Keep Bashing France

[Wings Of Fury Aviation Photography]

Why not bash them? They and the Germans apparently have a lot to hide in Iraq.......

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Wings Of Fury Aviation Photography" > a
écrit dans le message de news:
...
> Why not bash them? They and the Germans apparently have a lot to hide in
Iraq.......


That's right, instead of looking for WMD start looking for what we've got to
hide....
Remember to tell us what you find, heh.

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[Leslie Swartz]

Well, first of all what we find (beyond indisputable evidence of prohibited
WMD programs and materials) is that Jacques Ch-Iraq and several ofhis family
members were getting quite rich skimming money off of the "Oil for Food"
program.

Yeah, that's right- Ch-Iraq was stealing food from the mouths of starving
Iraqi children to line his own pockets (and those of several family
members).

Shame!

Steve Swartz

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wings Of Fury Aviation Photography" > a
> écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
> > Why not bash them? They and the Germans apparently have a lot to hide in
> Iraq.......
>
>
> That's right, instead of looking for WMD start looking for what we've got
to
> hide....
> Remember to tell us what you find, heh.
>
> --
> _________________________________________
> Pierre-Henri BARAS
>
> Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
> http://www.ffaa.net
> Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
> http://www.aviation-fr.info
>
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:

> That's right, instead of looking for WMD start looking for what we've got to
> hide....
> Remember to tell us what you find, heh.

So far, quite a lot.

It's a shame they aren't reporting it in the European papers.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Leslie Swartz" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> Well, first of all what we find (beyond indisputable evidence of
prohibited
> WMD programs and materials) is that Jacques Ch-Iraq and several ofhis
family
> members were getting quite rich skimming money off of the "Oil for Food"
> program.
>
> Yeah, that's right- Ch-Iraq was stealing food from the mouths of starving
> Iraqi children to line his own pockets (and those of several family
> members).


Aw man, you owe me a new screen, I ruined mine laughing so hard.
Gee, do you think Halliburton and KBR sell screens??
I'm just asking that because considering the astronomical amount of $
they're making out of this iraki thingy, they might as well just give one to
me....
I don't think MPRI, Sandline or DSL sell screens though.
Excuse me, what you were saying about Chirac???? Could you please support
your allegations?
A propos the "Oil for Food" program, ask your new friends from Ankara what
they think of it's ending (ie the black market they supported with Husseins'
sons in the Kurdistan region).

Thank you for feeding all those starving kids (grin). BTW now who's gonna
pry that huge Coran out of his hands????
--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[Scott MacEachern]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:35:27 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>So far, quite a lot.
>
>It's a shame they aren't reporting it in the European papers.

Nor, strangely enough, in the North American papers.

On the other hand, we have this lead from an article in the New York
Times for 16 October
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/international/middleeast/16ARMS.html):
"American officials in Baghdad have identified at least 30 businesses
and individuals in the United States that investigators said they
suspect sold tens of millions of dollars in military technology to
Iraq before the war...." Imagine that: American firms selling arms to
Saddam Hussein.

I'd suggest that before doing any more France-bashing, you read that
article.

Scott

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:35:27 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >So far, quite a lot.
> >
> >It's a shame they aren't reporting it in the European papers.
>
> Nor, strangely enough, in the North American papers.

Well, maybe not in some of them, but many did mention the actual
contents of the report itself, which *does* hold quite a lot of damning
evidence. But the quick and clueless headlines win again...

> On the other hand, we have this lead from an article in the New York
> Times for 16 October
> (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/international/middleeast/16ARMS.html):
> "American officials in Baghdad have identified at least 30 businesses
> and individuals in the United States that investigators said they
> suspect sold tens of millions of dollars in military technology to
> Iraq before the war...." Imagine that: American firms selling arms to
> Saddam Hussein.
>
> I'd suggest that before doing any more France-bashing, you read that
> article.

I'd suggest you do the same. Typical quote:

"Officials said they believed that the two San Diego businessmen, both
of Iraqi descent, delivered and helped to assemble three 85-foot-long
patrol boats, armed with machine guns, as part of an $11 million
contract with Mr. Hussein's military."

"But the American authorities said the Yakous were aware that their
dealings with Mr. Hussein's government violated American laws. Indeed,
officials said the two men told investigators in an interview two
months ago that the embargo forced them to route their supplies through
Jordan, slowing production."

