sunday,'' did not say
whether the anthrax was live or a strain used only for anthrax research.

Before the war, Iraqis said they had destroyed their supply of anthrax.
Inspectors haven't found any and Iraqis haven't been able to provide evidence
to satisfy investigators that they did destroy it. Experts note that old
supplies of anthrax would have degraded by now.

While the Bush administration argued before taking the country to war that
Iraq's arsenal posed an imminent threat, much of what Kay discovered is that
Iraq had interest in such weapons and was researching some agents.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Kay's report shows Saddam's clear intent to
develop chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. He
said, however, that the administration didn't tell the public the whole truth.

``There is some evidence that the Bush administration exaggerated
unnecessarily,'' he told ``Fox News Sunday.'' Lieberman, a presidential
candidate, said the exaggeration ``did discredit what was otherwise a very just
cause of fighting tyranny and terrorism.''

Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have contended the vial of botulinum
bacteria that Kay's team found is one strong piece of evidence of Saddam's
weapons intent.

Searches have been unsuccessful for the kind of long-range Scud missiles the
Iraqis fired at Saudi Arabia and Israel in 1991. Many were destroyed during and
after the Persian Gulf War, but the Bush administration had accused Iraq of
continuing to hide Scuds.

Kay said there are indications there may still be Scuds even though Iraq
declared it got rid of them in the early 1990s.

``We have Iraqis now telling us that they continued until 2001, early 2002, to
be capable of mixing and preparing Scud missile fuel. Scud missile fuel is only
useful in Scud missiles,'' he said. ``Why would you continue to produce Scud
missile fuel if you didn't have Scuds? We're looking for the Scuds.''

Kay's report to Congress said the information on fuel production came from
Iraqi sources and has not been confirmed with documents or physical evidence.

Weapons hunters still are looking for chemical weapons at scores of large
ammunition storage sites throughout Iraq. Because of the size of the depots,
searchers have examined only 10 of 130 sites so far, Kay said.

``These are sites that contain - the best estimate is between 600,000 and
650,000 tons of arms,'' he said. ``That's about one-third of the entire
ammunition stockpile of the much larger U.S. military.''

The Iraqis stored chemical weapons, often unmarked, among conventional
munitions, so ``you really have to examine each one,'' Kay said. He said 26
sites are on a critical list to be examined quickly.

On the Net:
David Kay's report to members of Congress: http://www.cia.gov

10/05/03 20:26 EDT

[George Z. Bush]

Dav1936531 wrote:
>> From: (Michael Petukhov)
>> >
>>
>> No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes
>> 05 October 2003
>
> <<<<Also from the AP on 10-05-03>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Kay Says Iraq Weapons May Still Be Found

Similarly, if pigs grew wings, they might be able to fly.

[Peter Glasø]

Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely
missed,right?


"Michael Petukhov" > skrev i melding
om...
> http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=21801&lang=en
>
> No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes
>
> 05 October 2003
>
> As the first progress report from the Iraq Survey Group is released,
> Cambridge WMD expert Dr Glen Rangwala finds that even the diluted
> claims made for Saddam Hussein's arsenal don't stand up
>
>
> Last week's progress report by American and British weapons inspectors
> in Iraq has failed to supply evidence for the vast majority of the
> claims made on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by their governments
> before the war.
>
> David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told congressional
> committees in Washington that no official orders or plans could be
> found to back up the allegation that a nuclear programme remained
> active after 1991. Aluminium tubes have not been used for the
> enrichment of uranium, in contrast to US Secretary of State Colin
> Powell's lengthy exposition to the UN Security Council in February. No
> suspicious activities or residues have been found at the seven sites
> within Iraq described in the Prime Minister's dossier from September
> 2002.
>
> The ISG even casts serious doubt on President Bush's much-trumpeted
> claim that US forces had found three mobile biological laboratories
> after the war: "technical limitations" would prevent the trailers from
> being ideally suited to biological weapons production, it records. In
> other words, they were for something else.
>
> There have certainly been no signs of imported uranium, or even
> battlefield munitions ready to fire within 45 minutes. Most
> significantly, the claim to Parliament on the eve of conflict by Jack
> Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that "we know that this man [Saddam
> Hussein] has got ... chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses,
> bacilli and ... 10,000 litres of anthrax" has yet to find a single
> piece of supportive evidence.
>
> Those who staked their career on the existence in Iraq of at least
> chemical and biological weapons programmes have latched on to three
> claims in the progress report.
>
> First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
> reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
> Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced". Mr Straw
> claimed the morning after the report's release that this agent was
> "15,000 times more toxic than the nerve agent VX". That is wrong:
> botulinum type A is one of the most poisonous substances known, and
> was developed in weaponised form by Iraq before 1991. However, type B
> - the form found at the biologist's home - is less lethal.
>
> Even then, it would require an extensive process of fermentation, the
> growing of the bug, the extraction of the toxin and the weaponisation
> of the toxin before it could cause harm. That process would take
> weeks, if not longer, but the ISG reported no sign of any of these
> activities.
>
> Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
> botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
> laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
> Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
> "seed banks".
>
> Second, a large part of the ISG report is taken up with assertions
> that Iraq had been acquiring designs and under- taking research
> programmes for missiles with a range that exceeded the UN limit of
> 150km. The evidence here is more detailed than in the rest of the
> report. However, it does not demonstrate that Iraq was violating the
> terms of any Security Council resolution. The prohibition on Iraq
> acquiring technology relating to chemical, biological or nuclear
> weapons was absolute: no agents, no sub-systems and no research or
> support facilities.
>
> By contrast, Iraq was simply prohibited from actually having
> longer-range missiles, together with "major parts, and repair and
> production facilities". The ISG does not claim proof that Iraq had any
> such missiles or facilities, just the knowledge to produce them in
> future. Indeed, it would have been entirely lawful for Iraq to develop
> such systems if the restrictions implemented in 1991 were lifted,
> while it would never have been legitimate for it to re-develop WMD.
>
> Third, one sentence within the report has been much quoted: Iraq had
> "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the
> Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment subject to UN
> monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research". Note what that
> sentence does not say: these facilities were suitable for chemical and
> biological weapons research (as almost any modern lab would be), not
> that they had engaged in such research. The reference to UN monitoring
> is also spurious: under the terms of UN resolutions, all of Iraq's
> chemical and biological facilities are subject to monitoring. So all
> this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories.
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=450121
>
> Source: Dr Glen Rangwala The Independent

[Andy Dingley]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:42:34 +0200, "Peter Glasø" <pgglaso @
broadpark.no> wrote:

>Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely
>missed,right?

The thing that really ****es me off about the whole situation is not
the result on Iraq, but the effect on Western democracy (and I include
Russia here).

SH was a total *******, We should have chased his sorry ass all the
way to Baghdad in '91. I rejoice in his downfall and the impending day
when he is torn limb from limb down the streets of Tikrit.

But if this was a long-overdue war to depose SH, then why couldn't we
be _honest_ about it and call it that ?

Instead we've seen the unedifying spectacle of Bush blaming SH for the
WTC attacks, and the majority of America believing it. Or Blair
claiming that we're only 45 minutes from an Iraqi attack on the Tube.
Now Bush isn't my prez, so I'll let someone else rant about him. But
Blair has lied and cheated all around this issue, and has misled and
twisted the parliament of _my_ country in a way that hasn't been seen
since Charles I.

There are no WMD. There were once, he wanted some more, but the fine
work of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC kept his greedy little hands out of the
cookie jar (despite some shameful behaviour by some European
manufacturers and conniving governments). If any last remnant of these
programs had survived, or some final struggle went on like
Heisenberg's atomkeller, then it was by and large irrelevant. It was
certainly no justification for this war.

We (the larger coallition of Western states) should have waited. There
was scope for ongoing inspection, if we really were concerned about an
international risk of WMD attack. Against the argument of "We had to
move in before the Summer heat", I'd ask why such moves couldn't have
been put in train 6 months earlier, and also point out that it's now
October and ground troops are still in there, after the worst of
Summer.

Waiting, and continuing the inspections, would have probably brought
Germany on board as a supporter, if there was any real justification,
and would have reduced the basis on which France and Russia could have
continued to refuse.

I think Blair probably does sincerely believe in the threat of Iraqi
WMD. He is, after all, the Hughie Green of British sound-bite
politics. But this has more to with him being so far up his own spin
that he convinces himself to truly believe it. A UK president with
such a capacity for genuine doublethink is truly frightening.

