General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Let's - for the sake of simplicity - assume the munitions and
facilities
have a trustworthy date stamp, however ascertained. Hard to do, but it
simplifies the terms.

1998 and earlier, I'm willing to accept a few (call it three, offhand)
"WME stockpiles" that are - for a rule of thumb - a pallet or less of
shells, 122mm rockets, or precursors each.

...that could be found, accidentally, by militias? When there are
*millions* of similar pallets of conventional weapons floating around in
Iraq right now?

The math is way against you here. Literally millions-to-one odds.

On the other hand, if there were a lot of unreported and uncatalogued
chemical weapons in the mix, you'd have a much better chance of someone
turning up one or two out of a random ammo dump. Which is what seems to
have happened.


If more don't show up, I'd be inclined to suspect some participant in
the research program that took one, or a few, prototypes home for
safekeeping. We know this was done for some nuclear and biological
components. Said somebody may have decided he didn't want this in his
backyard, and gave it to insurgents, possibly with an explanation they
didn't understand.

In article ,
Howard Berkowitz wrote:

If more don't show up, I'd be inclined to suspect some participant in
the research program that took one, or a few, prototypes home for
safekeeping. We know this was done for some nuclear and biological
components. Said somebody may have decided he didn't want this in his
backyard, and gave it to insurgents, possibly with an explanation they
didn't understand.

But someone from the research program would know that this sort of round
needs to be fired so the chemicals would mix correctly, and wouldn't set
it off the way they did.

So it was someone *outside* of the program who had this one at hand.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Let's - for the sake of simplicity - assume the munitions and facilities
have a trustworthy date stamp, however ascertained. Hard to do, but it
simplifies the terms.

1998 and earlier, I'm willing to accept a few (call it three, offhand)
"WME stockpiles" that are - for a rule of thumb - a pallet or less of
shells, 122mm rockets, or precursors each.

...that could be found, accidentally, by militias? When there are
*millions* of similar pallets of conventional weapons floating around in
Iraq right now?

Yep. Note that this was apparently employed in a standard roadside IED,
as if it was just an ordinary HE shell - about as suboptimal an
employment as you can get, if you assume the insurgents knew what they
had.

The math is way against you here. Literally millions-to-one odds.

Thousands-to-one odds, anyway. The existence of that round is a pretty
good fact: so is the absence of any source for it, or any stockpile of
its brothers and sisters.

On the other hand, if there were a lot of unreported and uncatalogued
chemical weapons in the mix, you'd have a much better chance of someone
turning up one or two out of a random ammo dump. Which is what seems to
have happened.

Trouble is, that doesn't say "significant organised and controlled
stockpile", it just says "bad bookkeeping".

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

Yep. Note that this was apparently employed in a standard roadside IED,
as if it was just an ordinary HE shell - about as suboptimal an
employment as you can get, if you assume the insurgents knew what they
had.

The math is way against you here. Literally millions-to-one odds.

Thousands-to-one odds, anyway.

Nope. Millions. Out of the couple of dozen artillery rounds that have
been set as roadside IEDs, versus the tens of millions of rounds of
artillery shells they had available.

At worst, hundreds of thousands to one.

Not very much in your favor...

So which is more likely? That someone hid a pile of chemical weapons (a
medium-sized arsenal of the things would fit in a building the size of a
house) in a country the size of California, versus your contention that
they didn't have any and were complying with the UN sanctions?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:55:05 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

First, let's note that I said or wrote none of which "George Z. Bush"
has posted here below the attibution header!

(Snip)

I took out all of an exchange you were having with someone else which was
irrelevant to what I wanted to say. No need for you to be so defensive about
it....it just wasn't pertinent, so I deleted it.

How about considering that we are quick to disavow the outrageous behavior of
a
handful of our sadistic jailers as being representative of us as a nation,
but
we deny the Iraqis the same right to disavow the existence of a single
artillery
shell of dubious age filled with Sarin as being representative of an arsenal
of
WMDs they would have used on us if they had existed.

One sadistic jailer doesn't mean that all of our jailers are sadistic any
more
than one Sarin-filled artillery shell means that all of the artillery shells
the
Iraqis had were filled with Sarin. It took us a whole year to find (or 'fess
up
to) one of each.

George Z.


By your rationale the only way a nation possesses WMD is if ALL of
their weapons fit the class? We've found one Sarin filled shell in a
country the size of California. Saddam had twelve years of experience
in hiding WMD from UN inspectors. He had a couple of years of warning
regarding build-up to invasion. He had almost a year after expelling
the UN inspectors to dismantle, export, hide or decommission WMDs.

