Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 4, 1:24 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
"Robert Barker" wrote:
"Dale Alexander" wrote in message
...
No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just look
at all of their "religious beliefs".

Dale Alexander

And conservatives can be duped by anyone with a smile. As evidence, look at
the people who voted for the Shrub and still think that Iraq was part or
9/11.

Thanks to the media, not the administration.

I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
There are plenty of quotes from the Bush administration clearly
stating that there's no reason to believe that Iraq was involved, but
don't let that influence your "relligion".


FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.

Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?

Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
similar slips.

It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
out of context and "prove the point"... if the (mis)quotes existed,
they'd be used incessantly by those trying to discredit the Bush
administration. Pretty much like the Cheney quote that started this
discussion was.

See also:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...b4ff1505b47563

C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.

Mr Limbaugh can deny claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible since
it was a statement by someone else that he played on his show. But
it is clear WHY he played it and also WHY he played it in the manner
that he did.

I dunno - I suppose someone should ask him. But when we start mixing
Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken with historical political discussions,
we're off in the weeds, don'tcha think? ;-)

Mark "let's get it from the horse's mouth, not its... " Hickey

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Frank Stutzman wrote

But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:

Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
and the men who attached on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

This after he was caught lying for the umpteumpth time.

OK, just show us the quote where he's "caught lying" about Iraq's
direct connection to the 9/11 attacks.

He didn't , that was he clever bit.

He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
believed him.

So lemme see if I got this right. The POTUS that you think is an
idiot who can't complete a proper sentence managed to convince
millions of people of something he never said. By never even saying
anything that could be pointed out as a clever obfuscation, too. So
which is GWB? Bumbling idiot or evil genius?

So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).


Yep

http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?

Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
idea?

We'll know in 20-40 years.


What, 20 -40 years after the brits tried the same ****?

that ship has sailed..

If we lose a major city to state-sponsored
terrorism suddenly it's going to be a race to blame whoever is in
power for not doing MORE preemptive strikes to stop it.

Mark "I really, really hope I'm wrong" Hickey


Rest asssured.

Yeah, NOW I feel better....

Mark "hope I don't get to say I told you so" Hickey

On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...


FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.

Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?

Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
similar slips.

It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
out of context and "prove the point"...

Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....

...

See also:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...owse_thread/th...

C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.

One of the follow-ups noted that is Limbaugh's schtick. I remind
you that Newt Gingrich credited Limbaugh for being a major
contributor
to the success of the Republican Party during the "Contract
with America" campaign.


Mr Limbaugh can deny claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible since
it was a statement by someone else that he played on his show. But
it is clear WHY he played it and also WHY he played it in the manner
that he did.

I dunno - I suppose someone should ask him. But when we start mixing
Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken with historical political discussions,
we're off in the weeds, don'tcha think? ;-)

See above.

Someone like Michael Moore exercises a strong but episodic influence.
Limbaugh is a constant and coordinated influence.

Yes, they are entertainers and so idally should have
virtually NO influence but the reality is very different.

It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
did?

An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
and can be had with much less effort.

--

FF

On Sep 6, 12:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


...


He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
believed him.

So lemme see if I got this right. The POTUS that you think is an
idiot who can't complete a proper sentence managed to convince
millions of people of something he never said. ...

Millions of people are idiots.

I challenge you to find a major newspaper that does NOT
publish horoscopes.

Mind you, _I_ personally do NOT think GWB is an idiot.
He isn't brilliant but his SAT scores indicate that he is
brighter than the average college-educated person, on
par with John Kerry, with whom he also shares nearly
equal GPAs at Yale. . I remain curious as to the
cause of his aphasia and if it was a life-long disability
or something developed in adulthood.

--

FF

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

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

...

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
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



6 March 2003
APPENDIX
A (sic) HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRAQ'S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
....

Destruction
....
During the bombing campaign the main CW facilities at
Al Muthanna and Al Fallujah were heavily damaged. In
addition, some of the CW weapons stored at airfields and
other locations were also destroyed. However, Iraq had
evacuated [note: 'evacuated' to other locations in Iraq,FF]
much of its strategic materials and equipment prior to the
war...

Thus, several hundreds of tonnes of Mustard and Sarin
were buried in the desert surrounding Al Muthanna during t
he war and survived the bombing. The agents was (sic)
subsequently destroyed by UNSCOM. ...

.. It was clear, even from this first inspection, that the site had
been severely disabled, but not completely destroyed. The
scene was one of smashed production plants and leaking...
the second chemical inspection team visited the precursor
plants at Al Fullujah and inspected similar destruction levels.

....

Before UNSCOM could begin its work on the elimination remaining
CW capabilities, Iraq secretly began its own unilateral destruction.
Iraq declared that, in July 1991, under instruction from
Lieutenant-
General Hussein Kamal, it began the unilateral destruction of
selected
chemicals and munitions; this activity was not disclosed to UNSCOM
at the time. ...It is probable that one of the reasons for this
unilateral
destruction was an effort to bring what UNSCOM might find more
into line with the serious inadequacies in Iraq's initial
declaration
of its holdings of proscribed weapons and materials. ...
In all, Iraq declared the destruction of over 28,000 filled and
unfilled
munitions, about 30 tonnes of bulk chemical precursors for Sarin
and Cyclosarin, and over 200 tonnes of key precursors relating to
Vx.
[I presume this refers to a subsequent declaration, perhaps as late as
2002, FF]
....
The remaining weapons, materials and equipment declared by Iraq,
that could be identified and located by UNSCOM, were destroyed
under its supervision, mainly between 1992 and 1994. Thus, over
28,000
munitions, 480 tonnes of CW agent and 100,000 tonnes of precursor
chemicals were disposed of. About 400 major pieces of chemical
processing equipment and some hundreds of items of other equipment,
such as bomb-making machinery, were also destroyed under UNSCOM s
upervision.
....
Dual-use capabilities to 1998
....

Much of this civilian chemical industry used dual-capable technology
and was, therefore, under monitoring by UNSCOM until the end of
1998.

Herein lay the concern, that during tthe gap between UNSCOM and
UNMOVIC Iraq might have converted dual-use facilities to CW
production,
or rebuilt the destroyed factories. NO evidence to support those
fears
was found by UNMOVIC before the invasion or ISG afterwards. As
noted by Dr David Kay, " no factories, no weapons.". ]


Conclusions

UNMOVIC has a good understanding of the nature and scope
of Iraq's CW programme. The areas of greatest uncertainty
relate to questions of material balance and whether there may
be items still remaining. In this regard, Iraq's unilateral
destruction
of large quantities of chemicals and weapons, in July 1991, has
complicated the accountancy problem. The questions of uncertainty
are discussed further in the Clusters of Unresolved Disarmament
Issues.

Understand???

....
By some standards, the technology levels achieved by Iraq in the
production of its CW agents and weapons, were not high. The agents
were often impure and had a limited shelf-life. ...

[IOW, CW not disposed of during the 1990s would no longer be
effective by 2003. No new factories, no new weapons, FF]
...

It is evident that Iraq's CW capabilities posed a significant
regional threat.

[ IN 1991, not in 2003! ]

IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMME

....

Iraq went to considerable lengths, including the destruction of
documents and the forging of other documents, to conceal its
BW efforts from UNSCOM. After intensive investigations by
UNSCOM, Iraq disclosed some details of its offensive BW
programme on, 1 July 1995. ... in August 1995, Iraq
revealed a much more comprehensive BW programme.

[Note: UNSCOM pre-dated UNMOVIC and ceased activity
in Iraq in 1998. The secrecy and obstruction pre-dated
UNMOVIC.]

Iraq's efforts to conceal the programme, particularly the
destruction of documentation and its declared unilateral
destruction of BW weapons and agents, have complicated
UNMOVIC's task of piecing together a coherent and accurate
account of its BW programme.
....
In May/June 1996, all of the facilities, related equipment and
materials declared by Iraq as belonging to its BW programme
were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Thus, the vaccine f
ermenters at Al Daura that Iraq had declared had produced
botulinum toxin were destroyed, as was the entire Al Hakam
complex, including all its equipment and materials.
....
These (other ostensibly civilian, FF] facilities were included in
routine monitoring by UNSCOM; no proscribed activities were
detected at these sites up to the end of inspections in December
1998.

[Once again the concern was that during the gap between UNSCOM
and UNMVIC, Iraq could have resumed production of BW. Again,
UNMOVIC found NO EVIDENCE of renewed production.]


Uncertainties regarding Iraq's BW programme

Unilateral destruction

The almost complete lack of documentation on unilateral
destruction activities in 1991 gives rise to the greatest
uncertainties
regarding Iraq's declaration of BW activities. Although there
is physical evidence that some such destruction took place,
it was difficult for UNSCOM inspectors to quantify the numbers
and amounts. This, in turn, has repercussions on assessment
of material balance and whether all materials and weapons
have been accounted for.


***

In summary, the numerous unresolved WMD
issues in the report are ubiquitously matters
left over from UNSCOM 1990s and in no way
constitute evidence of post turn of the century
WMD production or obstruction of UNMOVIC.

THAT is what the report says.

The argument that Iraq was a threat in 2003 relied on
confabulating UNSCOM of the 1990s with UNMOVIC
of 2002-3, ignoring the short shelf-life of Iraqi munitions,
ignoring the absence of manufacturing facilities, ignoring
the 'unprecedented' cooperation with UNMOVIC and
requiring that Iraq achieve the logical impossibility of
proving a negative hypothesis.

To argue that the March 2003 UNMOVIC report was
evidence that Iraq was a threat to the United States,
defies reason.

--

FF

On Sep 5, 9:52 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote



Any lingering doubt was gone by the time Baghdad fell. If Saddam
Hussein had any WMD, surely he would have used them by then.
What would he save them for, the next US invasion?

Perhaps he would not have used them because of the hinted threat that the US
might consider using tactical nukes if he did.


Supposedly that was the case in 1991.

In 2003, he knew we were going to kill him if we
won. He had nothing to loose.

--

FF

On Sep 5, 6:40 pm, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Sep 5, 4:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:





Jim Logajan wrote :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
idea?

Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo
Oliver" and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political
specifics."

:-)

Very true,

I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at
this juncture?

I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post.

All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought
our military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal
about a good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but
I had this gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was
clear as mud.

I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this
administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn
up WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast,
finished, and kaput politically."

But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's
a lesson in there somewhere.

I suppose it's "make your lie big enough and popular enough and it won't
matter"

I too thought they'd find weapons of mass destruction, but even if they
found chemical weapons, it'd be in a fine old traditon. Winston
Churchill authorised thier use in Iraq in the thirties.

His rationale? (i'm too lazy to look it up so I'll paraphrase) It#s not
like we're gassing people who matter.....

actually, IIRC what he actually said is evn more shocking.

IIRC he advocated using mustard gas against 'savages' in Africa.
His rationale was that it was less lethal, but caused more suffering
than other weapons so that the population could be subjugated
with fewer casualties. Dunno about WMD elsewhere in the world.

I'm not inclined to defend his argument.


Hw could anyone? Well, Winnie excepted. The man was an absolute
****heel, and by today´s standards would be in the dock in the
Hague..

anyhow, here´s the document I mentioned in it's entirety. In the
second half, the uncivilised tribes part, he´s talking about the Kurds

Enjoy.

Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo

[stamp] PRIME MINISTER'S PERSONAL MINUTE

[stamp, pen] Serial No. D. 217/4

[Seal of Prime Minister]

10 Downing Street, Whitehall [gothic script]

GENERAL ISMAY FOR C.O.S. COMMITTEE [underlined]

1. I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison
gas. I would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it
was life or death for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a
year.

2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody
used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists
or the Church. On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open
cities was regarded as forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of
course. It is simply a question of fashion changing as she does
between long and short skirts for women.

3. I want a cold-blooded calculation made as to how it would pay us
to use poison gas, by which I mean principally mustard. We will want
to gain more ground in Normandy so as not to be cooped up in a small
area. We could probably deliver 20 tons to their 1 and for the sake of
the 1 they would bring their bomber aircraft into the area against our
superiority, thus paying a heavy toll.

4. Why have the Germans not used it? Not certainly out of moral
scruples or affection for us. They have not used it because it does
not pay them. The greatest temptation ever offered to them was the
beaches of Normandy. This they could have drenched with gas greatly to
the hindrance of the troops. That they thought about it is certain and
that they prepared against our use of gas is also certain. But they
only reason they have not used it against us is that they fear the
retaliation. What is to their detriment is to our advantage.

5. Although one sees how unpleasant it is to receive poison gas
attacks, from which nearly everyone recovers, it is useless to protest
that an equal amount of H. E. will not inflict greater casualties and
sufferings on troops and civilians. One really must not be bound
within silly conventions of the mind whether they be those that ruled
in the last war or those in reverse which rule in this.

6. If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great
rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres
of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do [underline]
anything [stop underline] that would hit the enemy in a murderous
place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison
gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in
Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring
constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying bomb
starting points. I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of
being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the
cad. There are times when this may be so but not now.

7. I quite agree that it may be several weeks or even months before
I shall ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it,
let us do it one hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter
studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by that particular
set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across now
here now there. Pray address yourself to this. It is a big thing and
can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall of course have to
square Uncle Joe and the President; but you need not bring this into
your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it is
like on its merits.

[signed] Winston Churchill [initials]

6.7.44 [underlined]

Source: photographic copy of original 4 page memo, in Guenther W.
Gellermann, "Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand", Bernard & Graefe Verlag,
1986, pp. 249-251




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

Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12
May 1919 War Office

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have
definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in
favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is
sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a
bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of
lachrymatory gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised
tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life
should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the
most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience
and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious
permanent effects on most of those affected.



from Companion Volume 4, Part 1 of the official biography, WINSTON S.
CHURCHILL, by Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976)


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

Henry Gonzalez, US Congressman, referred to this in the House of
Representatives on March 24, 1992:

"But there again, where is the moral right? The first one to use gas
against Arabs was Winston Churchill, the British, in the early 1920's.
They were Iraq Arabs they used them against."
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/cong...2/h920324g.htm

"Moral right" is of course the reason this piece of history has now
been dredged up again - by people who see contradictions in the pious
arguments of Messrs. Bush, Blair et al. And this seems only fair. In
1998 Clinton denounced opponents to his planned attack on Iraq for
"not remembering the past".

I remain unconvinced that the UK used chemical weapons in the middle east in the 1920s.... but I'm open to correction.

Not easy. And if you'd rather not...

Churchill thought of it as poison gas - and so, apparently did
everyone else. The idea of using it was his alone. And he is also is
also to have given the authorization to the RAF. He wanted gas to be
used in addition to regular bombing: "against recalcitrant Arabs as
experiment". According to Simons, gas was not dispensed in bombs.

The intention was to quell a growing rebellion in remote villages. He
met with objections but maintained that "we cannot in any
circumstances acquiesce in the non-utilisation of any weapons which
are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which
prevails on the frontier".

It seems Churchill wanted to cause "disablement", "discomfort or
illness, but not death".

In any case, to Churchill this was not a moral issue. Here is part of
a memo, so you can see it through his eyes. He wrote this during WWII,
when he contemplated using poison gas, but never did:


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

Excerpts below by www.informationwar.org

BACKGROUND: In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the
British occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab
and Kurdish people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by
1920 this had developed into a full scale national revolt, which cost
the British dearly. As the Iraqi resistance gained strength, the
British resorted to increasingly repressive measures, including the
use of posion gas.] NB: Because of formatting problems, quotation
marks will appear as stars * All quotes in the excerpt are properly
footnoted in the original book, with full references to British
archives and papers. Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff.
*IRAQ: FROM SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994:

Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the
cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit
the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular
relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the
start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air)
wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be
possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the
provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause
disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary
operations against turbulent tribes.*

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed
against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the
Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised
tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an
instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant
to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and
revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue
that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would
cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident
tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were
mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently
damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially
as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical
knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*

Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing
that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented
*by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event,
gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect*
though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical
difficulties [.....]

Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being
bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the
Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: *They were
bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times
a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls
how quite often *one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village
would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any
Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of
30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they
ought not be doing then you shot them.*

Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the
Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a
civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by
bombs and guns.

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of
wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and
Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage.
Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically
wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.* It was
an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they
had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also
useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by
the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up
a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and
air-to-ground missiles:

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock]
man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these
weapons were first used in Kurdistan.

Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to
Saddam*.

London: St. Martins Press, 1994.

On Sep 5, 4:10 pm, "Dale Alexander" wrote:
I posted my reply some time ago to flush people like you out. Glad it
worked. Trapping liberals is too easy. Hope I never have the opportunity to
meet you at a fly-in.

Yeah, you´re a strategic genius, you are.


Oh, and BTW, I'm a republican.

Fjukkwit.


Bertie

Dale Alexander

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in 6.130...

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Snip





He didn't , that was he clever bit.

He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
believed him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:





Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Frank Stutzman wrote
But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:

Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
and the men who attached on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

This after he was caught lying for the umpteumpth time.

OK, just show us the quote where he's "caught lying" about Iraq's
direct connection to the 9/11 attacks.

He didn't , that was he clever bit.

He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
believed him.

So lemme see if I got this right. The POTUS that you think is an
idiot who can't complete a proper sentence managed to convince
millions of people of something he never said. By never even saying
anything that could be pointed out as a clever obfuscation, too. So
which is GWB? Bumbling idiot or evil genius?


good grief, I thought that his had been well established at this
juncture.


So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).

Yep

http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?




Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?




Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
idea?

We'll know in 20-40 years.

What, 20 -40 years after the brits tried the same ****?

that ship has sailed..

If we lose a major city to state-sponsored
terrorism suddenly it's going to be a race to blame whoever is in
power for not doing MORE preemptive strikes to stop it.

Mark "I really, really hope I'm wrong" Hickey

Rest asssured.

Yeah, NOW I feel better....


Good, glad I could help`.

Bertie