|
|
Larry Blanchard wrote: In article , says... Obviously, you're not going to convince me that SH was lilly-white on this one, and I'm not going to convince you that there's a real chance that there were and are still hidden WMD in Iraq. Oops - I forgot. I should have included this in my previous post. Sorry. This wasn't about the broader question of WMD. It was about the specific charge that those mobile hydrogen generators (with canvas sides, no less) were actually mobile biological weapons labs. That won't do any good. Mr Hinz will just go round and round about anything not dispositive to the issue at hand and then will say he's tired of it and claim he's going to quit posting about it, then start over again in reply to someone else. -- FF |
Dave Hinz wrote in
: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:27:37 -0800, Larry Blanchard BTW, Dave, I didn't see you respond when I gave you the url of a site where the "mobile weapons labs" were debunked. Did I miss your response or has the cat got your tongue? Was that the link at the Washington Post? I don't see that it'd go .... http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...977853,00.html |
The logic (or whatever) problem here is that it's not an absolute.
i.e. "invading" is not (necessarily) the wrong answer. As a simple exercise in the above: Invading Iraq, for which the justification now seems to have fallen apart, (please spare us the line about "best intelligence at the time"), was, mayhaps, not so wise. Using the justifications the administration gives, i.e. WMD, NKorea certainly seems to fit the bill a lot better. See the difference - "invading" vs "invading Iraq"? That little modifier ("Iraq") makes a world of difference. Renata On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:39:29 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: -snip- But speaking of baffling logic... you seem to be suggesting that the President did the wrong thing by invading Iraq, and he's doing the wrong thing by *not* invading North Korea. |
In article , Renata wrote:
The logic (or whatever) problem here is that it's not an absolute. i.e. "invading" is not (necessarily) the wrong answer. As a simple exercise in the above: Invading Iraq, for which the justification now seems to have fallen apart, (please spare us the line about "best intelligence at the time"), was, mayhaps, not so wise. No, I'm *not* going to spare you that line. Decisions can be made *only* on the basis of what is known at the time. But you're saying that the 2003 decision to invade Iraq was wrong, on the basis of information that we didn't have until 2004. Using the justifications the administration gives, i.e. WMD, NKorea certainly seems to fit the bill a lot better. So we *should* invade NK? I'm not sure what you're driving at here. See the difference - "invading" vs "invading Iraq"? That little modifier ("Iraq") makes a world of difference. Yes, I understand that you think that invading Iraq was a mistake. You still appear [above] to be suggesting that *not* invading North Korea is a mistake. The only consistency I can find between these two positions is that Bush is in the wrong, no matter what he does. Renata On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:39:29 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: -snip- But speaking of baffling logic... you seem to be suggesting that the President did the wrong thing by invading Iraq, and he's doing the wrong thing by *not* invading North Korea. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
In article , Renata wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:53:48 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Renata wrote: The logic (or whatever) problem here is that it's not an absolute. i.e. "invading" is not (necessarily) the wrong answer. As a simple exercise in the above: Invading Iraq, for which the justification now seems to have fallen apart, (please spare us the line about "best intelligence at the time"), was, mayhaps, not so wise. No, I'm *not* going to spare you that line. Decisions can be made *only* on the basis of what is known at the time. But you're saying that the 2003 decision to invade Iraq was wrong, on the basis of information that we didn't have until 2004. Not true. WE apparently had plenty of intelligence indicating the contrary. Bush just chose to ignore it. Not true. We had plenty of intelligence indicating exactly what the President said, but you're just choosing to ignore it. Using the justifications the administration gives, i.e. WMD, NKorea certainly seems to fit the bill a lot better. So we *should* invade NK? I'm not sure what you're driving at here. See the difference - "invading" vs "invading Iraq"? That little modifier ("Iraq") makes a world of difference. Yes, I understand that you think that invading Iraq was a mistake. You still appear [above] to be suggesting that *not* invading North Korea is a mistake. The only consistency I can find between these two positions is that Bush is in the wrong, no matter what he does. Are you really that simple minded? If I have misunderstood your position, perhaps you could make it clear, instead of resorting to gratuitous insults and allowing the misunderstanding to remain. *Do* you think that Bush is making a mistake by *not* invading North Korea? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
