Re: Families of soldiers condemn Bush's war

[Mark Test]

"oO" > wrote in message
...
>
> Families of soldiers condemn Bush's war
>
> The October 25 demonstration in Washington was particularly noteworthy for
> the participation of a number of families that have been directly affected
> by the deployment of their kinsmen in Iraq.

It's so refreshing to see Americans exercising their right of free speech,
should remind
all of us that the ultimate sacrifice our troops have made throughout the
years,
was not in vain.

BTW this isn't Bush's war, it's America's war, Congress did vote in support
of the invasion, lest we forget.

Mark

[Vince Brannigan]

Mark Test wrote:
> "oO" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Families of soldiers condemn Bush's war
>>
>>The October 25 demonstration in Washington was particularly noteworthy for
>>the participation of a number of families that have been directly affected
>>by the deployment of their kinsmen in Iraq.
>
>
> It's so refreshing to see Americans exercising their right of free speech,
> should remind
> all of us that the ultimate sacrifice our troops have made throughout the
> years,
> was not in vain.
>
> BTW this isn't Bush's war, it's America's war, Congress did vote in support
> of the invasion, lest we forget.
>

It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised

lest we forget....

> From: vincent Brannigan )
> Subject: Re: Old Europe and Law?
> View: Complete Thread (101 articles)
> Original Format
> Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
> Date: 2003-03-31 07:46:34 PST
>
> Cecil Turner wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The US is not attacking Iraq because it wants to "be the arbiter of good and
>> evil," but because its WMD programs represent an unacceptable security risk to the
>> US. And I'd suggest the US not only has a "right to be heard" (thanks for that,
>> BTW), but a right not to have biological agents dispersed on its streets.
>>
>>
>
> And if they dont have WMD Bush and cheny resign in disgrace ?
>
> Vince

Vince

[B2431]

>From: Vince Brannigan

<snip>
>
>It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised
>
>lest we forget....
>

So none of the other reasons we went will count if no WMDs are found? Granted
Bush emphasized WMDs, but he also gave other reasons for going to war not the
least of which Iraq was still violating every single agreement they made since
the Gulf War. Keep in mind Clinton, the U.N. and many countries said Iraq had
WMDs.

Should we impeach all the congressmen who voted for the war?

[Fred J. McCall]

Vince Brannigan > wrote:

:It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised

Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.

:lest we forget....

Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
it's suddenly all Bush's fault.

Get a clue....

--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

[oO]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>
> :It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised
>
> Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
> frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
> only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
> enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.
>
> :lest we forget....
>
> Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
> the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
> it's suddenly all Bush's fault.

Of course they knew he *had* them - they ****ing give them to him. the point
it - he clearly destroyed them ..

> Get a clue....

We were told by the weapons inspectors he didnt have them anymore. Nobody
believed he had them outside of the US, but the only people who could really
know - the weapons experts who were actually there inspecting in Iraq
(including Mr.Blix) said there were NONE.

Despite this the UN was shown Powells laughable powerpoint demonstration
that showed a drawing of a truck that was meant to be evidence of a mobile
weapons factory...lol..****ing hell thats funny...what happened when they
invaded? The truck was being used for weather experiments. lol

[Vince Brannigan]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>
> :It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised
>
> Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
> frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
> only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
> enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.
>
> :lest we forget....
>
> Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
> the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
> it's suddenly all Bush's fault.
>
> Get a clue....
>

People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.

Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional


Vince

[George Z. Bush]

B2431 wrote:
>> From: Vince Brannigan
>
> <snip>
>>
>> It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised
>>
>> lest we forget....
>>
>
> So none of the other reasons we went will count if no WMDs are found?

You mean nuclear weapons which also turned out to be non-existent? And aluminum
tubes supposedly bought for the non-existent nuclear weapons? Or that his
people didn't love him? There are a lot more North Koreans who don't love their
leader and we're not going to war with them over that, are we?

> .....Granted Bush emphasized WMDs, but he also gave other reasons for going to
war not the
> least of which Iraq was still violating every single agreement they made since
> the Gulf War.

Oh, breaking treaties is a reason to go to war? Like the Kyoto Accords, or the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, both of which we pulled out of unilaterally.

> ......Keep in mind Clinton, the U.N. and many countries said Iraq had
> WMDs.

But they didn't go to war with him over that, did they?


>
> Should we impeach all the congressmen who voted for the war?

Of course not....we believed all of the garbage the President fed us, so why
should be expect the people who represent us to be any smarter than we were?
They're just as dumb as we are, but being stupid is not a reason for kicking
people out of office. If we did that, we wouldn't have a congress and would be
living under a dictatorship.

George Z.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:41:39 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>Oh, breaking treaties is a reason to go to war? Like the Kyoto Accords, or the
>Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, both of which we pulled out of unilaterally.
>

Throwing a lot of stuff on the wall in the hope that some sticks is a
danger of political debate in modern America.

For the record, let us note that the Kyoto Accords were not ratified
by the Senate and that George Bush' decision to not continue is well
within his Constitutional authority. We might also note that the
impact on the US economy imposed by Kyoto goes well beyond what would
be reasonable to counter a "global warming" that may be considered
scientifically dubious at best.

And, the ABM withdrawal was in no way unilateral. You might review the
discussions between Bush and Putin and the agreement of the Russian
president with the rationale for withdrawal.

Keep in mind that compliance with any treaty, anywhere, at any time,
is governed by national self-interest. There's no international cop to
knock on the door of a treaty violator.

[Leslie Swartz]

Vince:

- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
- What about the mobile chem labs?
- What about the Rycin?
- What about the Botulinum?
- What about the anthrax cultures?
- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?

How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
programs" is enough for you?

Steve Swartz


"Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > Vince Brannigan > wrote:
> >
> > :It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised
> >
> > Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
> > frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
> > only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
> > enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.
> >
> > :lest we forget....
> >
> > Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
> > the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
> > it's suddenly all Bush's fault.
> >
> > Get a clue....
> >
>
> People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.
>
> Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional
>
>
> Vince
>
>

[Pete]

"oO" > wrote

> We were told by the weapons inspectors he didnt have them anymore. Nobody
> believed he had them outside of the US, but the only people who could
really
> know - the weapons experts who were actually there inspecting in Iraq
> (including Mr.Blix) said there were NONE.

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with
the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in
the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past
four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has
continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Pete

[Kevin Brooks]

Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > Vince Brannigan > wrote:
> >
> > :It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised
> >
> > Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
> > frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
> > only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
> > enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.
> >
> > :lest we forget....
> >
> > Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
> > the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
> > it's suddenly all Bush's fault.
> >
> > Get a clue....
> >
>
> People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.
>
> Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional

Vkince, you should be the absolute *last* person to be hurling about
accusations that anyone is "delusional".

Brooks

>
>
> Vince

[Prof. Vincent Brannigan]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>
> > People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.
> >
> > Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional
>
> Vkince, you should be the absolute *last* person to be hurling about
> accusations that anyone is "delusional".

I'm not the leader of the most powerful country on earth . sending the nation into war.

The Economist

October 4, 2003 U.S. Edition

SECTION: LEADER

LENGTH: 1243 words

HEADLINE: Wielders of mass deception? - Wielders of mass deception?

BODY:
THE road to war with Iraq was paved with arguments, good and bad. Among the many good ones were
Saddam Hussein's serial invasion of his neighbours, his neglect and murder of his own people, and his
recidivist disregard for the umpteen UN resolutions passed in the hope of domesticating him. But
there were some less good arguments advanced by the governments that ousted him. George Bush and Tony
Blair, it now appears, exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This
is not just a negligible footnote in the history of Iraq's conquest and reconstruction--so much
propaganda under the bridge. In the eyes of the world, especially the Arab world, the flimsiness of
some of the claims about Mr Hussein's arsenal has helped to make a legitimate conflict seem
otherwise. It also risks making the danger posed by WMD seem more rhetorical and less real than it
is, and may jeopardise future efforts to deal with that danger, especially any that involve acting
pre-emptively. Ultimately, weaknesses in the Anglo-American case risk damaging the limited trust that
Britons and Americans place in their leaders. They may also have more tangible political
consequences. Mr Bush's popularity has been hit by the costs and complications of the post-war
occupation, but thus far Mr Blair has faced more flak over his case for war. As the presidential
election approaches, and more light is shone into both Mr Bush's case and the way the White House
dealt with its critics, the balance of political risk may well change.