--
Smert' spamionam

[Keith Willshaw]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
>
> :First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
> :reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
> :Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced".
>
> :Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
> :botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
> :laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
> :Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
> :"seed banks".
>
> But when the US CDC sends such things to Iraq, your ilk trumpet the
> claim that we're sending them biological weapons stocks....
>

There's an interesting article the BBC published yesterday
about David Kay The man spearheading the US hunt for
banned weapons in Iraq. He said he is surprised attention
has focused on what his Iraq Survey Group has not found,
rather than on the things it has uncovered.

He says his Iraq Survey Group has uncovered evidence of
banned activities which the United Nations and pre-war
intelligence had not known about, including 24 clandestine
laboratories and four unreported missile programmes.

He also insisted his report last week to US Congress was interim.
"I know we're going to find remarkable things about Iraq's
weapons programmes," he said.

Keith

[George Z. Bush]

Not hardly, but that's not a good enough reason to go to war with every no-good
murderous ****head in the world. Imminent danger from Saddam would have been,
but we can't even prove imminent, having spent over 6 months and billions of
dollars looking. How long and how much will it take for you and your apologist
buddies to admit that there was nothing there and stop making excuses for
picking a fight? We behaved like international bullies, we've lost most of our
allies and their respect, and we have precious little to show for our efforts
other than growing casualty lists and an Iraqi oil infrastructure that's going
to drain us dry trying to repair it. Even worse, it's going to make Halliburton
rich because they're the ones who are going to end up with all that money we're
going to be spending on it, and they didn't even have to bid on their contract,
a little something that has its own distinctive outhouse type smell to it.

George Z.

Peter Glasø wrote:
> Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely
> missed,right?
>
>
> "Michael Petukhov" > skrev i melding
> om...
>> http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=21801&lang=en
>>
>> No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes
>>
>> 05 October 2003
>>
>> As the first progress report from the Iraq Survey Group is released,
>> Cambridge WMD expert Dr Glen Rangwala finds that even the diluted
>> claims made for Saddam Hussein's arsenal don't stand up
>>
>>
>> Last week's progress report by American and British weapons inspectors
>> in Iraq has failed to supply evidence for the vast majority of the
>> claims made on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by their governments
>> before the war.
>>
>> David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told congressional
>> committees in Washington that no official orders or plans could be
>> found to back up the allegation that a nuclear programme remained
>> active after 1991. Aluminium tubes have not been used for the
>> enrichment of uranium, in contrast to US Secretary of State Colin
>> Powell's lengthy exposition to the UN Security Council in February. No
>> suspicious activities or residues have been found at the seven sites
>> within Iraq described in the Prime Minister's dossier from September
>> 2002.
>>
>> The ISG even casts serious doubt on President Bush's much-trumpeted
>> claim that US forces had found three mobile biological laboratories
>> after the war: "technical limitations" would prevent the trailers from
>> being ideally suited to biological weapons production, it records. In
>> other words, they were for something else.
>>
>> There have certainly been no signs of imported uranium, or even
>> battlefield munitions ready to fire within 45 minutes. Most
>> significantly, the claim to Parliament on the eve of conflict by Jack
>> Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that "we know that this man [Saddam
>> Hussein] has got ... chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses,
>> bacilli and ... 10,000 litres of anthrax" has yet to find a single
>> piece of supportive evidence.
>>
>> Those who staked their career on the existence in Iraq of at least
>> chemical and biological weapons programmes have latched on to three
>> claims in the progress report.
>>
>> First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
>> reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
>> Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced". Mr Straw
>> claimed the morning after the report's release that this agent was
>> "15,000 times more toxic than the nerve agent VX". That is wrong:
>> botulinum type A is one of the most poisonous substances known, and
>> was developed in weaponised form by Iraq before 1991. However, type B
>> - the form found at the biologist's home - is less lethal.
>>
>> Even then, it would require an extensive process of fermentation, the
>> growing of the bug, the extraction of the toxin and the weaponisation
>> of the toxin before it could cause harm. That process would take
>> weeks, if not longer, but the ISG reported no sign of any of these
>> activities.
>>
>> Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
>> botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
>> laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
>> Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
>> "seed banks".
>>
>> Second, a large part of the ISG report is taken up with assertions
>> that Iraq had been acquiring designs and under- taking research
>> programmes for missiles with a range that exceeded the UN limit of
>> 150km. The evidence here is more detailed than in the rest of the
>> report. However, it does not demonstrate that Iraq was violating the
>> terms of any Security Council resolution. The prohibition on Iraq
>> acquiring technology relating to chemical, biological or nuclear
>> weapons was absolute: no agents, no sub-systems and no research or
>> support facilities.
>>
>> By contrast, Iraq was simply prohibited from actually having
>> longer-range missiles, together with "major parts, and repair and
>> production facilities". The ISG does not claim proof that Iraq had any
>> such missiles or facilities, just the knowledge to produce them in
>> future. Indeed, it would have been entirely lawful for Iraq to develop
>> such systems if the restrictions implemented in 1991 were lifted,
>> while it would never have been legitimate for it to re-develop WMD.
>>
>> Third, one sentence within the report has been much quoted: Iraq had
>> "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the
>> Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment subject to UN
>> monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research". Note what that
>> sentence does not say: these facilities were suitable for chemical and
>> biological weapons research (as almost any modern lab would be), not
>> that they had engaged in such research. The reference to UN monitoring
>> is also spurious: under the terms of UN resolutions, all of Iraq's
>> chemical and biological facilities are subject to monitoring. So all
>> this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories.
>>
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=450121
>>
>> Source: Dr Glen Rangwala The Independent

[George Z. Bush]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> ...
>> (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
>>
>>> First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
>>> reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
>>> Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced".
>>
>>> Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
>>> botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
>>> laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
>>> Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them :"seed
>>> banks".
>>
>> But when the US CDC sends such things to Iraq, your ilk trumpet the
>> claim that we're sending them biological weapons stocks....
>>
>
> There's an interesting article the BBC published yesterday
> about David Kay The man spearheading the US hunt for
> banned weapons in Iraq. He said he is surprised attention
> has focused on what his Iraq Survey Group has not found,
> rather than on the things it has uncovered.
>
> He says his Iraq Survey Group has uncovered evidence of
> banned activities which the United Nations and pre-war
> intelligence had not known about, including 24 clandestine
> laboratories and four unreported missile programmes.
>
> He also insisted his report last week to US Congress was interim.
> "I know we're going to find remarkable things about Iraq's
> weapons programmes," he said.

But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because they
don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody? Is that going
to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?

George Z.
>
> Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...

>
> But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because
they
> don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody?

Today not all

In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
go back into production of WMD and the missiles
to carry them who knows ?

> Is that going
> to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?
>

It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?

Keith

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Andy Dingley > wrote:

> But if this was a long-overdue war to depose SH, then why couldn't we
> be _honest_ about it and call it that ?

Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
they could be the same sort of *******.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[George Z. Bush]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because
> they
> > don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody?
>
> Today not all
>
> In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
> and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
> go back into production of WMD and the missiles
> to carry them who knows ?

The same things that happened during the past five years could have happened in
the next five years, without either of our countries having had to have suffered
the loss of a single life. I'm not convinced that your pessimistic view of the
future is anywhere near accurate, and certainly not enough to satisfy me as
being worth the number of dead and maimed we have suffered up to now and
apparently will continue to suffer.
>
> > Is that going
> > to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?
> >
>
> It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
> until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?

Yes, I would, because the thing may blow up on the pad, or it may suffer one of
countless setbacks that might prevent it from ever leaving the ground. IAC, if
that's the criteria, our war with them should have started already, but I notice
that it hasn't, for some strange reason.

Yes, I still think it's an empty rationale. We can't make war with every
country we don't like just because we are fearful of their intentions. If we
have to do that, we're pretty much fully engaged and committed in Afghanistan
and Iraq at the moment, so how about you guys taking the lead in North Korea and
China.....I'm sure we can find a division or two of troops to send over to give
your guys a hand and lend you some moral support.

George Z.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> Andy Dingley > wrote:
>
>
>>But if this was a long-overdue war to depose SH, then why couldn't we
>>be _honest_ about it and call it that ?
>
>
> Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
> they could be the same sort of *******.
>
I don't follow your reasoning. Please expand, on the connection.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

captain! wrote:

> "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=21801&lang=en
>>
>>No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes
>>
> they have found tons of munitions.
What kind of munitions do you think that Petkhov was
refering to?
What kind of munitions were found?
What can this be considered as evidence of?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Andy Dingley > wrote:
> >
> >>But if this was a long-overdue war to depose SH, then why couldn't we
> >>be _honest_ about it and call it that ?
> >
> > Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
> > they could be the same sort of *******.
> >
> I don't follow your reasoning. Please expand, on the connection.

Less than one-third of the countries in the United Nations have what you
could call a "representative government."