Doug Miller wrote: In article , GregP wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:17:36 -0800, Larry Blanchard wrote: 5. North Korea has no oil. They don't even have a pot to **** in. Yeah, but they have a real army that will fight back effectively, Unproven assumption, as they haven't fought any kind of war in half a century. Before 1991, the Iraqi Republican Guard was supposed to be pretty damn good, too, but it didn't quite turn out that way once the shooting started. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Without air support or anti-aircraft the Iraqi Republican Guard proved to be ineffective against B-52s, that is true. But US ground forcces never engaged the Iraqi Republican Guard. Personally, I think they would have been ineffective. But it was never put to the test. -- FF |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:59:23 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote: In article , Renata wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:53:48 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Renata wrote: The logic (or whatever) problem here is that it's not an absolute. i.e. "invading" is not (necessarily) the wrong answer. As a simple exercise in the above: Invading Iraq, for which the justification now seems to have fallen apart, (please spare us the line about "best intelligence at the time"), was, mayhaps, not so wise. No, I'm *not* going to spare you that line. Decisions can be made *only* on the basis of what is known at the time. But you're saying that the 2003 decision to invade Iraq was wrong, on the basis of information that we didn't have until 2004. Not true. WE apparently had plenty of intelligence indicating the contrary. Bush just chose to ignore it. Not true. We had plenty of intelligence indicating exactly what the President said, but you're just choosing to ignore it. There was all kind of possibilities and before running off an invading a country one should make damn sure of one's facts. An "oopsie" after taking such a major step is not forgiveable. Using the justifications the administration gives, i.e. WMD, NKorea certainly seems to fit the bill a lot better. So we *should* invade NK? I'm not sure what you're driving at here. See the difference - "invading" vs "invading Iraq"? That little modifier ("Iraq") makes a world of difference. Yes, I understand that you think that invading Iraq was a mistake. You still appear [above] to be suggesting that *not* invading North Korea is a mistake. The only consistency I can find between these two positions is that Bush is in the wrong, no matter what he does. Are you really that simple minded? If I have misunderstood your position, perhaps you could make it clear, instead of resorting to gratuitous insults and allowing the misunderstanding to remain. You're right, and I apologize. I had thought I'd put it in fairly straightforward terms already and was feeling persnickety this morning. Let me try again. "Invade" is not the same as "invade Iraq". Because one is against invading Iraq does not mean one is against ALL invading. If a country presents a clear and urgent danger, we take whatever steps are necessary to protect ourselves. Urgent is relative. i.e. they don't have to be on our doorstep before we decide to take appropriate action. The administration tried to make just such a strong case for invading Iraq, based on lies. I say "lies" because all the intelligence did not overwhelmingly indicate WMD, etc. but they chose only to present that portion. NKorea seems to be presenting much more favorable criteria for someone bent on invading. I personally have no real stand on the wisdom of invading said country because I haven't really looked at all the details. The prez made a case for invading Iraq based on ties to AQ and WMD. He said we KNEW where the WMD were. THere were pics and everything. If that's so, why did we, the "only superpower" with all these lovely and expensive eyes in the sky, lose these vast quantities of materiel totally and absolutely, such that we can't find a shred of evidence for their existence, or where they possibly got to. ZILCH. A couple old munitions from the early 90s do not count and were not part of the original list of WMD, as quoted, for example, in the Cinncinatti speech. I bet even the USA, even with all it's high powered computers and tracking systems has misplaced a few stray shells and munitions of various sorts. And, we haven't gone thru a war on home territory. I can't understand how such glaring errors, y'all can look the other way and/or keep finding excuses for the goings on. Talk about living in your own plane of existence... Renata *Do* you think that Bush is making a mistake by *not* invading North Korea? |
