Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD


http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD

16 Nov 2007





Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the
missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence
officers belonging to the non-partisan IntelligenceSummit.org, have
been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The
inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all,
but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word
research paper with citations to each captured document has been
posted online at LoftusReport.com. This document research has been
supplemented with dozens of interviews.

The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a
bit chagrinned at these disclosures. The documents show a much more
complex history than previously suspected. The "Bush lied, people
died" chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991
- and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon
diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the
treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand
dunes of Iraq. Each side is more than a little bit wrong about
Saddam's WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what
happened to it.





The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam's
WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990's.
Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to
his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990's. The Russians
insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the
war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam's nuclear weapons
labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces
arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous
underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam's entire
nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out
from under the Americans' noses. The theft of the unguarded Iraqi
nuclear stockpile is perhaps, the worst scandal of the war, suggesting
a level of extreme incompetence and gross dereliction of duty that
makes the Hurricane Katrina debacle look like a model of efficiency.



Without pointing fingers at the Americans, the Israeli government now
believes that Saddam Hussein's nuclear stockpiles have ended up in
weapons dumps in Syria. Debkafile, a somewhat reliable private
Israeli intelligence service, has recently published a report claiming
that the Syrians were importing North Korean plutonium to be mixed
with Saddam's enriched uranium. Allegedly, the Syrians were close to
completing a warhead factory next to Saddam's WMD dump in Deir al
Zour, Syria to produce hundreds, if not thousands, of super toxic
"dirty bombs" that would pollute wherever they landed in Israel for
the next several thousands of years. Debka alleged that it was this
combination factory/WMD dump site which was the target of the recent
Israeli air strike in Deir al Zour province..



Senior sources in the Israeli government have privately confirmed to
me that the recent New York Times articles and satellite photographs
about the Israeli raid on an alleged Syrian nuclear target in Al
Tabitha, Syria were of the completely wrong location. Armed with this
knowledge, I searched Google Earth satellite photos for the rest of
the province of Deir al Zour for a site that would match the
unofficial Israeli descriptions: camouflaged black factory building,
next to a military ammunition dump, between an airport and an orchard.
There is a clear match in only one location, Longitude 35 degrees, 16
minutes 49.31 seconds North, Latitude 40 degrees, 3 minutes, 29.97
seconds East. Analysts and members of the public are invited to
determine for themselves whether this was indeed the weapons dump for
Saddam's WMD.



Photos of this complex taken after the Israel raid appear to show
that all of the buildings, earthern blast berms, bunkers, roads, even
the acres of blackened topsoil, have all been dug up and removed. All
that remains are what appear to be smoothed over bomb craters. Of
course, that is not of itself definitive proof, but it is extremely
suspicious.



It should be noted that the American interrogators had accurate
information about a possible Deir al Zour location shortly after the
war, but ignored it:

"An Iraqi dissident going by the name of "Abu Abdallah" claims that on
March 10, 2003, 50 trucks arrived in Deir Al-Zour, Syria after being
loaded in Baghdad. .Abdallah approached his friend who was hesitant to
confirm the WMD shipment, but did after Abdallah explained what his
sources informed him of. The friend told him not to tell anyone about
the shipment."



These interrogation reports should be re-evaluated in light of the
recently opened Iraqi secret archives, which we submit are the best
evidence. But the captured document evidence should not be
overstated. It must be emphasized that there is no one captured
Saddam document which mentions both the possession of WMD and the
movement to Syria.



Moreover, many of Saddam's own tapes and documents concerning
chemical and biological weapons are ambiguous. When read together as a
mosaic whole, Saddam's secret files certainly make a persuasive case
of massive WMD acquisition right up to a few months before the war.
Not only was he buying banned precursors for nerve gas, he was
ordering the chemicals to make Zyklon B, the Nazis favorite gas at
Auschwitz. However odious and well documented his purchases in 2002,
there is no direct evidence of any CW or BW actually remaining inside
Iraq on the day the war started in 2003. As stated in more detail in
my full report, the British, Ukrainian and American secret services
all believed that the Russians had organized a last minute evacuation
of CW and BW stockpiles from Baghdad to Syria.



We know from Saddam's documents that huge quantities of CW and BW
were in fact produced, and there is no record of their destruction.
But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, at
least as to chemical and biological weapons, the evidence is
compelling, but not conclusive. There is no one individual document or
audiotape that contains a smoking gun.

There is no ambiguity, however, about captured tape
ISGQ-2003-M0007379, in which Saddam is briefed on his secret nuclear
weapons project. This meeting clearly took place in 2002 or
afterwards: almost a decade after the State Department claimed that
Saddam had abandoned his nuclear weapons research.

Moreover the tape describes a laser enrichment process for uranium
that had never been known by the UN inspectors to even exist in Iraq,
and Saddam's nuclear briefers on the tape were Iraqi scientists who
had never been on any weapons inspector's list. The tape explicitly
discusses how civilian plasma research could be used as a cover for
military plasma research necessary to build a hydrogen bomb.

When this tape came to the attention of the International Intelligence
Summit, a non-profit, non-partisan educational forum focusing on
global intelligence affairs, the organization asked the NSA to verify
the voiceprints of Saddam and his cronies, invited a certified
translator to present Saddam's nuclear tapes to the public, and then
invited leading intelligence analysts to comment.

At the direct request of the Summit, President Bush promptly overruled
his national intelligence adviser, John Negroponte, a career State
Department man, and ordered that the rest of the captured Saddam tapes
and documents be reviewed as rapidly as possible. The Intelligence
Summit asked that Saddam's tapes and documents be posted on a public
website so that Arabic-speaking volunteers could help with the
translation and analysis.

At first, the public website seemed like a good idea. Another document
was quickly discovered, dated November 2002, describing an expensive
plan to remove radioactive contamination from an isotope production
building. The document cites the return of UNMOVIC inspectors as the
reason for cleaning up the evidence of radioactivity. This is not far
from a smoking gun: there were not supposed to be any nuclear
production plants in Iraq in 2002.

Then a barrage of near-smoking guns opened up. Document after document
from Saddam's files was posted unread on the public website, each one
describing how to make a nuclear bomb in more detail than the last.
These documents, dated just before the war, show that Saddam had
accumulated just about every secret there was for the construction of
nuclear weapons. The Iraqi intelligence files contain so much accurate
information on the atom bomb that the translators' public website had
to be closed for reasons of national security.

If Saddam had nuclear weapons facilities, where was he hiding them?
Iraqi informants showed US investigators where Saddam had constructed
huge underwater storage facilities beneath the Euphrates River. The
tunnel entrances were still sealed with tons of concrete. The US
investigators who approached the sealed entrances were later
determined to have been exposed to radiation. Incredibly, their
reports were lost in the postwar confusion, and Saddam's underground
nuclear storage sites were left unguarded for the next three years.
Still, the eyewitness testimony about the sealed underwater warehouses
matched with radiation exposure is strong circumstantial evidence that
some amount of radioactive material was still present in Iraq on the
day the war began.