The good, the bad and the exaggerated

Mr Bush and Mr Blair, remember, were only supporting witnesses in the argument that Mr Hussein
coveted and probably retained WMD. The main evidence came from the UN weapons inspectors, aided and
abetted by Mr Hussein himself. Those with the inclination and stamina--of whom, before the war, there
were few--can immerse themselves in more than a decade's worth of reports that detail Iraq's WMD
history. Despite brazen efforts to obstruct them, in the 1990s the inspectors uncovered, among other
things, Iraq's biological-weapons programmes. The shenanigans continued when the inspectors returned
to the country in 2002. As well as acting guilty right until the end, Mr Hussein had used WMD in the
past. Very few people believed that he had given them up of his own accord. The Economist was not
among them.

But the inspectors' findings were too arcane to be turned into soundbites. And in the end, they
amounted to a set of alarming questions about what Mr Hussein might be hiding, rather than firm
statements. So Mr Blair and Mr Bush levelled some accusations of their own, based on what their spies
told them ()see page 24. America, for instance, made frightening allegations about the progress of a
Saddamite nuclear bomb, and Iraq's links to al-Qaeda. Both governments had other reasons for wanting
to change Iraq's regime, which, in the weapons' absence, they are now busily stressing; but the case
they made to the world was firmly anchored in the WMD threat.

Six months and a war later, the American-led post-war inspectors were expected to tell Congress this
week that Mr Hussein's missile programmes and procurement efforts did indeed breach UN resolutions,
and offer other proof of his duplicity. Yet no actual WMD have come to light, let alone the
terrifying arsenal the world was led to expect. Even many who opposed the war are shocked and awed by
this, especially by the apparent absence of the chemical weapons Mr Hussein was widely believed to
have retained. Like inquisitors condemning a witch, some argue that this failure to find very much
simply confirms Mr Hussein's cunning. That is not good enough. By adding their own,
intelligence-based allegations to those of the UN's inspectors, Messrs Bush and Blair shifted part of
the burden of proof from Mr Hussein to themselves. Their own worst enemies

Two questions are raised by the elusiveness of the WMD. The first concerns Saddam. Why, if he had so
little to hide, did he subject his country to all those years of sanctions and bombings, and finally
to the war that dislodged him? One explanation is that Mr Hussein intentionally created uncertainty
about his arsenal: adversaries might be deterred, while his guilt could never be categorically
proven. This strategy may have extended to the issue of fake orders to his commanders to unleash
chemical weapons, in the hope that they would be overheard and deter the invasion. Or this
self-proclaimed heir of Saladin and
Nebuchadnezzar may have been unwilling to face the shame of submitting to the UN, and did not give a
fig about what his machismo cost his people. Or, as can be the fate of dictators, Mr Hussein's
minions may have led him to believe that he had a bigger punch, and more to hide, than he actually
did. When war was on his doorstep, they may have been too cowed to tell him the truth.

The second question concerns the governments of Britain and America: why did they make some claims
that now look exaggerated? Did the spies get it wrong, or did the politicians lie about what the
spies told them? Unless more intelligence is declassified (and it should be), it is hard to make a
definitive judgment; but parliamentary and congressional probes, and a British public inquiry,
enable an interim one. Both were culpable. The spies erred and the politicians exaggerated.

Iraq was, in spook parlance, a "hard target". Reliable, on-the-ground intelligence was hard to come
by, as is inevitable in a country where minor disloyalty was punishable by death, or worse. But that
doesn't get the politicians off the hook. Intelligence, like those UN reports, tends to deal in
subjunctives: it often speaks of what might or could be going on rather than what definitely is.
Politicians, on the other hand, prefer indicatives or imperatives. What in some cases began as
nuanced reports became much more certain; and while both Mr Bush and Mr Blair often spoke, quite
reasonably, of future dangers and of possible threats, they sought as well to grab the attention
through more specific claims. It also seems possible that some dated intelligence was used to portray
a current menace. In the case of the al-Qaeda connection, Mr Bush's team wilfully over-interpreted
the little proof they had. This impression of cavalier behaviour, especially on the part of the
Americans, may yet be dispelled--either by a fuller disclosure of the intelligence, or by further
discoveries in Iraq. Indeed, it would be astonishing if no such discoveries were made. But judging by
the way some British and American officials have been playing down expectations--sliding from
talking about actual weapons to discussing weapons programmes and plans--they are not overly
optimistic. Even if some WMD are found, many of the specific Anglo-American claims seem unlikely to
be vindicated.

The response of some cynics is that governments are always economical with the actualite, especially
when selling a controversial policy--and the Iraq war, a war of choice, fought in spite of much of
the world's disapproval, was an especially hard sell. The reverse is true: the standards of accuracy
and sobriety should have been all the more scrupulous because of the controversy, and because so many
lives were at stake. The war, we still think, was justified. But in making the case for it, Mr Bush
and Mr Blair did not play straight with their people.
October 3, 2003




Vince

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Leslie Swartz
> writes
>Vince:
>
>- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?

Which were found when and where?

>- What about the mobile chem labs?

You mean the canvas-sided trailers that might be mobile WME factories...
or might be mobile hydrogen generators?

>- What about the Rycin?

Ricin. Some evidence of ricin manufacture turned up in a UK house (it's
not that hard to do) but I don't recall any significant Iraqi program
being discovered.

>- What about the Botulinum?

How much, how weaponised?

>- What about the anthrax cultures?

Is this the culture that a scientist was told to hide in his
refrigerator in 1991?

>- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?

What about them? Any recent activity?
>
> How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
>programs" is enough for you?

Enough to suggest that there was a significant threat of weaponised,
deployable agents.

We know he used to have a WME program; ask an Iranian veteran, ask a
Kurd. We know a lot of it was captured or destroyed post-1991 and more
destroyed in 1998. What we don't know with certainty is (a) how much he
actually had, (b) how much was lost or destroyed, (c) how much the
Iraqis disposed of themselves.


In six months of occupation, with unlimited access, and many key
decisionmakers and scientists in custody, we haven't found any
deployable weapons, nor any means to produce them in a useful timescale.



--
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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message >...
> Vince:
>
> - What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
> - What about the mobile chem labs?
> - What about the Rycin?
> - What about the Botulinum?
> - What about the anthrax cultures?
> - What about the residuals at various dumping sites?
>
> How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
> programs" is enough for you?
>
> Steve Swartz

You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it so
much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW: you
can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
your list as well.

Brooks

>
>
> "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > > Vince Brannigan > wrote:
> > >
> > > :It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised
> > >
> > > Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
> > > frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
> > > only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
> > > enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.
> > >
> > > :lest we forget....
> > >
> > > Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
> > > the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
> > > it's suddenly all Bush's fault.
> > >
> > > Get a clue....
> > >
> >
> > People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.
> >
> > Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional
> >
> >
> > Vince
> >
> >

[George William Herbert]

Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>>[....]
>People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.
>
>Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional

Now, Vince, that is falling prey to your own political mindset.
Not everything is reducable to such politically naive pandering.

In reality, a very large portion of the people who paid
attention to the Iraqi WMD threat from the early through
mid and late 1990s all agreed that it was likely that Iraq
still had hidden some materials and had obviously hidden
large amounts of information. Many of us believed that
from 1991 and 1992, long before G W Bush had run for
Governor in Texas much less for president.