There's also quite a bit of difference between companies that sell arms
to Iraq *in spite of* the US government, and people who sell arms to
Iraq with the *support* of the French government...

Or, like Chirac, sell them nuclear power plants that are basically
designed to make material for bombs (thank goodness the Israelis took
that one out).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Scott MacEachern]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:33:58 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>Well, maybe not in some of them, but many did mention the actual
>contents of the report itself, which *does* hold quite a lot of damning
>evidence.

There's evidence of French weapons in Iraq in Kay's report? Hell,
there's not even evidence of WMD in there... despite the desperate
straining in what was suppposed to be a bought-'n-paid-for validation
of George IIs policies. It's been really pathetic watching this go on
over the last few months, from the hoopla when Kay was gonna come in
and save the administration's collective ass to this sorry little
squib that resulted.

>> I'd suggest that before doing any more France-bashing, you read that
>> article.
>
>I'd suggest you do the same. Typical quote:
>
>"Officials said they believed that the two San Diego businessmen, both
>of Iraqi descent, delivered and helped to assemble three 85-foot-long
>patrol boats,

Sorry, but I did. _Thirty_ companies, remember? The article goes into
some detail on one of them... or did you think they were all owned by
those two guys in San Diego?

>Or, like Chirac, sell them nuclear power plants that are basically
>designed to make material for bombs (thank goodness the Israelis took
>that one out).

Oh, dearie me, but that was back when Iraq was an _ally_, remember?
And not merely of France, but also of the USA. Back _then_, even
American arms sales to Iraq -- all those helicopters, for example --
were approved by the administration of the time. And Donald Rumsfeld
was making kissy-face with Saddam himself: you do remember the
pictures? If you're making claims about French weapons in Iraq in
contravention of international embargoes, don't mix that up with
anybody's weapons in Iraq when Saddam was the Last Best Hope against
the Shi'a hordes.

Scott

[Skysurfer]

Wings Of Fury Aviation Photography wrote :

> Why not bash them? They and the Germans apparently have a lot to
> hide in Iraq.......

Oh yes we have ! Like the 20 years old french missile which were
supposed to be built in 2003.

Anyway how is the new dictator of Azerbaijan ? The previous one is in
a US hospital no ? Off course it has nothing to do with the huge azeri
petroleum fields.

[NEMO ME IMPUNE]

OK, M. Irby try to make us think that France sold Nukes, or tools to make
them to Sadam. But, who sold them those Anthrax and others biological
weapons? And M Irby is always speaking of M. Chirac. Why he did'nt adress m.
Donald (or Mickey?) RUMSFELD?

[tscottme]

NEMO ME IMPUNE > wrote in message
...
> OK, M. Irby try to make us think that France sold Nukes, or tools to
make
> them to Sadam. But, who sold them those Anthrax and others biological
> weapons? And M Irby is always speaking of M. Chirac. Why he did'nt
adress m.
> Donald (or Mickey?) RUMSFELD?
>

No, France sold a nuclear reactor, Germany sold the centrifuges and
tools to make nukes. France and Germany were Saddam's biggest trade
partners and they were the ones that were pushing to lift sanctions on
Iraq. Don't forget the contracts Saddam signed with the French and the
Russians that would take effect once sanctions were ended.

If the French and Germans got their way Saddam's children's prison would
still be full, Saddam would still be filling mass graves, and Saddam
would be writing handsome checks to the French and Germans, not just the
English MPs on his payroll.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[iowa]

>
> No, France sold a nuclear reactor, Germany sold the centrifuges and
> tools to make nukes. France and Germany were Saddam's biggest trade
> partners and they were the ones that were pushing to lift sanctions on
> Iraq. Don't forget the contracts Saddam signed with the French and the
> Russians that would take effect once sanctions were ended.
>
> If the French and Germans got their way Saddam's children's prison would
> still be full,

And the american pedophiles wouldn't **** them....

Saddam would still be filling mass graves, and Saddam
> would be writing handsome checks to the French and Germans, not just the
> English MPs on his payroll.

English pedoporno amateurs are very glad to usa...

