AP/Reuters Says Blackhawk Hostile Fire Loss and First Chem Munitions Found

[Kevin Brooks]

The AP and Reuters are reporting that the Blackhawk that was lost last
Thursday was apparently a victim of hostile fire based upon results from a
preliminary investigation. Both sources also report that Danish troops have
found the first confirmed chemical weapons in Iraq--36 artillery or mortar
rounds (reports vary as to specific type) filled with a blister agent, and
that another 100 rounds may be in the cache. No doubt some folks will soon
be screaming that 36, or 136 for that matter, chemical rounds are not
indicitive of Saddam having had chemical munitions despite his protestations
otherwise...

Brooks

[Charles Gray]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:32:58 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>The AP and Reuters are reporting that the Blackhawk that was lost last
>Thursday was apparently a victim of hostile fire based upon results from a
>preliminary investigation. Both sources also report that Danish troops have
>found the first confirmed chemical weapons in Iraq--36 artillery or mortar
>rounds (reports vary as to specific type) filled with a blister agent, and
>that another 100 rounds may be in the cache. No doubt some folks will soon
>be screaming that 36, or 136 for that matter, chemical rounds are not
>indicitive of Saddam having had chemical munitions despite his protestations
>otherwise...
>
>Brooks
>
According to some news reports the U.S. is tentivaly stating that
they appear to be left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They certainly are
corroded enough.

OTH, this could also be a desire to cross every T and dot every I,
so that should they be detirmend to be from after the gulf war, the
U.S. will have maximum credibility.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:27:47 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:32:58 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:
>
>>The AP and Reuters are reporting that the Blackhawk that was lost last
>>Thursday was apparently a victim of hostile fire based upon results from a
>>preliminary investigation. Both sources also report that Danish troops have
>>found the first confirmed chemical weapons in Iraq--36 artillery or mortar
>>rounds (reports vary as to specific type) filled with a blister agent, and
>>that another 100 rounds may be in the cache. No doubt some folks will soon
>>be screaming that 36, or 136 for that matter, chemical rounds are not
>>indicitive of Saddam having had chemical munitions despite his protestations
>>otherwise...
>>
>>Brooks
>>
> According to some news reports the U.S. is tentivaly stating that
>they appear to be left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They certainly are
>corroded enough.
>
> OTH, this could also be a desire to cross every T and dot every I,
>so that should they be detirmend to be from after the gulf war, the
>U.S. will have maximum credibility.

Well, they just found them, so they are clearly from "after the Gulf
War. They may have been built before the war, but they exist, and
are WMD.

Al Minyard

[L'acrobat]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:27:47 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:32:58 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>The AP and Reuters are reporting that the Blackhawk that was lost last
> >>Thursday was apparently a victim of hostile fire based upon results from
a
> >>preliminary investigation. Both sources also report that Danish troops
have
> >>found the first confirmed chemical weapons in Iraq--36 artillery or
mortar
> >>rounds (reports vary as to specific type) filled with a blister agent,
and
> >>that another 100 rounds may be in the cache. No doubt some folks will
soon
> >>be screaming that 36, or 136 for that matter, chemical rounds are not
> >>indicitive of Saddam having had chemical munitions despite his
protestations
> >>otherwise...
> >>
> >>Brooks
> >>
> > According to some news reports the U.S. is tentivaly stating that
> >they appear to be left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They certainly are
> >corroded enough.
> >
> > OTH, this could also be a desire to cross every T and dot every I,
> >so that should they be detirmend to be from after the gulf war, the
> >U.S. will have maximum credibility.
>
> Well, they just found them, so they are clearly from "after the Gulf
> War. They may have been built before the war, but they exist, and
> are WMD.

and they were required to be accounted for and destroyed.

[TJ]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:27:47 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:32:58 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>The AP and Reuters are reporting that the Blackhawk that was lost last
> >>Thursday was apparently a victim of hostile fire based upon results from
a
> >>preliminary investigation. Both sources also report that Danish troops
have
> >>found the first confirmed chemical weapons in Iraq--36 artillery or
mortar
> >>rounds (reports vary as to specific type) filled with a blister agent,
and
> >>that another 100 rounds may be in the cache. No doubt some folks will
soon
> >>be screaming that 36, or 136 for that matter, chemical rounds are not
> >>indicitive of Saddam having had chemical munitions despite his
protestations
> >>otherwise...
> >>
> >>Brooks
> >>
> > According to some news reports the U.S. is tentivaly stating that
> >they appear to be left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They certainly are
> >corroded enough.
> >
> > OTH, this could also be a desire to cross every T and dot every I,
> >so that should they be detirmend to be from after the gulf war, the
> >U.S. will have maximum credibility.
>
> Well, they just found them, so they are clearly from "after the Gulf
> War. They may have been built before the war, but they exist, and
> are WMD.
>
> Al Minyard

Although all the testing has not been completed on these rounds. A similar
find of badly corroded mortar rounds, back in October, gave off the same
initial readings and turned out to have been white phosphorus after final
testing. This also happened with an ASM warhead found at an Iraqi airbase -
initial meter readings were reported to the media, but subsequent testing
proved it not to have been a chemical round.

TJ

[Charles Gray]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:51:36 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
>> that another 100 rounds may be in the cache. No doubt some folks will soon
>> be screaming that 36, or 136 for that matter, chemical rounds are not
>> indicitive of Saddam having had chemical munitions despite his
>protestations
>> otherwise...
>
>Always happy to oblige :-) Assuming these are indeed filled with a
>blister agent, which still needs to be evaluated properly: Looking at
>their condition, this hardly amounts to "having chemical ammunitions."
>Surely the crime here is "having toxic waste". No remotely sane gun
>crew is going to try to load and fire these rounds!
>
>If this is your WMD standard, then I can tell Belgium must have a
>larger WMD arsenal than Iraq: We have tons of leftovers from WW1,
>in similar conditions. Farmers regularly unearth them while plowing
>their fields. Usually they just drag them to the side and leave them
>there until the collection truck comes round...


the question isn't "are they usable" but "when were they buried" if
it was during or after the Iranian conflict, it's very reasonable to
assume they were just forgotten, probably deliberately by whoever
might have had to try and dig them up.
If they were buried a year ago, that puts and entirely different
complex on things-- in that case, bush was right and Iraq DID have
combat ready munitions.

I've been told by some people that teh condition of the munitions
is not neccesarily a sign of how old they are-- it depends on how they
were buried the chemcical composition of the soil (!), and other
details, many of which, absent something convenient, like an
inspectors stamp with June 1st, 2003 on it, are fairly time
consuming-- and as one poster above said, there's always a chance that
they are not chemical munitions at all.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > that another 100 rounds may be in the cache. No doubt some folks will
soon
> > be screaming that 36, or 136 for that matter, chemical rounds are not
> > indicitive of Saddam having had chemical munitions despite his
> protestations
> > otherwise...
>
> Always happy to oblige :-) Assuming these are indeed filled with a
> blister agent, which still needs to be evaluated properly: Looking at
> their condition, this hardly amounts to "having chemical ammunitions."
> Surely the crime here is "having toxic waste". No remotely sane gun
> crew is going to try to load and fire these rounds!

So because they were just *stupid* in how they stored those rounds
(reportedly wrapped in mylar and buried), that exhonerates Saddam of having
them....that does not sound very logical to me.

>
> If this is your WMD standard, then I can tell Belgium must have a
> larger WMD arsenal than Iraq: We have tons of leftovers from WW1,
> in similar conditions. Farmers regularly unearth them while plowing
> their fields. Usually they just drag them to the side and leave them
> there until the collection truck comes round...

I was unaware the Belgians ever developed or fielded chemical munitions
(would have been a bit hard to do, since the German's were occupying them
through most of the war). And i suspect you really know that your analogy
here falls flatter than a pancake--the munitions in question were undeniably
Iraqi in origin.

Saddam was supposed to have (a) destroyed all of his chemical munitions, and
(b) accounted for same. It is obvious that in this case (a) any destruction
was unintentional (or why would they have wrapped them up before burying
them?), and (b) he did not account for them. That would put him in violation
of both the ceasefire agreements and the subsequent UN resolutions.