There were large, known gaps in the information provided
UNSCOM and then UNMOVIC, and in the information they were
able to take during inspections. Some of those were gaps
where it appears in retrospect that the Iraqis truly had
just destroyed records and they're gone; interviews with
the participants on the Iraqi side, done post-Iraqi
Freedom, indicate that a lot of them claim that's what
happened. But they weren't allowed to fully disclose the
details prior to Iraqi Freedom and nobody believed them,
not the US, UNMOVIC, the UN Security Council, France,
Russia, etc.

It appears likely that the reason they weren't allowed to
fully disclose them, and that the Iraqi government didn't
cooperate with the inspections regime fully at any point,
was that Iraq followed a conscious strategy of both
disarming (at least functionally, though some bits and
pieces were left and were discovered throughout the 1990s)
and maintaining a large scale deception program to maintain
a deterrent belief in their neighbors' (and internal
minorities and dissidents) minds as to whether they were
really completely disarmed or not.

Liberals who are anti-war often refuse to acknowledge
the existence of a long and quite detailed history of
investigations and evidence which quite credibly would
lead an independent thinker to conclude that Iraq was
in fact hiding a real program. Hans Blix spent many
years convinced there was in fact something there,
though he changed his mind before the war when it
appeared that his conclusions might be used to justfiy
the war, which he didn't want to happen.

It is probably true that the majority of the population
didn't care one way or the other until Bush put forwards
his belief and made a point of it. It is a grossly
misinformed lie that nobody had education and belief on
the issue prior to then, and that nobody agreed with the
conclusion prior to then.

The implications of Saddam Hussein's deception program having
been successful in fooling those of us (including in the US
government, and outside) who thought the threat was real,
are a serious problem. We did not have good enough solid enough
intelligence on what was really happening. But the problem
was clearly a very hard one: penetrating a program in a hostile
warlike country, in which the leadership had committed itself
to maintaining a deception as a matter of national urgent
priority, and was willing to kill and torture to help cover
up what it was really doing.

In the end, Saddam could have ended the deception at any point
since 1991 and, after a reasonably short verification program,
ended the sanctions and the threats of ongoing violence and
war which eventually escalated to the US invasion. He chose
not to comply materially until the US had already given up on
peaceful options and committed to launch the war. That decision
and the consequences lie on his head.

Knowing what we knew pre-war, the conclusion that he was
still hiding a WMD program was well supported and reasonable.
Not universally agreed with, but well supported and reasonable.
And at least largely wrong, as we now know.


-george william herbert

[Vince Brannigan]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message >...
>
>>Vince:
>>
>>- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
>>- What about the mobile chem labs?
>>- What about the Rycin?
>>- What about the Botulinum?
>>- What about the anthrax cultures?
>>- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?
>>
>> How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
>>programs" is enough for you?
>>
>>Steve Swartz
>
>
> You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
> program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
> active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it so
> much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW: you
> can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
> exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
> your list as well.

I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.

one, just one

not a chemist with a Ph.D. who might be able to make one in 5 years

we've got lots of them at maryland

1 single battle ready WMD

Then all those Americans and others did not die in vain.

got one?

Call when you find

One singular sensation
Every little step it takes.
One
thrilling combination
Every move that it makes.
One wmd and suddenly nobody else will do;

You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.

One moment in its presence
And you can forget the rest.
For the wmd is second best
To none,
Son.
Ooooh! Sigh! Give it your attention.
Do...I...really have to mention?
its the One?

Got "one" ?

Look the families in the eye on veterans day and show them the WMD their
loved ones died for

Vince

[Vince Brannigan]

George William Herbert wrote:
> Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>
>>>[....]
>
> Knowing what we knew pre-war, the conclusion that he was
> still hiding a WMD program was well supported and reasonable.
> Not universally agreed with, but well supported and reasonable.
> And at least largely wrong, as we now know.
>
>
> -george william herbert
>
>
ole busho gambled and lost. unfortuantely the lives that were
lost were not his campaign supporters.

Vince

[JSH5176]

>
>I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.
>
>one, just one

NO, you still wouldnt be satisfied, you and others would say it was one of ours
and that it was planted to support the presidents claims. You and many others
won't be satisfied that there were WMD and programs to develop them until some
radical muslim extremist parks one in your back yeard and sets it off,, Oh i
forget,, htat would be the presidents fault also.

Jim

[George William Herbert]

Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>George William Herbert wrote:
>> Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>>>>[....]
>> Knowing what we knew pre-war, the conclusion that he was
>> still hiding a WMD program was well supported and reasonable.
>> Not universally agreed with, but well supported and reasonable.
>> And at least largely wrong, as we now know.
>
>ole busho gambled and lost. unfortuantely the lives that were
>lost were not his campaign supporters.

You are failing to move beyond your own political prejudices.

It's perfectly reasonable to debate the point whether the
state of knowledge when the US went from vague threats to
escalating ultimatums justified a prompt war. That debate
was valid and quite fruitful, then and now.

It's not reasonable, at all, to debate whether the preponderance
of information available to the west indicated at least some
concealed program and at least some concealed information in
Iraq at that time. Nobody who has ever seriously looked at
that question, regardless of their opinions on the first
question, has ever come away with a coherent case to the
contrary of that conclusion.

You are conflating the two questions. Because you are
ideologically biased against the outcome of the first question.

I know you know you're doing it; unlike questions of law or
engineering where you clearly know that you're qualified to
answer (even if some judgement / opinion calls may be disagreed
with by other professionals), on this issue you have rarely
posted more than a one or two sentence ideological snap.

The question is whether you can rise above your preconception
on this question to study enough about it to be able to
speak with authority, as opposed to just blind raging
opinion as you do now.

Fortunately, education on this point is rather easy,
if somewhat tedious: The UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are all
online thanks to the UN. A few websites, a few books from
the library (Hamza's, Butler's... that's an acceptable
start at least) plus actually reading the whole UNSCOM/
UNMOVIC report history at least once usually is an adequate
first pass. Unfortunately typically over a week's work:
UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are voluminous, and they
reported at least once a quarter since 1991...

Also:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/index.html
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/IraqRefs.html
http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/index.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/deception.htm


-george william herbert

[Kevin Brooks]

Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>Vince:
> >>
> >>- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
> >>- What about the mobile chem labs?
> >>- What about the Rycin?
> >>- What about the Botulinum?
> >>- What about the anthrax cultures?
> >>- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?
> >>
> >> How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
> >>programs" is enough for you?
> >>
> >>Steve Swartz
> >
> >
> > You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
> > program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
> > active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it so
> > much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW: you
> > can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
> > exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
> > your list as well.
>
> I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.

Those missiles?

>
> one, just one

That's one, just one...so now you agree they were in violation?

<snip repetitive rants>

>
> Got "one" ?
>
> Look the families in the eye on veterans day and show them the WMD their
> loved ones died for

You overly sanctimonious son of a bitch. You are without a doubt the
last individual in this country who should look any veteran "in the
eye" on *any* day of the year, with your self-serving 'I didn't serve
because it was inconvenient, and I don't like to take orders'
bull****. You have done nothing but scorn the efforts and sacrifices
of those who did serve, and those who died, from before the time this
operation even started. I rarely descend to the level of actually
cussing out a slimy, yellow bellied little cretin such as yourself,
but you are singularly deserving of every bit of contempt I can
scrounge up. Feel free to (again) invite me up for a personal review
of these comments--the last time you did that you quickly
backscrabbled into the "but if you do show up, I'll file suit" crap
when it came time for the rubber to meet the road, so I have no doubt
any renewed sense of backbone you might dredge up will once again
prove to be a merely transient gesture on your part. What a sad little
excuse for a man you are.

