General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
*after* 1991.


Well, Mr. Adam says they had a "fair amount pre-1991 and had since
destroyed almost all of it". At least one of you is wrong.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:55:05 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

First, let's note that I said or wrote none of which "George Z. Bush"
has posted here below the attibution header!

(Snip)

I took out all of an exchange you were having with someone else which was
irrelevant to what I wanted to say. No need for you to be so defensive about
it....it just wasn't pertinent, so I deleted it.

How about considering that we are quick to disavow the outrageous behavior of
a
handful of our sadistic jailers as being representative of us as a nation,
but
we deny the Iraqis the same right to disavow the existence of a single
artillery
shell of dubious age filled with Sarin as being representative of an arsenal
of
WMDs they would have used on us if they had existed.

One sadistic jailer doesn't mean that all of our jailers are sadistic any
more
than one Sarin-filled artillery shell means that all of the artillery shells
the
Iraqis had were filled with Sarin. It took us a whole year to find (or 'fess
up
to) one of each.

George Z.


By your rationale the only way a nation possesses WMD is if ALL of
their weapons fit the class? We've found one Sarin filled shell in a
country the size of California. Saddam had twelve years of experience
in hiding WMD from UN inspectors. He had a couple of years of warning
regarding build-up to invasion. He had almost a year after expelling
the UN inspectors to dismantle, export, hide or decommission WMDs.

WMD is an acronym for Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is "weapons"
(plural)....and One of anything does not make it plural. You want to make a
federal case out of finding one artillery shell after a year of intense looking
by thousands of troops, go right ahead. I'll just rest my case on the theory
that one weapon does not an arsenal make, and you can pooh-pooh me if it makes
you feel better.

Is Sarin a chemical weapon? Would the components of a binary weapon by
a chemical weapon if they were held in two separate locations? Is a
biological weapon only a biological weapon when it is employed,
otherwise it's just a case of the sniffles?

Of course it's a chemical weapon. But one artillery shell does not constitute a
threat that warrants embarking on an active war over. Not only that, but we
didn't even know for a fact that they had that one weapon when we started the
war....we apparently started it on some Mickey-Mouse intelligence information
that it took us a year to find out wasn't accurate.

By your logic, we probably ought to be at war with half the world if those
nations possessed one chemical or biological weapon that they might someday
consider using against someone for some reason somewhere down the road. Tell me
the Chinese don't have one or more, or the Pakistanis (who, you will recall,
sold nuclear know-how to the Libyans), or the Russians, or the Israelis or, for
that matter, even the Saudis. Numerous countrys, many of whom we have
disagreements with, have WMDs, but we don't go to war with them because of it.

I baby-sat a B-61 Y-1 at 345KT was that a WMD? If we only had Fat Man
and Little Boy (which is all we had) and then we dropped them on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did we then no longer have WMD? Or, since
those two weapons were only 20-25KT were they not even WMD at all?

Sounds like you want to refight WWII because we had and used nukes. That's a
bit more nonsensical that I care to bother with. Or are you suggesting that we
were the bad guys because we developed them and used them?

The relationship between the jailers and WMD isn't a very rational
argument. How much Sarin will you allow to be deployed in New York
City before you take offense? Would it be more acceptable to use it in
Jerusalem? Would it be alright to spread three liters of Sarin in
Kuwait City?

How many WMD rounds does it take to equal possession of WMD in your
convoluted logic? Would two be better than one? Or will you hold out
for exclusive WMD rounds and no conventional? Then, one conventional
round would prove the non-existance of WMD, despite the other rounds?

When all is said and done, your arguments are sophomoric and thoroughly
unconvincing. They're not worthy of individual responses.

C'mon George, confess that you didn't think it through when you wrote
that/

Ed, it's all in the eye of the beholder, and I like to think that my arguments
were more logical and convincing than your efforts to belittle them.

Perhaps it's one of those times when we need to agree to disagree and simply
move on.

George Z.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq

I am sure we wont be overlooking when somebody discovers ex-Bulgarian Scuds
with chemical warheads on right time.
(Saddam never received any Scuds from Bulgaria,but it is only a small detail)

A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
be in order.

Samuel Huntingtons ties to some semi-secret but very powerful societies explain
why he wrote that book.
The motto of this organization is
"Ordo Ab Chao"


This organisation is actually aganist ALL major religions fights for centuries
to destroy every religion and replace them with Paganism.
The fight between major religions is an excellent tool realize their final
goal.


resence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.

Who is Mr.Al-Whatever?

ings like "why Iraq" or "the 9/11 perps were all Saudi" ignores the

Everbody who thinks that 9/11 was not a domestic vaccination operation ignores
works and findings of the Office of Net Assesment and the existence of an
organization in US with more executive powers than US President !.
(The name of this organization is NOT FBI or CIA)

You are totally wrong.
According to the findings of Marshall&Co paradigm shift in warfare and
predicted natural disasters (some of them with the help of HPM weapons of
course) could create a chaos situation in US that could not be controlled by
existing (pre-9/11) structures.
So,the country needed more military like structures and organizations in other
words US needed more military style discipline and less liberalism.

