If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Chad Irby
wrote: In article , Robey Price wrote: One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed. One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the inspectors. Just as a point of information, the UNSCOM report does refer to "R&D", but not deployment, of binary chemical rounds. If they found this one, that means there were a *lot* more that were never even supposed to exist. Not necessarily a lot, if they were indeed only in the R&D phase for this particular mission. We do know that program personnel took home, and hid, nuclear and biological components. Therefore, there's a place with a bunch more of these things, *not* destroyed or accounted for. This one shell, by itself, shows that Iraq *did* have a whole segment of its chemical weapons program that was never even touched by the UN. Again, specifically in the case of the binary artillery shell, possibly R&D quantities only, with a few samples hidden. That would be consistent both with the UNSCOM report and the few components we have found in residences. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Vaughn" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message .. . In article , Robey Price wrote: One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed. One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the inspectors. What inspectors? The UN inspectors. I don't really think we know much about that round. ....and that's the point. According to the agreements that Iraq was supposed to adhere to, all of their CW munitions were supposed to be on record. This type wasn't. If they found this one, that means there were a *lot* more that were never even supposed to exist. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the smart money says "yes." You don't build *one* binary artillery round and bury it in the desert. Or perhaps it was not even Iraqi and it came across those famously porous borders sometime in the last 12 months or so. Possibly, but certainly not probably. It's funny how people will give Iraq every benefit of the doubt when it comes to this sort of thing, but will expect the highest standard of proof from the US as to what day of the week it is. I don't really believe that; Nobody does. It's a very silly "what if?" but my point is, we just don't know, so therefore only a fool would try to draw a conclusion from the meager information at hand. No, a smart person would look at what's been presented, use a little common sense, and realize that this round (like all of the other bits and pieces we've been finding) shows, once again, they had stuff the UN didn't know about. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message ... In article , "Vaughn" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message .. . In article , Robey Price wrote: One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed. One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the inspectors. What inspectors? The UN inspectors. Reference? I don't really think we know much about that round. ...and that's the point. According to the agreements that Iraq was supposed to adhere to, all of their CW munitions were supposed to be on record. This type wasn't. Reference? If they found this one, that means there were a *lot* more that were never even supposed to exist. Perhaps, perhaps not. But the smart money says "yes." You don't build *one* binary artillery round and bury it in the desert. Reference? Or perhaps it was not even Iraqi and it came across those famously porous borders sometime in the last 12 months or so. Possibly, but certainly not probably. It's funny how people will give Iraq every benefit of the doubt when it comes to this sort of thing, but will expect the highest standard of proof from the US as to what day of the week it is. What sort of thing? Even the White House is not yet claiming WMD. I don't really believe that; Nobody does. It's a very silly "what if?" Great repartee, chilling insight. but my point is, we just don't know, so therefore only a fool would try to draw a conclusion from the meager information at hand. No, a smart person would look at what's been presented... You have given me no reason to think I have been communicating with one. , use a little common sense, and realize that this round (like all of the other bits and pieces we've been finding) shows, once again, they had stuff the UN didn't know about. Again; reference? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Vaughn" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message ... In article , "Vaughn" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message .. . In article , Robey Price wrote: One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed. One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the inspectors. What inspectors? The UN inspectors. Reference? http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm I don't really think we know much about that round. See Item 36 in the above report. ...and that's the point. According to the agreements that Iraq was supposed to adhere to, all of their CW munitions were supposed to be on record. This type wasn't. Reference? Item 50 for the missing VX, if that helps. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Ed writes:
I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal. Already reduced to name calling, Ed? Read more slowly, apply in context and try not to move your lips. I called no names "dedicated liberal" is a name and a pejorative term you used to describe a poster whom you couldn't gainsay. but pointed out the emotionalism of Juvat's statements. And you called him a name. I know you're a vet. You were in Viet Nam, right? What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni called --dereliction-- of-- duty--. I just can't figure it. I mean, irrespective of what General Zinni says, do you think that things are going well in Iraq? We have @ 5,000 casualties now. I distinctly remember Vice President Cheney saying on Meet The Press before the war that we would be greeted as liberators. I don't need General Zinni to tell me that the Bush administration has --totally-- mismanaged the war. They disbanded the army; that's now seen as a mistake. They got rid of the Ba'athists, but now they are bringing some of them back. I can see for myself that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and those other neo-con bums are practically criminals. Do you recall from @ two weeks ago, when Wolfowitz misrepresented the number of KIA? He had no idea what it was. He missed the actual figure by 50%. As a veteran, now. How does that make you feel? (Might I note, that a response that implies an ad hominem attack when none was made is also a familiar gambit.) You mean like calling someone a "dedicated liberal"? General Zinni is not a liberal. He strongly urged that we not invade Iraq, Al Quaida or no. Read more slowly. Note the response is to Juvat, not a mention of Zinni in the entire post. Read more slowly. General Zinni is not a liberal, whatever else this other person may be. I generally enjoy your posts a lot. But you need to step back from what you believe and compare it to what is happening. Walt |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Leslie Swartz"