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin

[L'acrobat]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > that another 100 rounds may be in the cache. No doubt some folks will
soon
> > be screaming that 36, or 136 for that matter, chemical rounds are not
> > indicitive of Saddam having had chemical munitions despite his
> protestations
> > otherwise...
>
> Always happy to oblige :-) Assuming these are indeed filled with a
> blister agent, which still needs to be evaluated properly: Looking at
> their condition, this hardly amounts to "having chemical ammunitions."
> Surely the crime here is "having toxic waste". No remotely sane gun
> crew is going to try to load and fire these rounds!
>
> If this is your WMD standard, then I can tell Belgium must have a
> larger WMD arsenal than Iraq: We have tons of leftovers from WW1,
> in similar conditions. Farmers regularly unearth them while plowing
> their fields. Usually they just drag them to the side and leave them
> there until the collection truck comes round...

Some pretty serious avoiding of the issue there.

Saddam was not only required to destroy what he had, but to account for the
destruction.

If those rounds were missing from earlier wars or atrocities, they should
still have been accounted for up until the point at which they were issued
to a unit and then listed as missing as of whatever date and time.

If Saddam can walk away from accounting for 36 buried chem rounds (assuming
they are chem), why not 360 - at what point would you agree that he should
have accounted for the rounds?

[tadaa]

> Saddam was supposed to have (a) destroyed all of his chemical munitions,
and
> (b) accounted for same. It is obvious that in this case (a) any
destruction
> was unintentional (or why would they have wrapped them up before burying
> them?), and (b) he did not account for them. That would put him in
violation
> of both the ceasefire agreements and the subsequent UN resolutions.

The rounds were found from former swamp bed (Saddam dried these swamps in
effort to catch the Shiia rebels after 1991) and were estimated to be 10+
years old by US specialists.

[Kevin Brooks]

"tadaa" > wrote in message ...
> > Saddam was supposed to have (a) destroyed all of his chemical munitions,
> and
> > (b) accounted for same. It is obvious that in this case (a) any
> destruction
> > was unintentional (or why would they have wrapped them up before burying
> > them?), and (b) he did not account for them. That would put him in
> violation
> > of both the ceasefire agreements and the subsequent UN resolutions.
>
> The rounds were found from former swamp bed (Saddam dried these swamps in
> effort to catch the Shiia rebels after 1991) and were estimated to be 10+
> years old by US specialists.

Uhmm...the last I heard the dating was inconclusive as of yet, with various
sources making differing claims, from "ten years" (which would of course
have been *after* ODS--it could be over *thirteen* years old and still have
been a post-ODS cache), to "the Iran-Iraq War". In the end, it does not
really matter--Saddam turned in repeated and differing accounts detailing
his alleged destruction of WMD...do you think he listed any of it as "Gee,
we lost it and don't know *where* it is"? I doubt it. Face it, he did not
meet the requirements.

Brooks
>
>

[Bob McKellar]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "tadaa" > wrote in message ...
> > > Saddam was supposed to have (a) destroyed all of his chemical munitions,
> > and
> > > (b) accounted for same. It is obvious that in this case (a) any
> > destruction
> > > was unintentional (or why would they have wrapped them up before burying
> > > them?), and (b) he did not account for them. That would put him in
> > violation
> > > of both the ceasefire agreements and the subsequent UN resolutions.
> >
> > The rounds were found from former swamp bed (Saddam dried these swamps in
> > effort to catch the Shiia rebels after 1991) and were estimated to be 10+
> > years old by US specialists.
>
> Uhmm...the last I heard the dating was inconclusive as of yet, with various
> sources making differing claims, from "ten years" (which would of course
> have been *after* ODS--it could be over *thirteen* years old and still have
> been a post-ODS cache), to "the Iran-Iraq War". In the end, it does not
> really matter--Saddam turned in repeated and differing accounts detailing
> his alleged destruction of WMD...do you think he listed any of it as "Gee,
> we lost it and don't know *where* it is"? I doubt it. Face it, he did not
> meet the requirements.
>
> Brooks
> >
> >

Since there have been so many "Gulf Wars" and things are getting confusing, do
you think maybe we could call the current war "The Accounting Irregularities
War"?

Bob McKellar

[Glenn Dowdy]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> If Saddam can walk away from accounting for 36 buried chem rounds
(assuming
> they are chem), why not 360 - at what point would you agree that he should
> have accounted for the rounds?
>
While we may have insisted that he had accountability, the actual disposal
and tracking takes place at a much lower level. If a soldier steals demo
from a range, is our President liable?