Doug Miller wrote: ... And of course Iraq *did* have WMDs: the Sarin shell, and a few other items that Fred and Dave were discussing, among others. That is a misrepresentation of the discussion. Iraq no doubt still has chemical munitions in the form of unexploded duds on old battlefields and test ranges. It is factually incorrect to refer to those as weapons of mass destruction inasmuch as they are no longer effectively useable as weapons. -- FF |
Doug Miller wrote: Not true. We had plenty of intelligence indicating exactly what the President said, but you're just choosing to ignore it. http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403731 Bush also ignored the intel he received between Fall of 2003 and the invasion itself. This was only to be expected as having moved troops to theater whe was not about to bring them home without conducting an invasion. -- FF |
In article , Renata wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:59:23 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: If I have misunderstood your position, perhaps you could make it clear, instead of resorting to gratuitous insults and allowing the misunderstanding to remain. You're right, and I apologize. Thank you. [snip] The administration tried to make just such a strong case for invading Iraq, based on lies. I say "lies" because all the intelligence did not overwhelmingly indicate WMD, etc. but they chose only to present that portion. [snip] The prez made a case for invading Iraq based on ties to AQ and WMD. I thought this point had been beaten absolutely to death in this thread, but I see there's still a bit of life left in it. The case for going to war was based on much more than WMDs. That was *part* of it, but it was not the only part. IMO the invasion was more than justified even without WMDs as a reason. [snip] I can't understand how such glaring errors, y'all can look the other way and/or keep finding excuses for the goings on. Talk about living in your own plane of existence... Another gratuitous insult. And particularly ironic, considering your own inability to recognize (or admit) the fact that the President's case for war in Iraq was based on many factors, not just WMDs. Bye now. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
In article . com, wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: Not true. We had plenty of intelligence indicating exactly what the President said, but you're just choosing to ignore it. http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403731 Bush also ignored the intel he received between Fall of 2003 and the invasion itself. There you go again, criticizing the President for making decisions without taking into account things that had not yet happened. (Hint: check when the invasion actually occurred.) -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:48:16 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, wrote: Doug Miller wrote: Not true. We had plenty of intelligence indicating exactly what the President said, but you're just choosing to ignore it. http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403731 Bush also ignored the intel he received between Fall of 2003 and the invasion itself. There you go again, criticizing the President for making decisions without taking into account things that had not yet happened. Come on, Doug, that's not fair; bring facts into it and all... Dave |
This entire thread has been beaten to death.... Just go out into the shop and make a pile of sawdust and chill out..... History will be the judge long after all of us are no longer living... Bob Griffiths |
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:43:21 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote: In article , Renata wrote: On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:59:23 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: -snip- I can't understand how such glaring errors, y'all can look the other way and/or keep finding excuses for the goings on. Talk about living in your own plane of existence... Another gratuitous insult. And particularly ironic, considering your own inability to recognize (or admit) the fact that the President's case for war in Iraq was based on many factors, not just WMDs. Bye now. It is not meant ot be an insult. It is beyond my ken that you can just toss out/ignore the major, overwhelming given justifications for this war and say they don't matter. I guarantee you that had WMD been found, you'd all be sitting here, awash in "self-validation". Renata |
In article , Renata wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:43:21 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Renata wrote: On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:59:23 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: -snip- I can't understand how such glaring errors, y'all can look the other way and/or keep finding excuses for the goings on. Talk about living in your own plane of existence... Another gratuitous insult. And particularly ironic, considering your own inability to recognize (or admit) the fact that the President's case for war in Iraq was based on many factors, not just WMDs. Bye now. It is not meant ot be an insult. "Talk about living in your own plane of existence" was not meant as an insult? Yeah, right. It is beyond my ken that you can just toss out/ignore the major, overwhelming given justifications for this war and say they don't matter. Excuse me? It's *you* who is ignoring all the *other* justifications for the war, and focusing on only one reason (WMDs) out of many. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
Doug Miller wrote: In article . com, wrote: Doug Miller wrote: Not true. We had plenty of intelligence indicating exactly what the President said, but you're just choosing to ignore it. http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403731 Bush also ignored the intel he received between Fall of 2003 and the invasion itself. There you go again, criticizing the President for making decisions without taking into account things that had not yet happened. (Hint: check when the invasion actually occurred.) Thanks for the hint. I meant to write, Fall of 2002 and the invasion itself in 2003. By then, troops had been massed in theater and it would have been politically damaging to bring them home without invading, no matter what Saddam Hussein did. You will recall that Bush's criteria for 'not invading' suddenly changed from compliance to the UN mandates, which IAEA and UNMOVIC had indicated was the case, to Saddam, Usay, and Quday Hussein leaving Iraq, regime change was not a demand Bush had previously made. -- FF |
Doug Miller wrote: all the *other* justifications for the war, and focusing on only one reason (WMDs) out of many. How abouts if you summarize those other (besides WMD or links to Al Queda) reasons for the invasion? Not that you haven;t mentioned them befor, but it would be nice to see the list wihtout all the other arguing and nonsense. Then we can start arguing about it. But let's keep in mind the point about the WMD and Al Queda issue is not whether or not we should have invaded, but whether or not the Bush administration engaged in a campaign of lies and deceit. -- FF |
In the Cincinatti speech: 24 paragraphs on WMD, 4 on terror links, 3
on implementing the UN resolution, a couple intro paragraphs, 3 on how horrid SH is, 7 misc/closing. In that speech, there are no other justifications. Renata On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:09:45 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: -snip- Excuse me? It's *you* who is ignoring all the *other* justifications for the war, and focusing on only one reason (WMDs) out of many. |
In article , Renata wrote:
In the Cincinatti speech: 24 paragraphs on WMD, 4 on terror links, 3 on implementing the UN resolution, a couple intro paragraphs, 3 on how horrid SH is, 7 misc/closing. Your count bears only a slight resemblance to reality. Among other things, it appears that you count any paragraph containing even a passing reference to WMDs as a paragraph "on" WMDs. And you missed two complete paragraphs, and parts of two more, on bringing freedom to the people of Iraq; I'm guessing you just lumped those under "misc/closing" because you don't want to admit that the President presented any other justifications besides the one, of many, that you keep harping on. Here's reality, a paragraph at a time: 1-2 intro 3 WMDs, terror links, Iraq's failure to live up to 1991 cease-fire agreement 4 America's vulnerability to terrorist attack 5 universal agreement that Saddam is a threat, danger of WMDs 6 general concerns about threats from Iraq and elsewhere 7-8 Saddam is a bad guy 9 we'd better do something about it 10 Iraq admits developing WMDs... 11 ... and we know it 12 continued Iraqi defiance of cease-fire agreement & UN resolutions 13 weapons delivery systems 14 links to terrorist groups 15 common interest with, and links to, al Qaeda 16 danger these links pose to America 17-18 action against Iraq is part of war on terror, not distraction from it 19-21 US *and* UN evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons program 22 why that's a problem for us 23-25 why we need to whack them now instead of waiting for them to whack us 26-30 we've