On Sep 6, 1:35 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 5, 6:08 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

An invasion is only a pre-emptive strike if the invaded country was or
harbored a threat. Iraq was not and did not.

The invasion of Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive strike.

Right, Saddam ruled a magical kingdom that only wished the US well and in no
way harbored ill will for us kicking his ass out of Kuwait.

And it didn't try to assassinate an ex-president, either I suppose.

When?

Yes, I know he answer, I just want to see i you are willing to
post it yourself.


I disagree.

Saddam Hussein had no means with which to attack
the US, and knew from the bitter experience of the
Iraqi-Kuwaiti war that if he provoked us, the result would
be devastating. That is why when faced with imminent
invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
as "unprecedented". Then we invaded anyhow.

You have to stop getting your history fromwww.revisionist.com... ;-)

You should start getting yours from:

http://www.unmovic.org/
http://www.iaea.org/


If you're REALLY interested in what UNMOVIC thought at the time of the
invasion, you should read their March 2003 report Not only does it
blow your "unfettered access" claim out of the water - errrr, air
(this is a flying ng, after all), but they stated that Iraq probably

"Unprecedented" is the exact word Hans Blix, then head of
UNMOVIC used to describe the Iraqi cooperation in his
report to the UN.

Where in the report do you think you see anything that contradicts
his statement.

but they stated that Iraq probably
had (among many other things) 10,000 liters of anthrax ready to
deploy... and the abilty to manufacture LOTS of WMD in short order in
one of their many "dual-use" facilities.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/docu...luster6mar.pdf

I suppose you mean this
From pages 97-98

Destruction

....Iraq declared that the decision to destroy
bulk BW agent unilaterally was made in early July 1991,
and the actual destruction of the agent was said to have
been carried out at Al Hakam in July/August 1991.

However, it seems improbable that the bulk agent that
had been deployed out in the field would have been returned
to Al Hakam for destruction in July 1991. The first UNSCOM
CW inspection was conducted at Al Muthanna in early June
1991 and, according to Iraq, Al Hakam was busily being cleaned
at that time to remove or cover up any signs of a BW programme.
Iraq would have reasonably expected a BW team to arrive at Al
Hakam at any time from June 1991 onwards, and to have had
any agent there after that date would have posed a high risk
of discovery.

It, therefore, seems highly probable that the destruction of bulk
agent, including anthrax, stated by Iraq to be at Al Hakam in
July/August 1991, did not occur. Based on all the available
evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres
of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist. As a liquid
suspension, anthrax spores produced 15 years ago could still
be viable today if properly stored. Iraq experimented with the
drying of anthrax simulants and if anthrax had been dried,
then it could be stored indefinitely.

You are correct, UNMOVIC concluded that it was highly
probable that Iraq HAD 10,000 liters of anthrax -- IN 1991,
FOURTTEEN years earlier.

Regarding 2003 they concluded that it MAY still exist
it COULD still be viable IF properly stored etc. There is
no question that in 2003 there were many clusters of un-
resolved issues. Logic does not permit the proof of
a negative hypothesis. Iraq could never PROVE that
it had no WMD. Neither can your or I.

If you accept GWB's oft-stated position that Iraq had
to prove it had no WMDs then there was never any
point the inspection program in the first place
as that could never be proved, even if true.

As to dual use capability--no ****! My kitchen is a dual
use facility, it can be used to make rocket fuel, culture
anthrax and so on. Botulinum toxin is sometimes
produced entirely by accident, and with often tragic
results, in dual use facilities around the world.

Conspicuously absent from the report is any evidence
that Iraq DID have anthrax in 2003, or that it was hiding
any, in 2003, right?


Of course, those whose "true religion" the above HISTORICAL FACTS
upset will get their knickers in a twist and call me names for having
the audacity to cite actual history instead of media spin.

How about if you stop spinning the UNMOVIC report and read
what it actually says, eh?


What exactly do you think was pre-empted--a scud
missile attack on Chicago?

Read the report above.

Again, what, exactly do you think was pre-empted?


A threat to the US? He didn't even control the
Northern third of his own country! He couldn't
fly a military aircraft over or turn on a targetting
radar in two thirds of his won country without it
being shot down or blown up.

The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
to pay some teenager's families if they went
over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
of the likes of Bashir.

So if Iraq wasn't a threat, why did all the following people say:

Why not ask them?

--

FF