You are totally idiot *ROTFL*

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, tscottme
> writes
>NEMO ME IMPUNE > wrote in message
...
>> OK, M. Irby try to make us think that France sold Nukes, or tools to
>make
>> them to Sadam. But, who sold them those Anthrax and others biological
>> weapons? And M Irby is always speaking of M. Chirac. Why he did'nt
>adress m.
>> Donald (or Mickey?) RUMSFELD?
>>
>
>No, France sold a nuclear reactor, Germany sold the centrifuges and
>tools to make nukes. France and Germany were Saddam's biggest trade
>partners and they were the ones that were pushing to lift sanctions on
>Iraq. Don't forget the contracts Saddam signed with the French and the
>Russians that would take effect once sanctions were ended.
>
>If the French and Germans got their way Saddam's children's prison would
>still be full, Saddam would still be filling mass graves, and Saddam
>would be writing handsome checks to the French and Germans, not just the
>English MPs on his payroll.

Hurray! Some of it's our fault! I thought we were being ignored.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[tw]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, tscottme
> > writes
> >NEMO ME IMPUNE > wrote in message
> ...
> >> OK, M. Irby try to make us think that France sold Nukes, or tools to
> >make
> >> them to Sadam. But, who sold them those Anthrax and others biological
> >> weapons? And M Irby is always speaking of M. Chirac. Why he did'nt
> >adress m.
> >> Donald (or Mickey?) RUMSFELD?
> >>
> >
> >No, France sold a nuclear reactor, Germany sold the centrifuges and
> >tools to make nukes. France and Germany were Saddam's biggest trade
> >partners and they were the ones that were pushing to lift sanctions on
> >Iraq. Don't forget the contracts Saddam signed with the French and the
> >Russians that would take effect once sanctions were ended.
> >
> >If the French and Germans got their way Saddam's children's prison would
> >still be full, Saddam would still be filling mass graves, and Saddam
> >would be writing handsome checks to the French and Germans, not just the
> >English MPs on his payroll.
>
> Hurray! Some of it's our fault! I thought we were being ignored.

Didn't George Galloway get cleared of "being on Saddam's payroll"?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"NEMO ME IMPUNE" > wrote:

> OK, M. Irby try to make us think that France sold Nukes, or tools to make
> them to Sadam.

Which they certainly did. The OSIRAK reactor. Luckily, the Israelis
stopped that by bombing the building it was going into.

> But, who sold them those Anthrax and others biological weapons?

The Type Culture Collection sold some cultures to Iraq in their normal
work of helping medical researchers across the globe creat vaccines.
They've been doing this for about 70 years.

For the Iraq biological and chemical weapons programs, look to Germany
and France who sold them most of their equipment.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[John Mullen]

"tw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, tscottme
> > > writes
> > >NEMO ME IMPUNE > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> OK, M. Irby try to make us think that France sold Nukes, or tools to
> > >make
> > >> them to Sadam. But, who sold them those Anthrax and others biological
> > >> weapons? And M Irby is always speaking of M. Chirac. Why he did'nt
> > >adress m.
> > >> Donald (or Mickey?) RUMSFELD?
> > >>
> > >
> > >No, France sold a nuclear reactor, Germany sold the centrifuges and
> > >tools to make nukes. France and Germany were Saddam's biggest trade
> > >partners and they were the ones that were pushing to lift sanctions on
> > >Iraq. Don't forget the contracts Saddam signed with the French and the
> > >Russians that would take effect once sanctions were ended.
> > >
> > >If the French and Germans got their way Saddam's children's prison
would
> > >still be full, Saddam would still be filling mass graves, and Saddam
> > >would be writing handsome checks to the French and Germans, not just
the
> > >English MPs on his payroll.
> >
> > Hurray! Some of it's our fault! I thought we were being ignored.
>
> Didn't George Galloway get cleared of "being on Saddam's payroll"?

And of course he isn't English! Par for the course though...

John

[Keith Willshaw]

"tw" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Didn't George Galloway get cleared of "being on Saddam's payroll"?
>


Not exactly.

While the Christian Science Monitor withdrew its story the
Daily Telegraph is standing by its reporter who claimed to have
found documents detailing his connections with Saddam.

Gorgeous George has now launched an appeal to fund his
libel action, if it ever comes to court it could be rather interesting.