already tried damn near everything else 31 UN must act 32 if Saddam doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him 33 multilateral support of UN demands 34 reiterates specifics of those demands 35 Iraq needs to change, but probably won't happen until Saddam is outta there 36 don't want to go to war, but if we have to, we're serious about it 37-38 why continuing to wait is a poor idea 39 we're not going to leave the fate of our nation in any hands but our own 40 don't worry about destabilizing Iraq: it could hardly be worse 41 Saddam's really nasty 42-43 Iraqi people will benefit most from Saddam's departure 44-45 asking Congress to authorize action 46 reiterates importance of taking action 47-48 closing Like I said, WMDs were not the only justification given. Or needed. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:45:33 -0500, Renata wrote:
In the Cincinatti speech: 24 paragraphs on WMD, 4 on terror links, 3 on implementing the UN resolution, a couple intro paragraphs, 3 on how horrid SH is, 7 misc/closing. In that speech, there are no other justifications. In this sentence, there are no mentions of animals other than horses. |
Doug Miller wrote: (Regarding GWB's Fall, 2002 speech) 1-2 intro 3 WMDs, terror links, Iraq's failure to live up to 1991 cease-fire agreement 4 America's vulnerability to terrorist attack 5 universal agreement that Saddam is a threat, danger of WMDs 6 general concerns about threats from Iraq and elsewhere 7-8 Saddam is a bad guy 9 we'd better do something about it 10 Iraq admits developing WMDs... 11 ... and we know it 12 continued Iraqi defiance of cease-fire agreement & UN resolutions 13 weapons delivery systems 14 links to terrorist groups 15 common interest with, and links to, al Qaeda 16 danger these links pose to America 17-18 action against Iraq is part of war on terror, not distraction from it 19-21 US *and* UN evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons program 22 why that's a problem for us 23-25 why we need to whack them now instead of waiting for them to whack us 26-30 we've already tried damn near everything else 31 UN must act 32 if Saddam doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him 33 multilateral support of UN demands 34 reiterates specifics of those demands 35 Iraq needs to change, but probably won't happen until Saddam is outta there 36 don't want to go to war, but if we have to, we're serious about it 37-38 why continuing to wait is a poor idea 39 we're not going to leave the fate of our nation in any hands but our own 40 don't worry about destabilizing Iraq: it could hardly be worse 41 Saddam's really nasty 42-43 Iraqi people will benefit most from Saddam's departure 44-45 asking Congress to authorize action 46 reiterates importance of taking action 47-48 closing Like I said, WMDs were not the only justification given. Or needed. Based on your analysis by my count the paragraphs presenting justifications other than WMD, or ties to paramilitary groups, a 7-8, (maybe 35), 37-38, 42-43. I have omitted from inclusion those paragraphs addressing UN resolutions and the 1991 cease fire agreement as the alleged violations of those are either WMD related, or (quite true) allegations that Iraq has fired on foreign military aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones. I omit the latter because the establishment of those no-fly zones violated the 199 cease-fire agreement, thus in principle releasing Iraq from their obligation to cease fire. As far as I am concerned, screw Iraq, we needed to establish those no-fly zones, but that does not change the facts. Now those paragraphs that present WMDs or support for paramilitary groups a 3-6, 10, 11, 13-22, 32-34, and 39. So I see a total of 17 paragraphs alleging WMD or ties to paramilitary groups and 7, to other justifications. Depending on what one infers from the word 'justification' this proves your point that GWB stated other reasons for war, and also proves that he put most of the emphasis on WMD and ties to paramilitary groups. E.g. It is a matter of interpretaion whether 'Things in Iraq could not get any worde' is a justification or a reassurance of minimal negative consequences. I'd call it the latter. -- FF |
|
In article , Renata wrote:
Gee, you didn't mention the nuclear weapons stuff. Gee, you didn't read very carefully. Try again. 19-21 US *and* UN evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons program 22 why that's a problem for us So, where are the WMD? a) Syria. b) Iran. c) buried in the desert in Iraq. d) all of the above. And now, back to our regularly scheduled program. Woodworking, wasn't it? ;-) Renata On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:38:19 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Renata wrote: In the Cincinatti speech: 24 paragraphs on WMD, 4 on terror links, 3 on implementing the UN resolution, a couple intro paragraphs, 3 on how horrid SH is, 7 misc/closing. Your count bears only a slight resemblance to reality. Among other things, it appears that you count any paragraph containing even a passing reference to WMDs as a paragraph "on" WMDs. And you missed two complete paragraphs, and parts of two more, on bringing freedom to the people of Iraq; I'm guessing you just lumped those under "misc/closing" because you don't want to admit that the President presented any other justifications besides the one, of many, that you keep harping on. Here's reality, a paragraph at a time: 1-2 intro 3 WMDs, terror links, Iraq's failure to live up to 1991 cease-fire agreement 4 America's vulnerability to terrorist attack 5 universal agreement that Saddam is a threat, danger of WMDs 6 general concerns about threats from Iraq and elsewhere 7-8 Saddam is a bad guy 9 we'd better do something about it 10 Iraq admits developing WMDs... 11 ... and we know it 12 continued Iraqi defiance of cease-fire agreement & UN resolutions 13 weapons delivery systems 14 links to terrorist groups 15 common interest with, and links to, al Qaeda 16 danger these links pose to America 17-18 action against Iraq is part of war on terror, not distraction from it 19-21 US *and* UN evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons program 22 why that's a problem for us 23-25 why we need to whack them now instead of waiting for them to whack us 26-30 we've already tried damn near everything else 31 UN must act 32 if Saddam doesn't disarm, we'll disarm him 33 multilateral support of UN demands 34 reiterates specifics of those demands 35 Iraq needs to change, but probably won't happen until Saddam is outta there 36 don't want to go to war, but if we have to, we're serious about it 37-38 why continuing to wait is a poor idea 39 we're not going to leave the fate of our nation in any hands but our own 40 don't worry about destabilizing Iraq: it could hardly be worse 41 Saddam's really nasty 42-43 Iraqi people will benefit most from Saddam's departure 44-45 asking Congress to authorize action 46 reiterates importance of taking action 47-48 closing Like I said, WMDs were not the only justification given. Or needed. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
|
Doug Miller wrote: In article , Renata wrote: Gee, you didn't mention the nuclear weapons stuff. Gee, you didn't read very carefully. Try again. 19-21 US *and* UN evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons program 22 why that's a problem for us So, where are the WMD? a) Syria. Why would Saddam Hussein ship his WMD OUT of Iraq on the eve of war? b) Iran. See above. c) buried in the desert in Iraq. Why? What was he saving them for, the NEXT American invasion? d) all of the above. What happened to the WMD the US claimed had been moved to forward positions eith Iraqi field commanders authorized to use them? -- FF |
Doug Miller posits:
So, where are the WMD? a) Syria. b) Iran. c) buried in the desert in Iraq. d) all of the above. Or none of the above. |
|
In article .com, "Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller posits: So, where are the WMD? a) Syria. b) Iran. c) buried in the desert in Iraq. d) all of the above. Or none of the above. Trouble with that is, if he didn't have them, then why would he not cooperate with the UN inspectors and end the sanctions? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
Doug Miller wrote: In article .com, "Charlie Self" wrote: Doug Miller posits: So, where are the WMD? a) Syria. b) Iran. c) buried in the desert in Iraq. d) all of the above. Or none of the above. Trouble with that is, if he didn't have them, then why would he not cooperate with the UN inspectors and end the sanctions? Dictators stay in power, in part, by creating fear of an external enemy against whom they make a show of strength. However, when faced iwth an impending US invasion he knew his show of strength was just that, all show and no strength. That is why he DID cooperate with teh UN inspectors in 2002 and 2003. Can you give us any reason to believe that he did not? -- FF |
wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article .com, "Charlie Self" wrote: Doug Miller posits: So, where are the WMD? a) Syria. b) Iran. c) buried in the desert in Iraq. d) all of the above. Or none of the above. Trouble with that is, if he didn't have them, then why would he not cooperate with the UN inspectors and end the sanctions? Dictators stay in power, in part, by creating fear of an external enemy against whom they make a show of strength. However, when faced iwth an impending US invasion he knew his show of strength was just that, all show and no strength. That is why he DID cooperate with teh UN inspectors in 2002 and 2003. Can you give us any reason to believe that he did not? -- FF |
|
(Doug Miller) wrote in