How could you implement neccesary changes?
1)You tell everything to the public and call for their support.
(But if you do that the chaos predicted to take place 15-20 later might start
tomorrow,so not a good idea)

2)You create an imaginary enemy and implement all neccesary measures that you
will need to face challenges of next decade and after,under pretext of fighting
an (imaginary) enemy.

US will be a much more militaristic and disciplined society in near and medium
term future,but the President still be a civilian.
But US citizens wont be able to elect their presidents in foreseable future,as
all Presidents in foreseable future will be "selected" not "elected".

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)


Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all? If that's
the case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not
abide by the 1991 agreement?

They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
*after* 1991.

The existence of this round, at *all*, shows that they weren't complying
with their obligations by informing the UN of the research program.

I'm a little confused. The R&D program is in the UNSCOM report. Are you
saying they did work on this program after 1991? If so, how do we know
the vintage of this shell? Not challenging, not sure I'm reading you
correctly.

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Let's - for the sake of simplicity - assume the munitions and
facilities
have a trustworthy date stamp, however ascertained. Hard to do, but it
simplifies the terms.

1998 and earlier, I'm willing to accept a few (call it three, offhand)
"WME stockpiles" that are - for a rule of thumb - a pallet or less of
shells, 122mm rockets, or precursors each.

...that could be found, accidentally, by militias? When there are
*millions* of similar pallets of conventional weapons floating around in
Iraq right now?

The math is way against you here. Literally millions-to-one odds.

On the other hand, if there were a lot of unreported and uncatalogued
chemical weapons in the mix, you'd have a much better chance of someone
turning up one or two out of a random ammo dump. Which is what seems to
have happened.


If more don't show up, I'd be inclined to suspect some participant in
the research program that took one, or a few, prototypes home for
safekeeping. We know this was done for some nuclear and biological
components. Said somebody may have decided he didn't want this in his
backyard, and gave it to insurgents, possibly with an explanation they
didn't understand.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Let's - for the sake of simplicity - assume the munitions and facilities
have a trustworthy date stamp, however ascertained. Hard to do, but it
simplifies the terms.

1998 and earlier, I'm willing to accept a few (call it three, offhand)
"WME stockpiles" that are - for a rule of thumb - a pallet or less of
shells, 122mm rockets, or precursors each.

...that could be found, accidentally, by militias? When there are
*millions* of similar pallets of conventional weapons floating around in
Iraq right now?

Yep. Note that this was apparently employed in a standard roadside IED,
as if it was just an ordinary HE shell - about as suboptimal an
employment as you can get, if you assume the insurgents knew what they
had.

The math is way against you here. Literally millions-to-one odds.

Thousands-to-one odds, anyway. The existence of that round is a pretty
good fact: so is the absence of any source for it, or any stockpile of
its brothers and sisters.

On the other hand, if there were a lot of unreported and uncatalogued
chemical weapons in the mix, you'd have a much better chance of someone
turning up one or two out of a random ammo dump. Which is what seems to
have happened.

Trouble is, that doesn't say "significant organised and controlled
stockpile", it just says "bad bookkeeping".

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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

Of course it's a chemical weapon. But one artillery shell does not
constitute
a threat that warrants embarking on an active war over. Not only that,
but
we didn't even know for a fact that they had that one weapon when we
started the war....we apparently started it on some Mickey-Mouse
intelligence information that it took us a year to find out wasn't
accurate.


Prior to the invasion of Iraq the one point on which there was near
universal agreement was that Iraq had significant WMD. The only group
claimimg they did not was the Iraqi government, which is what they'd be
expected to say whether they had them or not.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)


Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all? If that's
the case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not
abide by the 1991 agreement?

They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
*after* 1991.

"36. However, it was not possible to verify the full extent of several
R& D projects carried out by Iraq from 1989 to 1990, due to the absence
of sufficient data from documents and other verifiable evidence. Those
include the research on new chemical warfare agents, BZ and Soman. These
also include Iraq's efforts to develop new delivery means for CW-agents,
such as special warheads other than for Al-Hussein missiles, i.e. FROG
missile, and real binary artillery munitions and aerial bombs. Evidence
of such studies was found in the documents from the Haider farm. On the
other hand, the Commission did not find evidence that Iraq had reached
the stage of industrial production of these materials and items.

http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm is the first
source to hand.


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message . net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Of course it's a chemical weapon. But one artillery shell does not
constitute
a threat that warrants embarking on an active war over. Not only that,
but
we didn't even know for a fact that they had that one weapon when we
started the war....we apparently started it on some Mickey-Mouse
intelligence information that it took us a year to find out wasn't
accurate.


Prior to the invasion of Iraq the one point on which there was near
universal agreement was that Iraq had significant WMD.

I guess "near universal" can exclude a lot of people, then.

The only group
claimimg they did not was the Iraqi government,

And a few other folks with knowledge of the subject.

which is what they'd be
expected to say whether they had them or not.

When an Iraqi government source told you it was sunny, bring an
umbrella.

But even liars are right sometimes, even by mistake (institutionalised
falsehood has some interesting effects)
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

I guess "near universal" can exclude a lot of people, then.


Such as?



And a few other folks with knowledge of the subject.


Such as?



When an Iraqi government source told you it was sunny, bring an
umbrella.


Exactly.