Keith

[Matt Wiser]

Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> Scott MacEachern > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:35:27 GMT, Chad Irby
> wrote:
>>
>> >So far, quite a lot.
>> >
>> >It's a shame they aren't reporting it in
>the European papers.
>>
>> Nor, strangely enough, in the North American
>papers.
>
>Well, maybe not in some of them, but many did
>mention the actual
>contents of the report itself, which *does*
>hold quite a lot of damning
>evidence. But the quick and clueless headlines
>win again...
>
>> On the other hand, we have this lead from
>an article in the New York
>> Times for 16 October
>> (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/international/middleeast/16ARMS.html):
>> "American officials in Baghdad have identified
>at least 30 businesses
>> and individuals in the United States that
>investigators said they
>> suspect sold tens of millions of dollars in
>military technology to
>> Iraq before the war...." Imagine that: American
>firms selling arms to
>> Saddam Hussein.
>>
>> I'd suggest that before doing any more France-bashing,
>you read that
>> article.
>
>I'd suggest you do the same. Typical quote:
>
>"Officials said they believed that the two San
>Diego businessmen, both
>of Iraqi descent, delivered and helped to assemble
>three 85-foot-long
>patrol boats, armed with machine guns, as part
>of an $11 million
>contract with Mr. Hussein's military."
>
>"But the American authorities said the Yakous
>were aware that their
>dealings with Mr. Hussein's government violated
>American laws. Indeed,
>officials said the two men told investigators
>in an interview two
>months ago that the embargo forced them to route
>their supplies through
>Jordan, slowing production."
>
>There's also quite a bit of difference between
>companies that sell arms
>to Iraq *in spite of* the US government, and
>people who sell arms to
>Iraq with the *support* of the French government...
>
>Or, like Chirac, sell them nuclear power plants
>that are basically
>designed to make material for bombs (thank goodness
>the Israelis took
>that one out).
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
>Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be
>hallucinations.
>Slam on brakes accordingly.
Good thing the Israelis did execute Operation BABYLON in 1981.
There was only one purpose for the Osirak reactor: bomb making. As far as
our French friends selling Iraq stuff up until the war, what the hell were
you guys thinking? The atropine, NBC suits, and other CW gear captured during
the push to Baghdad tells a lot: the Iraqis had WMDs and wanted to protect
their own troops-they knew that the US and Brits had no chem/bio weapons,
so why give their own troops the NBC gear? Explain that.
And add the Russians in as well: where did the Iraqis get AT-15 ATGMs to
disable several M-1s,hmm?
Seems both the French and the Russians have things to hide in covering for
their friend Saddam Insane. And once all the captured documents are examined
and released, seems Paris, Moscow, Berlin, and Beijing are going to be embarassed.
No wonder they didn't want Saddam taken down.

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

[Franck]

>For the Iraq biological and chemical weapons programs, look to Germany
>and France who sold them most of their equipment.

and US not ??? open your eyes

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

http://www.kvinnonet.org/war/WarCriminals3.html

http://www.topos.org/rumsfeld.html

but may be all this inforamtions are false and sure i'm a poor victim of
horrible manipulation.


Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[John Mullen]

"Franck" > wrote in message
...
> >For the Iraq biological and chemical weapons programs, look to Germany
> >and France who sold them most of their equipment.
>
> and US not ??? open your eyes
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html
>
> http://www.kvinnonet.org/war/WarCriminals3.html
>
> http://www.topos.org/rumsfeld.html
>
> but may be all this inforamtions are false and sure i'm a poor victim of
> horrible manipulation.

Franck

There really isn't any point in arguing here. This is a guy who believes all
criticism of the USA is tantamount to communist propaganda. He also believes
that the situation in Iraq is currently getting better day by day, and that
anyone who says different is a lefty propagandist. It just isn't worth it.

(OT: I wonder if Rumsfeld himself is aware of just how evil he looks, as a
former Saddam kisser?)

John

[Franck]

I'm aggre with you John. I hope one day they will open their eyes

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Scott MacEachern]

"tscottme" > wrote in message >...

> If the French and Germans got their way Saddam's children's prison would
> still be full, Saddam would still be filling mass graves ...