Brooks

>
> Vince

[user]

Right on George, very nice challenge for Vince to get smart.
Sounds and reads like he is writing from emotion. Maybe he actually
lost a friend, family member etc in the war? I could understand from
frustration maybe why his idoligical, even political ranting would
prevail in his mind. Bottom line Vince, ask any second or third term
professional military what their opinion is on this subject. I
wouldn't think a first term enlisted would give you an accurate
portrayal, either way. A professional military individual such as
myself, has adequate resources (not just CNN and the anti-Bush media)
to make our own opinion. You are wrong, but entitled to your own
opinion, please base it on fact and not what you have overheard. Try
stepping even for a few minutes in a sailors or soldiers shoes. Look
Vince, I was there, seriously, for real, in OSW, did that 4 times over
the last 9 years, for six months at a whack on 3 different carriers.
Was it all pretend that Saddam was continually violating the no fly
zones, both north and south? We were being targeted and shot at
routinely. Glad we finally put a stop to that! Aren't you? ONW and OSW
was costing the US billions alone in Battle Group and CAG support.
Enough for now,,, I can't even believe I lowered myself to respond to
your trash in the first place. Post again and I (along with others in
here), will respect what you say but will continue to prove you are
seriously demented.

On 10 Nov 2003 18:32:08 -0800, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

>Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>>George William Herbert wrote:
>>> Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>>>>>[....]
>>> Knowing what we knew pre-war, the conclusion that he was
>>> still hiding a WMD program was well supported and reasonable.
>>> Not universally agreed with, but well supported and reasonable.
>>> And at least largely wrong, as we now know.
>>
>>ole busho gambled and lost. unfortuantely the lives that were
>>lost were not his campaign supporters.
>
>You are failing to move beyond your own political prejudices.
>
>It's perfectly reasonable to debate the point whether the
>state of knowledge when the US went from vague threats to
>escalating ultimatums justified a prompt war. That debate
>was valid and quite fruitful, then and now.
>
>It's not reasonable, at all, to debate whether the preponderance
>of information available to the west indicated at least some
>concealed program and at least some concealed information in
>Iraq at that time. Nobody who has ever seriously looked at
>that question, regardless of their opinions on the first
>question, has ever come away with a coherent case to the
>contrary of that conclusion.
>
>You are conflating the two questions. Because you are
>ideologically biased against the outcome of the first question.
>
>I know you know you're doing it; unlike questions of law or
>engineering where you clearly know that you're qualified to
>answer (even if some judgement / opinion calls may be disagreed
>with by other professionals), on this issue you have rarely
>posted more than a one or two sentence ideological snap.
>
>The question is whether you can rise above your preconception
>on this question to study enough about it to be able to
>speak with authority, as opposed to just blind raging
>opinion as you do now.
>
>Fortunately, education on this point is rather easy,
>if somewhat tedious: The UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are all
>online thanks to the UN. A few websites, a few books from
>the library (Hamza's, Butler's... that's an acceptable
>start at least) plus actually reading the whole UNSCOM/
>UNMOVIC report history at least once usually is an adequate
>first pass. Unfortunately typically over a week's work:
>UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are voluminous, and they
>reported at least once a quarter since 1991...
>
>Also:
>http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/index.html
>http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/IraqRefs.html
>http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/index.htm
>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html
>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/deception.htm
>
>
>-george william herbert

[Vince Brannigan]

George William Herbert wrote:
> Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>
>>George William Herbert wrote:
>>
>>>Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>[....]
>>>>
>>>Knowing what we knew pre-war, the conclusion that he was
>>>still hiding a WMD program was well supported and reasonable.
>>>Not universally agreed with, but well supported and reasonable.
>>>And at least largely wrong, as we now know.
>>
>>ole busho gambled and lost. unfortuantely the lives that were
>>lost were not his campaign supporters.
>
>
> You are failing to move beyond your own political prejudices.
>
> It's perfectly reasonable to debate the point whether the
> state of knowledge when the US went from vague threats to
> escalating ultimatums justified a prompt war. That debate
> was valid and quite fruitful, then and now.
>
Fair enough, see below

> It's not reasonable, at all, to debate whether the preponderance
> of information available to the west indicated at least some
> concealed program and at least some concealed information in
> Iraq at that time. Nobody who has ever seriously looked at
> that question, regardless of their opinions on the first
> question, has ever come away with a coherent case to the
> contrary of that conclusion.
>

????

> You are conflating the two questions. Because you are
> ideologically biased against the outcome of the first question.
>
> I know you know you're doing it; unlike questions of law or
> engineering where you clearly know that you're qualified to
> answer (even if some judgement / opinion calls may be disagreed
> with by other professionals), on this issue you have rarely
> posted more than a one or two sentence ideological snap.
>
> The question is whether you can rise above your preconception
> on this question to study enough about it to be able to
> speak with authority, as opposed to just blind raging
> opinion as you do now.
>
> Fortunately, education on this point is rather easy,
> if somewhat tedious: The UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are all
> online thanks to the UN. A few websites, a few books from
> the library (Hamza's, Butler's... that's an acceptable
> start at least) plus actually reading the whole UNSCOM/
> UNMOVIC report history at least once usually is an adequate
> first pass. Unfortunately typically over a week's work:
> UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports are voluminous, and they
> reported at least once a quarter since 1991...
>

I am not conflating the two questions.

Bush did.

He whipped up hysteria for the war by making clear cut statmetns, not of
the possiblity subject to verification that Iraq maight have the arms
but that in fact they did.

Without that claim he does not get the war.


I raised this issue in March

Cecil Turner wrote:

>
>
> The US is not attacking Iraq because it wants to "be the arbiter of
good and
> evil," but because its WMD programs represent an unacceptable
security risk to the
> US. And I'd suggest the US not only has a "right to be heard"
(thanks for that,
> BTW), but a right not to have biological agents dispersed on its streets.
>
>

And if they dont have WMD Bush and cheny resign in disgrace ?

Vince
(psosted on march 31)

Bush wants to ahve it both ways. My answer is no. we pay for results.

this resutl indicates failure

Im not saying he is evil, just that he failed to produce proof of the
Casus Belli he promised.

Vinve

[wrann]

>
> We know he used to have a WME program; ask an Iranian veteran, ask a
> Kurd. We know a lot of it was captured or destroyed post-1991 and more
> destroyed in 1998. What we don't know with certainty is (a) how much he
> actually had, (b) how much was lost or destroyed, (c) how much the
> Iraqis disposed of themselves.
>

....".. what we don't know.." (above) This is exactly why we had to go in;
we didn't know, he wasn't telling (in fact he was being evasive as hell),
and contrary to your statement, Blix did NOT say Iraq did not have any, he
actually wrote the finding that they were continuing to be evasive in direct
violation of the UN (that is United Nations).

[Vince Brannigan]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message >...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vince:
>>>>
>>>>- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
>>>>- What about the mobile chem labs?
>>>>- What about the Rycin?
>>>>- What about the Botulinum?
>>>>- What about the anthrax cultures?
>>>>- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?
>>>>
>>>> How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
>>>>programs" is enough for you?
>>>>
>>>>Steve Swartz
>>>
>>>
>>>You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
>>>program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
>>>active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it so
>>>much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW: you
>>>can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
>>>exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
>>>your list as well.
>>
>>I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.
>
>
> Those missiles?

not WMDS


>
> You overly sanctimonious son of a bitch. You are without a doubt the
> last individual in this country who should look any veteran "in the
> eye" on *any* day of the year, with your self-serving 'I didn't serve
> because it was inconvenient, and I don't like to take orders'
> bull****. You have done nothing but scorn the efforts and sacrifices
> of those who did serve, and those who died, from before the time this
> operation even started. I rarely descend to the level of actually
> cussing out a slimy, yellow bellied little cretin such as yourself,
> but you are singularly deserving of every bit of contempt I can
> scrounge up. Feel free to (again) invite me up for a personal review
> of these comments--the last time you did that you quickly
> backscrabbled into the "but if you do show up, I'll file suit" crap
> when it came time for the rubber to meet the road, so I have no doubt
> any renewed sense of backbone you might dredge up will once again
> prove to be a merely transient gesture on your part. What a sad little
> excuse for a man you are.

Im sure you are sorry that your boy couldn't find the WMDs he promised.
But the American soldiers are just as dead. Im sure your suggestion
of violence can find an outlet but i'm not your punching bag.
you are welcome to show up and debate
but a real man who makes threats stands up and takes the consequences.
So are you making a threat of personal injury or not?

lets jsut be very clear

Vince

[John Keeney]

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

> Oh, breaking treaties is a reason to go to war? Like the Kyoto Accords,
or the
> Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, both of which we pulled out of
unilaterally.