Some of the loudest voices against the US deposing a dictator like
Saddam Hussein are, well, dictators like Saddam Hussein...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Stephen Harding]

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >
> > In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
> > and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
> > go back into production of WMD and the missiles
> > to carry them who knows ?
>
> The same things that happened during the past five years could have happened in
> the next five years, without either of our countries having had to have suffered
> the loss of a single life. I'm not convinced that your pessimistic view of the
> future is anywhere near accurate, and certainly not enough to satisfy me as
> being worth the number of dead and maimed we have suffered up to now and
> apparently will continue to suffer.

I think the sanctions were about to be broken. Russia, France, Germany and
a significant part of US opinion was starting to regard them as misdirected
against innocent Iraqis. The regime was largely unhampered by them, and in
fact, was enriching itself on the limited commondities.

It wasn't until US intentions to go to war became clear that suddenly, sanctions
were good and should "be given time" to work. Too many interests in too many
countries in letting Saddam out from under the UN, for them to have lasted.

> > It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
> > until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?
>
> Yes, I would, because the thing may blow up on the pad, or it may suffer one of
> countless setbacks that might prevent it from ever leaving the ground. IAC, if
> that's the criteria, our war with them should have started already, but I notice
> that it hasn't, for some strange reason.

I wonder if any of the Bush critics *really* would support a war, or even more
agressive actions against NK? It's a *much* more formidable country militarily
than Iraq probably ever was. I don't believe for a minute that Dean or Kennedy
or any of the Democratic (or Republican) critics of the war would even think of
seriously threatening NK with force. Yet we keep hearing them tell us how much
more dangerous NK is and our efforts should be put there.

> Yes, I still think it's an empty rationale. We can't make war with every
> country we don't like just because we are fearful of their intentions. If we

That's absolutely true. I've come to the belief that we should simply wait
until the "fearful intentions" are actually demonstrated, before action is taken.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans (most likely civilians) will die by waiting, but
the intent will be clear, and whether anyone else likes our reaction or not won't
matter a whit to the American people.

> have to do that, we're pretty much fully engaged and committed in Afghanistan
> and Iraq at the moment, so how about you guys taking the lead in North Korea and
> China.....I'm sure we can find a division or two of troops to send over to give
> your guys a hand and lend you some moral support.

So are you actually in support of military operations against this more dangerous
to US than Iraq, North Korea? I'd be very surprised to see you actually supporting
a war against NK, especially if the current casualty rate in Iraq is considered too
high. Can you imagine the casualty rates per week against NK?


SMH

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> But that wasn't the point, was it? US&UK attacked Iraq because of it's
> supposed _immediate_ threat.

Actually, no, despite the spin put on it by some news organizations.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Yama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find
because
> > they
> > > don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody?
> >
> > Today not all
> >
> > In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
> > and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
> > go back into production of WMD and the missiles
> > to carry them who knows ?
>
> But that wasn't the point, was it? US&UK attacked Iraq because of it's
> supposed _immediate_ threat. If you start invading coutries based on their
> ability to develope WMD and ballistic missile capability within 5 years,
> there probably are like, oh, 100 nations which need to be invaded right
> away.

The ability to develop weapons programs and the act
of having clandestine weapons programs specifically
prohibited by the UN are somewhat different beasts.

The Iraqi regime having invaded two of its neighbours and
having use WMD on its own people was a known threat.

The fact that they have indeed been found to be developing
such clandestine programs seems to indicate the leopard
hadnt changed its spots. Now the inquiry into the Hutton
affair seems to indicate some doubt about how immediate
various sources thought was correct, however when dealing with
a regime as secrestive as Iraq its always going to be hard to
get it right

After the first war with Iraq we found they were MUCH nearer
to getting nuclear weapons than anyone thought possible.
When dealing with someone with the track record of Saddam
Hussein I'm not inclined to grant the regime the benefit of the
doubt.


> Now, there is more and more evidence being uncovered that Bush and Blair
not
> only exaggarated and were ignorant about true Iraqi capabilities, they
were
> downright lying to public about them.
>
> Why should international community believe them ever again?
>
>

And yet you'd have us believe Saddam Hussein and presumably
lift the sanctions, which were killing more Iraqis per year than
the war, if you believe the relief organisations.

Fact is the situation was a running sore, the options were
ignore the infection or lance the boil.

Keith

[Michael Williamson]

George Z. Bush wrote:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>>"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
>>
(Michael Petukhov) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
>>>>reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
>>>>Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced".
>>>
>>>>Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
>>>>botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
>>>>laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
>>>>Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them :"seed
>>>>banks".

If these strains were intended to be used for legitimate use, why did
they hide them in this guy's home refrigerator? Also, he reportedly
told investigators that they tried to hide Anthrax at his home as well,
but that he convinced them to remove it due to the hazard posed, as
he had small children in the home (although it does seem strange to
me that he would be willing to keep the Botulinum). The Anthrax
involved was never accounted for by Iraq, AFAIK.

>>
>>There's an interesting article the BBC published yesterday
>>about David Kay The man spearheading the US hunt for
>>banned weapons in Iraq. He said he is surprised attention
>>has focused on what his Iraq Survey Group has not found,
>>rather than on the things it has uncovered.
>>
>>He says his Iraq Survey Group has uncovered evidence of
>>banned activities which the United Nations and pre-war
>>intelligence had not known about, including 24 clandestine
>>laboratories and four unreported missile programmes.
>>
>>He also insisted his report last week to US Congress was interim.
>>"I know we're going to find remarkable things about Iraq's
>>weapons programmes," he said.
>
>
> But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because they
> don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody? Is that going
> to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?
>

Well, the UN resolution didn't require Iraq to prove only that it
had no weapons at the time of the latest round of inspections. It
required Iraq to reveal any and all programs and to show that
they had been permanently abondoned. Since these programs were
never revealed and appear to be ongoing, we have simple proof that
Iraq was in violation of the UN resolution under which the U.S.,
Britain, Spain, et al, declared as their authority for action.

Also, in some cases there is still reason to believe that the weapons
existed up until at least just prior to the war. Kay reportedly has
received testimony that Iraq was still producing Scud fuel, which is
not used by any Iraqi equipment except Scuds (none that we know of,
anyway). As Kay asked in one interview, what do you need to produce
rocket fuel for if you don't have a rocket to use it in? While we
await confirmation or refutation of the testimony, we can't rule out
Scud missiles still being in the inventory 12 years after Iraq agreed
to destroy them under the ceasefire agreement.

Mike

[captain!]

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
...
> captain! wrote:
>
> > "Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=21801&lang=en
> >>
> >>No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes
> >>
> > they have found tons of munitions.
> What kind of munitions do you think that Petkhov was
> refering to?
> What kind of munitions were found?
> What can this be considered as evidence of?
>

small arms, ammunition, rpgs, bombs, shells:
things that the iraqi army left behind. (some stored in warehouses)
this can be considered evidence that there were munitions found.

[ZZBunker]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
> >
> > :First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
> > :reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
> > :Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced".
>
> > :Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
> > :botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
> > :laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
> > :Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
> > :"seed banks".
> >
> > But when the US CDC sends such things to Iraq, your ilk trumpet the
> > claim that we're sending them biological weapons stocks....
> >
>
> There's an interesting article the BBC published yesterday
> about David Kay The man spearheading the US hunt for
> banned weapons in Iraq. He said he is surprised attention
> has focused on what his Iraq Survey Group has not found,
> rather than on the things it has uncovered.
>
> He says his Iraq Survey Group has uncovered evidence of
> banned activities which the United Nations and pre-war
> intelligence had not known about, including 24 clandestine
> laboratories and four unreported missile programmes.
>
> He also insisted his report last week to US Congress was interim.
> "I know we're going to find remarkable things about Iraq's
> weapons programmes," he said.

We're not going to find out anything about Iraq's missle
programs. Since we don't even find out anything about
the US's missle program. UN employees need to be reminded
that weekly, since not only are most of them
unemployed CIA, many are just everyday morons.


> Keith

[Andy Dingley]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:56:30 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
>they could be the same sort of *******.

Fair comment, but this isn't a UN action anyway, it's a unilateral
action by the US and Blair got caught in the draft of tailgating
Bush's ass.

If it's OK to ignore the UN now, why so squeamish in '91 ?

