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.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

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?

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.


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?

Renata


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:
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

Gee, you didn't mention the nuclear weapons stuff.

So, where are the WMD?

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.

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?

In article ,
says...
So, where are the WMD?

a) Syria.
b) Iran.
c) buried in the desert in Iraq.
d) all of the above.

But Doug, Rumsfeldt said he *knew* where they were :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

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, wrote:

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?

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.

b) Iran.

See above.

See above.

c) buried in the desert in Iraq.

Why? What was he saving them for, the NEXT American invasion?

See above.
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?

I think *all* of us would like to know what happened to 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?

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 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

(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?