Glenn D.

[tadaa]

> > The rounds were found from former swamp bed (Saddam dried these swamps
in
> > effort to catch the Shiia rebels after 1991) and were estimated to be
10+
> > years old by US specialists.
>
> Uhmm...the last I heard the dating was inconclusive as of yet, with
various
> sources making differing claims, from "ten years" (which would of course
> have been *after* ODS--it could be over *thirteen* years old and still
have
> been a post-ODS cache), to "the Iran-Iraq War". In the end, it does not
> really matter--Saddam turned in repeated and differing accounts detailing
> his alleged destruction of WMD...do you think he listed any of it as "Gee,
> we lost it and don't know *where* it is"? I doubt it. Face it, he did not
> meet the requirements.

I believe he claimed to have destroyed or disposed of those weapons, but not
so surprisingly no one believed him.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If Saddam can walk away from accounting for 36 buried chem rounds
> (assuming
> > they are chem), why not 360 - at what point would you agree that he
should
> > have accounted for the rounds?
> >
> While we may have insisted that he had accountability, the actual disposal
> and tracking takes place at a much lower level. If a soldier steals demo
> from a range, is our President liable?

This ain't demo from a range. These munitions were the subject of repeated
requirements for Saddam to fully (and accurately) account for them, which he
obviously failed to do (I'd challenge you to find, anywhere in Saddam's
numerous "full, final, and complete" WMD disclosures to the UN, where he
listed *any* chemical weapons as either stolen or lost). Further, there is
no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.

Brooks

>
> Glenn D.
>
>

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>
Further, there is
> no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
> intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
>
I don't know the details of the exact find, but I've seen "buried". In my
experience, Sgt Rock and Pvt Snuffy may well interpret their orders to
destroy or get rid of something by burying it.

Glenn D.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> Further, there is
> > no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
> > intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
> >
> I don't know the details of the exact find, but I've seen "buried". In my
> experience, Sgt Rock and Pvt Snuffy may well interpret their orders to
> destroy or get rid of something by burying it.

Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted for*
by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.

Brooks

>
> Glenn D.
>
>

[John Mullen]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>Further, there is
>>
>>>no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
>>>intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
>>>
>>
>>I don't know the details of the exact find, but I've seen "buried". In my
>>experience, Sgt Rock and Pvt Snuffy may well interpret their orders to
>>destroy or get rid of something by burying it.
>
>
> Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted for*
> by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.


Tut tut indeed.

Think it justified going to war?!

John

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>
> >>Further, there is
> >>
> >>>no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
> >>>intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I don't know the details of the exact find, but I've seen "buried". In
my
> >>experience, Sgt Rock and Pvt Snuffy may well interpret their orders to
> >>destroy or get rid of something by burying it.
> >
> >
> > Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted
for*
> > by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.
>
>
> Tut tut indeed.
>
> Think it justified going to war?!

I personally think Saddam himself, with all of his nauseating atrocities
under his belt, was plenty enough justification for going to war--the fact
that he wanted to play games with the WMD requirements was just icing on the
cake. Why, are you losing sleep over his departure from power?

Brooks

>
> John
>

[David Anderson]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> Further, there is
> > > no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
> > > intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
> > >
> > I don't know the details of the exact find, but I've seen "buried". In my
> > experience, Sgt Rock and Pvt Snuffy may well interpret their orders to
> > destroy or get rid of something by burying it.
>
> Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted for*
> by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.
>
> Brooks

Well the AP is reporting that the mortar shells, on further
examination, do not contain blister agents or other banned weapons.
False alarm here as the field testing gear is understandably hyper
sensistive and designed to go "PING, PING, PING" at the slightest hint
of something nasty. The specialist equipment in the exploitation
units have detected no sign of blister agents. There is one more
round of testing to be done in CONUS, but it looks like a false alarm.

