Pete wrote:
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote

Various cultures and equipment hidden away and *never*
discovered by UNSCOM?

If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?

If you were an Iraqi pilot, would you want to fly a plane that had been buried
in the desert sand for two or more years with all of its electrical systems
cooked and dried out by the searing heat?
Any pilot stupid enough to do that might be a bold pilot, but he'd never make it
long enough to become an old one.

Ah, but if we use the analysis method employed by those folks claiming that
Saddam was not violating the requirements regarding WMD's, then those Migs
are not evidence of "aircraft", 'cause you have to have at least one hundred
of them, or more, before you can even *consider* them being "aircraft",
right? A chemical round of a type that Saddam never revealed having *any*
of, maybe developed as a product of an R&D effort that post-dated 687, an
alleged mustard round, along with other "undiscovered" things like the ricin
program, the hidden cultures, equipment, documents, and even *people*, don't
equal his violation of the requirements of 687 and evidence his continued
efforts to develop WMD's in spite of the restrictions, now do they? :-)

Everybody knows that Sadaam had chemical weapons back in the 80s....he used them
against the Iranis and against his own rebellious Kurds, and we are the ones who
sent people over there to teach his troops how to do it without killing
themselves. So, we found ONE left-over, after a year of searching, out of all
of the thousands he may have had at one time. So what? It was no threat to our
nation or to our troops as our leaders well knew when they started the war.


Exactly. We hear the oft repeated chant "There were no WMD's! Bush lied!"

Ok...*when* were there none? Evidently, in between 1988 (documented use) and
Dec 2002, we're supposed to believe that all WMD's ceased to exist in Iraq.

Why was this not found out, and why didn't whoever was in power at the time
sing it from the rooftops? Seems that would have been a slam dunk for the
then current ruling party.

You want the Iraqis to prove that they didn't have what they said they didn't
have. If you think proving a negative is so easy, why don't you try proving
that our sadistic jailers didn't know how to provide humane treatment to their
prisoners? You'd not only have to prove that they signed off on getting such
training, but you'd also have to prove that they didn't just sign off on
it.....that they actually received the training and that they were paying
attention and understood what they were being taught. How do you do that? I
dunno....you tell me! A lot easier said than done, isn't it?

George Z.