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

[Jack Linthicum]

(ZZBunker) wrote in message >...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
> > >
> > > :First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
> > > :reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
> > > :Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced".
>
> > > :Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
> > > :botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
> > > :laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
> > > :Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
> > > :"seed banks".
> > >
> > > But when the US CDC sends such things to Iraq, your ilk trumpet the
> > > claim that we're sending them biological weapons stocks....
> > >
> >
> > There's an interesting article the BBC published yesterday
> > about David Kay The man spearheading the US hunt for
> > banned weapons in Iraq. He said he is surprised attention
> > has focused on what his Iraq Survey Group has not found,
> > rather than on the things it has uncovered.
> >
> > He says his Iraq Survey Group has uncovered evidence of
> > banned activities which the United Nations and pre-war
> > intelligence had not known about, including 24 clandestine
> > laboratories and four unreported missile programmes.
> >
> > He also insisted his report last week to US Congress was interim.
> > "I know we're going to find remarkable things about Iraq's
> > weapons programmes," he said.
>
> We're not going to find out anything about Iraq's missle
> programs. Since we don't even find out anything about
> the US's missle program. UN employees need to be reminded
> that weekly, since not only are most of them
> unemployed CIA, many are just everyday morons.

Spend 10 minutes a week with Aviation Week and Space Technology, you
will know more about the US missile programs than you ought to know.
Back in the 70s I was visited by a Soviet engineer-diplomat who picked
up Av Week read it carefully and then said "In my country this would
be a classified document."

[Stephen Harding]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Yama" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because
> > > > they
> > > > don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody?
> > >
> > > Today not all
> > >
> > > In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
> > > and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
> > > go back into production of WMD and the missiles
> > > to carry them who knows ?
> >
> > But that wasn't the point, was it? US&UK attacked Iraq because of it's
> > supposed _immediate_ threat. If you start invading coutries based on their
> > ability to develope WMD and ballistic missile capability within 5 years,
> > there probably are like, oh, 100 nations which need to be invaded right
> > away.
>
> The ability to develop weapons programs and the act
> of having clandestine weapons programs specifically
> prohibited by the UN are somewhat different beasts.
>
> The Iraqi regime having invaded two of its neighbours and
> having use WMD on its own people was a known threat.
>
> The fact that they have indeed been found to be developing
> such clandestine programs seems to indicate the leopard
> hadnt changed its spots. Now the inquiry into the Hutton
> affair seems to indicate some doubt about how immediate
> various sources thought was correct, however when dealing with
> a regime as secrestive as Iraq its always going to be hard to
> get it right

Interestingly (and ironically) the war has allowed us to more fully know
what Saddam was doing. OK, no apparent *readily available" WMDs, but
very definitely programs and even materials ready for rapid start up
as soon as the sanctions went away.

The Kay report pretty much shows that the UN inspections *did* slow
and hamper Saddam's weapons programs. The report does also show that
the UN inspections didn't know all that was going on, and never would.
Only actual occupation by US/UK has allowed us to more fully know what
was going on.

> > Now, there is more and more evidence being uncovered that Bush and Blair not
> > only exaggarated and were ignorant about true Iraqi capabilities, they were
> > downright lying to public about them.
> >
> > Why should international community believe them ever again?
>
> And yet you'd have us believe Saddam Hussein and presumably
> lift the sanctions, which were killing more Iraqis per year than
> the war, if you believe the relief organisations.
>
> Fact is the situation was a running sore, the options were
> ignore the infection or lance the boil.

As someone put it, Saddam Hussein himself was a WMD and he is [perhaps
only for the moment] gone.

For me, that is good enough!


SMH

[Jeffrey Smidt]

Andy Dingley > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:56:30 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
> >they could be the same sort of *******.
>
> Fair comment, but this isn't a UN action anyway, it's a unilateral
> action by the US and Blair got caught in the draft of tailgating
> Bush's ass.
>
> If it's OK to ignore the UN now, why so squeamish in '91 ?

1) Because they had not yet proven to be worthless
2) Because there was hope that popping SH in the nose would either
straighten him out or convince his folks to overthrow him
3) Because we didn't know France, Germany and Russia would sell their
souls for construction contracts
4) Because 4 airliners and 3 buildings made many in the US remember
that we cant ignore problems 'over there' and hope they will go away
5) Because we had hoped to build a better understanding with more
moderate Arab countries
6) Because we got tired of sitting in the desert of Saudi Arabia
accomplishing nothing without a cold beer.
7) Because George Sr believed in a 'kinder and gentler' world, when
the same old scum still are out there.

Just a few thoughts

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

captain! wrote:

> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>captain! wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=21801&lang=en
>>>>
>>>>No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes
>>>>
>>
>> > they have found tons of munitions.
>>What kind of munitions do you think that Petkhov was
>>refering to?
>>What kind of munitions were found?
>>What can this be considered as evidence of?
>>
>
>
> small arms, ammunition, rpgs, bombs, shells:
> things that the iraqi army left behind. (some stored in warehouses)
> this can be considered evidence that there were munitions found.
>
I repeat:
What kind of munitions do you think that Petukhov was
refering to?
(Hint, suggestion - Think WMD)

[captain!]

the word "munitions" covers a very broad range of things. i pointed out the
error that the author made in claiming that none were found.

you can play guessing games about what michael meant if you want. i go by
facts.

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
.. .
> captain! wrote:
>
> > "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>captain! wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
> om...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=21801&lang=en
> >>>>
> >>>>No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes
> >>>>
> >>
> >> > they have found tons of munitions.
> >>What kind of munitions do you think that Petkhov was
> >>refering to?
> >>What kind of munitions were found?
> >>What can this be considered as evidence of?
> >>
> >
> >
> > small arms, ammunition, rpgs, bombs, shells:
> > things that the iraqi army left behind. (some stored in warehouses)
> > this can be considered evidence that there were munitions found.
> >
> I repeat:
> What kind of munitions do you think that Petukhov was
> refering to?
> (Hint, suggestion - Think WMD)
>

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Michael Williamson
> writes
> Also, in some cases there is still reason to believe that the
>weapons existed up until at least just prior to the war. Kay
>reportedly has
>received testimony that Iraq was still producing Scud fuel, which is
>not used by any Iraqi equipment except Scuds (none that we know of,
>anyway).

I could be wrong, but aren't Scuds powered by a mix of hydrazine and
nitric acid? Which, again subject to error, powers the booster for the
SA-2 missile in widespread use in Iraq? (I'm sure both use red fuming
nitric acid as oxidiser - kerosene is hardly a classified agent and
hydrazine is widely used too)

>As Kay asked in one interview, what do you need to produce
>rocket fuel for if you don't have a rocket to use it in?

The Iraqis were still allowed to use rocket-powered weapons, just with
limitations.

>While we
>await confirmation or refutation of the testimony, we can't rule out
>Scud missiles still being in the inventory 12 years after Iraq agreed
>to destroy them under the ceasefire agreement.

They're not small or inconspicuous, and they need regular maintenance -
should be easy enough to find. (Liquid-fuelled rockets take a lot of
care and feeding if they're ready to use, or else a big effort to
prepare and fuel if stored dry - exactly the reason the US rapidly
abandoned them)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[ZZBunker]

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> (ZZBunker) wrote in message >...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> > > "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > :First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
> > > > :reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
> > > > :Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced".
>
> > > > :Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
> > > > :botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
> > > > :laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
> > > > :Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
> > > > :"seed banks".
> > > >
> > > > But when the US CDC sends such things to Iraq, your ilk trumpet the
> > > > claim that we're sending them biological weapons stocks....
> > > >
> > >
> > > There's an interesting article the BBC published yesterday
> > > about David Kay The man spearheading the US hunt for
> > > banned weapons in Iraq. He said he is surprised attention
> > > has focused on what his Iraq Survey Group has not found,
> > > rather than on the things it has uncovered.
> > >
> > > He says his Iraq Survey Group has uncovered evidence of
> > > banned activities which the United Nations and pre-war
> > > intelligence had not known about, including 24 clandestine
> > > laboratories and four unreported missile programmes.
> > >
> > > He also insisted his report last week to US Congress was interim.
> > > "I know we're going to find remarkable things about Iraq's
> > > weapons programmes," he said.
> >
> > We're not going to find out anything about Iraq's missle
> > programs. Since we don't even find out anything about
> > the US's missle program. UN employees need to be reminded
> > that weekly, since not only are most of them
> > unemployed CIA, many are just everyday morons.
>
> Spend 10 minutes a week with Aviation Week and Space Technology, you
> will know more about the US missile programs than you ought to know.
> Back in the 70s I was visited by a Soviet engineer-diplomat who picked
> up Av Week read it carefully and then said "In my country this would
> be a classified document."

That's redundent. Since in Russia, *every* printed document is a
classified document. Since Russia is not a country.
It's a clerk with an AK-47.

I beg to differ. The Air Force needs to be reminded weekly
that Aviation Week and Space Technology is an
*Air Force* Missle Review. The US Army Missles are nothing
like US Air Force Missles. Since the Army missles shoot
to kill, rather than shoot to shoot.

[chebs]

Andy Dingley wrote:

>If it's OK to ignore the UN now, why so squeamish in '91 ?
>
>--
>Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
>
>
9-11 happened. The same people who had the infamous "dots" that lead to
9-11
came to Bush and said "We gotta problem, and if it is real it could
cause millions
to die." Bush said "what's the chance these "dots" are real?" and no
matter what percentage they
gave him. He had to act and act fast. Failure to act, with the
information coming
on the heels of 9-11, seems to be too much of a chance to take. If he
was wrong,
and I'm still on the fence, he was wrong. But given the fact that the
people who
were telling him of this issue just failed him on 9-11, he had no choice.
kwc

[kirill]

"Peter Glasø" wrote:
>
> Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely
> missed,right?

It was worth every single of those 20,000+ civilian lives to remove this
ex-CIA puppert, right?

>
> "Michael Petukhov" > skrev i melding
> om...
> > http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=21801&lang=en
> >
> > No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes
> >
> > 05 October 2003
> >
> > As the first progress report from the Iraq Survey Group is released,
> > Cambridge WMD expert Dr Glen Rangwala finds that even the diluted
> > claims made for Saddam Hussein's arsenal don't stand up
> >
> >
> > Last week's progress report by American and British weapons inspectors
> > in Iraq has failed to supply evidence for the vast majority of the
> > claims made on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by their governments
> > before the war.
> >
> > David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told congressional
> > committees in Washington that no official orders or plans could be
> > found to back up the allegation that a nuclear programme remained
> > active after 1991. Aluminium tubes have not been used for the
> > enrichment of uranium, in contrast to US Secretary of State Colin
> > Powell's lengthy exposition to the UN Security Council in February. No
> > suspicious activities or residues have been found at the seven sites
> > within Iraq described in the Prime Minister's dossier from September
> > 2002.
> >
> > The ISG even casts serious doubt on President Bush's much-trumpeted
> > claim that US forces had found three mobile biological laboratories
> > after the war: "technical limitations" would prevent the trailers from
> > being ideally suited to biological weapons production, it records. In
> > other words, they were for something else.
> >
> > There have certainly been no signs of imported uranium, or even
> > battlefield munitions ready to fire within 45 minutes. Most
> > significantly, the claim to Parliament on the eve of conflict by Jack
> > Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that "we know that this man [Saddam
> > Hussein] has got ... chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses,
> > bacilli and ... 10,000 litres of anthrax" has yet to find a single
> > piece of supportive evidence.
> >
> > Those who staked their career on the existence in Iraq of at least
> > chemical and biological weapons programmes have latched on to three
> > claims in the progress report.
> >
> > First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
> > reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
> > Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced". Mr Straw
> > claimed the morning after the report's release that this agent was
> > "15,000 times more toxic than the nerve agent VX". That is wrong:
> > botulinum type A is one of the most poisonous substances known, and
> > was developed in weaponised form by Iraq before 1991. However, type B
> > - the form found at the biologist's home - is less lethal.
> >
> > Even then, it would require an extensive process of fermentation, the
> > growing of the bug, the extraction of the toxin and the weaponisation
> > of the toxin before it could cause harm. That process would take
> > weeks, if not longer, but the ISG reported no sign of any of these
> > activities.
> >
> > Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
> > botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
> > laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
> > Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
> > "seed banks".
> >
> > Second, a large part of the ISG report is taken up with assertions
> > that Iraq had been acquiring designs and under- taking research
> > programmes for missiles with a range that exceeded the UN limit of
> > 150km. The evidence here is more detailed than in the rest of the
> > report. However, it does not demonstrate that Iraq was violating the
> > terms of any Security Council resolution. The prohibition on Iraq
> > acquiring technology relating to chemical, biological or nuclear
> > weapons was absolute: no agents, no sub-systems and no research or
> > support facilities.
> >
> > By contrast, Iraq was simply prohibited from actually having
> > longer-range missiles, together with "major parts, and repair and
> > production facilities". The ISG does not claim proof that Iraq had any
> > such missiles or facilities, just the knowledge to produce them in
> > future. Indeed, it would have been entirely lawful for Iraq to develop
> > such systems if the restrictions implemented in 1991 were lifted,
> > while it would never have been legitimate for it to re-develop WMD.
> >
> > Third, one sentence within the report has been much quoted: Iraq had
> > "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the
> > Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment subject to UN
> > monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research". Note what that
> > sentence does not say: these facilities were suitable for chemical and
> > biological weapons research (as almost any modern lab would be), not
> > that they had engaged in such research. The reference to UN monitoring
> > is also spurious: under the terms of UN resolutions, all of Iraq's
> > chemical and biological facilities are subject to monitoring. So all
> > this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories.
> >
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=450121
> >
> > Source: Dr Glen Rangwala The Independent

[Michael Williamson]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message >, Michael Williamson
> > writes
>
>> Also, in some cases there is still reason to believe that the
>>weapons existed up until at least just prior to the war. Kay
>>reportedly has
>>received testimony that Iraq was still producing Scud fuel, which is
>>not used by any Iraqi equipment except Scuds (none that we know of,
>>anyway).
>
>
> I could be wrong, but aren't Scuds powered by a mix of hydrazine and
> nitric acid? Which, again subject to error, powers the booster for the
> SA-2 missile in widespread use in Iraq? (I'm sure both use red fuming
> nitric acid as oxidiser - kerosene is hardly a classified agent and
> hydrazine is widely used too)
>
>
>>As Kay asked in one interview, what do you need to produce
>>rocket fuel for if you don't have a rocket to use it in?
>
>
> The Iraqis were still allowed to use rocket-powered weapons, just with
> limitations.
>

I'm not familiar with the fuel used by either the Scud or the SA-2,
so I can't comment on whether the fuel is common to both types or
not. Kay did state in his report, however, that the fuel is
usable only by the Scud. He could possibly be mistaken, or the
source for his information could be wrong, but I've not seen a
definitive refutation. His report may be found at the following
link (by the way, this was the only CIA search result from the
search string "Scud fuel." Later in the report he details the
claims that Scud fuel and oxidizer was manufactured in a factory
in or near Al Tariq, which apparently was their main
production source for concentrated Nitric Acid, along with other
conventional explosives and munitions. The reports of this
production have not been confirmed yet, being currently based
solely on witness testimony.

http://www.cia.gov/search?NS-search-page=document&NS-rel-doc-name=/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html&NS-query=scud+fuel&NS-search-type=NS-boolean-query&NS-collection=Entire%20Site&NS-docs-found=1&NS-doc-number=1


Boy, that's a long URL. It might be easier to just go to www.cia.gov
and do the search yourself. The portion dealing with the fuel
production is located alongside the 'supporting images.' Nearby
are a few tidbits about Korea and technology transfers as well.
Most of the report is classified, so there likely isn't going to
be a lot of 'meat' in the unclassified report.

Hope this was at least somewhat helpful Paul. Take care

Mike

[ZZBunker]

kirill > wrote in message >...
> "Peter Glasø" wrote:
> >
> > Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely
> > missed,right?
>
> It was worth every single of those 20,000+ civilian lives to remove this
> ex-CIA puppert, right?

We don't know. Since Hussein was a CIA puppet only in the
sense that some New Yorkers look like CIA.

But in New York, some New Yorkers look like Martians,
and some New Yorkers look like Julius Caesar. Some
New Yorkers look like Jesus Christ, and some
New Yorkers even look like Hitler.

But no New Yorkers look like oil drillers.

[Matt Wiser]

kirill > wrote:
>
>
>"Peter Glasø" wrote:
>>
>> Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice
>guy after all.And he is sorely
>> missed,right?
>
>It was worth every single of those 20,000+ civilian
>lives to remove this
>ex-CIA puppert, right?
>
>>
>> "Michael Petukhov" >
>skrev i melding
>> om...
>> > http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=21801&lang=en
>> >
>> > No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no
>programmes
>> >
>> > 05 October 2003
>> >
>> > As the first progress report from the Iraq
>Survey Group is released,
>> > Cambridge WMD expert Dr Glen Rangwala finds
>that even the diluted
>> > claims made for Saddam Hussein's arsenal
>don't stand up
>> >
>> >
>> > Last week's progress report by American
>and British weapons inspectors
>> > in Iraq has failed to supply evidence for
>the vast majority of the
>> > claims made on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
>by their governments
>> > before the war.
>> >
>> > David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group
>(ISG), told congressional
>> > committees in Washington that no official
>orders or plans could be
>> > found to back up the allegation that a nuclear
>programme remained
>> > active after 1991. Aluminium tubes have
>not been used for the
>> > enrichment of uranium, in contrast to US
>Secretary of State Colin
>> > Powell's lengthy exposition to the UN Security
>Council in February. No
>> > suspicious activities or residues have been
>found at the seven sites
>> > within Iraq described in the Prime Minister's
>dossier from September
>> > 2002.
>> >
>> > The ISG even casts serious doubt on President
>Bush's much-trumpeted
>> > claim that US forces had found three mobile
>biological laboratories
>> > after the war: "technical limitations" would
>prevent the trailers from
>> > being ideally suited to biological weapons
>production, it records. In
>> > other words, they were for something else.
>> >
>> > There have certainly been no signs of imported
>uranium, or even
>> > battlefield munitions ready to fire within
>45 minutes. Most
>> > significantly, the claim to Parliament on
>the eve of conflict by Jack
>> > Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that "we know
>that this man [Saddam
>> > Hussein] has got ... chemical weapons, biological
>weapons, viruses,
>> > bacilli and ... 10,000 litres of anthrax"
>has yet to find a single
>> > piece of supportive evidence.
>> >
>> > Those who staked their career on the existence
>in Iraq of at least
>> > chemical and biological weapons programmes
>have latched on to three
>> > claims in the progress report.
>> >
>> > First, there is the allegation that a biologist
>had a "collection of
>> > reference strains" at his home, including
>"a vial of live C botulinum
>> > Okra B from which a biological agent can
>be produced". Mr Straw
>> > claimed the morning after the report's release
>that this agent was
>> > "15,000 times more toxic than the nerve
>agent VX". That is wrong:
>> > botulinum type A is one of the most poisonous
>substances known, and
>> > was developed in weaponised form by Iraq
>before 1991. However, type B
>> > - the form found at the biologist's home
>- is less lethal.
>> >
>> > Even then, it would require an extensive
>process of fermentation, the
>> > growing of the bug, the extraction of the
>toxin and the weaponisation
>> > of the toxin before it could cause harm.
>That process would take
>> > weeks, if not longer, but the ISG reported
>no sign of any of these
>> > activities.
>> >
>> > Botulinum type B could also be used for
>making an antidote to common
>> > botulinum poisoning. That is one of the
>reasons why many military
>> > laboratories around the world keep reference
>strains of C botulinum
>> > Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for
>example, and calls them
>> > "seed banks".
>> >
>> > Second, a large part of the ISG report is
>taken up with assertions
>> > that Iraq had been acquiring designs and
>under- taking research
>> > programmes for missiles with a range that
>exceeded the UN limit of
>> > 150km. The evidence here is more detailed
>than in the rest of the
>> > report. However, it does not demonstrate
>that Iraq was violating the
>> > terms of any Security Council resolution.
>The prohibition on Iraq
>> > acquiring technology relating to chemical,
>biological or nuclear
>> > weapons was absolute: no agents, no sub-systems
>and no research or
>> > support facilities.
>> >
>> > By contrast, Iraq was simply prohibited
>from actually having
>> > longer-range missiles, together with "major
>parts, and repair and
>> > production facilities". The ISG does not
>claim proof that Iraq had any
>> > such missiles or facilities, just the knowledge
>to produce them in
>> > future. Indeed, it would have been entirely
>lawful for Iraq to develop
>> > such systems if the restrictions implemented
>in 1991 were lifted,
>> > while it would never have been legitimate
>for it to re-develop WMD.
>> >
>> > Third, one sentence within the report has
>been much quoted: Iraq had
>> > "a clandestine network of laboratories and
>safe houses within the
>> > Iraqi intelligence service that contained
>equipment subject to UN
>> > monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW
>research". Note what that
>> > sentence does not say: these facilities
>were suitable for chemical and
>> > biological weapons research (as almost any
>modern lab would be), not
>> > that they had engaged in such research.
>The reference to UN monitoring
>> > is also spurious: under the terms of UN
>resolutions, all of Iraq's
>> > chemical and biological facilities are subject
>to monitoring. So all
>> > this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories.
>> >
>> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=450121
>> >
>> > Source: Dr Glen Rangwala The Independent
Saddam was no CIA puppet-his thugs hanged as many "CIA Spies" as they did
"Israeli Spies", or spies for somebody. Sure we helped him out in the 80s
back when Iran was considered Public Enemy #1 by the US, but alliances in
the Mideast shift with the sands. I hope you're not some rabble-rouser who
thinks the mass graves and torture chambers found after the invasion are
hoaxes or "wildly exaggerated." as some apologists for the Butcher of Baghdad
claim.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Michael Williamson
> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> I could be wrong, but aren't Scuds powered by a mix of
>>hydrazine and
>> nitric acid? Which, again subject to error, powers the booster for the
>> SA-2 missile in widespread use in Iraq? (I'm sure both use red fuming
>> nitric acid as oxidiser - kerosene is hardly a classified agent and
>> hydrazine is widely used too)

>> The Iraqis were still allowed to use rocket-powered weapons,
>>just with
>> limitations.

> I'm not familiar with the fuel used by either the Scud or the SA-2,
>so I can't comment on whether the fuel is common to both types or
>not. Kay did state in his report, however, that the fuel is
>usable only by the Scud.

Reading his report, he refers only to red fuming nitric acid in the
unclassified public part. A search for "hydrazine" (the fuel, as opposed
to the oxidiser, for the Scud family) came up blank. So he's got Scud
_oxidiser_. (A small technical quibble, but us engineers are pedantic)

RFNA is indeed usable to power Scuds and derivatives... but it's also
used as oxidiser in Styx/Silkworm antiship missiles, which Iraq was
allowed to retain, and for SA-2 Guideline SAMs which again were
permitted - both use kerosene fuel with RFNA oxidiser. (Easy to forget
that Iraq wasn't being completely disarmed, just stripped of long-range
offensive weapons)

RFNA is one of those awkward "precursor" chemicals, like ammonium
nitrate; it's useful for a lot of tasks, one of which is powering Scuds;
but it can be used in other missiles, and it's necessary for a lot of
manufacturing tasks too.

If you find a stash of ammonium nitrate, the owner might intend to use
it to fertilise his fields. Or he might be quarrying for gravel. Or he
might be a terrorist about to build a huge truck bomb. All are
_possible_, only one is blatantly illegal. RFNA is crudely similar.


Doesn't prove Saddam was an angel of sweetness and light, but it's not
convincing that he was busy building ICBMs either. He'd need RFNA just
to make Kalashnikov ammunition, and he was allowed _that_ (and needed
it... Iraq still has hostile neighbours)

> Hope this was at least somewhat helpful Paul. Take care

You too.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Neil Harden]

In article >, says...
>
>
> Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> >If it's OK to ignore the UN now, why so squeamish in '91 ?
> >
> >--
> >Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
> >
> >
> 9-11 happened. The same people who had the infamous "dots" that lead to
> 9-11
> came to Bush and said "We gotta problem, and if it is real it could
> cause millions
> to die." Bush said "what's the chance these "dots" are real?" and no
> matter what percentage they
> gave him. He had to act and act fast. Failure to act, with the
> information coming
> on the heels of 9-11, seems to be too much of a chance to take. If he
> was wrong,
> and I'm still on the fence, he was wrong. But given the fact that the
> people who
> were telling him of this issue just failed him on 9-11, he had no choice.
> kwc
>
>
Nonsense. The neo-cons in the administration wanted to beat up an Arab
country to show the rest they mean business. They had also wanted to
take out Saddam in 91. Iraq was the only Arab country that they had any
hope of making a case against which would be believed by enough people.
So they exaggerate what was far from solid intelligence, ignore what is
not convenient, and do the deed. Taking out Hussien is easier than
finding Bin Laden, and you get to fly to an aircraft carrier for a great
photo op. Maybe you can even have some victory parades in an election
year.

[ZZBunker]

Neil Harden > wrote in message >...
> In article >, says...
> >
> >
> > Andy Dingley wrote:
> >
> > >If it's OK to ignore the UN now, why so squeamish in '91 ?
> > >
> > >--
> > >Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
> > >
> > >
> > 9-11 happened. The same people who had the infamous "dots" that lead to
> > 9-11
> > came to Bush and said "We gotta problem, and if it is real it could
> > cause millions
> > to die." Bush said "what's the chance these "dots" are real?" and no
> > matter what percentage they
> > gave him. He had to act and act fast. Failure to act, with the
> > information coming
> > on the heels of 9-11, seems to be too much of a chance to take. If he
> > was wrong,
> > and I'm still on the fence, he was wrong. But given the fact that the
> > people who
> > were telling him of this issue just failed him on 9-11, he had no choice.
> > kwc
> >
> >
> Nonsense. The neo-cons in the administration wanted to beat up an Arab
> country to show the rest they mean business. They had also wanted to
> take out Saddam in 91. Iraq was the only Arab country that they had any
> hope of making a case against which would be believed by enough people.
> So they exaggerate what was far from solid intelligence, ignore what is
> not convenient, and do the deed. Taking out Hussien is easier than
> finding Bin Laden, and you get to fly to an aircraft carrier for a great
> photo op. Maybe you can even have some victory parades in an election
> year.

But that's not news. The neo cons have always ignored intelligence form
science. Since whenever you are not being misinformed about chemical
virus' from UN scientists, you are being misformed about computer
virus' from American scientists.

[Snuffy Smith]

You forgot "no Saddam".

[ZZBunker]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> Not hardly, but that's not a good enough reason to go to war with every no-good
> murderous ****head in the world.

There is a reason to go to war with the murderous ****head.
Since it's only Los Angelos bank robbers who are really murderous ****heads.
since they use SUVs to kill.

But Hussein uses toxic gas.

And we use cruise missles that can take any random assortment
of 100 or so Middle East Palaces that has ever been built.

[Jim]

> Nonsense. The neo-cons in the administration wanted to beat up an Arab
> country to show the rest they mean business. They had also wanted to
> take out Saddam in 91. Iraq was the only Arab country that they had any
> hope of making a case against which would be believed by enough people.
> So they exaggerate what was far from solid intelligence, ignore what is
> not convenient, and do the deed. Taking out Hussien is easier than
> finding Bin Laden, and you get to fly to an aircraft carrier for a great
> photo op. Maybe you can even have some victory parades in an election
> year.

Is Tony B. a Neo-con too... Is anyone who disagrees with you simply a
Neo-con.

Also please tell me why is a Neo-con a bad thing....
As opposed to say a political Left-wing Nut.

[Grantland]

"Jim" > wrote:

>
>> > Is Tony B. a Neo-con too... Is anyone who disagrees with you simply a
>> > Neo-con.
>> >
>> > Also please tell me why is a Neo-con a bad thing....
>>
>> You seem rather defensive about it.
>
>No just asked a question, I have always been a traditional conservative....
>I just wanted to know why folks felt the
>NeoCons are this OH so terrible group as opposed to other political
>groups... I was hoping for an honest explanation
>why they were any worse then your run of the mill West Coast liberal...

Neocons are Bolshevik Jews. They are cons as in confidence tricksters
- paying easy lip-service to such Traditional Conservative concerns as
abortion, pornography, guns, freedom, fidelity etc etc etc. which they
regard as quaint and parochial trivia.. what they want is power.
Power is all they want. Power to destroy the enemies of Israel. At
whatever cost to the United States, their slave. EOS.

Grantland

It
>seems to me Neocons use government for their
>causes (some i find wrong and distasteful) and liberals use government for
>there causes (most that are wrong and distasteful)
>
>Personally I prefer we would shrink government and get it out of people
>lives and allow the people, to do their own work.
>I do realize some regualtion and centrial goverment is needed sure... But
>I don't beleive in the socialist "Big Papa" concept at all
>and trully beleive that state/local goverment is the way to go for these
>type issues... They are much more accountable to the people.
>
>
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>

[Neil Harden]

In article >, says...
> > Nonsense. The neo-cons in the administration wanted to beat up an Arab
> > country to show the rest they mean business. They had also wanted to
> > take out Saddam in 91. Iraq was the only Arab country that they had any
> > hope of making a case against which would be believed by enough people.
> > So they exaggerate what was far from solid intelligence, ignore what is
> > not convenient, and do the deed. Taking out Hussien is easier than
> > finding Bin Laden, and you get to fly to an aircraft carrier for a great
> > photo op. Maybe you can even have some victory parades in an election
> > year.
>
> Is Tony B. a Neo-con too... Is anyone who disagrees with you simply a
> Neo-con.
>
> Also please tell me why is a Neo-con a bad thing....

You seem rather defensive about it.

> As opposed to say a political Left-wing Nut.
>
>
>
I guess compared to you, anyone is left wing.

[Jim]

> > Is Tony B. a Neo-con too... Is anyone who disagrees with you simply a
> > Neo-con.
> >
> > Also please tell me why is a Neo-con a bad thing....
>
> You seem rather defensive about it.

No just asked a question, I have always been a traditional conservative....
I just wanted to know why folks felt the
NeoCons are this OH so terrible group as opposed to other political
groups... I was hoping for an honest explanation
why they were any worse then your run of the mill West Coast liberal... It
seems to me Neocons use government for their
causes (some i find wrong and distasteful) and liberals use government for
there causes (most that are wrong and distasteful)

Personally I prefer we would shrink government and get it out of people
lives and allow the people, to do their own work.
I do realize some regualtion and centrial goverment is needed sure... But
I don't beleive in the socialist "Big Papa" concept at all
and trully beleive that state/local goverment is the way to go for these
type issues... They are much more accountable to the people.



Jim

[Neil Harden]

In article >, says...
>
> > > Is Tony B. a Neo-con too... Is anyone who disagrees with you simply a
> > > Neo-con.
> > >
> > > Also please tell me why is a Neo-con a bad thing....
> >
> > You seem rather defensive about it.
>
> No just asked a question, I have always been a traditional conservative....
> I just wanted to know why folks felt the
> NeoCons are this OH so terrible group as opposed to other political
> groups... I was hoping for an honest explanation
> why they were any worse then your run of the mill West Coast liberal... It
> seems to me Neocons use government for their
> causes (some i find wrong and distasteful) and liberals use government for
> there causes (most that are wrong and distasteful)
>
> Personally I prefer we would shrink government and get it out of people
> lives and allow the people, to do their own work.
> I do realize some regualtion and centrial goverment is needed sure... But
> I don't beleive in the socialist "Big Papa" concept at all
> and trully beleive that state/local goverment is the way to go for these
> type issues... They are much more accountable to the people.
>
>
>
> Jim
>
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

While this definition does not mention it, the neocon agenda seems to
have abandoned the concept of fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets.
Canada has weathered the recent economic storms far better that the US
because we have maintained balanced budgets throughout the period. We
have not "stimulated" our economy with drastic tax cuts which cause
excess government borrowing and undue demand on capital by government.
As a result, the capital remains available to the private sector here.
Despite recent problems such as the SARS and mad cow crises, our economy
has grown at a much faster rate than that of the US. And we liberal (no,
its not a bad word in Canada) hoards have universal medical care and much
more comprehensive social programs the US.

[Jim]

--
"The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations
are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they
are no longer strong."
Robert K. Dornen, U.S. Congressman. 1995
"Neil Harden" > wrote in message
. ca...
> In article >, says...
> >
> > > > Is Tony B. a Neo-con too... Is anyone who disagrees with you
simply a
> > > > Neo-con.
> > > >
> > > > Also please tell me why is a Neo-con a bad thing....
> > >
> > > You seem rather defensive about it.
> >
> > No just asked a question, I have always been a traditional
conservative....
> > I just wanted to know why folks felt the
> > NeoCons are this OH so terrible group as opposed to other political
> > groups... I was hoping for an honest explanation
> > why they were any worse then your run of the mill West Coast liberal...
It
> > seems to me Neocons use government for their
> > causes (some i find wrong and distasteful) and liberals use government
for
> > there causes (most that are wrong and distasteful)
> >
> > Personally I prefer we would shrink government and get it out of people
> > lives and allow the people, to do their own work.
> > I do realize some regualtion and centrial goverment is needed sure...
But
> > I don't beleive in the socialist "Big Papa" concept at all
> > and trully beleive that state/local goverment is the way to go for these
> > type issues... They are much more accountable to the people.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim
> >
> http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
>
> While this definition does not mention it, the neocon agenda seems to
> have abandoned the concept of fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets.
> Canada has weathered the recent economic storms far better that the US
> because we have maintained balanced budgets throughout the period. We
> have not "stimulated" our economy with drastic tax cuts which cause
> excess government borrowing and undue demand on capital by government.
> As a result, the capital remains available to the private sector here.
> Despite recent problems such as the SARS and mad cow crises, our economy
> has grown at a much faster rate than that of the US. And we liberal (no,
> its not a bad word in Canada) hoards have universal medical care and much
> more comprehensive social programs the US.