: Doug Miller wrote: In article , Renata wrote: So, where are the WMD? .... I think *all* of us would like to know what happened to them. Most of us tend to put weight on the reports of the president's own investigators, who concluded that they were destroyed shortly after the '91 Gulf War: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct6.html Of course you could believe that they are in Syria, Iran, or buried in the desert. There is little or no evidence to support those notions. |
wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article . com, wrote: ... Why would Saddam Hussein ship his WMD OUT of Iraq on the eve of war? Afraid to use them against us because he knew we'd nuke him, but didn't want to get rid of them altogether because he was saving them up to use on Israel. Splorph! We certainly would not nuke him, but Israel all but certainly would. Remeber back in 1991 when Saddam Hussein lobbed some concrete blocks and a couple of HE warheads against Israel? The IAF was in the air within the hour and only Powell's promise to deploy Patriots saved Baghdad. What happened to the WMD the US claimed had been moved to forward positions eith Iraqi field commanders authorized to use them? I think *all* of us would like to know what happened to them. I think any of us that aren't incredibly naive realize that the hastily retreating Iraqis certainly didn't take the time to remove or bury them. IOW they were never there. -- FF |
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 06:01:18 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in m: Doug Miller wrote: In article , Renata wrote: So, where are the WMD? ... I think *all* of us would like to know what happened to them. Most of us tend to put weight on the reports of the president's own investigators, who concluded that they were destroyed shortly after the '91 Gulf War: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct6.html Of course you could believe that they are in Syria, Iran, or buried in the desert. There is little or no evidence to support those notions. Thus Doug, I state you live in your own little plane of existence. See, not an insult, but more of a statement of fact. (i.e. in spite of quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, no evidence to support your theory, no trace left of any of these labs (or the material they were supposedly producing), etc. you continue to cling to your theory) Renata |
In article , Renata wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 06:01:18 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in om: Doug Miller wrote: In article , Renata wrote: So, where are the WMD? ... I think *all* of us would like to know what happened to them. Most of us tend to put weight on the reports of the president's own investigators, who concluded that they were destroyed shortly after the '91 Gulf War: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct6.html Of course you could believe that they are in Syria, Iran, or buried in the desert. There is little or no evidence to support those notions. Thus Doug, I state you live in your own little plane of existence. See, not an insult, but more of a statement of fact. (i.e. in spite of quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, no evidence to support your theory, no trace left of any of these labs (or the material they were supposedly producing), etc. you continue to cling to your theory) Talk about living in your own little world... you continue to ignore the FACT that there is NO evidence that Iraq actually destroyed all its chem/bio weapons. The Duelfer report concludes that they were destroyed "in secret". This conclusion is on its face unsupported, and unsupportable: if it happened in secret, how do we know it happened at all? The UN required that they be destroyed under UN supervision, in order that the whole world would KNOW that they had been destroyed. That did not happen, and thus it is NOT known what became of them. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
Doug Miller wrote: Talk about living in your own little world... you continue to ignore the FACT that there is NO evidence that Iraq actually destroyed all its chem/bio weapons. The Duelfer report concludes that they were destroyed "in secret". This conclusion is on its face unsupported, and unsupportable: if it happened in secret, how do we know it happened at all? The fact is that with the exception of mustard, all of Iraq's chemical weapons had a short shelf life due to impurities. The Iraqi manufacturing facilites and stockpiles were bombed during the 1991 war. UNSCOM proceeded to destroy most of the remaining facilites (see below as to the fate of the rest). Even during the period of the UNSCOM inspections Iraq continued some banned work developing and later destroying VX. Residues obtained by UNMOVIC at the disposal site