General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
On 01 Jun 2004 10:09:37 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed that
bum and his neocon liars..

Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq

One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)

and the
presence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.

Alleged - weren't the killers hooded?

Note also that at one point there was a declared "flypaper strategy" of
using Iraq as bait to draw in and destroy terrorists - was al-Zawaheri
in Iraq before 2003, or did he (or his adherents) go there to kill
Americans post-war?

If it doesn't fit the perconception simply ignore it.

On the other hand, don't latch too solidly onto it just because it's
comfortable.

We all might start at this point by acknowledging that Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism is NOT a national movement. The repetition of
things like "why Iraq" or "the 9/11 perps were all Saudi" ignores the
fact that the terrorists don't represent a particular country but
rather a particular ideology that is inimical to democracy and
Judeo/Christian societies.

However, the al-Qaeda movement in particular and the Wahabbi ideology in
general are both solidly based in and funded from Saudi Arabia. (Where
al-Qaeda terrorists are still operating)

A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
be in order.

So you attack fundamentalist Islam by invading one of the more secular
states in the Middle East? Does not compute...

--
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
...

One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)


Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all? If that's the
case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not abide by the
1991 agreement?



Note also that at one point there was a declared "flypaper strategy" of
using Iraq as bait to draw in and destroy terrorists -


That seems to be happening now.

In message . net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)

Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all?

No, they claimed that they'd had a fair amount pre-1991 and had since
destroyed almost all of it, apart from some odds and ends that had gone
adrift in the course of two wars, a short sharp shower of ****e and a
prolonged game of hide-the-programs.

The inspectors who audited their claims found some discrepancies, like
the alleged binary shell R&D program that *may* have produced this round
and thirty to forty like it, for further study: however, the further
study was pre-empted.

If that's the
case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not abide by the
1991 agreement?

The US and UK still turn up chemical and (occasionally in the US)
biological munitions here and there - does that prove we're in violation
of treaties? Or just that accounting down to individual rounds is a
tricky process?

Significant quantities of sarin are measured in the hundreds of kilos,
at least, for military effects. I'd be looking for a significant and
recent stockpile, or better yet a recent production program.

One shell, over a decade old, whose users seem to have had little idea
what it was, isn't particularly persuasive that there was a significant
threat.

--
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
...
In message . net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)

Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all?

No, they claimed that they'd had a fair amount pre-1991 and had since
destroyed almost all of it, apart from some odds and ends that had gone
adrift in the course of two wars, a short sharp shower of ****e and a
prolonged game of hide-the-programs.

The inspectors who audited their claims found some discrepancies, like
the alleged binary shell R&D program that *may* have produced this round
and thirty to forty like it, for further study: however, the further
study was pre-empted.

Where do you get that from? Based upon what i read of the UNSCOM report,
there was no mention of *any* production of true binary weapons, and the R&D
effort was mentioned only in passing with no figures like "thirty to forty"
included. Which of course takes you back to the argument of what constitutes
a violation--one round, two rounds, forty rounds? An ongoing ricin
development program? Various cultures and equipment hidden away and *never*
discovered by UNSCOM?

Brooks

snip

"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?

Pete

Pete wrote:
"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?

I dunno--a couple of P-39s, maybe?

Cheers

--mike


Pete

"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?

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? :-)

Brooks


Pete

"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?

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? :-)


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.

Pete

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Pete" wrote in message
...
If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?

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?

Iraq's large and capable air force is a major and pressing threat that
must be neutralised immediately...

Okay, we found a buried MiG-25, isn't that a "large and capable" air
force?

A chemical round of a type that Saddam never revealed having *any*
of,

Yet which we knew he was working on.

maybe developed as a product of an R&D effort that post-dated 687,

Or that predated 687.

an
alleged mustard round,

Because out of 200,000 rounds produced, one round turning up is absolute
proof?

Do I scent desperation here?


From "Hussein may be exporting kilotons of WME to his US-hating
neigbbours" we're down to "we've found one or two decade-old shells".

There were supposedly vast factories and stockpiles of chemical and/or
biological weapons. It seems our intelligence was incorrect, since those
vast stockpiles and the factories that produced them remain elusive.


The claim was that there was a clear and obvious threat. Where was it?
What made Iraq so special compared to more evident proliferators and
producers of WME?

I asked eighteen months ago and never got an answer.

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

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

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

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

One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)


Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all? If that's
the case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not
abide by the 1991 agreement?

They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
*after* 1991.

The existence of this round, at *all*, shows that they weren't complying
with their obligations by informing the UN of the research program.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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