Since we never ratified the Kyoto Accords as a treaty it was impossible
to break it.
We dropped the constraints of the ABM treaty by exercising the option
in the treaty to do so; the ABM treaty was not "broken".

How inconvenient...

Jarg

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "oO" > wrote
>
> > We were told by the weapons inspectors he didnt have them anymore.
Nobody
> > believed he had them outside of the US, but the only people who could
> really
> > know - the weapons experts who were actually there inspecting in Iraq
> > (including Mr.Blix) said there were NONE.
>
> "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents
with
> the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in
> the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the
past
> four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has
> continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
>
> Pete
>
>

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Kevin
Brooks > writes
>You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
>program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
>active agents already in a weaponized state.

The ones that were declared as being at 45 minutes from hitting Britain?

These WMEs were meant to exist, in large numbers, such as to pose a
clear and obvious danger to the US and UK. There's significant open
water between that level of threat, and "well, we suspected he might
have some hidden somewhere, but it turns out he didn't".

Now, the pre-war claims of large, lethal, long-range and ready-use
weapons have been hastily backpedalled. In fact, the war apparently
wasn't about WMEs at all (nobody seems willing to go firm on what it
_was_ about).

>That approach makes it so
>much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US.

I'm an old-fashioned sort of guy: I like to see people (even
politicians) pick a story and stick to it; or accept that intel is not
perfect.

Trouble is, at least over here, it appears that the answer was decided
before the intelligence was studied: we _were_ going to war with Iraq,
and the analysts were going to produce the answers to suit.

>And BTW: you
>can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
>exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
>your list as well.

Not WMEs, and who cares about the UN anyway? It's either relevant or it
isn't - pick one.



This war has got the US and UK militaries tied up for the foreseeable
future.

What have we gained to offset that cost?

--
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

[Paul J. Adam]

In message <fs_rb.768$6p6.751@okepread03>, wrann > writes
>> We know he used to have a WME program; ask an Iranian veteran, ask a
>> Kurd. We know a lot of it was captured or destroyed post-1991 and more
>> destroyed in 1998. What we don't know with certainty is (a) how much he
>> actually had, (b) how much was lost or destroyed, (c) how much the
>> Iraqis disposed of themselves.
>>
>
>...".. what we don't know.." (above) This is exactly why we had to go in;
>we didn't know, he wasn't telling (in fact he was being evasive as hell),
>and contrary to your statement, Blix did NOT say Iraq did not have any,

Never claimed he said any such thing. What Blix _did_ say was that there
were large uncertainties, lots of evasion... and no actual evidence.

>he
>actually wrote the finding that they were continuing to be evasive in direct
>violation of the UN (that is United Nations).

The UN is irrelevant, didn't you get the memo?




--
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

[Fred J. McCall]

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

:Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
:> Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> > Vince Brannigan > wrote:
:> >
:> > :It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised
:> >
:> > Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
:> > frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
:> > only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
:> > enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.
:> >
:> > :lest we forget....
:> >
:> > Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
:> > the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
:> > it's suddenly all Bush's fault.
:> >
:> > Get a clue....
:> >
:>
:> People "believed" it because el Busho said it was so. It wasnt so.
:>
:> Whjat we dont knwo yet is whether Busho was lying or delusional
:
:Vkince, you should be the absolute *last* person to be hurling about
:accusations that anyone is "delusional".

Especially since Vince's delusions seem to be rewriting history. I'm
not sure just how he thinks "el Busho" managed to make the
intelligence services of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and the US
all believe that Iraq had chemical weapons ready to deploy (to the
point where the French were even initially offering to come in if we
were actually subject to a chemical attack, presumably to prevent
Saddam from doing something quite stupid and proving the French to be
liars).

I'd be REAL interested how he convinced Saddam and various Iraqi
military commanders of it. Remember, there are lots of reports from
field commanders that, while THEY didn't have chemical weapons, the
unit next door did. Obviously, SOMEBODY was spreading that rumour in
the Iraqi forces. I can just see Bush running from tent to tent
before the invasion.

Quite clever, these Evil Republicans, hey Vince?

Sheesh!

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Vince Brannigan]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> :Vkince, you should be the absolute *last* person to be hurling about
> :accusations that anyone is "delusional".
>
> Especially since Vince's delusions seem to be rewriting history. I'm
> not sure just how he thinks "el Busho" managed to make the
> intelligence services of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and the US
> all believe that Iraq had chemical weapons ready to deploy

nonsense From 29 jan


Russia's UN ambassador said that any fresh US evidence against Iraq will
have to contain "undeniable proof" that Baghdad has retained banned
nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. While welcoming plans for US
Secretary of State Colin Powell to reveal new information to the UN
Security Council next week, Ambassador Sergey Lavrov made it clear
Moscow would require convincing. "If countries have persuasive proof
that Iraq continues its (weapons of mass destruction) programme than
this proof should be presented," Lavrov said.

"We would like to see undeniable proof."

Responding to US President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech
yesterday, Lavrov said Russia's stance remains unchanged that weapons
inspections in Iraq should be allowed to continue.

"We have not seen any reason so far to undercut the inspection process,"
he said.

http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/01/29/15996-1.html



(to the
> point where the French were even initially offering to come in if we
> were actually subject to a chemical attack, presumably to prevent
> Saddam from doing something quite stupid and proving the French to be
> liars).
>
> I'd be REAL interested how he convinced Saddam and various Iraqi
> military commanders of it. Remember, there are lots of reports from
> field commanders that, while THEY didn't have chemical weapons, the
> unit next door did. Obviously, SOMEBODY was spreading that rumour in
> the Iraqi forces. I can just see Bush running from tent to tent
> before the invasion.

no BUSH simply stated it as a fact In Nov 2002
http://www.intellnet.org/news/2002/11/20/13733-1.html
Top Stories - Reuters
Bush Warns Saddam Not to Deny Weapons Exist
21 minutes ago
Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

PRAGUE (Reuters) - President Bush warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
on Wednesday that should he deny possessing weapons of mass
destruction, he will have entered his "final stage" as Iraq's leader.
"We're threatened by terrorism, bred within failed states. It's present
within our own cities," said Bush in a keynote speech ahead of a NATO
(news - web sites) summit. Bush said Iraq was an outlaw nation that
possessed weapons of mass destruction. He vowed Iraq would be held
accountable to the terms of a U.N. resolution that returned weapons
inspectors to Baghdad this week. "We now call an end to that game of
deception and deceit and denial. Saddam Hussein has been given a very
short time to declare completely and truthfully his arsenal of terror,"
said Bush.

"Should he again deny that this arsenal exists, he will have entered his
final stage with a lie, and deception this time will not be tolerated.
Delay and defiance will invite the severest consequences," he said.


end exerpt


>
> Quite clever, these Evil Republicans, hey Vince?

Nonsense

Here is a March 19 AP report

U.S. Plans Hunt for Iraqi Bio-Weapons

By MARK FRITZ
Associated Press Writer

While the world awaits Saddam Hussein's fate, the main goal of the
U.S.-led military campaign is to embark on a scary scavenger hunt:
finding the elusive weapons that convinced the Bush administration to
wage war in the first place.The aim is to get to the toxic arsenals
before they can be deployed or moved, and perhaps show the world
evidence of a tangible threat that justified war.

As a March 3 Defense Department report noted, ``Though initial emphasis
was on the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the administration has more
recently pointed to weapons of mass destruction disarmament as its prime
objective.''Any attacks on the Iraqi leadership and its command centers
are expected to be carried out in concert with seizures of suspected
chemical and biological weapons sites, along with oil fields. Burning
oil would pose its own health hazard if Saddam sets Iraq's 1,685 wells
ablaze, as he did in occupied Kuwait during his 1991 retreat.