Link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=10&u=/ap/20040114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mortar_shells

Second point; in the previous posts some people poohawed the idea that
Iraq declared at any point that it lost track of shells. Well they
did, from Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/10/212436/884)
and the UN interim report as of March 6,2003
(p.76)http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/UNMOVIC%20UDI%20Working%20Document%206%20March%200 3.pdf

There were about 550 shells unaccounted for out of the ~13,000 that
were declared as filled with mustard gas by 1991. So yes, there were
chemical weapons shells that just got lost and unaccounted for in the
past.


>
> >
> > Glenn D.
> >
> >

[L'acrobat]

"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If Saddam can walk away from accounting for 36 buried chem rounds
> (assuming
> > they are chem), why not 360 - at what point would you agree that he
should
> > have accounted for the rounds?
> >
> While we may have insisted that he had accountability, the actual disposal
> and tracking takes place at a much lower level. If a soldier steals demo
> from a range, is our President liable?

Still avoiding the issue, if they were stolen, Saddam was still responsible
to account for them up until the point they were stolen and then give
credible evidence to support the claim that they were stolen.

You see your President didn't lose a war and sign an agreement to account
for demo in exchange for a cease fire.

[L'acrobat]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...

> > Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted
for*
> > by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.
>
>
> Tut tut indeed.
>
> Think it justified going to war?!

Certainly.

Assuming they were Chem rounds, could you explain why you think that such a
direct breach of the cease fire agreement wouldn't justify going to war?

[TJ]

"Kevin Brooks

> This ain't demo from a range. These munitions were the subject of repeated
> requirements for Saddam to fully (and accurately) account for them, which
he
> obviously failed to do (I'd challenge you to find, anywhere in Saddam's
> numerous "full, final, and complete" WMD disclosures to the UN, where he
> listed *any* chemical weapons as either stolen or lost). Further, there is
> no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
> intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
>
> Brooks

The second round of tests conducted in country by the ISG have found no
chemicals in the cache. This also happened with a cache of phosphorus filled
mortars found back in October which gave an initial positive reading for
chemical agent.

TJ

[John Mullen]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>
>>>>Further, there is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
>>>>>intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't know the details of the exact find, but I've seen "buried". In
>
> my
>
>>>>experience, Sgt Rock and Pvt Snuffy may well interpret their orders to
>>>>destroy or get rid of something by burying it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted
>
> for*
>
>>>by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.
>>
>>
>>Tut tut indeed.
>>
>>Think it justified going to war?!
>
>
> I personally think Saddam himself, with all of his nauseating atrocities
> under his belt, was plenty enough justification for going to war--the fact
> that he wanted to play games with the WMD requirements was just icing on the
> cake. Why, are you losing sleep over his departure from power?

Not really. Are you losing any sleep now it turns out the latest 'WMD
find' , like all the previous ones, wasn't?

John

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>>>
> >>>>Further, there is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
> >>>>>intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't know the details of the exact find, but I've seen "buried". In
> >
> > my
> >
> >>>>experience, Sgt Rock and Pvt Snuffy may well interpret their orders to
> >>>>destroy or get rid of something by burying it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted
> >
> > for*
> >
> >>>by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.
> >>
> >>
> >>Tut tut indeed.
> >>
> >>Think it justified going to war?!
> >
> >
> > I personally think Saddam himself, with all of his nauseating atrocities
> > under his belt, was plenty enough justification for going to war--the
fact
> > that he wanted to play games with the WMD requirements was just icing on
the
> > cake. Why, are you losing sleep over his departure from power?
>
> Not really. Are you losing any sleep now it turns out the latest 'WMD
> find' , like all the previous ones, wasn't?

Not one iota.

Brooks
>
> John
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"TJ" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks
>
> > This ain't demo from a range. These munitions were the subject of
repeated
> > requirements for Saddam to fully (and accurately) account for them,
which
> he
> > obviously failed to do (I'd challenge you to find, anywhere in Saddam's
> > numerous "full, final, and complete" WMD disclosures to the UN, where he
> > listed *any* chemical weapons as either stolen or lost). Further, there
is
> > no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
> > intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
> >
> > Brooks
>
> The second round of tests conducted in country by the ISG have found no
> chemicals in the cache. This also happened with a cache of phosphorus
filled
> mortars found back in October which gave an initial positive reading for
> chemical agent.
>
> TJ

Yeah. I caught that in the latest AP report. Looks like they are going to
have to develop (or further field what is already available) some better
field testing equipment.