I am familiar with the term. That is why I was asking what is so bad about
them? Perfect? no, but who is?
It would seem Teddy Roosevelt as well as Ronald Regan could be classified as
a NeoCons.
They were arguably a two of our Best presidents. While I disagree with some
of the current administrations
decisions and I would perfer a more conservitive course with respect to
growth of goverment ( i.e. homeland security, , patriot act etc etc).
However, lets be frank, we wouldn't be here or having this conversation
had the privious (liberal) administration
taken care of bussiness (Osama) on any of the several chances they had.
Willie claims on the talk show circuit he warned Bush
severial times... He also did nothing severial times when he could have
taken him out. Where I am from that makes him all talk and no action
(execpt were interns are concerned)...

Some claim we are to stretched militarily, however, we wouldn't be
stretched militarily if the previous administration had not gutted the
services capabilities
on the alter of the "artificial peace dividend" . It needs to be said:
The peace dividend only pays off when the bad guys are all gone and they
obviously aren't all gone. So once again the current administration (and
American people) are feeling the burden of a bad policy decisions made by
the previous administration.

Concerning the economy. It was tanking already Pre-Bush... These things
are cyclical and do happen irregardless of party in power.
All the leading indicators were just starting the uptick when 9/11 erased
severial hunderd billion dollars from our ecomony in one fell swoop.
this also effected the rest of the world, I find it unlikly that it hit
them with the same magnatude as it did us but we are still out preforming
most
of the G-7. I would also bet that the US ecomony will significantly
outpreform the Canadian one in the near term... So when the US dollar is
only 80
cents to the Canadian dollar I will give you bragging rights.

Concerning Budgets, since we are at war it isn't unheard of to run deficets,
I beleive FDR did so without being overly harried about it. Additionally if
our neighbor to the North was the world's only superpower and as such took
care of the security needs of the contenent, I wonder what we would look
like if we could free up and reallocate severial points of GNP to other
uses. Lets be honest. The military Canada has is very professional, it is
also unable to defend Canada by itself. It would be dishonest to say
Cananda hasn't reaped some extreamly big security benifits (and budget)
from having a Big Brother to the south.

Concerning health care, why do so many Canadians then travel to America to
recieve there "universal Care"? Additionally perscription drugs price
controls keep the price down in Canada, and drive the prices up south of the
border (thanks again).

The point I am making is it is hard to compair Canada to America directly.
Like the pilot fish Canada recieves some a very big benfits without cost
from swimming in the same pond as Mr Great White.



Jim

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:11:46 -0500, Neil Harden
> wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>> > > Is Tony B. a Neo-con too... Is anyone who disagrees with you simply a
>> > > Neo-con.
>> > >
>> > > Also please tell me why is a Neo-con a bad thing....
>> >
>> > You seem rather defensive about it.
>>
>> No just asked a question, I have always been a traditional conservative....
>> I just wanted to know why folks felt the
>> NeoCons are this OH so terrible group as opposed to other political
>> groups... I was hoping for an honest explanation
>> why they were any worse then your run of the mill West Coast liberal... It
>> seems to me Neocons use government for their
>> causes (some i find wrong and distasteful) and liberals use government for
>> there causes (most that are wrong and distasteful)
>>
>> Personally I prefer we would shrink government and get it out of people
>> lives and allow the people, to do their own work.
>> I do realize some regualtion and centrial goverment is needed sure... But
>> I don't beleive in the socialist "Big Papa" concept at all
>> and trully beleive that state/local goverment is the way to go for these
>> type issues... They are much more accountable to the people.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim
>>
>http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
>
>While this definition does not mention it, the neocon agenda seems to
>have abandoned the concept of fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets.
>Canada has weathered the recent economic storms far better that the US
>because we have maintained balanced budgets throughout the period. We
>have not "stimulated" our economy with drastic tax cuts which cause
>excess government borrowing and undue demand on capital by government.
>As a result, the capital remains available to the private sector here.
>Despite recent problems such as the SARS and mad cow crises, our economy
>has grown at a much faster rate than that of the US. And we liberal (no,
>its not a bad word in Canada) hoards have universal medical care and much
>more comprehensive social programs the US.

And all of your decent doctors have fled to the US, while your
military is slowly dying of under funding. By the way, what is the
Canadian dollar worth today, USD .60?

Al Minyard

[David McArthur]

"Jim" > wrote in message >...
> > > Is Tony B. a Neo-con too... Is anyone who disagrees with you simply a
> > > Neo-con.
> > >
> > > Also please tell me why is a Neo-con a bad thing....
> >
> > You seem rather defensive about it.
>
> No just asked a question, I have always been a traditional conservative....
> I just wanted to know why folks felt the
> NeoCons are this OH so terrible group as opposed to other political
> groups... I was hoping for an honest explanation
> why they were any worse then your run of the mill West Coast liberal... It
> seems to me Neocons use government for their
> causes (some i find wrong and distasteful) and liberals use government for
> there causes (most that are wrong and distasteful)
>
> Personally I prefer we would shrink government and get it out of people
> lives and allow the people, to do their own work.
> I do realize some regualtion and centrial goverment is needed sure... But
> I don't beleive in the socialist "Big Papa" concept at all
> and trully beleive that state/local goverment is the way to go for these
> type issues... They are much more accountable to the people.

Had never heard of Neocons until this Iraq thing blew up. Neocons
apprear to be an interesting bunch - if only for their rapid rise to
prominence in US Republican politics. Also interesting is their
relationship with an organisation called the AEI (American Enterprise
Institute)
There have been documentaries in Oz (a tv show called 4 Corners) and
in the UK on the BBC describing the 'agenda(s)' of Neocons and AEI,
and without setting the moggie amongst the pidgeons... Israel appears
to have a lot to do with it (ACCORDING TO THE TV SHOWS! ...not my
interpretation) However, I doubt hat such documentaries would make it
onto mainstream US TV dunno about PBS though.

David

[David Anderson]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:11:46 -0500, Neil Harden
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, says...
> >>
> >> > > Is Tony B. a Neo-con too... Is anyone who disagrees with you simply a
> >> > > Neo-con.
> >> > >
> >> > > Also please tell me why is a Neo-con a bad thing....
> >> >
> >> > You seem rather defensive about it.
> >>
> >> No just asked a question, I have always been a traditional conservative....
> >> I just wanted to know why folks felt the
> >> NeoCons are this OH so terrible group as opposed to other political
> >> groups... I was hoping for an honest explanation
> >> why they were any worse then your run of the mill West Coast liberal... It
> >> seems to me Neocons use government for their
> >> causes (some i find wrong and distasteful) and liberals use government for
> >> there causes (most that are wrong and distasteful)
> >>
> >> Personally I prefer we would shrink government and get it out of people
> >> lives and allow the people, to do their own work.
> >> I do realize some regualtion and centrial goverment is needed sure... But
> >> I don't beleive in the socialist "Big Papa" concept at all
> >> and trully beleive that state/local goverment is the way to go for these
> >> type issues... They are much more accountable to the people.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
> >
> >While this definition does not mention it, the neocon agenda seems to
> >have abandoned the concept of fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets.
> >Canada has weathered the recent economic storms far better that the US
> >because we have maintained balanced budgets throughout the period. We
> >have not "stimulated" our economy with drastic tax cuts which cause
> >excess government borrowing and undue demand on capital by government.
> >As a result, the capital remains available to the private sector here.
> >Despite recent problems such as the SARS and mad cow crises, our economy
> >has grown at a much faster rate than that of the US. And we liberal (no,
> >its not a bad word in Canada) hoards have universal medical care and much
> >more comprehensive social programs the US.
>
> And all of your decent doctors have fled to the US, while your
> military is slowly dying of under funding. By the way, what is the
> Canadian dollar worth today, USD .60?
>
> Al Minyard

No right now the Canadian dollar is strengthening to roughly .75 US,
the military is capable of achieving the missions that its tasked to
do by the government(although it would not mind extra funding) and the
healthcare outcomes (lifespan, infant mortality etc) are superior to
the US healthcare outcomes at onyl 2/3rds the cost. So it can be
argued that Canada is doing something right.

Dave

[Coridon Henshaw]

"Jim" > wrote in :

> NeoCons are this OH so terrible group as opposed to other political
> groups...

Here's a good introduction to neoconservatism from a libertarian
perspective:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST072303.html



--
Coridon Henshaw / http://www3.sympatico.ca/gcircle/csbh

[Jim]

"Coridon Henshaw @ (T<H+ESE) sympatico.ca)>" <(chenshaw<RE-MOVE> wrote in
message ...
> "Jim" > wrote in :
>
> > NeoCons are this OH so terrible group as opposed to other political
> > groups...
>
> Here's a good introduction to neoconservatism from a libertarian
> perspective:
>
> http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST072303.html
>
>
>
> --
> Coridon Henshaw / http://www3.sympatico.ca/gcircle/csbh


Thank you,


jim
--
"The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations
are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they
are no longer strong."