Finding the weapons that have eluded U.N. inspectors carries huge
practical and political ramifications for the Bush administration.
Failure to turn up significant evidence of biological, chemical or
nuclear arms research and production would raise questions about a
mission already condemned by much of the world. ``The difficulty is a
matter of intelligence,'' said Kelly Motz, an analyst at a nonpartisan
think tank called Iraq Watch. ``To find it rapidly and destroy it
rapidly, you pretty much need to know where it is.

``It's definitely the right idea and the right strategy, but in terms of
carrying it out, you're going to need better intelligence than what I've
seen so far.'' During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the U.S.-led coalition
was flummoxed by Iraq's mobile Scud missile launchers, which constantly
eluded detection. It failed to locate any of them during the war,
according to the Defense Department report to Congress.

Failing to find significant evidence of biological and chemical arms
would mean one of two things: that U.S. claims they exist were
exaggerated, or that Saddam was successful in moving them out of the
country. Iraq denies it has any such weapons. ``If we find little
evidence ... it's going to be an embarrassment,'' Motz said. ``They're
banking that they are going to prove themselves. Either it's not there,
or it's been shipped across borders, which would mean that the mission
increased proliferation.''

Disagreements over whether Iraq is indeed a threat that justifies war
has splintered alliances and left the United States without many of its
traditional allies as it enters a conflict. ``I'm among the people who
are most curious to know'' if an invasion will uncover hidden weapons,
Hans Blix, the most recent in a long line of U.N. weapons inspectors,
told CNN Wednesday.....

Washington believes Saddam has stockpiles of mustard gas, a grisly
blistering agent used during World War I, as well as nerve gases and
biological agents such as anthrax, botulism and ricin......


end exerpt.


Bush did not declare a conditonal probability. He did not say

" they might have them, and we can't risk that possibility" Bush said
that WMDs existed and they don't. He knew before he went into war that
that the failure to find WMDs would make the USA the laughingstock of
the world. The world was not convinced by the pre war evidence, and
the lack of finds show that Bush was simply wrong. The important
question of the USA is why we were so wrong.

We owe an explanation to the families of the men and woemn who died there.


Vince

[Kevin Brooks]

Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > Vince Brannigan > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message >...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Vince:
> >>>>
> >>>>- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
> >>>>- What about the mobile chem labs?
> >>>>- What about the Rycin?
> >>>>- What about the Botulinum?
> >>>>- What about the anthrax cultures?
> >>>>- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?
> >>>>
> >>>> How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
> >>>>programs" is enough for you?
> >>>>
> >>>>Steve Swartz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
> >>>program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
> >>>active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it so
> >>>much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW: you
> >>>can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
> >>>exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
> >>>your list as well.
> >>
> >>I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.
> >
> >
> > Those missiles?
>
> not WMDS

Your definition of WMD's seems to change with the argument; I do
believe you previously asserted that they were not limited to
chem/bio/nuke devices? But now you seem to find the opposing
definition more suitable. How typical; if the facts don't fit the
framework you chose, change the framework, huh?

>
>
> >

I don't blame you; if I were you (something that I shudder to even
consider), I'd probably also have snipped without attribution the
sorry, rancid bile you previously posted that brought on the following
response.

> > You overly sanctimonious son of a bitch. You are without a doubt the
> > last individual in this country who should look any veteran "in the
> > eye" on *any* day of the year, with your self-serving 'I didn't serve
> > because it was inconvenient, and I don't like to take orders'
> > bull****. You have done nothing but scorn the efforts and sacrifices
> > of those who did serve, and those who died, from before the time this
> > operation even started. I rarely descend to the level of actually
> > cussing out a slimy, yellow bellied little cretin such as yourself,
> > but you are singularly deserving of every bit of contempt I can
> > scrounge up. Feel free to (again) invite me up for a personal review
> > of these comments--the last time you did that you quickly
> > backscrabbled into the "but if you do show up, I'll file suit" crap
> > when it came time for the rubber to meet the road, so I have no doubt
> > any renewed sense of backbone you might dredge up will once again
> > prove to be a merely transient gesture on your part. What a sad little
> > excuse for a man you are.
>
> Im sure you are sorry that your boy couldn't find the WMDs he promised.
> But the American soldiers are just as dead.

Something that you have little concern over, I am sure.

Im sure your suggestion
> of violence can find an outlet but i'm not your punching bag.
> you are welcome to show up and debate
> but a real man who makes threats stands up and takes the consequences.
> So are you making a threat of personal injury or not?

Vkince, I am not in the threats business, just as you are not in the
backbone business. When you *do*, as you have done in the past, go out
of your way to invite someone so demonstrably incensed by your
putrescent nature to a personal encounter, it would be reasonable for
that party to accept that as a challenge. But, again lacking that
required backbone, you follow up with your usual barricade of "if you
do show up, I'll file suit" crap. Which allows you to I guess, in your
little twisted world, maintain some illusion of bravado on your part,
without of course placing yourself at any risk, which is of course
your underlying core value; "never risk yourself, no matter what". I
guess that your previous brush with the concept of reality did however
have one beneficial outcome--I have not noticed you hurling about your
Nazi incriminations with the same carelessness you previously
demonstrated. In the end you remain one of those slimy little cretins
who never could bring yourself to enter the arena, instead feeling
that the struggles of those within it somehow made you a bit more
courageous, especially if you are able to hurl a few rotten tomatoes
in their direction from the safety of the cheap seats. But in reality
you would not rate as a pimple on the ass of the lowest ranking
private soldier who ever served anywhere, in any capacity. As I said
before, what a sad little excuse for a man you are.

Brooks


>
> lets jsut be very clear
>
> Vince

[Vince Brannigan]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>>>Those missiles?
>>
>>not WMDS
>
>
> Your definition of WMD's seems to change with the argument; I do
> believe you previously asserted that they were not limited to
> chem/bio/nuke devices? But now you seem to find the opposing
> definition more suitable. How typical; if the facts don't fit the
> framework you chose, change the framework, huh?
>

crap. simple Crap Missiles may have been a UN violation but they are
not in and of themselves weapons of mass destruction by any definition

>
>>
>
> I don't blame you; if I were you (something that I shudder to even
> consider), I'd probably also have snipped without attribution the
> sorry, rancid bile you previously posted that brought on the following
> response.
>

??

>>
>>Im sure you are sorry that your boy couldn't find the WMDs he promised.
>>But the American soldiers are just as dead.
>
>
> Something that you have little concern over, I am sure.
>

You are wrong. I've been posting under my own name to usenet for years.
I dare you to find a single comment belittling the contribution of our
armed forces or our obligation not to waste their lives. I have spent my
entire career working in public safety. I teach safety regulation and
engineering ethics. Every life is precious. The lives of members of our
armed forces are particularly precious. My wife is a VA Physician.
Bush said it was worth Americans dying because Iraq was a threat to the
USA. He was wrong about the threat. Why he was wrong is important to me.

> Im sure your suggestion
>
>>of violence can find an outlet but i'm not your punching bag.
>>you are welcome to show up and debate
>>but a real man who makes threats stands up and takes the consequences.
>>So are you making a threat of personal injury or not?
>
>
> Vkince, I am not in the threats business, just as you are not in the
> backbone business.


then don't make threats.

When you *do*, as you have done in the past, go out
> of your way to invite someone so demonstrably incensed by your
> putrescent nature to a personal encounter, it would be reasonable for
> that party to accept that as a challenge.

To an intellectual encounter sure, I'll debate you anytime.
If you are saying you have no self control in the face of contrary
opinions, that is a useful piece of information. We lock people up who
dont have self control and commit violent acts.

But, again lacking that
> required backbone, you follow up with your usual barricade of "if you
> do show up, I'll file suit" crap. Which allows you to I guess, in your
> little twisted world, maintain some illusion of bravado on your part,
> without of course placing yourself at any risk, which is of course
> your underlying core value; "never risk yourself, no matter what".

You seem to be seething with the desire to beat the crap out of someone
because he disagrees with you. I finds this interesting. do you think a
point in a debate is better because it is made by someone who is big
and strong and violent?

I
> guess that your previous brush with the concept of reality did however
> have one beneficial outcome--I have not noticed you hurling about your
> Nazi incriminations with the same carelessness you previously
> demonstrated.

Oh Ill oblige. Nazis certainly responded to opposing opinions with
personal violence by thugs. In the night of the long knives Hitler
personally used violence on his prior supporters. In the Nazi world
violence or force is the ultimate arbiter.

In the end you remain one of those slimy little cretins
> who never could bring yourself to enter the arena, instead feeling
> that the struggles of those within it somehow made you a bit more
> courageous, especially if you are able to hurl a few rotten tomatoes
> in their direction from the safety of the cheap seats.

I am in the arena, but not the one you know. We call it the "marketplace
of ideas" but it's not a "marketplace" it is an environment in which
ideas are debated discussed and refined. Because ideas after all is
what separate humanity from animals. Nature is red in tooth and claw.
Ideas are human invention.

But in reality
> you would not rate as a pimple on the ass of the lowest ranking
> private soldier who ever served anywhere, in any capacity. As I said
> before, what a sad little excuse for a man you are.

I'm always fascinated by some people's need to be abusive of others. It
never appealed to me.

Vince

[oO]

Iraq 'had no weapons of mass destruction'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_3120000/3120374.stm
"Iraq destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, according
to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector"

Blix suspects there are no weapons of mass destruction
Saturday May 24, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962535,00.html

"The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said yesterday that he suspected
that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, He added that "in this
respect" the war might not have been justified."

Blix: No Need For Iraq War
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/19/iraq/main574110.shtml
Hans Blix said in an interview broadcast Thursday that the U.S.-led
coalition could have avoided going to war with Iraq, but didn't want to.


"You know, in the Middle Ages, when people were convinced there were
witches, they certainly found them." - Hans Blix

"You know, in the Middle East, where people were convinced there were WMDs,
they never found them."
- Oo


"wrann" > wrote in message
news:fs_rb.768$6p6.751@okepread03...
> ...".. what we don't know.." (above) This is exactly why we had to go in;
> we didn't know, he wasn't telling (in fact he was being evasive as hell)

Oh so we should invade countrys whose may or may not have WMD but if we
dont know - invade...

Israel the only country in the "middle east" with weapons of mass
destruction - ask them about them see how evasive they are. Also look at how
many UN resolutions they have broken or ignored.

> and contrary to your statement, Blix did NOT say Iraq did not have any, he
> actually wrote the finding that they were continuing to be evasive in
direct
> violation of the UN (that is United Nations).

[user]

Y'all don't seem to recall when Saddam threatened the US that if we
invaded, that he would use chemical and biological weapons on us?
Maybe it's me, but I don't think so, I think its the people who only
hear what they want to hear and twist things around to fit their own
agenda or feed their own retarded brains thought process. Isn't that
kind of like admitting he has them? DUH! Or just bluffing? either way
we called his bluff now didn't we? Vince, how do I use the "Nazi"
phrase in here to use up this thread? Please Troll, can you start
another one?

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:56:46 -0000, "oO" >
wrote:

>
>"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
>> Vince Brannigan > wrote:
>>
>> :It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised
>>
>> Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
>> frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
>> only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
>> enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.
>>
>> :lest we forget....
>>
>> Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
>> the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
>> it's suddenly all Bush's fault.
>
>Of course they knew he *had* them - they ****ing give them to him. the point
>it - he clearly destroyed them ..
>
>> Get a clue....
>
>We were told by the weapons inspectors he didnt have them anymore. Nobody
>believed he had them outside of the US, but the only people who could really
>know - the weapons experts who were actually there inspecting in Iraq
>(including Mr.Blix) said there were NONE.
>
>Despite this the UN was shown Powells laughable powerpoint demonstration
>that showed a drawing of a truck that was meant to be evidence of a mobile
>weapons factory...lol..****ing hell thats funny...what happened when they
>invaded? The truck was being used for weather experiments. lol
>

[Dr. George O. Bizzigotti]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:47:44 GMT, Vince Brannigan
> wrote:

>Fred J. McCall wrote:

>> Especially since Vince's delusions seem to be rewriting history. I'm
>> not sure just how he thinks "el Busho" managed to make the
>> intelligence services of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and the US
>> all believe that Iraq had chemical weapons ready to deploy

>nonsense From 29 jan

>Russia's UN ambassador said that any fresh US evidence against Iraq will
>have to contain "undeniable proof" that Baghdad has retained banned
>nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

[snip]

What Mr. McCall has written is not nonsense; the passage Prof.
Brannigan has provided does not refute the claim that the intelligence
services of France, Germany, and Russia more or less agreed with the
US and UK that Saddam had biological and chemical weapons but
disagreed on what actions to take as a result. The key phrase is
"undeniable proof;" intelligence never provides undeniable proof. For
example, I could show Vince aerial photographs of the stockpiles of
chemical weapons that the US and Russia have declared to OPCW and are
in the process of destroying, and I could argue convincingly that the
images do not provide undeniable proof that those weapons exist; one
must trust that the OPCW inspectorate has done its job. The Russian
ambassador was engaged in raising the bar, which not coincidentally
furthered Russia's declared policy of resisting war.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************

[Dr. George O. Bizzigotti]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:25:26 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:



>In message >, Kevin
>Brooks > writes
[i]
>>That approach makes it so
>>much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US.

>I'm an old-fashioned sort of guy: I like to see people (even
>politicians) pick a story and stick to it; or accept that intel is not
>perfect.

This appears to be the dirty little secret that everyone seems to be
ignoring; intelligence is by nature imperfect. The major intelligence
services all had a very hazy picture of the state of Iraqi WMDs, but
at some point they had to make a judgment of "do they or don't they?"
I'm not sure that policy makers themselves always understand the
ramifications of forcing intelligence services to arrive at "yes" or
"no" answers, but if any of them accept "maybe," it's news to me.

Parenthetically, I would suggest that the trouble embodied by the
above statement arises in that very, very few politicians are capable
of stating "it was reasonable at the time, but it turns out that I was
wrong." Most who have made that statement tend to undertake severe
career changes, so there is an immense Darwinian pressure to fudge,
although that can have adverse career consequences as well. We may
_like_ our politicians to admit being fallible, but we tend to _vote_
for the ones claiming infallibility. (Whether the level of fallibility
exhibited by the Blair and Bush administrations on the subject of
Iraqi WMDs is worthy of voter forgiveness is a separate issue.)

>Trouble is, at least over here, it appears that the answer was decided
>before the intelligence was studied: we _were_ going to war with Iraq,
>and the analysts were going to produce the answers to suit.

I would respectfully disagree with that statement, although I
acknowledge that it could turn out to be correct. If that is the
appearance, why did the French, German, and Russian intelligence
services arrive at the same basic judgment (the Iraqis did retain
WMDs) when their governments had decided they were _not_ going to war.
It appears that judgment was incorrect, but whatever faults led to the
error appear to have been shared by those nations both for and against
the war in Iraq.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Dr. George O.
Bizzigotti > writes
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:25:26 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>I'm an old-fashioned sort of guy: I like to see people (even
>>politicians) pick a story and stick to it; or accept that intel is not
>>perfect.
>
>This appears to be the dirty little secret that everyone seems to be
>ignoring; intelligence is by nature imperfect. The major intelligence
>services all had a very hazy picture of the state of Iraqi WMDs, but
>at some point they had to make a judgment of "do they or don't they?"
>I'm not sure that policy makers themselves always understand the
>ramifications of forcing intelligence services to arrive at "yes" or
>"no" answers, but if any of them accept "maybe," it's news to me.

My concern is about how, in the UK at least, a reply of "maybe, and
worst-case is pretty horrid" became a simple straightforward certainty
of "Iraq has WME that are an immediate threat". That wasn't a
'worst-case possibility', it was reported as fact without contradiction.


Now, it can be claimed that the Government isn't responsible for what
the papers say, and there's a lot of truth there. But the Government
does have a lot of influence - official and unofficial - about what
information the papers use to produce their stories.

>Parenthetically, I would suggest that the trouble embodied by the
>above statement arises in that very, very few politicians are capable
>of stating "it was reasonable at the time, but it turns out that I was
>wrong." Most who have made that statement tend to undertake severe
>career changes, so there is an immense Darwinian pressure to fudge,
>although that can have adverse career consequences as well.

Perhaps I'm showing my advanced age by respecting John Nott: if not for
his disastrous decisions while Secretary of Defence, for his resignation
when the results of those decisions became clear.

I would much rather we'd had a wiser man at Defence (and again before
him), but Nott had the integrity to stand down when his planning
assumptions were shown to have been seriously incompatible with reality.
I admire his honesty if not his judgement.

And integrity _does_ mean accepting negative results of your decisions.
It's arguable that one reason Thatcher won the 1983 election so
decisively was that she had enough Falklands scapegoats (though the
self-destruction of the opposing parties was probably the main factor)

>We may
>_like_ our politicians to admit being fallible, but we tend to _vote_
>for the ones claiming infallibility. (Whether the level of fallibility
>exhibited by the Blair and Bush administrations on the subject of
>Iraqi WMDs is worthy of voter forgiveness is a separate issue.)

It's not directly comparable in the UK, and I think this may be one of
the differences. From here it seems that the US was solidly behind war
with Iraq: there was significant opposition in the UK. Over here we were
led to the belief that invading Iraq was an urgent necessity.

>>Trouble is, at least over here, it appears that the answer was decided
>>before the intelligence was studied: we _were_ going to war with Iraq,
>>and the analysts were going to produce the answers to suit.
>
>I would respectfully disagree with that statement, although I
>acknowledge that it could turn out to be correct.

The respect is returned; I'm arguing from a UK perspective and
viewpoint. Easy to forget how different issues can look from overseas.

One apparent outcome of the Hutton enquiry here was that that
politicians _did_ adjust the wording of intelligence assessments to suit
their ends... the question being whether they "tightened up" or
"distorted" the presentation of what data was available. (As an
engineer, thinking of threaded fasteners, I ask "what's the difference?
One distorts _by_ tightening!" But I may be cynical)

An oft-ignored element from Hutton is that while Dr Kelly was apparently
concerned about the presentation of his data, he too never doubted that
Iraq at the very least lusted for WMEs even if they'd made short-term
sacrifices in the name of survival.

>If that is the
>appearance, why did the French, German, and Russian intelligence
>services arrive at the same basic judgment (the Iraqis did retain
>WMDs) when their governments had decided they were _not_ going to war.

One guess - lack of capability to provide a significant threat outside
of a fairly narrow area centred on Iraq? An issue to remember is that
the Saudi Arabians and Kuwaitis and Israelis failed to either launch
pre-emptive strikes or demand US military cover against the threat of
Iraqi WMEs. They're the threatened neighbours... if they aren't shouting
for help, perhaps the threat is being slightly oversold?

(Or maybe there's more Arab pride at play. Or lots of other
possibilities. This is a _large_ question)

>It appears that judgment was incorrect, but whatever faults led to the
>error appear to have been shared by those nations both for and against
>the war in Iraq.

Intelligence is inherently imperfect. My concern is that certainty was
assigned to data that was at best "highest probability". Nations that
acted on that worst-case threat now have to try to pacify Iraq until a
handover: nations that were more cautious about assigning certainty to
intel data are branded "axis of Weasel" even though hindsight shows them
correct. Lose-lose.

Misuse intel, and you'll shape the results you get in the next crisis.

--
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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Dr. George O.
> Bizzigotti > writes
> >On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:25:26 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
<snip>

> >If that is the
> >appearance, why did the French, German, and Russian intelligence
> >services arrive at the same basic judgment (the Iraqis did retain
> >WMDs) when their governments had decided they were _not_ going to war.
>
> One guess - lack of capability to provide a significant threat outside
> of a fairly narrow area centred on Iraq? An issue to remember is that
> the Saudi Arabians and Kuwaitis and Israelis failed to either launch
> pre-emptive strikes or demand US military cover against the threat of
> Iraqi WMEs. They're the threatened neighbours... if they aren't shouting
> for help, perhaps the threat is being slightly oversold?
>
> (Or maybe there's more Arab pride at play. Or lots of other
> possibilities. This is a _large_ question)

Paul, those Arab nations, and Israel, *had* demanded US protection
from that Iraqi threat. That is why Patriot batteries remained
stationed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia throughout the nineties and up
through this last conflict, or in the case of israel, why it received
Patriot systems ahead of normal schedule (ISTR some of those came from
German stocks?). It was also IIRC used to help justify continued US
funding of Arrow.

As to preemptive strikes, the Kuwaitis and the Saudis were
non-starters in that regard--they were not going to be accused of
attacking a fellow Arab nation. Reasoning for Israeli recalcitrance
would undoubtedly include strong US pressure not to go that route; the
last thing we wanted was for Iraq to become a chip in the greater
Israel vs. Arabs game.

>
> >It appears that judgment was incorrect, but whatever faults led to the
> >error appear to have been shared by those nations both for and against
> >the war in Iraq.
>
> Intelligence is inherently imperfect. My concern is that certainty was
> assigned to data that was at best "highest probability". Nations that
> acted on that worst-case threat now have to try to pacify Iraq until a
> handover: nations that were more cautious about assigning certainty to
> intel data are branded "axis of Weasel" even though hindsight shows them
> correct. Lose-lose.

Hindsight has *not* shown them to be "correct"; as George noted, those
"Axis of Weasel" nations also believed Iraq had WMD's or an ongoing
significant program. They differed on *how* to address the problem,
not the fact that a problem existed.


>
> Misuse intel, and you'll shape the results you get in the next crisis.

So, what does that say about US intel assesments that underestimated
the ability or intent of Japan to attack the US before 1942? Or
British intel assessments that missed the German intent to invade
Poland until too late, or its ability to overrun France in record
time? In the intel game, the lesson seems to be that underestimation
is more dangerous than overestimation in the long run.

Brooks

[oO]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
And BTW: you
> can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
> exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
> your list as well.

oh whoopee doo that was about all was found - they aren't weapons of mass
destruction and they began destroying those. If Saddam had them he would
have used them. USA now has free access to search all it wants and it has -
still NOTHING....despite powell having everything in his powerpoint demo to
the UN.

[oO]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> Vince Brannigan > wrote in message
>...
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > Vince Brannigan > wrote in message
>...
> > >
> > >>Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
>...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Vince:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
> > >>>>- What about the mobile chem labs?
> > >>>>- What about the Rycin?
> > >>>>- What about the Botulinum?
> > >>>>- What about the anthrax cultures?
> > >>>>- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
> > >>>>programs" is enough for you?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Steve Swartz
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
> > >>>program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile
of
> > >>>active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it
so
> > >>>much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW:
you
> > >>>can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
> > >>>exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement
in
> > >>>your list as well.
> > >>
> > >>I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.
> > >
> > >
> > > Those missiles?
> >
> > not WMDS
>
> Your definition of WMD's seems to change with the argument; I do
> believe you previously asserted that they were not limited to
> chem/bio/nuke devices? But now you seem to find the opposing
> definition more suitable. How typical; if the facts don't fit the
> framework you chose, change the framework, huh?

The missiles that were supposedly over the 'allowed range' are not WMD. Even
BUSH is not stupid enuff to claim that..

( all bs anyway considering Israels Nuclear arsenal and whole range of
'nasties' dont see any weapons inspectors getting in there).

[Seraphim]

user > wrote in
:

> Y'all don't seem to recall when Saddam threatened the US that if we
> invaded, that he would use chemical and biological weapons on us?

Did he actually say that? I remember some vague statements that the US
government spun to mean that Saddam had chemical weapons, but not that he
actually came out and said it. Do you have a source by any chance?