General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"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

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.

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

ONE? Sorry, Georgie/Hal, but that little fabrication is getting a bit weak,
even for you. One binary sarin round, apparently one mustard round, a ricin
development program, hiding of bio cultures and equipment...are you
beginning to see the error isn the "one" bit?



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.

No, even YOU have to now admit they DID have some remaining, as that sarin
round indicates (they only acknowledged performing some R&D towards such
rounds, no production whatsoever), not to mention the mustard round. The
issue of their other prohibited activities (ricin, hiding of
ultures/equipment/documents) just reinforces the fact that they were in
violation. I guess you find it completely excusable that EACH of Saddam's
various "full, final, and complete" disclosures to the UN over the
intervening years proved to be neither full, final, or complete--in each
case he grudgingly added any items dug up by the inspectors after his
previous "full, final, and complete" disclosure. But now you want to defend
them as being forthright and honest about their WMD programs? God, it must
really stink that the facts are not falling into line with your own
sentiments and preconceived notions in this case, which is perhaps why you
just choose to ignore them?

Brooks


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.

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 , "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

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?


Do not ignore the threat to anyone standing behind the fighter when the
engine starts blowing out the sand.

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

You need to calibrate your "humor" switch.


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

Yet which we knew he was working on.

Which he claimed was R&D only, with no weapons listed as produced from the
effort. This was a weapon. It was not reported. Bad on him; you can defend
Saddam all you want in this regard, but it is clear he did not provide a
"full, final, and complete" accounting of all WMD's he had built, since he
did not report this one. Hence a violation of the terms he was supposed to
be operating under.


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

Or that predated 687.

Big question mark. Saddam did not declare any rounds produced of this nature
at any time--being as his disclosures did include some pretty "low density"
items (numbers in the single and double digits for other systems), then why
was this left out? Neither UNSCOM nor the later UNMOVIC were able to reach
any kind of definitive conclusion about exactly *what* the Iraqis had or had
not been able to do, or did, in terms of manufacturing 155mm binary rounds.
Interestingly, Saddam did not see fitt to even acknowledge the R&D effort
(which he was required to do) until after it was discovered via some
documentaion by UNSCOM inspectors. But hey, you still want to defend him
here, right?


an
alleged mustard round,

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

Back to the old, "How many weapons does a violation make?" argument, eh?


Do I scent desperation here?

No, you scent disbelief that folks are still trying to defend Saddam and
claim that he was not guilty of continuing proscribed WMD activities, or of
hiding those that he had already conducted and wanted to keep out of sight.



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".

That would be your quote, I presume? I mean, we all now know how willing you
are to doctor/create a quote and assign it to another poster, right?


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.

Our intel in those regards may indeed have been incorrect. But that does not
change the FACT that Saddam was violating the requirements set forth before
him. Gee, I wonder *why* he was so interested in ricin, which is admittedly
not likely to be the best of battlefield agents, but would likely perform
nicely if used by terrorist types, or his own intel folks (you remember, the
same guys who were implicated in that kill-the-former-President scheme?).



The claim was that there was a clear and obvious threat. Where was it?

Saddam continuing to work towards proscribed goals is good enough for me. I
personally don't think he was the kind of guy I'd want to be controlling
*any* WMD's, in whatever quantities; you may differ, but I could care less
to be honest. Then of course there were the other (non-WMD) related reasons
for conducting this operation--the ones that you can't seem to understand do
indeed exist?

What made Iraq so special compared to more evident proliferators and
producers of WME?

I asked eighteen months ago and never got an answer.

Because your question remains as stupid now as it was then--and yes, you got
an answer, you just can't seem to (or more accurately don't want to) grasp
it. No standard playbook for handling threats/potential threats in the
geopolitical realm--it is all situationally dependent. I suspect you can
understand that, but apparently as usual you just find it easier to ignore
the obvious in your quest to, for some unknown reason, defend Saddam as the
poor whipping boy. BTW, did you notice that the Saudis have again been in
AQ's target ring? You remember--the country that IIRC you were claiming was
more of a threat to the US and more deserving of US action than Iraq?

Brooks