WMD is an acronym for Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is "weapons"
(plural)....and One of anything does not make it plural. You want to make a
federal case out of finding one artillery shell after a year of intense looking
by thousands of troops, go right ahead. I'll just rest my case on the theory
that one weapon does not an arsenal make, and you can pooh-pooh me if it makes
you feel better.

Is Sarin a chemical weapon? Would the components of a binary weapon by
a chemical weapon if they were held in two separate locations? Is a
biological weapon only a biological weapon when it is employed,
otherwise it's just a case of the sniffles?

Of course it's a chemical weapon. But one artillery shell does not constitute a
threat that warrants embarking on an active war over. Not only that, but we
didn't even know for a fact that they had that one weapon when we started the
war....we apparently started it on some Mickey-Mouse intelligence information
that it took us a year to find out wasn't accurate.

By your logic, we probably ought to be at war with half the world if those
nations possessed one chemical or biological weapon that they might someday
consider using against someone for some reason somewhere down the road. Tell me
the Chinese don't have one or more, or the Pakistanis (who, you will recall,
sold nuclear know-how to the Libyans), or the Russians, or the Israelis or, for
that matter, even the Saudis. Numerous countrys, many of whom we have
disagreements with, have WMDs, but we don't go to war with them because of it.

I baby-sat a B-61 Y-1 at 345KT was that a WMD? If we only had Fat Man
and Little Boy (which is all we had) and then we dropped them on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did we then no longer have WMD? Or, since
those two weapons were only 20-25KT were they not even WMD at all?

Sounds like you want to refight WWII because we had and used nukes. That's a
bit more nonsensical that I care to bother with. Or are you suggesting that we
were the bad guys because we developed them and used them?

The relationship between the jailers and WMD isn't a very rational
argument. How much Sarin will you allow to be deployed in New York
City before you take offense? Would it be more acceptable to use it in
Jerusalem? Would it be alright to spread three liters of Sarin in
Kuwait City?

How many WMD rounds does it take to equal possession of WMD in your
convoluted logic? Would two be better than one? Or will you hold out
for exclusive WMD rounds and no conventional? Then, one conventional
round would prove the non-existance of WMD, despite the other rounds?

When all is said and done, your arguments are sophomoric and thoroughly
unconvincing. They're not worthy of individual responses.

C'mon George, confess that you didn't think it through when you wrote
that/

Ed, it's all in the eye of the beholder, and I like to think that my arguments
were more logical and convincing than your efforts to belittle them.

Perhaps it's one of those times when we need to agree to disagree and simply
move on.

George Z.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

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

Of course it's a chemical weapon. But one artillery shell does not
constitute
a threat that warrants embarking on an active war over. Not only that,
but
we didn't even know for a fact that they had that one weapon when we
started the war....we apparently started it on some Mickey-Mouse
intelligence information that it took us a year to find out wasn't
accurate.


Prior to the invasion of Iraq the one point on which there was near
universal agreement was that Iraq had significant WMD. The only group
claimimg they did not was the Iraqi government, which is what they'd be
expected to say whether they had them or not.

In message . net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Of course it's a chemical weapon. But one artillery shell does not
constitute
a threat that warrants embarking on an active war over. Not only that,
but
we didn't even know for a fact that they had that one weapon when we
started the war....we apparently started it on some Mickey-Mouse
intelligence information that it took us a year to find out wasn't
accurate.


Prior to the invasion of Iraq the one point on which there was near
universal agreement was that Iraq had significant WMD.

I guess "near universal" can exclude a lot of people, then.

The only group
claimimg they did not was the Iraqi government,

And a few other folks with knowledge of the subject.

which is what they'd be
expected to say whether they had them or not.

When an Iraqi government source told you it was sunny, bring an
umbrella.

But even liars are right sometimes, even by mistake (institutionalised
falsehood has some interesting effects)
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

I guess "near universal" can exclude a lot of people, then.


Such as?



And a few other folks with knowledge of the subject.


Such as?



When an Iraqi government source told you it was sunny, bring an
umbrella.


Exactly.

In article , "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:


When an Iraqi government source told you it was sunny, bring an
umbrella.

But even liars are right sometimes, even by mistake (institutionalised
falsehood has some interesting effects)

Credit where credit is due. When Baghdad Bob lied, it was usually
entertaining. I still think he has potential for a job in Redmond.

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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:55:05 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

First, let's note that I said or wrote none of which "George Z. Bush"
has posted here below the attibution header!

(Snip)

I took out all of an exchange you were having with someone else which was
irrelevant to what I wanted to say. No need for you to be so defensive
about
it....it just wasn't pertinent, so I deleted it.

How about considering that we are quick to disavow the outrageous
behavior of
a
handful of our sadistic jailers as being representative of us as a
nation,
but
we deny the Iraqis the same right to disavow the existence of a single
artillery
shell of dubious age filled with Sarin as being representative of an
arsenal
of
WMDs they would have used on us if they had existed.

One sadistic jailer doesn't mean that all of our jailers are sadistic
any
more
than one Sarin-filled artillery shell means that all of the artillery
shells
the
Iraqis had were filled with Sarin. It took us a whole year to find (or
'fess
up
to) one of each.

George Z.


By your rationale the only way a nation possesses WMD is if ALL of
their weapons fit the class? We've found one Sarin filled shell in a
country the size of California. Saddam had twelve years of experience
in hiding WMD from UN inspectors. He had a couple of years of warning
regarding build-up to invasion. He had almost a year after expelling
the UN inspectors to dismantle, export, hide or decommission WMDs.

WMD is an acronym for Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is "weapons"
(plural)....and One of anything does not make it plural. You want to make
a
federal case out of finding one artillery shell after a year of intense
looking
by thousands of troops, go right ahead. I'll just rest my case on the
theory
that one weapon does not an arsenal make, and you can pooh-pooh me if it
makes
you feel better.

You keep forgetting that other reported mustard round, the ricin program,
etc. That should satisfy your shaky resort to the "weapons" vs. "weapon"
debate.


Is Sarin a chemical weapon? Would the components of a binary weapon by
a chemical weapon if they were held in two separate locations? Is a
biological weapon only a biological weapon when it is employed,
otherwise it's just a case of the sniffles?

Of course it's a chemical weapon. But one artillery shell does not
constitute a
threat that warrants embarking on an active war over. Not only that, but
we
didn't even know for a fact that they had that one weapon when we started
the
war....we apparently started it on some Mickey-Mouse intelligence
information
that it took us a year to find out wasn't accurate.

One artillery weapon constitutes a violation of 687. Two weapons constitutes
a violation of 687. Two weapons, a ricin development program, the hiding of
cultures, equipment, and documents related to other WMD programs is also a
violation. 687 codified the requirements of the ceasefire agreement from
ODS--the Iraqis were in violation of it. They were also in violation of the
NFZ requirements, and the limitation on maximum range of surface-to-surface
missile systems. They further were in violation of the requirments of the
"oil for food" program. Add to that one attmpted assassination of a former
US President, continuing support for terrorists, to include financial
support to the families of suicide bombers and providing refuge to a couple
of rather nasty terrorist types, one of whom was directly implicated in an a
ttack that left one US citizen dead. But you think *all* of these
allegations are *wrong*?


By your logic, we probably ought to be at war with half the world if those
nations possessed one chemical or biological weapon that they might
someday
consider using against someone for some reason somewhere down the road.
Tell me
the Chinese don't have one or more, or the Pakistanis (who, you will
recall,
sold nuclear know-how to the Libyans), or the Russians, or the Israelis
or, for
that matter, even the Saudis. Numerous countrys, many of whom we have
disagreements with, have WMDs, but we don't go to war with them because of
it.

Strawman--nice try, but it won't fly.


I baby-sat a B-61 Y-1 at 345KT was that a WMD? If we only had Fat Man
and Little Boy (which is all we had) and then we dropped them on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did we then no longer have WMD? Or, since
those two weapons were only 20-25KT were they not even WMD at all?

Sounds like you want to refight WWII because we had and used nukes.
That's a
bit more nonsensical that I care to bother with. Or are you suggesting
that we
were the bad guys because we developed them and used them?

The relationship between the jailers and WMD isn't a very rational
argument. How much Sarin will you allow to be deployed in New York
City before you take offense? Would it be more acceptable to use it in
Jerusalem? Would it be alright to spread three liters of Sarin in
Kuwait City?

How many WMD rounds does it take to equal possession of WMD in your
convoluted logic? Would two be better than one? Or will you hold out
for exclusive WMD rounds and no conventional? Then, one conventional
round would prove the non-existance of WMD, despite the other rounds?

When all is said and done, your arguments are sophomoric and thoroughly
unconvincing. They're not worthy of individual responses.

Better than your's, which are based upon knowing half-truths (unless you are
going to profess you had heard nothing of other reported WMD/WMD program
finds, which would be a bit startling given that they have been discussed at
length in this and other forums you have visited of late--one of which you
even dared to use your *real* name in--talk about "Shock and Awe"!). If the
latter is your claim, you are just very dim-witted.

Brooks


C'mon George, confess that you didn't think it through when you wrote
that/

Ed, it's all in the eye of the beholder, and I like to think that my
arguments
were more logical and convincing than your efforts to belittle them.

You'd be *very* wrong.

Brooks


Perhaps it's one of those times when we need to agree to disagree and
simply
move on.

George Z.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8