Zinni strongly supported the Clinton line (he helped develop it), and continues to refuse to admit the line was wrong. Why wrong? I don't think the Clinton "line" produced 5,000 battle casualties. We've been in Iraq for 14 months. To whom are we giving control of the country on 6/30/04? No one knows. I don't need a 4 star general to tell me that this is a disaster. Walt |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Ed sends:
I'm a "traditional conservative". A traditional conservative apparently oblivious to the 5,000 casualties we've suffered in carrying out the worst strategic blunder in living memory. "Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence." -- James Webb CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Was Iraq a blunder? GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI: Yes, in my view, it was a blunder. The president was not served well with strategy, planning, and decisions made from there. I think they misled him on what to expect— the rationale, the elements for the strategy, to the situation on the ground. It wasn't going to be a pie-in-the-sky welcome in the streets with flowers. Anyone who knew the region and knew the country knew what this was not going to happen. MATTHEWS: The sales pitch was that it was for democracy, or that scarier still, there were weapons of mass destruction. Was the salespitch, either of them, honest? ZINNI: Neither one was. Bush 41 knew Baghdad was going to be a problem. That's why we went through a course of sanctions. To believe that Saddam was an imminent threat was a real stretch for us who saw the intelligence. MATTHEWS: When [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld was on ‘Hardball' he expressed that he wasn't expecting us to be viewed as occupiers. Anyone who spends three seconds in a foreign country knows this could be the case. How could they believe that Iraq would welcome us? ZINNI: It is hard to believe. We're viewed as colonial power, especially when we don't come in under a U.N. mandate that shows a international cooperation. It plays into the hands of extremists who want to use it against us on the streets of Baghdad. I think we owe the American people the straight show. If you're doing this for a strategic reason, you need to lay it out. We bought into the exiles and their stories. MATTHEWS: Why is that? ZINNI: It's the desire to believe in it. They had a strategy. Except for those of us who know the region and had experience out there, we knew this was a disaster in the long run. I think it's the fault of the planners at the Pentagon who were responsible for the construction phase. They didn't understand the depth and complexity, and dumped this problem onto the military. But there was enough of us who had experience that expressed our worries and voiced our concerns. I have tremendous respect for [Secretary of State] Colin Powell… I don't know what went on in the inner workings of the admininstration. Colin was on the right track on Resolution 1441 in the U.N. that would internationalize this… why not wait for the inspections that would make it take a couple of months longer? MATTHEWS: Why did the president and the vice-president go together in this war with Iraq? ZINNI: The president was hit hard with 9/11 as we all were. He saw the need to make sure there were no threats that would materialize. He thought, “If this is a big threat as I'm being told, we need to do something about it.” I believe he was misled. MATTHEWS: If we were misled in terms of how easy it would be for us to go into Iraq? Who should be accountable? [Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen] Cambone, [Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas] Feith, [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld? ZINNI: Somebody ought to be held accountable. The president, the country, and the troops weren't served well. Why not all of them? MATTHEWS: What should we do with Iraq now? ZINNI: Its going to take time, hardwork, help from us, and insistence, that they execute the reform. To do it in one stroke in an intervention like this is absolutely the wrong way. We're trying to create something for Iraq it's never known. These people are confused and don't understand where you're taking them. There's suspicion on the streets that we're after oil and resources. This is diffuclt. This is not a one-year project. I think we need to convince them we're there for their futures. We have to create within them the willingness and desire to reform government and their economic system. It's not going to work with us paying it for them on the dole. We need to secure borders, road networks, troops on the ground. It's not only an issue of security. While you en-place security, that's the only way you get economic and infrastructure reconstruction to develop. Or else insurgents will blow it up every chance they get. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
I wrote:
What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni called --dereliction-- of-- duty--. I just can't figure it. Ed: Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform. Then act like it. General Zinni: "My son is a Marine Officer in the infantry. I lost a member of my family in Iraq, the son of my cousin, already. So, it’s become very personal. Not to mention, just every one of those faces I see, I recognize. I mean, not directly, but these are, I mean, knew those sergeants and corporals and PFCs after 40 years, that paid a price for this, you know?" You might consider that sort of thing yourself. The former SecNav and the former CG of Centcom are calling this a blunder -- a blunder attended with 5,000 casualties, and all you do is spout the Bushco blather. Walt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |