In article , Gunner says...

Obviously no one is blaming the Bush Administration for the recession,

Except for the voters.

It's one of those navy things. If it happens on
your watch, you're screwed.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:10:14 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You're so cute when you do economics, Gunner. g Most economists say
that
the trouble showed up in the second quarter of 2000, although the first
actual decline in GDP occurred in 2001.

Your so cute when you only look at Democrat spew when trying to make a
case....

Gunner, you wouldn't know economic "spew" if you slipped and fell in it.
What's funny here is that you have all of these quotes from sources I'm
reasonably sure you don't read (The Economist is not on many peoples'
reading lists, for example, and the Washington Post is the "rag" you've
cited before as hopelessly liberal -- and now you're quoting from one of its
editorials, of all things? Get real.)

I'm not going to glorify the bottom-dredgings you've yanked off of some
neocon blog by answering each one, but your first one is a doozy, so we'll
just tackle that one and let it stand for the rest:


ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON

Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking While Clinton
Was In Office. "America went into recession long before the terrorist
attacks of September 11th. . The new figures suggest . that the
economy grew more slowly in . 2000 than was previously thought: GDP
rose by 3.8% (compared with last year's estimate of 4.1% and an
initial figure of 5%)." ("Unwelcome Numbers," The Economist, 8/3/02)

I have a subscription to The Economist, so I just looked that article up.
It's a story about how the economy declined in 2001, not in 2000. The quote
you yanked from somewhere in cybersapce says that GDP rose by 3.8%. For
God's sake, Gunner, that's around 0.3% higher than conservative economists
thought was *healthy* just four or five years ago. 3.8% is an excellent rate
of growth for an advanced economy, by any standards. All that the comment
concerned was a revision in the Commerce Dept.'s earlier estimates.

In no way, shape or form did the article say, or even suggest, that the
economy was "shrinking" when Clinton was in office. In fact, the graph that
accompanies the article shows that GDP was growing at about 4.5% (the
revised figure, which is what the article really is about) when Clinton left
office. You could confirm this for yourself in about ten minutes by going to
the DoC site and checking the figures.

If you want, I'll send you the HTML version of the article so you can see
the whole thing, and the graph. If nothing else, it might give you pause
next time you pull quotes from the blogs. They're mostly full of crap, and
you'd do yourself a favor to lay off of them, anyway.

Ed Huntress

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:57:20 GMT, Gunner wrote:
Have you read the David Kay 3 month interim report yet that was
released recently? I suggest you do so.

It might be helpful if you read the full text, *carefully*. What it admits
is that not even one liter of nerve gas has been found. It says not a
milliliter of bioweaponry has been found. And it provides no evidence
at all, zero, of any ongoing nuclear materials enrichment. This despite
claims by Bush in the build up to invasion that Iraq had *stockpiles*
of nerve gas, bioweapons, and was within months of producing
nuclear weapons.

BTW, a nuclear material enrichment plant is basically impossible
to hide. Ever been to Oak Ridge? It takes *huge* amounts of
electricity to run an enrichment facility. That's why Oak Ridge
was located next to TVA. You can't hide something like that
for even a week from both aerial surveillance and ground truth
inspections. Basically, all you have to do is follow the heaviest
power lines to find it. Iraq doesn't have any facility with that
sort of electrical power feeding it.

Even civilian satellites like SPOT (imagery available via
Terraserver) are sufficient to spot something like that.
We don't need to depend on what politicians or their
toadys claim, we can look for ourselves.

Gary

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:33:28 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:57:20 GMT, Gunner wrote:
Have you read the David Kay 3 month interim report yet that was
released recently? I suggest you do so.

It might be helpful if you read the full text, *carefully*. What it admits
is that not even one liter of nerve gas has been found. It says not a
milliliter of bioweaponry has been found. And it provides no evidence
at all, zero, of any ongoing nuclear materials enrichment. This despite
claims by Bush in the build up to invasion that Iraq had *stockpiles*
of nerve gas, bioweapons, and was within months of producing
nuclear weapons.

BTW, a nuclear material enrichment plant is basically impossible
to hide. Ever been to Oak Ridge? It takes *huge* amounts of
electricity to run an enrichment facility. That's why Oak Ridge
was located next to TVA. You can't hide something like that
for even a week from both aerial surveillance and ground truth
inspections. Basically, all you have to do is follow the heaviest
power lines to find it. Iraq doesn't have any facility with that
sort of electrical power feeding it.

Even civilian satellites like SPOT (imagery available via
Terraserver) are sufficient to spot something like that.
We don't need to depend on what politicians or their
toadys claim, we can look for ourselves.

Gary

Correct. Nothing has been found. But the report also mentions that
they have paperwork up the ass on ongoing projects, scientists whom
have worked on it, yada yada yada. And they have only visited a very
small fraction of the 130 or so muntions dumps.

The evidence at hand still points to them having it, or having had WMD
in some quantities, and the programs continued for long after the
inspectors had gone, and there were very organized efforts to hide the
stuff, compartmentalize like crazy, etc etc.

Shrug..so the jury is STILL out and is likely to be for some time. You
will note again that fairly recently stockpiles of US NBC agents were
found, locked securely away in US munitions dumps, some 300 tons of
the stuff, during several intensive military self audits. If the stuff
can remain hidden that long in our own basements....

Gunner

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Gary Coffman wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:57:20 GMT, Gunner wrote:

Have you read the David Kay 3 month interim report yet that was
released recently? I suggest you do so.


It might be helpful if you read the full text, *carefully*. What it admits
is that not even one liter of nerve gas has been found. It says not a
milliliter of bioweaponry has been found. And it provides no evidence
at all, zero, of any ongoing nuclear materials enrichment. This despite
claims by Bush in the build up to invasion that Iraq had *stockpiles*
of nerve gas, bioweapons, and was within months of producing
nuclear weapons.

BTW, a nuclear material enrichment plant is basically impossible
to hide. Ever been to Oak Ridge? It takes *huge* amounts of
electricity to run an enrichment facility. That's why Oak Ridge
was located next to TVA. You can't hide something like that
for even a week from both aerial surveillance and ground truth
inspections. Basically, all you have to do is follow the heaviest
power lines to find it. Iraq doesn't have any facility with that
sort of electrical power feeding it.

Even civilian satellites like SPOT (imagery available via
Terraserver) are sufficient to spot something like that.
We don't need to depend on what politicians or their
toadys claim, we can look for ourselves.