Right... and since the American administration got _its_ way, there
are now between 7000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians occupying individual
graves, with perhaps another 20,000 - 30,000 wounded. I'm sure you
think that that's a small price to pay -- they're not _your_
relatives, after all -- but one must keep the body count straight.

> Scott
> --------
> "Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
> reporters pulled out.

Yup. They pulled right out of the army's ass, and after that the media
could actually see what was going on in the world.

Scott

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Franck" > wrote:

> >For the Iraq biological and chemical weapons programs, look to Germany
> >and France who sold them most of their equipment.
>
> and US not ??? open your eyes
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

Nothing in that story about selling equipment for the Iraq chemical
weapons program.

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

The "materials" we sold them were *pesticides* for agricultural use.

"Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth
(£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used
for chemical warfare."

They weren't, of course. They were *pesticides*, and not suited for use
against people.

No chemical weapons production materials or equipment. The anthrax
samples were from the American Type Culture Collection, and have been
sold for preparing vaccines since the 1920s.

> http://www.kvinnonet.org/war/WarCriminals3.html

Nothing in this one about any suggested sales of chemical or biological
warfare production equipment.

> http://www.topos.org/rumsfeld.html

Ditto here.

> but may be all this inforamtions are false and sure i'm a poor victim of
> horrible manipulation.

No, you're just a victim of doing a search for "chemical weapons iraq
United States" and pasting it into your post without actually reading
your "sources."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"John Mullen" > wrote:

> There really isn't any point in arguing here. This is a guy who believes all
> criticism of the USA is tantamount to communist propaganda.

No, it's just "a guy" who keeps reading some very badly written stories
that claim the opposite of what's actually happening in this case.

> He also believes that the situation in Iraq is currently getting
> better day by day,

On the other hand, since we have actual evidence that things in Iraq
*are* getting better every day, the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

> and that anyone who says different is a lefty propagandist.

Well, in this case, it's more that the folks who fell for some of these
stories are pretty far left-wing (when you see sources like Common
Dreams, it's far left bordering on the Socialist at *best*).

And calling some of those sites "propagandists" is being kind.

> It just isn't worth it.

Of course it's worth it. You might actually learn something some day.
Such as "you need better news sources."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Scott MacEachern) wrote:

> Right... and since the American administration got _its_ way, there
> are now between 7000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians occupying individual
> graves,

You mean 800 to 1200. That range you used is from the same guy who did
the Afghan "body count" site, which had a tendency to take the largest
numbers, add them together, and not cross-check for multiple reports,
recording three to six times the number the *UN* got...

And even at that, they're massively ahead of the normal amount killed
and maimed by the Hussein regime in a six month period.

Hell, even with your overly-high numbers, they're ahead of the game and
getting further ahead with each passing week.

You still don't understand just how incredibly awful it was in Saddam's
Iraq, do you?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Franck]

some other article :

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------

Of course my dear. May be you live on the parallel world but sure we don't
live on the same world

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/12/48877.html

Sure mister DR meet Saddam Hussein only to take a cup of tea and discuss
about the last Scharzy movie

Excuse me for the offense to the honorable Mister Mickey Rumsfeld

another examples :

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2002/1231rumsfeld.h
tm

>The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German
companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including
anthrax; vital ingredients for >chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by
a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

>Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in
a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean
firm, Cardoen, to send >cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave"
attacks.

>A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents,
including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US
companies, under licence from the >commerce department.

sure only for pesticide !!

>Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000)
of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical
warfare.

only for pesticide

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Franck


www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Stephen Harding]

Franck wrote:

> >The "materials" we sold them were *pesticides* for agricultural use.
>
> of course my dear, France it was not for nuclear weapon but only for
> electricity :o)))
>
> I beleive it's not an aviaiton NG, just an humor NG
>
> of course Mister Rumsfeld never meet Saddan Hussein to help this guy in the
> war against Iran..never
>
> USA great peace country, never produce anti personnal mine for some
> dictator, nerver help Saddam, never help Pinochet, ...and lot of other
> examples ...a real nice country, an exemple for all the world

I get the distinct impression you don't much care for the US of A.

I think you have prejudices of your own you should deal with.


SMH

[Scott MacEachern]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:20:57 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>You mean 800 to 1200. That range you used is from the same guy who did
>the Afghan "body count" site, which had a tendency to take the largest
>numbers, add them together, and not cross-check for multiple reports,
>recording three to six times the number the *UN* got...

Nope, sorry, wrong again. Those numbers are from the Iraq Body Count
site (www.iraqbodycount.org), not started by Marc Herold.... he's only
one of a large number of people contributing to that site. The
methodology is reasonably robust, with a requirement that casualties
be substantiated by two separate organisations -- it's probably as
good as you're going to get under the circumstances -- and the numbers
are in line with an AP survey that looked at a smaller area of the
country. You really shouldn't believe everything _The Weekly
Standard_ writes. Although it's interesting to see what even they get
embarassed about.

>And even at that, they're massively ahead of the normal amount killed
>and maimed by the Hussein regime in a six month period.

And here we have the fallback excuse... even if the numbers _are_
accurate, Iraqis are better off now that Americans have only killed
7000 - 9000, and wounded 20,000, in six months. But even that's not
the case: a vicious psycopath he certainly was, and Iraq is better off
without him, but look at the Amnesty International reports for the
last few years. They're at
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irq/index
America has managed perhaps 10 years of Saddam Hussein's killing in
the last 6 months.

>Hell, even with your overly-high numbers, they're ahead of the game and
>getting further ahead with each passing week.

Always interesting to hear from people willing to democratise to the
last dead Iraqi...

>
>You still don't understand just how incredibly awful it was in Saddam's
>Iraq, do you?

I perhaps have a better idea than you do: I've had to spend some time
in countries like that. But keep vapouring on about how unimportant
those deaths tolls are: no doubt it makes you feel better.

Scott

[Franck]

???
thks doc

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Franck" > wrote:

> >The "materials" we sold them were *pesticides* for agricultural use.
>
> of course my dear, France it was not for nuclear weapon but only for
> electricity :o)))

Well, it's not too shocking you can't tell the difference between actual
pesticides (a standard-issue type used on crops) versus a nuclear
reactor made just to produce bomb materials...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:20:57 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >You mean 800 to 1200. That range you used is from the same guy who did
> >the Afghan "body count" site, which had a tendency to take the largest
> >numbers, add them together, and not cross-check for multiple reports,
> >recording three to six times the number the *UN* got...
>
> Nope, sorry, wrong again. Those numbers are from the Iraq Body Count
> site (www.iraqbodycount.org), not started by Marc Herold....

Same methodology, same mistakes.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Scott MacEachern]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 03:12:12 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>Same methodology, same mistakes.

Nope, somewhat different methodology, actually. One wonders if under
these circumstances you believe the lists of _American_ casualties
that come out... often just one source, don't y'know? (FWIW, I do
believe them.) And as I said, there's been one pretty major indepedent
survey that has come to generally similar results.

Scott

[Franck]

strange, Excellent Mister Mickey Rumsfeld meet Saddam Hussein in 1983 during
war Iran-Irak, but just to sold some pesticide ?

>Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in
a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean
firm, Cardoen, to send >cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave"
attacks.

>A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents,
including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US
companies, under licence from the >commerce department.

Just for pesticide

Are you sure you n US never provide military help to Saddam Hussein ?

and in the same time US provide military help to Iran (irangate)
--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[John Mullen]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "John Mullen" > wrote:
>
> > There really isn't any point in arguing here. This is a guy who believes
all
> > criticism of the USA is tantamount to communist propaganda.
>
> No, it's just "a guy" who keeps reading some very badly written stories
> that claim the opposite of what's actually happening in this case.

'Actually' meaning 'in your opinion, unsupported by any facts'

> > He also believes that the situation in Iraq is currently getting
> > better day by day,
>
> On the other hand, since we have actual evidence that things in Iraq
> *are* getting better every day, the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

'Actual' meaning 'in your opinion, unsupported by any facts'

> > and that anyone who says different is a lefty propagandist.
>
> Well, in this case, it's more that the folks who fell for some of these
> stories are pretty far left-wing (when you see sources like Common
> Dreams, it's far left bordering on the Socialist at *best*).
>
> And calling some of those sites "propagandists" is being kind.
>
> > It just isn't worth it.
>
> Of course it's worth it. You might actually learn something some day.
> Such as "you need better news sources."

I might. I doubt if you will though. Sigh.

John