confirmed that VX had been bestroyed there though the quantitiy destroyed was in- determinate. But again, Iraq never achieved the purity needed for long-term storage. In 1998 Iraq balked and refused to allow inspection of a facility so Clinton bombed it. UNSCOM voluntarily left Iraq shortly befor the bombing and was refused readmittance thereafter. This led to concerns that Iraq was rebuilding it's WMD facilites and arsenal. However, the claim by the Bush administration that these facilites had been rebuilt after 1998 was disproven when UNMOVIC inspected them in 2002 and 2003 and found that they were still destroyed. As David Kay said, no factories, no weapons. UNSCOM and UNMOVIC concluded that about 550 mustard munitions left over from befor the 1991 war remained unaccounted for. This is too small a quantity to be of effective tactical use and is small enough to be the result of poor record keeping during the heat of battle. No other munitions manufactured by Iraq were of sufficient purity to maintain their effectiveness over a period of years. Do you understand that? If Sadam Hussein was hiding a stockpile of pre-1991 WMD from UNSCOM and UNMOVIC for all those years as you have oft contended, he was hiding a stockpile of duds. The UN required that they be destroyed under UN supervision, in order that the whole world would KNOW that they had been destroyed. That did not happen, and thus it is NOT known what became of them. UNSCOM reported the destruction under UNSCOM supervision of substantial stockpiles during 1991-1993, as well as the supervised destruction of the manufacturing facilites. Clearly the 1998 destruction accomplished in Operation Desert Fox was unsupervised. In 2002 Iraq declared that it had unilterally destroyed some small quantities like the VX discussed above. I quite agree that in the period from 1991 to 2002 Iraq under Sadam Hussein commited numerous violations of the UN sanctions. I do not agree that punishing Sadam Hussein is worth the loss of a single American life. Do you agree that the UN and Bush, in the Fall of 2002 gave Iraq a last chance to comply? -- FF |
(Doug Miller) wrote in
: In article , Renata wrote: On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 06:01:18 GMT, Nate Perkins wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in . com: Doug Miller wrote: In article , Renata wrote: So, where are the WMD? ... I think *all* of us would like to know what happened to them. Most of us tend to put weight on the reports of the president's own investigators, who concluded that they were destroyed shortly after the '91 Gulf War: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct6.html Of course you could believe that they are in Syria, Iran, or buried in the desert. There is little or no evidence to support those notions. Thus Doug, I state you live in your own little plane of existence. See, not an insult, but more of a statement of fact. (i.e. in spite of quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, no evidence to support your theory, no trace left of any of these labs (or the material they were supposedly producing), etc. you continue to cling to your theory) Talk about living in your own little world... you continue to ignore the FACT that there is NO evidence that Iraq actually destroyed all its chem/bio weapons. The Duelfer report concludes that they were destroyed "in secret". This conclusion is on its face unsupported, and unsupportable: if it happened in secret, how do we know it happened at all? Usually when people insist on the proof of a negative, it's a pretty sure sign that they aren't interested in the reasonable weight of evidence. I think you oversimplify the Duelfer report's conclusions on how WMDs were destroyed. The report draws a full timeline of several rounds of destructions, the majority of which were under UN supervision. The UN required that they be destroyed under UN supervision, in order that the whole world would KNOW that they had been destroyed. That did not happen, and thus it is NOT known what became of them. That's a pretty weak reason to wage a preemptive war. Moreover, it seems fairly ironic that details of UN supervision are now claimed to be so critical -- but at the time, the administration was disrespecting the UNMOVIC inspectors by likening them to "Inspector Clouseau" (Powell) or a "sham" (Rumsfeld). |
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in m: The UN required that they be destroyed under UN supervision, in order that the whole world would KNOW that they had been destroyed. That did not happen, and thus it is NOT known what became of them. That's a pretty weak reason to wage a preemptive war. You just don't seem able to grasp the simple concept that there were *other* reasons as well. Come back when you figure that out. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter