No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...


But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because
they
don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody?

Today not all

In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
go back into production of WMD and the missiles
to carry them who knows ?

Is that going
to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?


It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?

Keith

In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:

But if this was a long-overdue war to depose SH, then why couldn't we
be _honest_ about it and call it that ?

Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
they could be the same sort of *******.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...


But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because
they
don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody?

Today not all

In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
go back into production of WMD and the missiles
to carry them who knows ?

The same things that happened during the past five years could have happened in
the next five years, without either of our countries having had to have suffered
the loss of a single life. I'm not convinced that your pessimistic view of the
future is anywhere near accurate, and certainly not enough to satisfy me as
being worth the number of dead and maimed we have suffered up to now and
apparently will continue to suffer.

Is that going
to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?


It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?

Yes, I would, because the thing may blow up on the pad, or it may suffer one of
countless setbacks that might prevent it from ever leaving the ground. IAC, if
that's the criteria, our war with them should have started already, but I notice
that it hasn't, for some strange reason.

Yes, I still think it's an empty rationale. We can't make war with every
country we don't like just because we are fearful of their intentions. If we
have to do that, we're pretty much fully engaged and committed in Afghanistan
and Iraq at the moment, so how about you guys taking the lead in North Korea and
China.....I'm sure we can find a division or two of troops to send over to give
your guys a hand and lend you some moral support.

George Z.

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:


But if this was a long-overdue war to depose SH, then why couldn't we
be _honest_ about it and call it that ?


Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
they could be the same sort of *******.

I don't follow your reasoning. Please expand, on the connection.

captain! wrote:

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...=21801&lang=en

No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

they have found tons of munitions.
What kind of munitions do you think that Petkhov was
refering to?
What kind of munitions were found?
What can this be considered as evidence of?

In article ,
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:

But if this was a long-overdue war to depose SH, then why couldn't we
be _honest_ about it and call it that ?

Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
they could be the same sort of *******.

I don't follow your reasoning. Please expand, on the connection.

Less than one-third of the countries in the United Nations have what you
could call a "representative government."

Some of the loudest voices against the US deposing a dictator like
Saddam Hussein are, well, dictators like Saddam Hussein...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message

In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
go back into production of WMD and the missiles
to carry them who knows ?

The same things that happened during the past five years could have happened in
the next five years, without either of our countries having had to have suffered
the loss of a single life. I'm not convinced that your pessimistic view of the
future is anywhere near accurate, and certainly not enough to satisfy me as
being worth the number of dead and maimed we have suffered up to now and
apparently will continue to suffer.

I think the sanctions were about to be broken. Russia, France, Germany and
a significant part of US opinion was starting to regard them as misdirected
against innocent Iraqis. The regime was largely unhampered by them, and in
fact, was enriching itself on the limited commondities.

It wasn't until US intentions to go to war became clear that suddenly, sanctions
were good and should "be given time" to work. Too many interests in too many
countries in letting Saddam out from under the UN, for them to have lasted.

It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?

Yes, I would, because the thing may blow up on the pad, or it may suffer one of
countless setbacks that might prevent it from ever leaving the ground. IAC, if
that's the criteria, our war with them should have started already, but I notice
that it hasn't, for some strange reason.

I wonder if any of the Bush critics *really* would support a war, or even more
agressive actions against NK? It's a *much* more formidable country militarily
than Iraq probably ever was. I don't believe for a minute that Dean or Kennedy
or any of the Democratic (or Republican) critics of the war would even think of
seriously threatening NK with force. Yet we keep hearing them tell us how much
more dangerous NK is and our efforts should be put there.

Yes, I still think it's an empty rationale. We can't make war with every
country we don't like just because we are fearful of their intentions. If we

That's absolutely true. I've come to the belief that we should simply wait
until the "fearful intentions" are actually demonstrated, before action is taken.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans (most likely civilians) will die by waiting, but
the intent will be clear, and whether anyone else likes our reaction or not won't
matter a whit to the American people.

have to do that, we're pretty much fully engaged and committed in Afghanistan
and Iraq at the moment, so how about you guys taking the lead in North Korea and
China.....I'm sure we can find a division or two of troops to send over to give
your guys a hand and lend you some moral support.

So are you actually in support of military operations against this more dangerous
to US than Iraq, North Korea? I'd be very surprised to see you actually supporting
a war against NK, especially if the current casualty rate in Iraq is considered too
high. Can you imagine the casualty rates per week against NK?


SMH

In article ,
"Yama" wrote:

But that wasn't the point, was it? US&UK attacked Iraq because of it's
supposed _immediate_ threat.

Actually, no, despite the spin put on it by some news organizations.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Yama" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find
because
they
don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody?

Today not all

In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
go back into production of WMD and the missiles
to carry them who knows ?

But that wasn't the point, was it? US&UK attacked Iraq because of it's
supposed _immediate_ threat. If you start invading coutries based on their
ability to develope WMD and ballistic missile capability within 5 years,
there probably are like, oh, 100 nations which need to be invaded right
away.

The ability to develop weapons programs and the act
of having clandestine weapons programs specifically
prohibited by the UN are somewhat different beasts.

The Iraqi regime having invaded two of its neighbours and
having use WMD on its own people was a known threat.

The fact that they have indeed been found to be developing
such clandestine programs seems to indicate the leopard
hadnt changed its spots. Now the inquiry into the Hutton
affair seems to indicate some doubt about how immediate
various sources thought was correct, however when dealing with
a regime as secrestive as Iraq its always going to be hard to
get it right

After the first war with Iraq we found they were MUCH nearer
to getting nuclear weapons than anyone thought possible.
When dealing with someone with the track record of Saddam
Hussein I'm not inclined to grant the regime the benefit of the
doubt.


Now, there is more and more evidence being uncovered that Bush and Blair
not
only exaggarated and were ignorant about true Iraqi capabilities, they
were
downright lying to public about them.

Why should international community believe them ever again?



And yet you'd have us believe Saddam Hussein and presumably
lift the sanctions, which were killing more Iraqis per year than
the war, if you believe the relief organisations.

Fact is the situation was a running sore, the options were
ignore the infection or lance the boil.

Keith

George Z. Bush wrote:
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..

(Michael Petukhov) wrote:


First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced".

Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them :"seed
banks".

If these strains were intended to be used for legitimate use, why did
they hide them in this guy's home refrigerator? Also, he reportedly
told investigators that they tried to hide Anthrax at his home as well,
but that he convinced them to remove it due to the hazard posed, as
he had small children in the home (although it does seem strange to
me that he would be willing to keep the Botulinum). The Anthrax
involved was never accounted for by Iraq, AFAIK.


There's an interesting article the BBC published yesterday
about David Kay The man spearheading the US hunt for
banned weapons in Iraq. He said he is surprised attention
has focused on what his Iraq Survey Group has not found,
rather than on the things it has uncovered.

He says his Iraq Survey Group has uncovered evidence of
banned activities which the United Nations and pre-war
intelligence had not known about, including 24 clandestine
laboratories and four unreported missile programmes.

He also insisted his report last week to US Congress was interim.
"I know we're going to find remarkable things about Iraq's
weapons programmes," he said.


But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because they
don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody? Is that going
to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?


Well, the UN resolution didn't require Iraq to prove only that it
had no weapons at the time of the latest round of inspections. It
required Iraq to reveal any and all programs and to show that
they had been permanently abondoned. Since these programs were
never revealed and appear to be ongoing, we have simple proof that
Iraq was in violation of the UN resolution under which the U.S.,
Britain, Spain, et al, declared as their authority for action.

Also, in some cases there is still reason to believe that the weapons
existed up until at least just prior to the war. Kay reportedly has
received testimony that Iraq was still producing Scud fuel, which is
not used by any Iraqi equipment except Scuds (none that we know of,
anyway). As Kay asked in one interview, what do you need to produce
rocket fuel for if you don't have a rocket to use it in? While we
await confirmation or refutation of the testimony, we can't rule out
Scud missiles still being in the inventory 12 years after Iraq agreed
to destroy them under the ceasefire agreement.

Mike