Your points are well taken.

The possiblility of smuggled-in NBC weapons is still
real. For all we know there may have been solid intelligence
that Iraq had one or more nuclear warheads from some
other nuclear-capable power. Not the sort of stuff
the gov would necessarily tell us about, given that
they would still be unaccounted for.

On the other hand, maybe there's nothing. None of
us can tell for sure.

On 11 Oct 2003 19:24:49 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Obviously no one is blaming the Bush Administration for the recession,

Except for the voters.

It's one of those navy things. If it happens on
your watch, you're screwed.

Jim


Correction... change that reference to "voters" and change that to:
Except for the Media and the Lefty Politicians whom are trying to make
brownie points for the upcoming elections.

Gunner

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:33:02 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:10:14 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You're so cute when you do economics, Gunner. g Most economists say
that
the trouble showed up in the second quarter of 2000, although the first
actual decline in GDP occurred in 2001.

Your so cute when you only look at Democrat spew when trying to make a
case....

Gunner, you wouldn't know economic "spew" if you slipped and fell in it.
What's funny here is that you have all of these quotes from sources I'm
reasonably sure you don't read (The Economist is not on many peoples'
reading lists, for example, and the Washington Post is the "rag" you've
cited before as hopelessly liberal -- and now you're quoting from one of its
editorials, of all things? Get real.)

I'm not going to glorify the bottom-dredgings you've yanked off of some
neocon blog by answering each one, but your first one is a doozy, so we'll
just tackle that one and let it stand for the rest:


ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON

Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking While Clinton
Was In Office. "America went into recession long before the terrorist
attacks of September 11th. . The new figures suggest . that the
economy grew more slowly in . 2000 than was previously thought: GDP
rose by 3.8% (compared with last year's estimate of 4.1% and an
initial figure of 5%)." ("Unwelcome Numbers," The Economist, 8/3/02)

I have a subscription to The Economist, so I just looked that article up.
It's a story about how the economy declined in 2001, not in 2000. The quote
you yanked from somewhere in cybersapce says that GDP rose by 3.8%. For
God's sake, Gunner, that's around 0.3% higher than conservative economists
thought was *healthy* just four or five years ago. 3.8% is an excellent rate
of growth for an advanced economy, by any standards. All that the comment
concerned was a revision in the Commerce Dept.'s earlier estimates.

In no way, shape or form did the article say, or even suggest, that the
economy was "shrinking" when Clinton was in office. In fact, the graph that
accompanies the article shows that GDP was growing at about 4.5% (the
revised figure, which is what the article really is about) when Clinton left
office. You could confirm this for yourself in about ten minutes by going to
the DoC site and checking the figures.

If you want, I'll send you the HTML version of the article so you can see
the whole thing, and the graph. If nothing else, it might give you pause
next time you pull quotes from the blogs. They're mostly full of crap, and
you'd do yourself a favor to lay off of them, anyway.

Ed Huntress

The figures that article gave were verbatim. And any figures sited by
the DoC before the elections is subject to the spin put on it by the
Clinton administration. Short term bonds, etc etc are all part of
that spin. The growth of the economy was the result of the Dot Com
bubble expansion in your figures, and shortly thereafter..It popped.
Much of the "surplus" was projected income , primarily from Capital
Gains taxes that never materialized due to the bubble busting. Which
is one of the reasons that California is in so damned much trouble.
They spent a "projected" surplus that failed to materialize, and when
the time came to pay the bills..the money was not in the kiddy.

Do you consider Insight Magazine a Blog?

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/i...id/158410.html

I do tend to browse around the net, on diverse subjects that catch my
fancy. Hell..Ive got not much else to do, while waiting for the phone
to ring.

Do you have any comments on the last cite, from 1999, warning of the
impending trouble?

I noticed your failure to mention it.....

Gunner

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"The Rifleman" wrote:

So where are the WMD, put up or shut up, its that simple, they have had
six
months and countless lives

So? Someone as brilliant as you, trashboy, you of course know that
with the entire UN inspecting team (four times the amount of folks
searching today) and with Iraq's claimed support and openess, the UN
inspectors were still finding **** after EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS of
searching?

Given the amount of folks doing the searching today, spout your
bull**** in about 32 years and it might be more pertinent.

ral
Ral your and my lying govts told us they KNEW the Iraqis had WMD, They Knew
whjere they were and that they were ready to use them, So where the **** are
they??????........................ They dont exist do they?? Bush and Blair
are lying scum.

Now you have failed to point out that the 300 tons were found by US
military inventory takers. And you might notice..that they were in a
nice neat well known, and regularly inspected muntions dump. So having
suddenly found 300 tons of NBC muntions "lost" for what..10 or more
years..in a nice neat munitions dump, what leads you to believe that
Saddams NBC can be found in 6 months after having been hidden?

Thanks for playing.


Gunner
Ah but Gunner your Prez and his minions , The Brit and US intel agencies
assured us dozens of times thet they Knew Saddam had WMD and that they were
ready for use in 45Minutes, They said they hasd real time intel, so how can
they disappear so suddenly and not be found by the US UK or UN after six
months??, but more importantly the finding of 300 tons of NBC munitions on
US soil totally destroys the US's credability as the good guys ( again), Its
a " Do as I say, not do as I do " scenario isnt it ?. Bush , Blair and
cohave led us into an unjust and illegal war that for theUS is rapidly
beoming another Nam, and damage to US prestige is terrible ( again). Further
more if the big ole US can so easily misplace 300 tons on NBC stuff they
they most certainly do not have the right to tell other nations on how or
what to do with their weapons of mass destruction its shear hypocracy.


And the US's behaviour in Iraq does nothing to quell those beliefs, see
below

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_re...&host=3&dir=75

By Patrick Cockburn in Dhuluaya

12 October 2003

US soldiers driving bulldozers, with jazz blaring from loudspeakers, have
uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and
lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective
punishment of farmers who do not give information about guerrillas
attacking US troops.

The stumps of palm trees, some 70 years old, protrude from the brown earth
scoured by the bulldozers beside the road at Dhuluaya, a small
town 50 miles north of Baghdad. Local women were yesterday busily bundling
together the branches of the uprooted orange and lemon
trees and carrying then back to their homes for firewood.
Nusayef Jassim, one of 32 farmers who saw their fruit trees destroyed,
said: "They told us that the resistance fighters hide in our farms, but
this is not true. They didn't capture anything. They didn't find any
weapons."

Other farmers said that US troops had told them, over a loudspeaker in
Arabic, that the fruit groves were being bulldozed to punish the
farmers for not informing on the resistance which is very active in this
Sunni Muslim district.

"They made a sort of joke against us by playing jazz music while they were
cutting down the trees," said one man. Ambushes of US troops
have taken place around Dhuluaya. But Sheikh Hussein Ali Saleh al-Jabouri,
a member of a delegation that went to the nearby US base to
ask for compensation for the loss of the fruit trees, said American
officers described what had happened as "a punishment of local people
because 'you know who is in the resistance and do not tell us'." What the
Israelis had done by way of collective punishment of Palestinians
was now happening in Iraq, Sheikh Hussein added.

The destruction of the fruit trees took place in the second half of last
month but, like much which happens in rural Iraq, word of what occurred
has only slowly filtered out. The destruction of crops took place along a
kilometre-long stretch of road just after it passes over a bridge.
Farmers say that 50 families lost their livelihoods, but a petition
addressed to the coalition forces in Dhuluaya pleading in erratic English
for compensation, lists only 32 people. The petition says: "Tens of poor
families depend completely on earning their life on these orchards and
now they became very poor and have nothing and waiting for hunger and
death."

The children of one woman who owned some fruit trees lay down in front of
a
bulldozer but were dragged away, according to eyewitnesses
who did not want to give their names. They said that one American soldier
broke down and cried during the operation. When a reporter from
the newspaper Iraq Today attempted to take a photograph of the bulldozers
at work a soldier grabbed his camera and tried to smash it. The
same paper quotes Lt Col Springman, a US commander in the region, as
saying: "We asked the farmers several times to stop the attacks,
or to tell us who was responsible, but the farmers didn't tell us."
Informing US troops about the identity of their attackers would be
extremely dangerous in Iraqi villages, where most people are related and
everyone knows each other. The farmers who lost their fruit trees all
belong to the Khazraji tribe and are unlikely to give information about
fellow tribesmen if they are, in fact, attacking US troops.
Asked how much his lost orchard was worth, Nusayef Jassim said in a
distraught voice: "It is as if someone cut off my hands and you asked
me how much my hands were worth."

Or how about the hypocracy below??



Johnny Asia" wrote in message
om... CDC Shipments to
Iraq October 1, 1984 through Present

3/10/86

Dr. Rowil Shawil Georgis, M.B.CH.B.D.F.H., Officers City
Al-Muthanna, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 28/I,
Baghdad, Iraq. 1 vial Botulinum Toxiod # A-2 (non-
infectious).

4/21/56--Dr. Rowil Shawil Georgis, N.B. Cir. D.D.F.H., Officers City
Al-Muthana, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 23/r, Baghdad,
Iraq

1 vial Botulinum toxin (non-infectious).


Congressional Record: September 20, 2002 (Senate)
Page S8987-S8998



Mr. BYRD:
A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to
former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S.
Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to
Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism,
and anthrax, among other deadly diseases.

According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald
Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist
to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory.



Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention,
Atlanta, GA, June 21, 1995.
Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Riegle: In 1993, at your request, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) forwarded to your
office a listing of all biological materials, including
viruses, retroviruses, bacteria, and fungi, which CDC
provided to the government of Iraq from October 1, 1984,
through October 13, 1993. Recently, in the course of
reviewing our shipping records for a Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request from a private citizen, we identified an
additional shipment, on May 21, 1985, that was not included
on the list that was provided to your office. Following this
discovery, we conducted a thorough review of all of our
shipping records and are confident that we have now included
a listing of all shipments. A corrected list is enclosed
(Note: the new information is italicized).
These additional materials were hand-carried by Dr.
Mohammad Mahoud to Iraq after he had spent three months
training in a CDC laboratory. Most of the materials were non-
infectious diagnostic reagents for detecting evidence of
infections to mosquito-borne viruses. Only two of the
materials are on the Commodity Control List, i.e., Yersinin
Pestis (the agent of plague) and dengue virus. (the strain of
plague bacillus was non-virulent, and CDC is currently
petitioning the Department of Commerce to remove this
particular variant from the list of controlled materials).
We regret that our earlier list was incomplete and
appreciate your understanding.
Sincerely,
David Satcher,
Director.
Enclosure. (Copy unclear)

CDC Shipments to Iraq October 1, 1984 through Present


3/10/86

Dr. Rowil Shawil Georgis, M.B.CH.B.D.F.H., Officers City
Al-Muthanna, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 28/I,
Baghdad, Iraq. 1 vial Botulinum Toxiod # A-2 (non-
infectious).

4/21/56--Dr. Rowil Shawil Georgis, N.B. Cir. D.D.F.H., Officers City
Al-Muthana, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 23/r, Baghdad,
Iraq

1 vial Botulinum toxin (non-infections).


The complete list of toxins supplied to Iraq:
http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations...rd_020920.html



+

"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw

Johnny Asia, Pope-About-Town
The First Church of Common Sense

Want to know what's REALLY going on in Iraq?
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/wakeup.html

Cowboys and Idiots: The Reagan Administration
Ronnies' "Brave freedom fighters" are now Bushs'
"evildoers" who "hate our freedoms".
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/reagan.html

The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roller Empire
The God-Awful Truth about Christian Zionism
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/armageddon.html


The US is shooting itself in the fooot I fear old friend, Regards Steve

+

Same for the Umitilla Army Depot in Oregon. They built an incenerator
but the environmentalists have stopped the project in favor of
chemical neutralization that won't put as much crap in the air but
is more dangerous to human beings and produces a whole lot more
toxic chemical waste that has to be gotten rid of.

Typical environmentalists agin, Don't know their ass from a hole in
the ground.

The Independent


Dale Scroggins wrote:

Gunner wrote:


The US has had a long history of having BC in its
inventory and made no bones about it. Unlike Iraq though we never
intentionally used it on our enemies, or our countrymen. The various
treaties called for the destruction of our stockpiles, which we did,
for years.

We ain't done yet, Gunner. We just started on a large stock near Pine
Bluff, Arkansas. It's been all over the papers around here, but nobody
else has heard much about it, apparently. Nerve gas, mostly. Thousands
of tons of the stuff.

Dale

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

I'm not going to glorify the bottom-dredgings you've yanked off of some
neocon blog by answering each one, but your first one is a doozy, so
we'll
just tackle that one and let it stand for the rest:


ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON

Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking While Clinton
Was In Office. "America went into recession long before the terrorist
attacks of September 11th. . The new figures suggest . that the
economy grew more slowly in . 2000 than was previously thought: GDP
rose by 3.8% (compared with last year's estimate of 4.1% and an
initial figure of 5%)." ("Unwelcome Numbers," The Economist, 8/3/02)

I have a subscription to The Economist, so I just looked that article up.
It's a story about how the economy declined in 2001, not in 2000. The
quote
you yanked from somewhere in cybersapce says that GDP rose by 3.8%. For
God's sake, Gunner, that's around 0.3% higher than conservative
economists
thought was *healthy* just four or five years ago. 3.8% is an excellent
rate
of growth for an advanced economy, by any standards. All that the comment
concerned was a revision in the Commerce Dept.'s earlier estimates.

In no way, shape or form did the article say, or even suggest, that the
economy was "shrinking" when Clinton was in office. In fact, the graph
that
accompanies the article shows that GDP was growing at about 4.5% (the
revised figure, which is what the article really is about) when Clinton
left
office. You could confirm this for yourself in about ten minutes by going
to
the DoC site and checking the figures.

If you want, I'll send you the HTML version of the article so you can see
the whole thing, and the graph. If nothing else, it might give you pause
next time you pull quotes from the blogs. They're mostly full of crap,
and
you'd do yourself a favor to lay off of them, anyway.

Ed Huntress


The figures that article gave were verbatim.

No, verbatim means "in the exact words." See those little dots in your
original quote? They should be three dots each, ellipses, which is where
they took words *out*.

In fact, the article in The Economist makes a very different point from the
one that your quote tries to squeeze out of it. It says the economy slid in
2001, not 2000, and the revised growth figures for 2000 are almost an aside.
Once again, the growth rate at the beginning of Bush's term was 4.5% -- an
excellent rate of growth, one that conservative economists would have
considered "overheated" as late at 1995, before they realized how to have
that much growth without inflation. (Hint: it's in the money supply, which
is what made Greenspan look like a genius for so long.)

And any figures sited by
the DoC before the elections is subject to the spin put on it by the
Clinton administration. Short term bonds, etc etc are all part of
that spin.

Gunner, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't learn economics
from incidental reading online.

The growth of the economy was the result of the Dot Com
bubble expansion in your figures, and shortly thereafter..It popped.
Much of the "surplus" was projected income , primarily from Capital
Gains taxes that never materialized due to the bubble busting. Which
is one of the reasons that California is in so damned much trouble.
They spent a "projected" surplus that failed to materialize, and when
the time came to pay the bills..the money was not in the kiddy.

California is not the US (thank God). Your theory about the "bubble" is a
bunch of hogwash. Explain for us, please, why manufacturing employment
increased during the bubble, and why capital investment in manufacturing was
going like a house afire. For starters, remember that the investment in
manufacturing was being financed by debt, not by equity, so don't try to put
a stock-market spin on it.


Do you consider Insight Magazine a Blog?

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/i...id/158410.html

What the hell does that have to do with the article from The Economist? The
article your URL points to is a polemic that most legitimate economists
would take with a fat grain of salt. Capital for dot-coms dried up, in the
analysis of most economists, because they weren't showing a profit and it
was becoming increasingly obvious that they weren't going to.


I do tend to browse around the net, on diverse subjects that catch my
fancy. Hell..Ive got not much else to do, while waiting for the phone
to ring.

If you want to get serious about economics, read books, not the Internet.


Do you have any comments on the last cite, from 1999, warning of the
impending trouble?

I noticed your failure to mention it.....

I didn't even read it. As has happened before, I started checking your
"cites" and found that the very first one was an out-and-out lie, so I
didn't waste my time with the rest. That's become an unpleasant pattern with
your extensive quotations...from sources you never read.

You just cut and paste somebody else's collection of polemic and bull****,
and then challenge everyone to refute it. Well, I just did. I went back and
read the original article. Your very first quote was bull****, and you
probably had no way of knowing that one way or the other. That's not the way
to become informed.

Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Once again, the growth rate at the beginning of Bush's term was 4.5% ...

Ah, so *that's* a 'recession.'

I'm just learning so much here.

:^)

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"The Rifleman" wrote:

So where are the WMD, put up or shut up, its that simple, they have
had six
months and countless lives

So? Someone as brilliant as you, trashboy, you of course know that
with the entire UN inspecting team (four times the amount of folks
searching today) and with Iraq's claimed support and openess, the UN
inspectors were still finding **** after EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS of
searching?

Given the amount of folks doing the searching today, spout your
bull**** in about 32 years and it might be more pertinent.

It is a bit ironic that Bush supporters apparently claim that more time
is required to locate the proof of the facts asserted by Bush about
WMDs, but Bush himself was unwilling to allow the UN inspectors more
time to do the very same thing.

Jeff

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:15:24 +0100, "The Rifleman"
wrote:


Now you have failed to point out that the 300 tons were found by US
military inventory takers. And you might notice..that they were in a
nice neat well known, and regularly inspected muntions dump. So having
suddenly found 300 tons of NBC muntions "lost" for what..10 or more
years..in a nice neat munitions dump, what leads you to believe that
Saddams NBC can be found in 6 months after having been hidden?

Thanks for playing.


Gunner
Ah but Gunner your Prez and his minions , The Brit and US intel agencies
assured us dozens of times thet they Knew Saddam had WMD and that they were
ready for use in 45Minutes, They said they hasd real time intel, so how can
they disappear so suddenly and not be found by the US UK or UN after six
months??,

Its not particularly hard to carry off or bury a large quantity of NBC
devices by truck in a couple months..which is the time frame we gave
them. How long does it take to load NBC devices onto an aircrafts
hardpoints, or into the barrel of a mortor? Those dispensers are
easily portable and may likely have been in that long line of vehicles
heading into Syria in the weeks leading up to the war.


but more importantly the finding of 300 tons of NBC munitions on
US soil totally destroys the US's credability as the good guys ( again), Its
a " Do as I say, not do as I do " scenario isnt it ?.