Brooks

>
>
>

[John Mullen]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Further, there is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
>>>>>>>intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know the details of the exact find, but I've seen "buried". In
>>>
>>>my
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>experience, Sgt Rock and Pvt Snuffy may well interpret their orders to
>>>>>>destroy or get rid of something by burying it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted
>>>
>>>for*
>>>
>>>
>>>>>by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tut tut indeed.
>>>>
>>>>Think it justified going to war?!
>>>
>>>
>>>I personally think Saddam himself, with all of his nauseating atrocities
>>>under his belt, was plenty enough justification for going to war--the
>
> fact
>
>>>that he wanted to play games with the WMD requirements was just icing on
>
> the
>
>>>cake. Why, are you losing sleep over his departure from power?
>>
>>Not really. Are you losing any sleep now it turns out the latest 'WMD
>>find' , like all the previous ones, wasn't?
>
>
> Not one iota.
>

I'm glad. A conscience can be a terrible thing.

John

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Further, there is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they
were
> >>>>>>>intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I don't know the details of the exact find, but I've seen "buried".
In
> >>>
> >>>my
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>experience, Sgt Rock and Pvt Snuffy may well interpret their orders
to
> >>>>>>destroy or get rid of something by burying it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted
> >>>
> >>>for*
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Tut tut indeed.
> >>>>
> >>>>Think it justified going to war?!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I personally think Saddam himself, with all of his nauseating
atrocities
> >>>under his belt, was plenty enough justification for going to war--the
> >
> > fact
> >
> >>>that he wanted to play games with the WMD requirements was just icing
on
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>cake. Why, are you losing sleep over his departure from power?
> >>
> >>Not really. Are you losing any sleep now it turns out the latest 'WMD
> >>find' , like all the previous ones, wasn't?
> >
> >
> > Not one iota.
> >
>
> I'm glad. A conscience can be a terrible thing.

Not nearly as immediately dangerous as an uncontrolled bleeding heart.

Brooks

>
> John
>

[John Mullen]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Further, there is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they
>
> were
>
>>>>>>>>>intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't know the details of the exact find, but I've seen "buried".
>
> In
>
>>>>>my
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>experience, Sgt Rock and Pvt Snuffy may well interpret their orders
>
> to
>
>>>>>>>>destroy or get rid of something by burying it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted
>>>>>
>>>>>for*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tut tut indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Think it justified going to war?!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I personally think Saddam himself, with all of his nauseating
>
> atrocities
>
>>>>>under his belt, was plenty enough justification for going to war--the
>>>
>>>fact
>>>
>>>
>>>>>that he wanted to play games with the WMD requirements was just icing
>
> on
>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>cake. Why, are you losing sleep over his departure from power?
>>>>
>>>>Not really. Are you losing any sleep now it turns out the latest 'WMD
>>>>find' , like all the previous ones, wasn't?
>>>
>>>
>>>Not one iota.
>>>
>>
>>I'm glad. A conscience can be a terrible thing.
>
>
> Not nearly as immediately dangerous as an uncontrolled bleeding heart.

Indeed. A balance between the two is worth striving for IMO

John

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:09:50 +0000, John Mullen > wrote:

>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>> "Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>>Further, there is
>>>
>>>>no indication they were "stolen"; in fact, it would appear they were
>>>>intentionally hidden, so your analogy is not too accurate IMO.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know the details of the exact find, but I've seen "buried". In my
>>>experience, Sgt Rock and Pvt Snuffy may well interpret their orders to
>>>destroy or get rid of something by burying it.
>>
>>
>> Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted for*
>> by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.
>
>
>Tut tut indeed.
>
>Think it justified going to war?!
>
>John

Yes

Al Minyard

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:36:11 +1100, "L'acrobat"
> allegedly uttered:

>
>"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
>
>> > Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted
>for*
>> > by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.
>>
>>
>> Tut tut indeed.
>>
>> Think it justified going to war?!
>
>Certainly.
>
>Assuming they were Chem rounds, could you explain why you think that such a
>direct breach of the cease fire agreement wouldn't justify going to war?

Well, from the UK point of view (where "regime change" was a bad
phrase to use), the reason for going to war was the *immediate threat*
of the WMD, which at the time I supported.

A couple of dozen 120mm mortar shells in the condition that these were
found are a threat to no one except the poor buggers who have to clean
them up. Hardly worth dozens (let alone hundreds) of your own soldiers
paying the big price.

A few WP shells course, leaves us back to where we were before. No
WMD found, and no end to the casualties in sight.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[L'acrobat]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:36:11 +1100, "L'acrobat"
> > allegedly uttered:
>
> >
> >"John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> > Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted
> >for*
> >> > by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tut tut indeed.
> >>
> >> Think it justified going to war?!
> >
> >Certainly.
> >
> >Assuming they were Chem rounds, could you explain why you think that such
a
> >direct breach of the cease fire agreement wouldn't justify going to war?
>
> Well, from the UK point of view (where "regime change" was a bad
> phrase to use), the reason for going to war was the *immediate threat*
> of the WMD, which at the time I supported.
>
> A couple of dozen 120mm mortar shells in the condition that these were
> found are a threat to no one except the poor buggers who have to clean
> them up. Hardly worth dozens (let alone hundreds) of your own soldiers
> paying the big price.

Well you seem to be ignoring the fact that they would have been workable
when cached and Saddam was required to disclose the lot.


>
> A few WP shells course, leaves us back to where we were before. No
> WMD found, and no end to the casualties in sight.

No weapons, but a great deal of evidence of WMD making intent - a secret
network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi
intelligence service; bioorganisms kept in scientists' homes, including a
vial of live botulinum; and, ``new research on BW-applicable agents,
Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin
and aflatoxin'' -- all ``not declared to the U.N.''

It's pretty hard to argue that Saddam stuck to either the spirit or the word
of the ceasefire agreement.

[L'acrobat]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > No weapons, but a great deal of evidence of WMD making intent - a
secret
> > network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi
> > intelligence service;
>
> I would be careful about the 'weapon laboratories' claim if I were you...
> Have you seen this one?
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39681000/rm/_39681429_iraq22_trevelyan_vi.ram
>

I don't run real media, could you summarise?

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:06:23 +1100, "L'acrobat"
> allegedly uttered:

>
>"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
>> Well, from the UK point of view (where "regime change" was a bad
>> phrase to use), the reason for going to war was the *immediate threat*
>> of the WMD, which at the time I supported.
>>
>> A couple of dozen 120mm mortar shells in the condition that these were
>> found are a threat to no one except the poor buggers who have to clean
>> them up. Hardly worth dozens (let alone hundreds) of your own soldiers
>> paying the big price.
>
>Well you seem to be ignoring the fact that they would have been workable
>when cached and Saddam was required to disclose the lot.

Not at all. That wasn't my point. The point was, when we went to war
there is currently no evidence that there was a viable threat. Was
Saddam a bad man, no doubt. Did he want WMD, absolutely. Was there an
active program in the last year? Unproven.

IMO he was preparing for a new WMD production program to be launched
when sanctions were lifted, but only a little R&D until then.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[L'acrobat]

"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
...
> On or about Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:06:23 +1100, "L'acrobat"
> > allegedly uttered:
>
> >
> >"Peter Kemp" <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote in message
> ...
> >> Well, from the UK point of view (where "regime change" was a bad
> >> phrase to use), the reason for going to war was the *immediate threat*
> >> of the WMD, which at the time I supported.
> >>
> >> A couple of dozen 120mm mortar shells in the condition that these were
> >> found are a threat to no one except the poor buggers who have to clean
> >> them up. Hardly worth dozens (let alone hundreds) of your own soldiers
> >> paying the big price.
> >
> >Well you seem to be ignoring the fact that they would have been workable
> >when cached and Saddam was required to disclose the lot.
>
> Not at all. That wasn't my point. The point was, when we went to war
> there is currently no evidence that there was a viable threat. Was
> Saddam a bad man, no doubt. Did he want WMD, absolutely. Was there an
> active program in the last year? Unproven.
>
> IMO he was preparing for a new WMD production program to be launched
> when sanctions were lifted, but only a little R&D until then.

In which case he was in direct breach of the ceasefire agreement.

He didn't have to constitute a 'viable threat', just breach the ceasefire
agreement.

We are in agreement that he did that.