Our volunteer researchers discovered the actual movement order from
the Iraqi high command ordering all the remaining special equipment to
be moved into the underground sites only a few weeks before the onset
of the war. The date of the movement order suggests that President
Bush, who clearly knew nothing of the specifics of the underground
nuclear sites, or even that a nuclear weapons program still existed in
Iraq, may have been accidentally correct about the main point of the
war: the discovery of Saddam's secret nuclear program, even in
hindsight, arguably provides sufficient legal justification for the
previous use of force.

Saddam's nuclear documents compel any reasonable person to the
conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear
WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the
Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered
documents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam
did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is
reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards
making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition
forces. Four years after the war began, we still do not have all the
answers, but we have many of them. Ninety percent of the Saddam files
have never been read, let alone translated. It is time to utterly
reject the conventional wisdom that there were no WMD in Iraq and look
to the best evidence: Saddam's own files on WMD. The truth is what it
is, the documents speak for themselves.

John Loftus is President of IntelligenceSummit.org, which is entirely
free of government funding, and depends solely upon private
contributions for its support. Mr. Loftus' full research paper on
Iraqi WMD can be found at www.LoftusReport.com

Drivel deleted

Yes, those of us who are capable of researching know full well Saddam
had WMDs, however this is the *Metalworking* group, so unless you are
going to post plans for building your own ICBM to deliver your WMDs,
please don't clog the group with this crap. We have enough other
spammers as it is.

On Nov 24, 10:17 pm, Gunner wrote:
Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD

16 Nov 2007

Mm, "secret files" again - accessible only by people who subscribe to
this group...like, wow, man, if this was true, would it not be hitting
the front pages of every newspaper in the world? - oh, sorry, its
those rotten lefties again....

And why did they reveal them to you, Gunner - surely they would have
chosen someone with more credibility, like, well, the Tooth Fairy....

They dont mention the Secret Warehouse full of WLA Harleys still
sealed in crates left over from WW2 - why not? - what sort of Secret
Documents are they if they don't contain anything useful.....( or
plausible...)

Andrew VK3BFA.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD



Wikipedia says nine countrys have the worst of all the WMD's, the nuclear
bomb. I'm sure they meant ten, but anyway, it looks like us real repubs have
got a lot if invading/liberating to do before our god's term is up and
sanity prevails. I have a lot to say but I don't have the time now because
I've got a whole stack of records to play backwards to find satanic
messages. Hang in there fellow neocons!

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:04 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .


Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD


http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD
snip

Gunner, you're either preaching to the choir or the coven,

Well, Tawm, witch is it?

--
"Given the low level of competence among politicians,
every American should become a Libertarian."
-- Charley Reese, Alameda Times-Star (California), June 17, 2003

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD


http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD
snip

Gunner, you're either preaching to the choir or the coven, it doesn't matter
either way. The coven has a huge vested interest in ignoring or attacking
anything against their philosophy. And, the choir already knows the score.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:04 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Tom
Gardner" quickly quoth:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..


Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD


http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD
snip

Gunner, you're either preaching to the choir or the coven,

Well, Tawm, witch is it?


Hmmm, I'll have to think about it a spell.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:04 -0800, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .


Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD


http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD
snip

Gunner, you're either preaching to the choir or the coven, it doesn't matter
either way. The coven has a huge vested interest in ignoring or attacking
anything against their philosophy. And, the choir already knows the score.

Of course. And I posted this link without any commentary, besides an
ambiguous subject line. I made no judgments one way or another.

Its fascinating to watch the left wing/hateBush members pucker up and
start ****ting bricks., and make accusations against me. Evidently
they are unable to refute the message, so are determined to punish the
messenger.

But then..thats to be expected from the coven..er Liberals here

Gunner

On Nov 25, 9:55 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:04 -0800, "Tom Gardner"



wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD
snip

Gunner, you're either preaching to the choir or the coven, it doesn't matter
either way. The coven has a huge vested interest in ignoring or attacking
anything against their philosophy. And, the choir already knows the score.

Of course. And I posted this link without any commentary, besides an
ambiguous subject line. I made no judgments one way or another.

Its fascinating to watch the left wing/hateBush members pucker up and
start ****ting bricks., and make accusations against me. Evidently
they are unable to refute the message, so are determined to punish the
messenger.

But then..thats to be expected from the coven..er Liberals here

Gunner

Nah, I know you were bored and just put it up to stir - so I responded
(I was bored, too) - its so ludicrous, sounds like a plot for a B
grade WW2 movie/Da Vinci Code....we got a similar one here too,
apparently Secret Documents say theres a mine in Queensland, full of
brand new Spitfires, in crates, stuck there when they feared the Japs
were coming...unfortunately, the Secret Document showing the location
is still a Secret....(Bugger...)

Your the sort of guy that would throw a dead rat into a kindergarten,
just to see what happens.....(if you like, I will get the rat for you,
theres heaps round here, and the dog is useless...)

Regards,

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:19:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 25, 9:55 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:04 -0800, "Tom Gardner"



wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD
snip

Gunner, you're either preaching to the choir or the coven, it doesn't matter
either way. The coven has a huge vested interest in ignoring or attacking
anything against their philosophy. And, the choir already knows the score.

Of course. And I posted this link without any commentary, besides an
ambiguous subject line. I made no judgments one way or another.

Its fascinating to watch the left wing/hateBush members pucker up and
start ****ting bricks., and make accusations against me. Evidently
they are unable to refute the message, so are determined to punish the
messenger.

But then..thats to be expected from the coven..er Liberals here

Gunner

Nah, I know you were bored and just put it up to stir - so I responded
(I was bored, too) - its so ludicrous, sounds like a plot for a B
grade WW2 movie/Da Vinci Code....we got a similar one here too,
apparently Secret Documents say theres a mine in Queensland, full of
brand new Spitfires, in crates, stuck there when they feared the Japs
were coming...unfortunately, the Secret Document showing the location
is still a Secret....(Bugger...)

Your the sort of guy that would throw a dead rat into a kindergarten,
just to see what happens.....(if you like, I will get the rat for you,
theres heaps round here, and the dog is useless...)

Regards,

Andrew VK3BFA.

Kindergarten? No..that would be far too much.

On the other hand..I did dump a live skunk into the back yard of some
people who were utter assholes, and had 3 utter asshole Old English
Sheep Dogs, who barked all night , and hated and killed any cat that
had the misfortune of getting into their yard, And they were
(mostly) downwind.

The skunk survived.

The dogs after that experience, however..would refuse to attack any
black cat that entered their yard, and tended to run to a corner and
cower.

As to the report I posted...actually..it appears to be true. The links
included are pretty well respected in the intel biz. Shrug. It
verifies many of the claims made by the players. Shrug again.

Gunner

On Nov 26, 4:30 am, Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:19:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:55 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:04 -0800, "Tom Gardner"

wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD
snip

Gunner, you're either preaching to the choir or the coven, it doesn't matter
either way. The coven has a huge vested interest in ignoring or attacking
anything against their philosophy. And, the choir already knows the score.

Of course. And I posted this link without any commentary, besides an
ambiguous subject line. I made no judgments one way or another.

Its fascinating to watch the left wing/hateBush members pucker up and
start ****ting bricks., and make accusations against me. Evidently
they are unable to refute the message, so are determined to punish the
messenger.

But then..thats to be expected from the coven..er Liberals here

Gunner

Nah, I know you were bored and just put it up to stir - so I responded
(I was bored, too) - its so ludicrous, sounds like a plot for a B
grade WW2 movie/Da Vinci Code....we got a similar one here too,
apparently Secret Documents say theres a mine in Queensland, full of
brand new Spitfires, in crates, stuck there when they feared the Japs
were coming...unfortunately, the Secret Document showing the location
is still a Secret....(Bugger...)

Your the sort of guy that would throw a dead rat into a kindergarten,
just to see what happens.....(if you like, I will get the rat for you,
theres heaps round here, and the dog is useless...)

Regards,

Andrew VK3BFA.

Kindergarten? No..that would be far too much.

On the other hand..I did dump a live skunk into the back yard of some
people who were utter assholes, and had 3 utter asshole Old English
Sheep Dogs, who barked all night , and hated and killed any cat that
had the misfortune of getting into their yard, And they were
(mostly) downwind.

The skunk survived.

The dogs after that experience, however..would refuse to attack any
black cat that entered their yard, and tended to run to a corner and
cower.

As to the report I posted...actually..it appears to be true. The links
included are pretty well respected in the intel biz. Shrug. It
verifies many of the claims made by the players. Shrug again.

Gunner

Good one on the skunk - I hope it wasn't too traumatised. But an
elegant way of dealing with a problem, good lateral thinking...

As for the report - well, wait and see. I just find it somewhat
surprising that it hasn't gained wider publicity, given that WMD's are
a cornerstone of faith for the Right in this whole sorry affair. Would
be nice if there was a real justification other than loony politicians
and crazy ideology....

Andrew VK3BFA.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

As to the report I posted...actually..it appears to be true. The links
included are pretty well respected in the intel biz. Shrug. It
verifies many of the claims made by the players. Shrug again.

What you and the rest of the Bushinistas have failed to prove is that, even
if Sadman Insane had WMD's, they posed a direct threat to the United States
of America.

The world is rife with petty dictators in non-oil bearing countries that are
positively known to have WMD's that pose a threat only to their respective
regions but why choose one for invasion above all the others?

Answer: the Neocons had been wanting to invade Iraq back as far as the
Klinton administration and they finally got a prez dumb enough to buy into
their rationale.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:20:27 -0800, John Kunkel wrote:

What you and the rest of the Bushinistas have failed to prove is that, even
if Sadman Insane had WMD's, they posed a direct threat to the United States
of America.

Tell that to gore, clinton, clinton, kerry, and all the other democrats
quoted he

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

So now, how do you reconcile these words with your version of the truth?
Pay special attention to the dates.

Any response?

The world is rife with petty dictators in non-oil bearing countries that are
positively known to have WMD's that pose a threat only to their respective
regions but why choose one for invasion above all the others?

Ask all those democrats, you know, the Bushinistas. Some of 'em are so
under Bush's power, apparently, that they said these things before he
was even in office. Amazing.

Answer: the Neocons had been wanting to invade Iraq back as far as the
Klinton administration and they finally got a prez dumb enough to buy into
their rationale.

Then why did 81 democrat representatives, and 29 democrat senators vote
to authorize the use of force in Iraq? Yet, these people today are
suffering from an apparently crippling loss of memory about that whole
thing. And people like you either don't know, or are lying right along
with them thinking nobody has noticed. Guess what? We have.

"John Kunkel" wrote in message
. ..

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

As to the report I posted...actually..it appears to be true. The links
included are pretty well respected in the intel biz. Shrug. It
verifies many of the claims made by the players. Shrug again.

What you and the rest of the Bushinistas have failed to prove is that,
even if Sadman Insane had WMD's, they posed a direct threat to the United
States of America.

The world is rife with petty dictators in non-oil bearing countries that
are positively known to have WMD's that pose a threat only to their
respective regions but why choose one for invasion above all the others?

Answer: the Neocons had been wanting to invade Iraq back as far as the
Klinton administration and they finally got a prez dumb enough to buy into
their rationale.



i've wondered if it's because they wanted to establish permanent military
bases in Iraq. i heard the wahabis wanted us out of Saudi, the royal family
was getting pressure from the wahabis to get us out and off their holy land.
in order to guarantee continued uninterrupted flow of energy to the u.s. we
needed to establish permanent military bases in the mid-east. all of it was
an excuse (wmd's, "bringing democracy", etc.) this was prolly "cheney's
secret energy plan" we heard of years ago.

b.w.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:30:04 -0800, Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:19:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:55 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:04 -0800, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Gunner" wrote...

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

snip
Gunner, you're either preaching to the choir or the coven, it doesn't matter
either way. The coven has a huge vested interest in ignoring or attacking
anything against their philosophy. And, the choir already knows the score.

Of course. And I posted this link without any commentary, besides an
ambiguous subject line. I made no judgments one way or another.

Its fascinating to watch the left wing/hateBush members pucker up and
start ****ting bricks., and make accusations against me. Evidently
they are unable to refute the message, so are determined to punish the
messenger.

But then..thats to be expected from the coven..er Liberals here

You did hear about what happened in newsrooms all over the country
not too long after we rolled into Baghdad when we found a large CW/BW
Warehouse dump - "Oh my G**, I can't believe it, they FOUND THE
WMD'S!! This is bad!!"

For about 12 hours the far lefties were shocked that they would have
to eat a heaping serving of Crow, till they found out that most of the
shells were empty and the few full ones had degraded, and now they
slough it off as being "insignificant quantities". Ignore the fact
that we found something they swore wasn't there - we scored a goal,
they retroactively moved the goalposts back...

I'm not thrilled with the war, but it sure beats the hell out of
having weekly terror bombings and attacks here.

Nah, I know you were bored and just put it up to stir - so I responded
(I was bored, too) - its so ludicrous, sounds like a plot for a B
grade WW2 movie/Da Vinci Code....we got a similar one here too,
apparently Secret Documents say theres a mine in Queensland, full of
brand new Spitfires, in crates, stuck there when they feared the Japs
were coming...unfortunately, the Secret Document showing the location
is still a Secret....(Bugger...)

Probably the same people selling the $25 "Surplus WW-II Jeeps Mint
In Crate - Wipe off the Cosmoline and drive!!". May be true, but
don't hold your breath.

Your the sort of guy that would throw a dead rat into a kindergarten,
just to see what happens.....(if you like, I will get the rat for you,
theres heaps round here, and the dog is useless...).

Kindergarten? No..that would be far too much.

Yeah, third grade at the youngest...

On the other hand..I did dump a live skunk into the back yard of some
people who were utter assholes, and had 3 utter asshole Old English
Sheep Dogs, who barked all night , and hated and killed any cat that
had the misfortune of getting into their yard, And they were
(mostly) downwind.

The skunk survived.

;-) And I bet the skunk took you off his Christmas Card list...

The dogs after that experience, however..would refuse to attack any
black cat that entered their yard, and tended to run to a corner and
cower.

As to the report I posted...actually..it appears to be true. The links
included are pretty well respected in the intel biz. Shrug. It
verifies many of the claims made by the players. Shrug again.

There are some people who simply refuse to listen to reason. It's
the "Elvis Factor". No matter how much hard evidence you find they
are still going to buy into the "Oliver Stone JFK Conspiracy Theory"
and wouldn't believe the real truth if you had your tongue Notarized.

It's impossible to pull off a large and complicated conspiracy for
any length of time, unless nobody ever checks into it to verify
things. Under scrutiny a researcher will inevitably find a "loose
thread" fact that doesn't line up with the other known facts and pull
on it, and the whole conspiracy unravels like a cheap suit.

-- Bruce --

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:30:04 -0800, Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:19:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:55 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:04 -0800, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Gunner" wrote...

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

snip
Gunner, you're either preaching to the choir or the coven, it doesn't
matter
either way. The coven has a huge vested interest in ignoring or
attacking
anything against their philosophy. And, the choir already knows the
score.

Of course. And I posted this link without any commentary, besides an
ambiguous subject line. I made no judgments one way or another.

Its fascinating to watch the left wing/hateBush members pucker up and
start ****ting bricks., and make accusations against me. Evidently
they are unable to refute the message, so are determined to punish the
messenger.

But then..thats to be expected from the coven..er Liberals here

You did hear about what happened in newsrooms all over the country
not too long after we rolled into Baghdad when we found a large CW/BW
Warehouse dump - "Oh my G**, I can't believe it, they FOUND THE
WMD'S!! This is bad!!"

And where did you hear about this, Bruce? Which newsrooms are you talking
about? Is it a newsroom that exists in your imagination, or do you have some
facts?


For about 12 hours the far lefties were shocked that they would have
to eat a heaping serving of Crow, till they found out that most of the
shells were empty and the few full ones had degraded, and now they
slough it off as being "insignificant quantities". Ignore the fact
that we found something they swore wasn't there - we scored a goal,
they retroactively moved the goalposts back...

Are you sure it was 12 hours, and not 6 or 18? g Which lefties swore that
degraded mustard gas and nerve agents from pre-1991, and empty gas shells,
weren't there? And what goal did "you" score? Did you have some magic way of
knowing what was there, better than the people who were actually on the
ground? Do you consider that degraded and empty shells the actual, and
justifiable, reason we went to war in Iraq?

Your story has the ring of that one that was posted here a few months back,
about the little girl who shot the robber's balls off with her dad's
shotgun. That one never happened, either.


I'm not thrilled with the war, but it sure beats the hell out of
having weekly terror bombings and attacks here.

Hmm...so, if we don't kill Iraqis and foreign insurgents who are fighting us
in Baghdad, they'll start coming over here? What's stopping them from doing
that now? I mean, if attacking the US is their goal, what the hell are they
doing fighting in Iraq? If they could get here and bomb us even though all
of our resources now in Iraq were here in the US defending the country, why
can't they do it right now, when we're all tied up over there?

Your logic escapes me. It probably also escapes them, too, because there
appears to be no reason why they couldn't be bombing here if they could get
away with it. All they'd have to do is to find a way to get in here with
bombs or a way to get them. Have you really thought this through?

--
Ed Huntress

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...

"John Kunkel" wrote in message
. ..

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

As to the report I posted...actually..it appears to be true. The links
included are pretty well respected in the intel biz. Shrug. It
verifies many of the claims made by the players. Shrug again.

What you and the rest of the Bushinistas have failed to prove is that,
even if Sadman Insane had WMD's, they posed a direct threat to the United
States of America.

The world is rife with petty dictators in non-oil bearing countries that
are positively known to have WMD's that pose a threat only to their
respective regions but why choose one for invasion above all the others?

Answer: the Neocons had been wanting to invade Iraq back as far as the
Klinton administration and they finally got a prez dumb enough to buy
into their rationale.



i've wondered if it's because they wanted to establish permanent military
bases in Iraq. i heard the wahabis wanted us out of Saudi, the royal
family was getting pressure from the wahabis to get us out and off their
holy land. in order to guarantee continued uninterrupted flow of energy to
the u.s. we needed to establish permanent military bases in the mid-east.
all of it was an excuse (wmd's, "bringing democracy", etc.) this was
prolly "cheney's secret energy plan" we heard of years ago.

b.w.

I doubt if it was that sinister. Free flow of oil from the Middle East has
been a concern of the entire group of Western countries since the days of
Stalin, when he was seeking a warm-water port in the Persian Gulf so he
could intimidate Western Europe, and, ultimately, the US, with oil cutoffs
(documented in the series of books from Yale University Press, which were in
turn based on the documents released by the former USSR after 1991). Europe
left it up to the US to lead patrols in the Persian Gulf for several
decades -- partly out of necessity, because they weren't up to it
themselves. The whole history of our relations with Middle East countries
since the late 1940s, with the exception of Israel, is most accurately
viewed through that lens.

Saddam's ambition was well understood before 9/11. A classic megalomaniac,
he wanted to step in after the USSR was out of the picture and to control
Middle East oil, using it to gain control of the entire Middle East itself
and to leverage the power of oil against the West. That's why we got so
worked up about Iraq's attempted takeover of Kuwait. We had little reason to
care, at least not enough to organize a multi-state war against Iraq over
it. But even though Saddam lost that battle, his ambitions didn't end.

Then the Islamists entered the picture and made a real threat to manipulate
oil any way they could in order to coerce the infidels. They would be
perfectly happy to destroy oil resources so no one could get them. Once
there was a continuing threat on the ground from the Islamists, with a
larger military threat from Saddam having the potential to be reborn, the
whole neocon project of lessening threats by democratizing the Middle East
made a lot of sense to top policymakers in Western Europe as well as in the
US. The various UN resolutions relating to Iraq and to terrorism make it
clear that Europe was behind it but they kept enough distance so they
wouldn't be implicated in any direct military confrontation. It was in their
interest for the US to have a military presence on the ground in the Middle
East, in other words. For political reasons, they wouldn't say it publicly,
nor would they directly participate unless doing so was absolutely
unassailable or unavoidable. As usual, they found plenty of ways to avoid
it.

The threat to Western oil supplies has been strong and very real since WWII.
The policies the US has pursued, while often clumsy, and often leading to
unintended consequences, are about what one would expect from any major
power that faces a deadly threat to its economic lifeblood. Notice that OPEC
did an abrupt about-face in the late '70s for no obvious reason and opened
up the spigots again, after making joint declarations about how they
intended to use oil to reverse Western (particularly US) policies toward
Israel. No doubt we threatened them; how we did it is one of those things
that goes on in the secret, invisible world of realpolitik diplomacy.

That's the world as it really is. FWIW, none of this has much to do with the
neocon project, which is only marginally overlapping. This is just the
struggle between big powers for control, both of their own destiny and of
the military/economic/political complexion of the world at large.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"William Wixon" wrote in message
...

"John Kunkel" wrote in message
. ..

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

As to the report I posted...actually..it appears to be true. The links
included are pretty well respected in the intel biz. Shrug. It
verifies many of the claims made by the players. Shrug again.

What you and the rest of the Bushinistas have failed to prove is that,
even if Sadman Insane had WMD's, they posed a direct threat to the
United States of America.

The world is rife with petty dictators in non-oil bearing countries that
are positively known to have WMD's that pose a threat only to their
respective regions but why choose one for invasion above all the others?

Answer: the Neocons had been wanting to invade Iraq back as far as the
Klinton administration and they finally got a prez dumb enough to buy
into their rationale.



i've wondered if it's because they wanted to establish permanent military
bases in Iraq. i heard the wahabis wanted us out of Saudi, the royal
family was getting pressure from the wahabis to get us out and off their
holy land. in order to guarantee continued uninterrupted flow of energy
to the u.s. we needed to establish permanent military bases in the
mid-east. all of it was an excuse (wmd's, "bringing democracy", etc.)
this was prolly "cheney's secret energy plan" we heard of years ago.

b.w.

I doubt if it was that sinister. Free flow of oil from the Middle East has
been a concern of the entire group of Western countries since the days of
Stalin, when he was seeking a warm-water port in the Persian Gulf so he
could intimidate Western Europe, and, ultimately, the US, with oil cutoffs
(documented in the series of books from Yale University Press, which were
in turn based on the documents released by the former USSR after 1991).
Europe left it up to the US to lead patrols in the Persian Gulf for
several decades -- partly out of necessity, because they weren't up to it
themselves. The whole history of our relations with Middle East countries
since the late 1940s, with the exception of Israel, is most accurately
viewed through that lens.

Saddam's ambition was well understood before 9/11. A classic megalomaniac,
he wanted to step in after the USSR was out of the picture and to control
Middle East oil, using it to gain control of the entire Middle East itself
and to leverage the power of oil against the West. That's why we got so
worked up about Iraq's attempted takeover of Kuwait. We had little reason
to care, at least not enough to organize a multi-state war against Iraq
over it. But even though Saddam lost that battle, his ambitions didn't
end.

Then the Islamists entered the picture and made a real threat to
manipulate oil any way they could in order to coerce the infidels. They
would be perfectly happy to destroy oil resources so no one could get
them. Once there was a continuing threat on the ground from the Islamists,
with a larger military threat from Saddam having the potential to be
reborn, the whole neocon project of lessening threats by democratizing the
Middle East made a lot of sense to top policymakers in Western Europe as
well as in the US. The various UN resolutions relating to Iraq and to
terrorism make it clear that Europe was behind it but they kept enough
distance so they wouldn't be implicated in any direct military
confrontation. It was in their interest for the US to have a military
presence on the ground in the Middle East, in other words. For political
reasons, they wouldn't say it publicly, nor would they directly
participate unless doing so was absolutely unassailable or unavoidable. As
usual, they found plenty of ways to avoid it.

The threat to Western oil supplies has been strong and very real since
WWII. The policies the US has pursued, while often clumsy, and often
leading to unintended consequences, are about what one would expect from
any major power that faces a deadly threat to its economic lifeblood.
Notice that OPEC did an abrupt about-face in the late '70s for no obvious
reason and opened up the spigots again, after making joint declarations
about how they intended to use oil to reverse Western (particularly US)
policies toward Israel. No doubt we threatened them; how we did it is one
of those things that goes on in the secret, invisible world of realpolitik
diplomacy.

That's the world as it really is. FWIW, none of this has much to do with
the neocon project, which is only marginally overlapping. This is just the
struggle between big powers for control, both of their own destiny and of
the military/economic/political complexion of the world at large.

--
Ed Huntress

Do you remember the thread about the surplus hydro power in Turkey, I think?
And, how that power would be the basis for the whole region's future
economies?

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip


That's the world as it really is. FWIW, none of this has much to do with
the neocon project, which is only marginally overlapping. This is just
the struggle between big powers for control, both of their own destiny
and of the military/economic/political complexion of the world at large.

--
Ed Huntress

Do you remember the thread about the surplus hydro power in Turkey, I
think? And, how that power would be the basis for the whole region's
future economies?

I don't remember the thread, Tom. I don't think I saw it at all.

The big problem with oil, though, is the developed (and developing) worlds'
dependence on it for transportation. I don't think the Middle East's
consumption enters into the political problem; it's *our* consumption, and
Europe's, and China's. We're going to have a hell of a time weaning
ourselves off of oil for cars and trucks, and for the myriad products we
make from petroleum, as well.

Meantime, we can always dig up western Canada and suck the oil out of the
sand. There's a lot of it -- 200 years worth at current world consumption
rates, by some estimates.

In fact, the Canadians are sucking it out by the megatons as we speak. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...

snip

I was at a dinner party not to long ago and my cousin's boyfriend was
there, a Colonel in the US Army. One of the most fascinating things he
said about the military actions was: "Look at a map. Notice the
locations of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan." He was very frugal with his
thoughts and words and seemed very apolitical. He either really didn't
know anything or knew a lot but wasn't forthcoming. I'm of the opinion
that the onion has very many layers and is nowhere near as simple as the
left, the media or the right think it is.

Oh, yeah. We can see the fighting, but may have no idea what's really going
on at the level of diplomacy. And I mean that seriously.

I'm kind of paranoid right now because I spent my spare time over the past
couple of weeks reading back issues of _Commentary_, the voice of the neocon
intellectuals. It made my skin want to crawl right off of my neck and down
my back. g

If anyone is in need of some fuel for paranoia, look up "Straussian text" in
quotes. Then consider who Strauss's students were. Those are the bull-goose
neocons.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:30:04 -0800, Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:19:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 25, 9:55 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:04 -0800, "Tom Gardner" wrote:
"Gunner" wrote...

Secret Files Prove Saddam Had WMD
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1181

snip
Gunner, you're either preaching to the choir or the coven, it doesn't
matter
either way. The coven has a huge vested interest in ignoring or
attacking
anything against their philosophy. And, the choir already knows the
score.

Of course. And I posted this link without any commentary, besides an
ambiguous subject line. I made no judgments one way or another.

Its fascinating to watch the left wing/hateBush members pucker up and
start ****ting bricks., and make accusations against me. Evidently
they are unable to refute the message, so are determined to punish the
messenger.

But then..thats to be expected from the coven..er Liberals here

You did hear about what happened in newsrooms all over the country
not too long after we rolled into Baghdad when we found a large CW/BW
Warehouse dump - "Oh my G**, I can't believe it, they FOUND THE
WMD'S!! This is bad!!"

And where did you hear about this, Bruce? Which newsrooms are you talking
about? Is it a newsroom that exists in your imagination, or do you have
some facts?


For about 12 hours the far lefties were shocked that they would have
to eat a heaping serving of Crow, till they found out that most of the
shells were empty and the few full ones had degraded, and now they
slough it off as being "insignificant quantities". Ignore the fact
that we found something they swore wasn't there - we scored a goal,
they retroactively moved the goalposts back...

Are you sure it was 12 hours, and not 6 or 18? g Which lefties swore
that degraded mustard gas and nerve agents from pre-1991, and empty gas
shells, weren't there? And what goal did "you" score? Did you have some
magic way of knowing what was there, better than the people who were
actually on the ground? Do you consider that degraded and empty shells the
actual, and justifiable, reason we went to war in Iraq?

Your story has the ring of that one that was posted here a few months
back, about the little girl who shot the robber's balls off with her dad's
shotgun. That one never happened, either.


I'm not thrilled with the war, but it sure beats the hell out of
having weekly terror bombings and attacks here.

Hmm...so, if we don't kill Iraqis and foreign insurgents who are fighting
us in Baghdad, they'll start coming over here? What's stopping them from
doing that now? I mean, if attacking the US is their goal, what the hell
are they doing fighting in Iraq? If they could get here and bomb us even
though all of our resources now in Iraq were here in the US defending the
country, why can't they do it right now, when we're all tied up over
there?

Your logic escapes me. It probably also escapes them, too, because there
appears to be no reason why they couldn't be bombing here if they could
get away with it. All they'd have to do is to find a way to get in here
with bombs or a way to get them. Have you really thought this through?

--
Ed Huntress


I was at a dinner party not to long ago and my cousin's boyfriend was there,
a Colonel in the US Army. One of the most fascinating things he said about
the military actions was: "Look at a map. Notice the locations of Iraq,
Iran and Afghanistan." He was very frugal with his thoughts and words and
seemed very apolitical. He either really didn't know anything or knew a lot
but wasn't forthcoming. I'm of the opinion that the onion has very many
layers and is nowhere near as simple as the left, the media or the right
think it is.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:35:25 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip


That's the world as it really is. FWIW, none of this has much to do with
the neocon project, which is only marginally overlapping. This is just
the struggle between big powers for control, both of their own destiny
and of the military/economic/political complexion of the world at large.

--
Ed Huntress

Do you remember the thread about the surplus hydro power in Turkey, I
think? And, how that power would be the basis for the whole region's
future economies?

I don't remember the thread, Tom. I don't think I saw it at all.

The big problem with oil, though, is the developed (and developing) worlds'
dependence on it for transportation. I don't think the Middle East's
consumption enters into the political problem; it's *our* consumption, and
Europe's, and China's. We're going to have a hell of a time weaning
ourselves off of oil for cars and trucks, and for the myriad products we
make from petroleum, as well.

Meantime, we can always dig up western Canada and suck the oil out of the
sand. There's a lot of it -- 200 years worth at current world consumption
rates, by some estimates.

Ah, an inkling to the Shrub's willingness to give us up to a North
American Union rears its ugly head...


In fact, the Canadians are sucking it out by the megatons as we speak. d8-)

Alberta, the old darling, is a tarry beach, i'nt she?

--
"Given the low level of competence among politicians,
every American should become a Libertarian."
-- Charley Reese, Alameda Times-Star (California), June 17, 2003

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:29:12 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
I'm not thrilled with the war, but it sure beats the hell out of
having weekly terror bombings and attacks here.

Hmm...so, if we don't kill Iraqis and foreign insurgents who are fighting
us in Baghdad, they'll start coming over here? What's stopping them from
doing that now? I mean, if attacking the US is their goal, what the hell
are they doing fighting in Iraq? If they could get here and bomb us even
though all of our resources now in Iraq were here in the US defending the
country, why can't they do it right now, when we're all tied up over
there?

Your logic escapes me. It probably also escapes them, too, because there
appears to be no reason why they couldn't be bombing here if they could
get away with it. All they'd have to do is to find a way to get in here
with bombs or a way to get them. Have you really thought this through?

It escapes me, too.

Any person in the USA today [and 20 million (12M estimate) illegals
prove the point _quite_ clearly] could disrupt our infrastructure/kill
thousands with one bomb/poison pack, and there's nothing we could (or
can) do about it other than simply being vigilant. Given that fact,
the DHS is truly a farce, a waste of money, though the initial concept
of protection was well-intentioned.

--
"Given the low level of competence among politicians,
every American should become a Libertarian."
-- Charley Reese, Alameda Times-Star (California), June 17, 2003

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:20:27 -0800, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

As to the report I posted...actually..it appears to be true. The links
included are pretty well respected in the intel biz. Shrug. It
verifies many of the claims made by the players. Shrug again.

What you and the rest of the Bushinistas have failed to prove is that, even
if Sadman Insane had WMD's, they posed a direct threat to the United States
of America.

John...no such proof was needed. The long list of reasons why Bush
carried out Clintons call for regime change is well known. And he
publicly stated, in a State of the Union address, that it might take
generations. It was the leftwing press that started the rumor that
it would be a short easy affair. Along with the *******ed idea that
somehow "Mission Accomplished" for a ship, was a blanket for the
entire war effort.

Id write a nasty letter to the Times complaining about how the
Leftwing media gave you false hope.

The world is rife with petty dictators in non-oil bearing countries that are
positively known to have WMD's that pose a threat only to their respective
regions but why choose one for invasion above all the others?

A long journey starts with a single step.

Answer: the Neocons had been wanting to invade Iraq back as far as the
Klinton administration and they finally got a prez dumb enough to buy into
their rationale.

My, but you are a pack of buzzwords today. And based on useage, I
suspect you dont even know what they mean.

Gunner

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:21:37 -0800, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:


As to the report I posted...actually..it appears to be true. The links
included are pretty well respected in the intel biz. Shrug. It
verifies many of the claims made by the players. Shrug again.

There are some people who simply refuse to listen to reason. It's
the "Elvis Factor". No matter how much hard evidence you find they
are still going to buy into the "Oliver Stone JFK Conspiracy Theory"
and wouldn't believe the real truth if you had your tongue Notarized.

It's impossible to pull off a large and complicated conspiracy for
any length of time, unless nobody ever checks into it to verify
things. Under scrutiny a researcher will inevitably find a "loose
thread" fact that doesn't line up with the other known facts and pull
on it, and the whole conspiracy unravels like a cheap suit.

-- Bruce --

Indeed. The Leftwing nut cases need to ask themselves a simple
question...why didnt Bush simply put a few hundred WMDs belonging to
the US (we still have large stockpiles) into a few warehouses in Iraq,
and use it as the "proof" Saddam had WMDs.

It would have shut down the Left like flipping off a main breaker.

Now lets hear a Anti-Bu****e give us the reasons why he didnt.
Double dog dare them.
(Frankly I dont think any Leftwinger is smart enough to come up with
the answer(s)..besides, it would cause them to implode when they had
to examine their own world view)

Gunner

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:20:27 -0800, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..

As to the report I posted...actually..it appears to be true. The links
included are pretty well respected in the intel biz. Shrug. It
verifies many of the claims made by the players. Shrug again.

What you and the rest of the Bushinistas have failed to prove is that,
even
if Sadman Insane had WMD's, they posed a direct threat to the United
States
of America.

John...no such proof was needed. The long list of reasons why Bush
carried out Clintons call for regime change is well known. And he
publicly stated, in a State of the Union address, that it might take
generations. It was the leftwing press that started the rumor that
it would be a short easy affair.

Actually, it was someone else:

Feb. 7, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano,
Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six
days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

March 16, 2003: Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think
things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi
people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I
think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."

Those two notorious leftwingers, Rumsfeld and Cheney, apparently started the
rumors.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:35:25 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip


That's the world as it really is. FWIW, none of this has much to do
with
the neocon project, which is only marginally overlapping. This is just
the struggle between big powers for control, both of their own destiny
and of the military/economic/political complexion of the world at
large.

--
Ed Huntress

Do you remember the thread about the surplus hydro power in Turkey, I
think? And, how that power would be the basis for the whole region's
future economies?

I don't remember the thread, Tom. I don't think I saw it at all.

The big problem with oil, though, is the developed (and developing)
worlds'
dependence on it for transportation. I don't think the Middle East's
consumption enters into the political problem; it's *our* consumption, and
Europe's, and China's. We're going to have a hell of a time weaning
ourselves off of oil for cars and trucks, and for the myriad products we
make from petroleum, as well.

Meantime, we can always dig up western Canada and suck the oil out of the
sand. There's a lot of it -- 200 years worth at current world consumption
rates, by some estimates.

Ah, an inkling to the Shrub's willingness to give us up to a North
American Union rears its ugly head...


In fact, the Canadians are sucking it out by the megatons as we speak.
d8-)

Alberta, the old darling, is a tarry beach, i'nt she?

Not for long, heh, heh...It will be the Alberta Bay before you know it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Indeed. The Leftwing nut cases need to ask themselves a simple
question...why didnt Bush simply put a few hundred WMDs belonging to
the US (we still have large stockpiles) into a few warehouses in Iraq,
and use it as the "proof" Saddam had WMDs.

It would have shut down the Left like flipping off a main breaker.

Now lets hear a Anti-Bu****e give us the reasons why he didnt.
Double dog dare them.

Dare taken. Simple answer... too many loose lips. The ruse would have been
made public in no time just as the false assertions that lead to war
eventually were.

OTOH, if the underground (river) nuclear facilities were indeed real as
your OP suggests, the Neocon talking heads would be citing it as proof that
their original allegations were true. You and the other Bushinistas need to
ask yourself why they haven't. Lack of such rhetoric suggests they know the
story is lame.


(Frankly I dont think any Leftwinger is smart enough to come up with
the answer(s)..besides, it would cause them to implode when they had
to examine their own world view)

In an earlier post you whined that some responders to your OP were "killing
the messenger" when in reality you are the poster boy for ad hominem
responses, everyone who disagrees with you or the Neocons is automatically
labeled a Liberal, Lib-tard, leftie, ad nauseum. If you can dish it out, be
prepared to take it.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:01:15 -0800, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Indeed. The Leftwing nut cases need to ask themselves a simple
question...why didnt Bush simply put a few hundred WMDs belonging to
the US (we still have large stockpiles) into a few warehouses in Iraq,
and use it as the "proof" Saddam had WMDs.

It would have shut down the Left like flipping off a main breaker.

Now lets hear a Anti-Bu****e give us the reasons why he didnt.
Double dog dare them.

Dare taken. Simple answer... too many loose lips. The ruse would have been
made public in no time just as the false assertions that lead to war
eventually were.

A little off topic but you have just destroyed the conspiracy theory
regarding the WTC.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 05:30:59 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Your logic escapes me. It probably also escapes them, too, because there
appears to be no reason why they couldn't be bombing here if they could
get away with it. All they'd have to do is to find a way to get in here
with bombs or a way to get them. Have you really thought this through?

It escapes me, too.

Any person in the USA today [and 20 million (12M estimate) illegals
prove the point _quite_ clearly] could disrupt our infrastructure/kill
thousands with one bomb/poison pack, and there's nothing we could (or
can) do about it other than simply being vigilant. Given that fact,
the DHS is truly a farce, a waste of money, though the initial concept
of protection was well-intentioned.


And the last attack was when?

Gunner

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:01:15 -0800, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Indeed. The Leftwing nut cases need to ask themselves a simple
question...why didnt Bush simply put a few hundred WMDs belonging to
the US (we still have large stockpiles) into a few warehouses in Iraq,
and use it as the "proof" Saddam had WMDs.

It would have shut down the Left like flipping off a main breaker.

Now lets hear a Anti-Bu****e give us the reasons why he didnt.
Double dog dare them.

Dare taken. Simple answer... too many loose lips. The ruse would have been
made public in no time just as the false assertions that lead to war
eventually were.

OTOH, if the underground (river) nuclear facilities were indeed real as
your OP suggests, the Neocon talking heads would be citing it as proof that
their original allegations were true. You and the other Bushinistas need to
ask yourself why they haven't. Lack of such rhetoric suggests they know the
story is lame.


(Frankly I dont think any Leftwinger is smart enough to come up with
the answer(s)..besides, it would cause them to implode when they had
to examine their own world view)

In an earlier post you whined that some responders to your OP were "killing
the messenger" when in reality you are the poster boy for ad hominem
responses, everyone who disagrees with you or the Neocons is automatically
labeled a Liberal, Lib-tard, leftie, ad nauseum. If you can dish it out, be
prepared to take it.


Yet you are prepared to claim that Bush conspired to start the Iraq
war for bogus reasons, and managed to keep everyone blinded since the
war started.

Along with an entire Libtard mantra of other things that yall blame
on Bush.

As I stated, and you confirmed...no leftwinger is smart enough to come
up with.....

Gunner

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:30:56 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:01:15 -0800, "John Kunkel"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..

Indeed. The Leftwing nut cases need to ask themselves a simple
question...why didnt Bush simply put a few hundred WMDs belonging to
the US (we still have large stockpiles) into a few warehouses in Iraq,
and use it as the "proof" Saddam had WMDs.

It would have shut down the Left like flipping off a main breaker.

Now lets hear a Anti-Bu****e give us the reasons why he didnt.
Double dog dare them.

Dare taken. Simple answer... too many loose lips. The ruse would have been
made public in no time just as the false assertions that lead to war
eventually were.

A little off topic but you have just destroyed the conspiracy theory
regarding the WTC.

And quite nicely too. Isnt using Leftwingers as straitmen, so much
fun?

VEG

Giunner



Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:32:23 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 05:30:59 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Your logic escapes me. It probably also escapes them, too, because there
appears to be no reason why they couldn't be bombing here if they could
get away with it. All they'd have to do is to find a way to get in here
with bombs or a way to get them. Have you really thought this through?

It escapes me, too.

Any person in the USA today [and 20 million (12M estimate) illegals
prove the point _quite_ clearly] could disrupt our infrastructure/kill
thousands with one bomb/poison pack, and there's nothing we could (or
can) do about it other than simply being vigilant. Given that fact,
the DHS is truly a farce, a waste of money, though the initial concept
of protection was well-intentioned.


And the last attack was when?

2001. Do you really think the DHS would have prevented it, had it been
in place then? (When the CIA, FBI, SS, and other alphabets didn't?)

You, of all people here (as a vet and survivalist), should know that
terrorism can't be stopped--because it can happen anywhere, anytime,
from anyone. All they can stop is the larger, conspiratorial
group-type events...with any luck.

Do you seriously -doubt- that there are agents in this country who
could drop big chunks of our infrastructure at their merest whim?

I doubt there is a single guy reading this group who couldn't think of
half a dozen ways to do it. Thank insert deity of choice here none
of us wants that to happen. (We're the good guys.)

--
"Given the low level of competence among politicians,
every American should become a Libertarian."
-- Charley Reese, Alameda Times-Star (California), June 17, 2003

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Yet you are prepared to claim that Bush conspired to start the Iraq
war for bogus reasons, and managed to keep everyone blinded since the
war started.

Careful with the word "everyone", only the Bushanistas have been blinded to
the falsehoods that lead to war; to others the bogus reasons are public
domain.

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...

A little off topic but you have just destroyed the conspiracy theory
regarding the WTC.

As well it should. The WTC conspiracy theory has about as much credibility
as Gunner's OP.

Pete C. wrote:
Drivel deleted

Yes, those of us who are capable of researching know full well Saddam
had WMDs, however this is the *Metalworking* group, so unless you are
going to post plans for building your own ICBM to deliver your WMDs,
please don't clog the group with this crap. We have enough other
spammers as it is.

I guess you don't know Gummer yet, the biggest apologist for the Bush
regime, this side of the Mississippi.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Nov 26, 1:35 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message

news


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip



That's the world as it really is. FWIW, none of this has much to do with
the neocon project, which is only marginally overlapping. This is just
the struggle between big powers for control, both of their own destiny
and of the military/economic/political complexion of the world at large.

--
Ed Huntress

Do you remember the thread about the surplus hydro power in Turkey, I
think? And, how that power would be the basis for the whole region's
future economies?

I don't remember the thread, Tom. I don't think I saw it at all.

The big problem with oil, though, is the developed (and developing) worlds'
dependence on it for transportation. I don't think the Middle East's
consumption enters into the political problem; it's *our* consumption, and
Europe's, and China's. We're going to have a hell of a time weaning
ourselves off of oil for cars and trucks, and for the myriad products we
make from petroleum, as well.

Meantime, we can always dig up western Canada and suck the oil out of the
sand. There's a lot of it -- 200 years worth at current world consumption
rates, by some estimates.

In fact, the Canadians are sucking it out by the megatons as we speak. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

We Canadians have oil between alberta hibernia and sable island but
were not stupid.

We know we can extract a premium for reliable oil form a stable
democratic country. being able to COUNT on Canadian crude compared to
the middle east is worth a premium and we are doing better for it for
now.

Though the US has basically shown its economies Jugular vein with its
dependence on oil for transport. Most countrie would hurt if the
petroleum gas supply were to dry up but could manage well. the US
would be almost crippled.

Brent
[happy my car will burn vegetable oil if it needs to]

"Brent" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 1:35 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message

news


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip



That's the world as it really is. FWIW, none of this has much to do
with
the neocon project, which is only marginally overlapping. This is just
the struggle between big powers for control, both of their own destiny
and of the military/economic/political complexion of the world at
large.

--
Ed Huntress

Do you remember the thread about the surplus hydro power in Turkey, I
think? And, how that power would be the basis for the whole region's
future economies?

I don't remember the thread, Tom. I don't think I saw it at all.

The big problem with oil, though, is the developed (and developing)
worlds'
dependence on it for transportation. I don't think the Middle East's
consumption enters into the political problem; it's *our* consumption,
and
Europe's, and China's. We're going to have a hell of a time weaning
ourselves off of oil for cars and trucks, and for the myriad products we
make from petroleum, as well.

Meantime, we can always dig up western Canada and suck the oil out of the
sand. There's a lot of it -- 200 years worth at current world consumption
rates, by some estimates.

In fact, the Canadians are sucking it out by the megatons as we speak.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

We Canadians have oil between alberta hibernia and sable island but
were not stupid.

We know we can extract a premium for reliable oil form a stable
democratic country. being able to COUNT on Canadian crude compared to
the middle east is worth a premium and we are doing better for it for
now.

Though the US has basically shown its economies Jugular vein with its
dependence on oil for transport. Most countrie would hurt if the
petroleum gas supply were to dry up but could manage well. the US
would be almost crippled.

Brent
[happy my car will burn vegetable oil if it needs to]

Oil certainly is a big benefit for Canada. By coincidence I recently saw a
calculation of the correlation coefficient between oil prices and the value
of the Canadian dollar versus the US dollar over the period 2002 - 2005. The
coefficient was 0.8477 and the R^2 regression was 0.72.

To explain those figures, calculated a couple of years ago, they predicted
that if everything else stood still, the Canadian and US dollars would reach
parity when oil hit $92/barrel. The actual was about $86/barrel and it was
on the rise at the time. So a regression analysis based on oil prices alone
nailed it almost perfectly. You rarely see such accurate predictive value in
such simple calculations.

What this means for Canada is that 72% of the value of the Loonie is
directly dependent upon world oil prices. The other factors in your
economy -- productivity and so on -- control 28% of it. And this means that
the value of the Loonie has been virtually uninfluenced by anything going on
in your economy except for the international price of oil, for at least the
last five years. The regression line alone doesn't assure that but the
regression plus the correlation coefficient -- which is extraordinarily
high -- pretty much does. It also means that the world currency traders are
pricing the Loonie as the currency of a commodity-exporting economy, like
the currencies of Russia and Nigeria, rather than as the currency of a
manufacturing or service-producing country.

That's not such a bad thing, since oil has been rising so sharply. But it
does mean that the value of your currency, and thus your ability to export,
is more vulnerable to oil prices than that of any other country in the
Western world. That's not such a good thing.

You won't see much about that in the popular press. It's not their kind of
thing. They'll pick up on it when your manufactured exports start hitting a
brick wall. Fortunately for Canada, a growing percentage of your exports are
energy itself, so, like Venezuela, you'll be able to ride that wave and your
total export numbers will look good. Your import costs will turn more like
ours have been over the past ten years; they'll be low, assuming the price
of oil keeps climbing. It will feel really nice. That's about as far as the
popular press usually analyzes it.

About relative dependence on oil, you've misread the numbers. Actually the
economy that would be most easily crippled is that of China. Among developed
countries, it's Japan by a small margin; Europe would dry up a lot faster
than the US without foreign oil. But all of us would go in the tank if, as
you say, oil "dried up." Fortunately again, you have a lot of that sticky
sand, because your per-capita energy consumption is somewhat higher than
ours, and your per capita oil consumption is almost the same as ours.
Without bothering with the units, it's 68.6 for the US, 66.4 for Canada; the
total energy numbers are roughly the reverse.

Be glad for what you have. Maybe when oil prices go up some more and the
Loonie is so high that you couldn't sell a beaver pelt overseas, you'll all
be able to sit back and collect welfare like the Saudis used to do. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:39:28 -0800, Abrasha
wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Drivel deleted

Yes, those of us who are capable of researching know full well Saddam
had WMDs, however this is the *Metalworking* group, so unless you are
going to post plans for building your own ICBM to deliver your WMDs,
please don't clog the group with this crap. We have enough other
spammers as it is.

I guess you don't know Gummer yet, the biggest apologist for the Bush
regime, this side of the Mississippi.


And you are the biggist faggot on Usenet. Your momma dresses you
funny. You stink. Your dog stinks. Your gay lover stinks.. Your
sister wears combat boots.

Snicker

Gunner

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:39:28 -0800, Abrasha
wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Drivel deleted

Yes, those of us who are capable of researching know full well Saddam
had WMDs, however this is the *Metalworking* group, so unless you are
going to post plans for building your own ICBM to deliver your WMDs,
please don't clog the group with this crap. We have enough other
spammers as it is.

I guess you don't know Gummer yet, the biggest apologist for the Bush
regime, this side of the Mississippi.


And you are the biggist faggot on Usenet. Your momma dresses you
funny. You stink. Your dog stinks. Your gay lover stinks.. Your
sister wears combat boots.

Snicker

....in which Gunner reminds us that some people can find joy in the simplest
and most unlikely of pleasures...

--
Ed Huntress