Not at all. The US has had a long history of having BC in its
inventory and made no bones about it. Unlike Iraq though we never
intentionally used it on our enemies, or our countrymen. The various
treaties called for the destruction of our stockpiles, which we did,
for years. We had LOTS of the stuff..thousands and thousands of tons
of the stuff. The 300 tons that were found were misplaced within the
system, no differently than if a couple tanks had gotten mislaid. We
found it ourselves, admitted the ****up publicly and it was added to
the material to be destroyed. Shug, Happens in every army. 300 tons of
binary artillery shells is not a particularly big pile as Im sure you
are well aware. Its quite common to "lose" quantities of ordnance,
trucks etc etc, even though its still under lock and key. Have you
ever seen a US continental munitions storage depot? They cover dozens
of square miles. The one at Tonapah Nev takes an hour to pass, at
freeway speeds. Its been said that there are munitions stored there
from the Spanish American war. The American west is studded with such
depots. Literally thousands of such sites.

Gunner

Bush , Blair and
cohave led us into an unjust and illegal war that for theUS is rapidly
beoming another Nam, and damage to US prestige is terrible ( again). Further
more if the big ole US can so easily misplace 300 tons on NBC stuff they
they most certainly do not have the right to tell other nations on how or
what to do with their weapons of mass destruction its shear hypocracy.


Sure we have the right. We have destroyed ours, even the stuff that
was misplaced. And we have no history of using it on our enemies or
friends, and quite frankly we have the might to make it so. Its a
much smaller world today..and we cannot afford to have an enemy use
the stuff on us or our allies. If we hadnt taken the moral high road,
we would never have destroyed the massive stockpiles we had built up
in response to the USSRs doing exactly the same thing. A couple of
countries as resourceful as the US and the USSR can make a unthinkable
amount of war spit in 60 yrs.


Mr. BYRD:
A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to
former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S.
Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to
Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism,
and anthrax, among other deadly diseases.

We indeed did ALLOW Iraqi scientists to receive those samples. They
were scientists alleged to be working on immunology for their versions
of infectious disease medical eradication programs. We have allowed
other nations to receive such samples. Many many of them in fact, and
most all of them were used by those nations in developing vaccines and
anti-toxins. Iraq used them in their version of the CDC as well.
Unfortunately its likely some was siphoned off for BC warfare
research. The US also let Germany and France sell them chemical
factories that could be used to make benificial insecticides or
commercial chemical compounds...or war spit. Im sure the UK has traded
samples with other nations as well, or are your scientists not working
on cancer research, vaccines against AIDs and ebola, just to name a
few?

Its a common fact that the UK has had a very long history of BC
warfare research, and in fact has had a few accidents along the
way...there being a few islands in your fair nation that are still
totally off limits due to massive contamination of anthrax etc etc.

So climb down off your high horse. No one was perfect, the right hands
didnt know what the left hands were doing etc etc, and thats pretty
darned typical of any nation. But like the UK, we have destroyed our
BC stockpiles and have determined that its a good thing if all other
nations did the same. Most have. Not all.

According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald
Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist
to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory.

Note the agents provided:

"1 vial Botulinum toxin (non-infections)."

"Most of the materials were non-
infectious diagnostic reagents for detecting evidence of
infections to mosquito-borne viruses. Only two of the
materials are on the Commodity Control List, i.e., Yersinin
Pestis (the agent of plague) and dengue virus. (the strain of
plague bacillus was non-virulent,"

One should note..that those strains are rather common in the Iraq
area, and Dengue fever is very common in the southern areas along with
most of the Nile River basins. Mosquito born infections are rather a
big problem in portions of Iraq.





Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention,
Atlanta, GA, June 21, 1995.
Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Riegle: In 1993, at your request, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) forwarded to your
office a listing of all biological materials, including
viruses, retroviruses, bacteria, and fungi, which CDC
provided to the government of Iraq from October 1, 1984,
through October 13, 1993. Recently, in the course of
reviewing our shipping records for a Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request from a private citizen, we identified an
additional shipment, on May 21, 1985, that was not included
on the list that was provided to your office. Following this
discovery, we conducted a thorough review of all of our
shipping records and are confident that we have now included
a listing of all shipments. A corrected list is enclosed
(Note: the new information is italicized).
These additional materials were hand-carried by Dr.
Mohammad Mahoud to Iraq after he had spent three months
training in a CDC laboratory. Most of the materials were non-
infectious diagnostic reagents for detecting evidence of
infections to mosquito-borne viruses. Only two of the
materials are on the Commodity Control List, i.e., Yersinin
Pestis (the agent of plague) and dengue virus. (the strain of
plague bacillus was non-virulent, and CDC is currently
petitioning the Department of Commerce to remove this
particular variant from the list of controlled materials).
We regret that our earlier list was incomplete and
appreciate your understanding.
Sincerely,
David Satcher,
Director.
Enclosure. (Copy unclear)

CDC Shipments to Iraq October 1, 1984 through Present


3/10/86

Dr. Rowil Shawil Georgis, M.B.CH.B.D.F.H., Officers City
Al-Muthanna, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 28/I,
Baghdad, Iraq. 1 vial Botulinum Toxiod # A-2 (non-
infectious).

4/21/56--Dr. Rowil Shawil Georgis, N.B. Cir. D.D.F.H., Officers City
Al-Muthana, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 23/r, Baghdad,
Iraq

1 vial Botulinum toxin (non-infections).


The complete list of toxins supplied to Iraq:
http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations...rd_020920.html

I suggest you read this list carefully.

Gunner




+

"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism
by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw

Johnny Asia, Pope-About-Town
The First Church of Common Sense

Want to know what's REALLY going on in Iraq?
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/wakeup.html

Cowboys and Idiots: The Reagan Administration
Ronnies' "Brave freedom fighters" are now Bushs'
"evildoers" who "hate our freedoms".
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/reagan.html

The Rise and Fall of the Holy Roller Empire
The God-Awful Truth about Christian Zionism
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/armageddon.html


The US is shooting itself in the fooot I fear old friend, Regards Steve

+


"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:49:27 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Do you have any comments on the last cite, from 1999, warning of the
impending trouble?

I noticed your failure to mention it.....

I didn't even read it. As has happened before, I started checking your
"cites" and found that the very first one was an out-and-out lie, so I
didn't waste my time with the rest. That's become an unpleasant pattern with
your extensive quotations...from sources you never read.

Read that as "I didnt agree with it, so it must be a lie"

Shug, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Respects

Gunner

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:49:27 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Do you have any comments on the last cite, from 1999, warning of the
impending trouble?

I noticed your failure to mention it.....

I didn't even read it. As has happened before, I started checking your
"cites" and found that the very first one was an out-and-out lie, so I
didn't waste my time with the rest. That's become an unpleasant pattern
with
your extensive quotations...from sources you never read.

Read that as "I didnt agree with it, so it must be a lie"

No, it was a lie. I still remember what "lie" means, which probably makes me
a throwback. Do you remember?

Here's the lie, from your quote:

ECONOMIC DATA CONFIRMS SLOWDOWN BEGAN UNDER CLINTON

Economic Statistics Confirm U.S. Economy Was Shrinking While Clinton
Was In Office. "America went into recession long before the terrorist
attacks of September 11th. . The new figures suggest . that the
economy grew more slowly in . 2000 than was previously thought: GDP
rose by 3.8% (compared with last year's estimate of 4.1% and an
initial figure of 5%)." ("Unwelcome Numbers," The Economist, 8/3/02)

The lie(s) is (are), the economic data you quoted from "confirm" no such
thing. In fact, the article cited doesn't even imply such a thing.

Maybe it's best if I spell it out. Clinton wasn't President in 2000, so
"slower growth" then confirms nothing about the previous period. It isn't
even mentioned or suggested in the article. The article is about the
"unwelcome numbers" from 2001 - 2002, not about what happened during the
Clinton administration. Even the mention of "slower growth" during 2000 cite
a figure that is rip-roaring growth [4.5% at the time Clinton left office]
by any established standards for an economy like that of the US.

By selecting and arranging words, your citation suggests that The Economist
was saying that the recession began during Clinton's administration. Not so.
It didn't even say it started in 2000, after Bush was in office. It says it
started in 2001.

Here's the actual quote, from which your citation selected a sentence:

"According to the Commerce Department's new figures, released on July 31st
[2002], the economy was actually shrinking for the first nine months of
2001. America went into recession long before the terrorist attacks of
September 11th."

In fact, it's now accepted that it began in March 2001, more than a year
after Bush took office. That was when the recession, which has a specific
meaning in economics, began. The rest is bull**** prognostication, and there
isn't a hint of support in the article from The Economist that they were
saying it started under Clinton.

So, where are these statistics that "confirm" the slowdown began under
Clinton? Nowhere in the article from which you drew your quote. I have the
whole article here.

Does anyone remember what a "lie" means? For a refresher, your citation is a
lie. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of the statement they made
being untrue, demonstrably so (hell, it's just words in an article that they
lied about, so it doesn't take any analysis) and they know it.

Ed Huntress

On 12 Oct 2003 08:24:56 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Once again, the growth rate at the beginning of Bush's term was 4.5% ...

Ah, so *that's* a 'recession.'

I'm just learning so much here.

Yeah, silly old me. I believed the definition that a recession is 3 or
more consecutive quarters where the "growth" figure has a *minus*
sign in front of it (in other words where the GDP is in actual decline).
Now Gunner is telling us that an expanding economy is a recession.
Must be that New Math stuff they're teaching the kids.

Gary

"mikee" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:

SNIP

In fact, it's now accepted that it began in March 2001, more than a year
after Bush took office.

Ed,

I don't know if you or someone else posted the above statement (a problem
with
long running threads sometimes) and I don't profess to be any kind of
economics
expert but this statement is incorrect.

GW Bush was elected in November 2000, and inaugrated on Jan 20, 2001.
March
2001 is 2 months after, not "more than a year."

Ah, you're dead right, Mike. I always mix up years of election and years of
inauguration.

However, the absurd part of that quote was that a growth rate of 3.8% for
the year 2000 "confirms" that the recession was due to Clinton policies. The
recession didn't even begin until Bush's term.

None of which says that the recession was Bush's fault *or* Clinton's fault.
Presidents don't have a lot to do with recessions. As I said earlier, this
last recession was a normal downswing of the business cycle. The silliness
started when someone said five or six years ago that business cycles were a
thing of the past. Obviously, they're not.

Ed Huntress

Gunner wrote:


The US has had a long history of having BC in its
inventory and made no bones about it. Unlike Iraq though we never
intentionally used it on our enemies, or our countrymen. The various
treaties called for the destruction of our stockpiles, which we did,
for years.

We ain't done yet, Gunner. We just started on a large stock near Pine
Bluff, Arkansas. It's been all over the papers around here, but nobody
else has heard much about it, apparently. Nerve gas, mostly. Thousands
of tons of the stuff.

Dale

The economy began to decline when the Justice Dept started dropping the
hammer on Microsoft. All that talk about monopolies spooked the stock
market and the big crash began. I remember that day telling some of my
co workers that it was time to get real about the stock market and the
way people had been borrowing money to buy stocks. Stocks are not assets
that appreciate forever. Its easy to forget this in the good times. You
are gambling that say Oracle will have a good year. What the hell does
Oracle even make? Just an example of the reason our economy got so far
out of kilter. In my opinion we need to start actually making things
again or just accept that living a little lower is OK.

And lo, it came about, that on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 06:33:27 GMT in
misc.survivalism , Gunner was inspired to utter:


Correct. Nothing has been found. But the report also mentions that
they have paperwork up the ass on ongoing projects, scientists whom
have worked on it, yada yada yada. And they have only visited a very
small fraction of the 130 or so muntions dumps.

The evidence at hand still points to them having it, or having had WMD
in some quantities, and the programs continued for long after the
inspectors had gone, and there were very organized efforts to hide the
stuff, compartmentalize like crazy, etc etc.

I'm fully prepared to accept that the Iraqi government destroyed the
chemical, nuclear and biological weapons on their own. But I would be very
concerned that these very hazardous, toxic and environmentally degrading
materials had been just "dumped" someplace and not handled in a safe and sane
manner.
When the Iraqi's destroyed these chemical stocks, did they do it in a safe
manner, or just pour them in a sewer? Truly concerned people would like to
know that.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
The cliche is that history rarely repeats herself. Usually she just
lets fly with a frying pan and yells "Why weren't you listening
the first time!?"

Gunner wrote:

On 11 Oct 2003 19:24:49 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Obviously no one is blaming the Bush Administration for the recession,

Except for the voters.

It's one of those navy things. If it happens on
your watch, you're screwed.

Jim


Correction... change that reference to "voters" and change that to:
Except for the Media and the Lefty Politicians whom are trying to make
brownie points for the upcoming elections.

Gunner


There you go again with that "whom" thingy.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Ed Huntress wrote:

SNIP

In fact, it's now accepted that it began in March 2001, more than a year
after Bush took office.

Ed,

I don't know if you or someone else posted the above statement (a problem with
long running threads sometimes) and I don't profess to be any kind of economics
expert but this statement is incorrect.

GW Bush was elected in November 2000, and inaugrated on Jan 20, 2001. March
2001 is 2 months after, not "more than a year."

Mike Eberlein

Not at all. The US has had a long history of having BC in its
inventory and made no bones about it. Unlike Iraq though we never
intentionally used it on our enemies, or our countrymen.

So Agent Orange was never used in Vietnam???????, Vietnamese people and Yank
Grunts never got poisened by Chemical defoliants dropped and sprayed by
trhe USAF.

Gunner my much vaunted and greatly respected friend I think you are telling
me fibs ???

Sure we have the right. We have destroyed ours, even the stuff that
was misplaced. And we have no history of using it on our enemies or
friends, and quite frankly we have the might to make it so.

Just thinking about the US army and its deliberate infecting of certain
black troops with syphalis as well???

And yes I agree our country aint perfect either but we are not trying to
claim the moral highground, america is.

The US has had a long history of having BC in its
inventory and made no bones about it. Unlike Iraq though we never
intentionally used it on our enemies, or our countrymen. The various
treaties called for the destruction of our stockpiles, which we did,
for years.

We ain't done yet, Gunner. We just started on a large stock near Pine
Bluff, Arkansas. It's been all over the papers around here, but nobody
else has heard much about it, apparently. Nerve gas, mostly. Thousands
of tons of the stuff.

Dale

I rest my case Gunner?? , and you owe me a crate of beer )

"Jim Dauven" wrote in message
...
Same for the Umitilla Army Depot in Oregon. They built an incenerator
but the environmentalists have stopped the project in favor of
chemical neutralization that won't put as much crap in the air but
is more dangerous to human beings and produces a whole lot more
toxic chemical waste that has to be gotten rid of.



You were saying Gunner old chap )

"D.B." wrote in message
t...

Ed Huntress wrote:
None of which says that the recession was Bush's fault *or* Clinton's
fault.
Presidents don't have a lot to do with recessions. As I said earlier,
this
last recession was a normal downswing of the business cycle. The
silliness
started when someone said five or six years ago that business cycles
were a
thing of the past. Obviously, they're not.

Ed Huntress



It's only fair to blame Bush. If the economy were booming,
the same Bush sycophants that are crying foul Bush when is
blamed for the poor economy would be praising him for the
booming economy.

I'm sure you're right about that, Dick, but it doesn't help understanding to
toss out blame. What happened to our economy during the '90s was
unpredictable and unprecedented. We got a few things right that we'd never
done right before (such as controlling money supply to control inflation and
wage pressures), and a few things happened because of unpredicted
technological developments (IT-based productivity improvements), and the
unknowns that resulted were largely uncontrollable -- because no one knew
how to control them. So, the economy overheated and it led to a bust.

It's happened dozens of times before. The policymakers got it more right
than not. Much of the downside occurred despite policies, not because of
them.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

In article , Gunner says...

It's one of those navy things. If it happens on
your watch, you're screwed.

Correction... change that reference to "voters" and change that to:
Except for the Media and the Lefty Politicians whom are trying to make
brownie points for the upcoming elections.

I don't give a **** about the media. They can go **** up
a rope for all I care. But GWB will be in tough, tough
shape if he as to try for re-election with so many folks
unemployed in the US right now.

Take away all the WMD crap,
Take away all the Iraq war costs,
Take away all the soldier's families,
Take away all the Haliburton stuff,
Take away all the Patriot Act nonsense,
Take away the gas price increases,

That's all a tiny drop in the bucket
if most of his voters who who otherwise
be siding with him, are out of work.
That 'center' part of the US you always
talk about.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

As I said earlier, this last recession was a normal downswing of the
business cycle. The silliness started when someone said five or six years ago
that business cycles were a thing of the past. Obviously, they're not.

The New Econony? I haven't been following this thread but this sounds a bit
like the 1920's. "We have entered a period of perpetual properity".


Gary Brady
Austin, TX

"Gary Brady" wrote in message
...
As I said earlier, this last recession was a normal downswing of the
business cycle. The silliness started when someone said five or six years
ago
that business cycles were a thing of the past. Obviously, they're not.

The New Econony? I haven't been following this thread but this sounds a
bit
like the 1920's. "We have entered a period of perpetual properity".

Ha! Yeah, I saw something recently that said our stock market is on an
upswing, and things haven't looked so good since 1928. g

Ed Huntress

"Jeff McCann" wrote:

It is a bit ironic that Bush supporters apparently claim that more time
is required to locate the proof of the facts asserted by Bush about
WMDs, but Bush himself was unwilling to allow the UN inspectors more
time to do the very same thing.

You have that backwards, J. The irony is the part where the guys who
spent 12 years looking still claimed that all they needed was more
time....when fourteen years said it wasn't working.

ral

Jeff

And lo, it came about, that on Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:16:32 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking , "Ed Huntress" was inspired
to utter:

"mikee" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:

SNIP

In fact, it's now accepted that it began in March 2001, more than a year
after Bush took office.

Ed,

I don't know if you or someone else posted the above statement (a problem
with
long running threads sometimes) and I don't profess to be any kind of
economics
expert but this statement is incorrect.

GW Bush was elected in November 2000, and inaugrated on Jan 20, 2001.
March
2001 is 2 months after, not "more than a year."

Ah, you're dead right, Mike. I always mix up years of election and years of
inauguration.

However, the absurd part of that quote was that a growth rate of 3.8% for
the year 2000 "confirms" that the recession was due to Clinton policies. The
recession didn't even begin until Bush's term.

None of which says that the recession was Bush's fault *or* Clinton's fault.
Presidents don't have a lot to do with recessions. As I said earlier, this
last recession was a normal downswing of the business cycle. The silliness
started when someone said five or six years ago that business cycles were a
thing of the past. Obviously, they're not.

As i said in 1993, when I was told the Bush Recession had been ended by
Clinton's policies, what exactly had he done to cause the recession to end?
Amazing how the Bush recession ended the month that Clinton was elected, three
months before he could present a budget, and 11 months before his proposed
budget would have taken place.

Ah well, the good men do is oft interred with their bones.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
The cliche is that history rarely repeats herself. Usually she just
lets fly with a frying pan and yells "Why weren't you listening
the first time!?"

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:18:08 +0100, "The Rifleman"
wrote:


"Jim Dauven" wrote in message
...
Same for the Umitilla Army Depot in Oregon. They built an incenerator
but the environmentalists have stopped the project in favor of
chemical neutralization that won't put as much crap in the air but
is more dangerous to human beings and produces a whole lot more
toxic chemical waste that has to be gotten rid of.



You were saying Gunner old chap )

Saying what? That we have huge stockpiles of BC that we are
destroying? Of course, and thats been no secret.

Your question was?

Gunner

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:13:44 +0100, "The Rifleman"
wrote:


Not at all. The US has had a long history of having BC in its
inventory and made no bones about it. Unlike Iraq though we never
intentionally used it on our enemies, or our countrymen.

So Agent Orange was never used in Vietnam???????, Vietnamese people and Yank
Grunts never got poisened by Chemical defoliants dropped and sprayed by
trhe USAF.

Gunner my much vaunted and greatly respected friend I think you are telling
me fibs ???

Agent orange was not considered a war chemical. It was also used in
several other countries for what it was intended for..a defoliant, and
as such, was not considered a antipersonnel device as all the other
war gases and bio agents are.

That's like saying gasoline was a chemical agent....

Gunner

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:16:13 +0100, "The Rifleman"
wrote:


Sure we have the right. We have destroyed ours, even the stuff that
was misplaced. And we have no history of using it on our enemies or
friends, and quite frankly we have the might to make it so.

Just thinking about the US army and its deliberate infecting of certain
black troops with syphalis as well???

That never happened. We did however allow individuals already infected
to continue to be infected as we tracked the course of their disease.
Still a terrible thing however.

And yes I agree our country aint perfect either but we are not trying to
claim the moral highground, america is.

At which time in which part of our history? Your history is rotten
with horrible things as well. Perhaps indeed far more than ours, so
if you wish to define todays US with bad **** that happened 50 yrs
ago..shall we discuss similar situations with the UK?

Gunner

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

As i said in 1993, when I was told the Bush Recession had been ended by
Clinton's policies, what exactly had he done to cause the recession to end?
Amazing how the Bush recession ended the month that Clinton was elected, three
months before he could present a budget, and 11 months before his proposed
budget would have taken place.

Nobody listens to me.

1) if it happens on that president's watch, it's his
fault/responsibility/good fortune.

2) politicians cannot influence the economy.

3) each political party wants to a) blame the other one
when something bad happens to the economy, or b) take
credit for good things.

4) taking credit or laying blame can be done by parties
in office, or those not in office. Just takes a bit
more hand waving to take credit for a good thing if
your party is out of office when it happens, or blaming
the other one if you are in office when it happens.
Ie, 'it's *clinton's* recession...'

5) absence of EB and SC as noted before.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Ha! Yeah, I saw something recently that said our stock market is on an
upswing, and things haven't looked so good since 1928. g

"Just, around, the corner, there's a rainbow in the sky. So
let's have another cup of coffee, lets eat another piece of
pie."

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 06:33:27 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:33:28 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:57:20 GMT, Gunner wrote:
Have you read the David Kay 3 month interim report yet that was
released recently? I suggest you do so.

It might be helpful if you read the full text, *carefully*. What it admits
is that not even one liter of nerve gas has been found. It says not a
milliliter of bioweaponry has been found. And it provides no evidence
at all, zero, of any ongoing nuclear materials enrichment. This despite
claims by Bush in the build up to invasion that Iraq had *stockpiles*
of nerve gas, bioweapons, and was within months of producing
nuclear weapons.

BTW, a nuclear material enrichment plant is basically impossible
to hide. Ever been to Oak Ridge? It takes *huge* amounts of
electricity to run an enrichment facility. That's why Oak Ridge
was located next to TVA. You can't hide something like that
for even a week from both aerial surveillance and ground truth
inspections. Basically, all you have to do is follow the heaviest
power lines to find it. Iraq doesn't have any facility with that
sort of electrical power feeding it.

Even civilian satellites like SPOT (imagery available via
Terraserver) are sufficient to spot something like that.
We don't need to depend on what politicians or their
toadys claim, we can look for ourselves.

Gary

Correct. Nothing has been found. But the report also mentions that
they have paperwork up the ass on ongoing projects, scientists whom
have worked on it, yada yada yada. And they have only visited a very
small fraction of the 130 or so muntions dumps.

"Who", not "whom". :-)

We also have the testimony of former Iraqi officials that there was
an enormous amount of skimming going on. Like most 2nd and 3rd
world countries, Iraq has more than its share of corrupt government
employees capable of dummying up paperwork to get paid for doing
nothing.

The evidence at hand still points to them having it, or having had WMD
in some quantities, and the programs continued for long after the
inspectors had gone, and there were very organized efforts to hide the
stuff, compartmentalize like crazy, etc etc.

There's no question that they had chemical weapons prior to 1991.
However, there is no credible evidence that they did not destroy
their stockpiles. In fact there is eyewitness testimony from former
Iraqi servicemen that they did take stocks of chemical munitions
out into the desert and detonate them. All the paperwork on that
may not have been done to a bureaucrat's satisfaction, however,
because few Iraqi enlisted personnel have a bureaucrat's fetish
for doing paperwork.

Shrug..so the jury is STILL out and is likely to be for some time. You
will note again that fairly recently stockpiles of US NBC agents were
found, locked securely away in US munitions dumps, some 300 tons of
the stuff, during several intensive military self audits. If the stuff
can remain hidden that long in our own basements....

Then there may be some forgotten chemical stocks in Iraq. I agree
that's possible. As I said, they didn't keep very good records. If the
paperwork crazy US Army can lose stockpiles, it is certainly possible
that some of that could have happened in Iraq too. That's very different
from what the Bush administration was claiming prior to the invasion,
however.

Gary

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:11:23 GMT, pyotr filipivich wrote:
I'm fully prepared to accept that the Iraqi government destroyed the
chemical, nuclear and biological weapons on their own. But I would be very
concerned that these very hazardous, toxic and environmentally degrading
materials had been just "dumped" someplace and not handled in a safe and sane
manner.
When the Iraqi's destroyed these chemical stocks, did they do it in a safe
manner, or just pour them in a sewer? Truly concerned people would like to
know that.

Eyewitness reports from former Iraqi servicemen say that they just took the
munitions out into the desert and detonated them (I'm assuming from well
upwind). They've got lots of desert, and most of the agents are non-persistent,
so while that might not satisfy US enviroweenies, it was probably an adequate
way of dealing with them.

Gary