Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

On Sep 9, 4:18 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
"facts"

as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.

Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.

I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
yuor idiocy.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.

Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.


Yeah, sure liar boi .

Nice snypping BTW, pussy boi.



Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 9, 4:18 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
"facts"

as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.

Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.

I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
yuor idiocy.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.

Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.


Yeah, sure liar boi .

Nice snypping BTW, pussy boi.

I'm not the one cowering behind a screen name. You are.

And since you've still not been able to refute a single thing I've
said (since they were 100% historical fact from the actual document),
I'll just suggest you're not worth any more effort on my part to
remove your willful ignorance of history.

Carry on.

Mark "you can lead a horse to water" Hickey

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD. None found. So why
are U.S. forces still occupying that country? Isn't the job done? Shouldn't
we have ended this cosmic tragi-comedy years ago something like this:

"And so the Great Powers and the people of Shanklin, Isle of Wight, drew
their net in ever-tightening circles around the most dangerous threat to
peace the world has ever faced. They bombed Cairo, Bangkok, Cape Town,
Buenos Aires, Harrow, Hammersmith, Stepney, Wandsworth and Enfield... But
always it was the wrong place.

Cut to an area of smoking rubble. A van with the words 'US Air Force' on
the side trundles through the rubble. It has a loudspeaker on the top of
it.

Loudspeaker: Sorry Enfield!... We apologize for any inconvenience caused by
our bombing... sorry..."




....but always it was the wrong place....

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.

Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
first on the list. Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
the place, having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
and so on.

None found.

Not quite. Actually several bits, here and there, mostly leftovers from
the Iran/Iraq matches of the 80s.

Don't forget that essentially every national (as in various nations in
both hemispheres) intelligence service figured from the evidence they
managed to dig up that if they didn't have WMDs in stock and ready to
use (the majority consensus), they could gin 'em up pretty quickly. Iraq
certainly showed no reluctance to use chemical weapons in particular
against either the Iranians or against various of their own citizens.
Repeatedly.

Heck, Saddam's generals pretty much all believed that he had them; and
the division next to them had the weapons. They were wrong on that, but
he had his own military going there.

This is all open-source information.

So why are U.S. forces still occupying that country?

See below.

Isn't the job done?

Nope.

Wouldn't make much sense to drop things and let some Saddam wannabe
start the whole thing over again.

The last few months, if you talk to those serving on the the ground,
things have been turning around a bit; enough in some used-to-be very
bad areas that the politicians have a chance to get a grip. If progress
continues in this vein, maybe some other of the politicians and
bureaucrats might be able to get their collective thumbs out and get
something done right.

On Sep 10, 6:24 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:





On Sep 9, 4:18 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
"facts"

as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.

Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.

I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
yuor idiocy.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.

Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.

Yeah, sure liar boi .

Nice snypping BTW, pussy boi.

I'm not the one cowering behind a screen name. You are.

Bwaahwahwahwhahwhahwhhawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwha hwha|!




And since you've still not been able to refute a single thing I've
said (since they were 100% historical fact from the actual document),
I'll just suggest you're not worth any more effort on my part to
remove your willful ignorance of history.


Yeah, i'm sure that's it.






Carry on.

Mark "you can lead a horse to water"

But you can't make him think.



Bertie

On Sep 10, 8:43 am, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.

Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
first on the list. Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
the place, having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
and so on.

In that case they should have invaded England first.



Bertie

On Sep 7, 7:44 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 6, 1:35 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...

If you're REALLY interested in what UNMOVIC thought at the time of the
invasion, you should read their March 2003 report Not only does it
blow your "unfettered access" claim out of the water - errrr, air
(this is a flying ng, after all), but they stated that Iraq probably
had (among many other things) 10,000 liters of anthrax ready to
deploy... and the abilty to manufacture LOTS of WMD in short order in
one of their many "dual-use" facilities.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/docu...luster6mar.pdf

I think it's kinda funny that the best you can find in the report
supports my position (that no one could verify that Iraq had actually
destroyed their WMDs and the production facilities, other than those
that we destroyed or the minority that there was actual evidence for
the destruction).

Which WAS the whole point, after all.

I think those who've actually read the entire report have seen what
they need to see, and now realize that the whole "Bush lied" mantra is
just another wild fabrication when it comes to the disposition of
Iraq's WMDs prior to the invasion. Virtually every intelligence
agency in the civilized world came to the same conclusions as
UNMOVIC... that there was no reason to believe or trust that Iraq had
in fact destroyed their WMDs and production capabilities (as clearly
evidenced by the quotes you provide from the report below).

I'll let the report speak for itself - I don't really have anything
else to add.

Mark "facts is facts" Hickey



6 March 2003
APPENDIX
A (sic) HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRAQ'S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
...

Destruction
...
During the bombing campaign the main CW facilities at
Al Muthanna and Al Fallujah were heavily damaged. In
addition, some of the CW weapons stored at airfields and
other locations were also destroyed. However, Iraq had
evacuated [note: 'evacuated' to other locations in Iraq,FF]
much of its strategic materials and equipment prior to the
war...

Thus, several hundreds of tonnes of Mustard and Sarin
were buried in the desert surrounding Al Muthanna during t
he war and survived the bombing. The agents was (sic)
subsequently destroyed by UNSCOM. ...

. It was clear, even from this first inspection, that the site had
been severely disabled, but not completely destroyed. The
scene was one of smashed production plants and leaking...
the second chemical inspection team visited the precursor
plants at Al Fullujah and inspected similar destruction levels.

...

Before UNSCOM could begin its work on the elimination remaining
CW capabilities, Iraq secretly began its own unilateral destruction.
Iraq declared that, in July 1991, under instruction from
Lieutenant-
General Hussein Kamal, it began the unilateral destruction of
selected
chemicals and munitions; this activity was not disclosed to UNSCOM
at the time. ...It is probable that one of the reasons for this
unilateral
destruction was an effort to bring what UNSCOM might find more
into line with the serious inadequacies in Iraq's initial
declaration
of its holdings of proscribed weapons and materials. ...
In all, Iraq declared the destruction of over 28,000 filled and
unfilled
munitions, about 30 tonnes of bulk chemical precursors for Sarin
and Cyclosarin, and over 200 tonnes of key precursors relating to
Vx.
[I presume this refers to a subsequent declaration, perhaps as late as
2002, FF]
...
The remaining weapons, materials and equipment declared by Iraq,
that could be identified and located by UNSCOM, were destroyed
under its supervision, mainly between 1992 and 1994. Thus, over
28,000
munitions, 480 tonnes of CW agent and 100,000 tonnes of precursor
chemicals were disposed of. About 400 major pieces of chemical
processing equipment and some hundreds of items of other equipment,
such as bomb-making machinery, were also destroyed under UNSCOM s
upervision.
...
Dual-use capabilities to 1998
...

Much of this civilian chemical industry used dual-capable technology
and was, therefore, under monitoring by UNSCOM until the end of
1998.

Herein lay the concern, that during tthe gap between UNSCOM and
UNMOVIC Iraq might have converted dual-use facilities to CW
production,
or rebuilt the destroyed factories. NO evidence to support those
fears
was found by UNMOVIC before the invasion or ISG afterwards. As
noted by Dr David Kay, " no factories, no weapons.". ]

Conclusions

UNMOVIC has a good understanding of the nature and scope
of Iraq's CW programme. The areas of greatest uncertainty
relate to questions of material balance and whether there may
be items still remaining. In this regard, Iraq's unilateral
destruction
of large quantities of chemicals and weapons, in July 1991, has
complicated the accountancy problem. The questions of uncertainty
are discussed further in the Clusters of Unresolved Disarmament
Issues.

Understand???

...
By some standards, the technology levels achieved by Iraq in the
production of its CW agents and weapons, were not high. The agents
were often impure and had a limited shelf-life. ...

[IOW, CW not disposed of during the 1990s would no longer be
effective by 2003. No new factories, no new weapons, FF]
..

It is evident that Iraq's CW capabilities posed a significant
regional threat.

[ IN 1991, not in 2003! ]

IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMME

...

Iraq went to considerable lengths, including the destruction of
documents and the forging of other documents, to conceal its
BW efforts from UNSCOM. After intensive investigations by
UNSCOM, Iraq disclosed some details of its offensive BW
programme on, 1 July 1995. ... in August 1995, Iraq
revealed a much more comprehensive BW programme.

[Note: UNSCOM pre-dated UNMOVIC and ceased activity
in Iraq in 1998. The secrecy and obstruction pre-dated
UNMOVIC.]

Iraq's efforts to conceal the programme, particularly the
destruction of documentation and its declared unilateral
destruction of BW weapons and agents, have complicated
UNMOVIC's task of piecing together a coherent and accurate
account of its BW programme.
...
In May/June 1996, all of the facilities, related equipment and
materials declared by Iraq as belonging to its BW programme
were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Thus, the vaccine f
ermenters at Al Daura that Iraq had declared had produced
botulinum toxin were destroyed, as was the entire Al Hakam
complex, including all its equipment and materials.
...
These (other ostensibly civilian, FF] facilities were included in
routine monitoring by UNSCOM; no proscribed activities were
detected at these sites up to the end of inspections in December
1998.

[Once again the concern was that during the gap between UNSCOM
and UNMVIC, Iraq could have resumed production of BW. Again,
UNMOVIC found NO EVIDENCE of renewed production.]

Uncertainties regarding Iraq's BW programme

Unilateral destruction

The almost complete lack of documentation on unilateral
destruction activities in 1991 gives rise to the greatest
uncertainties
regarding Iraq's declaration of BW activities. Although there
is physical evidence that some such destruction took place,
it was difficult for UNSCOM inspectors to quantify the numbers
and amounts. This, in turn, has repercussions on assessment
of material balance and whether all materials and weapons
have been accounted for.

***

In summary, the numerous unresolved WMD
issues in the report are ubiquitously matters
left over from UNSCOM 1990s and in no way
constitute evidence of post turn of the century
WMD production or obstruction of UNMOVIC.

THAT is what the report says.

The argument that Iraq was a threat in 2003 relied on
confabulating UNSCOM of the 1990s with UNMOVIC
of 2002-3, ignoring the short shelf-life of Iraqi munitions,
ignoring the absence of manufacturing facilities, ignoring
the 'unprecedented' cooperation with UNMOVIC and
requiring that Iraq achieve the logical impossibility of
proving a negative hypothesis.


You're lying, or you're seriously deluded.


Don't really give a fjukk which.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

You're lying, or you're seriously deluded.


Don't really give a fjukk which.

Bertie


That's the problem with these political diatribes.

They always seem to degenerate into name calling.

And they settle absolutely = nothing.


Richard
Unimpressed with the whole bunch og you guys.

)removes cross post to alt.politics)

Mark Hickey wrote:
I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq"

....
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety
of American citizens;"

From:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

That resolution was sought by the administration. The tie-in between Iraq
and the 9-11 attacks is repeated in Bush's letter to congress on the eve of
the attack on Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030319-1.html

Ergo the Bush administration at a minimum agreed with the connection, and
other statements and actions indicates they had a clear intent to create a
psychological connection between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. There is no
question in any reasonable reading that the resolution authorizing the
attack on Iraq makes it clear that Iraq's actions made it partly
responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

The time for disengenuous word games is long past. A lot of good people are
now dead who should not have died for motivations by others that were
shallow and self-delusional. When you can bring those people back to life,
then maybe we can discuss your word games.

On Sep 10, 5:43 pm, cavelamb himself wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

You're lying, or you're seriously deluded.

Don't really give a fjukk which.

Bertie

That's the problem with these political diatribes.

They always seem to degenerate into name calling.

And they settle absolutely = nothing.

Richard
Unimpressed with the whole bunch og you guys.

)removes cross post to alt.politics)


Be fair, I started off namecalling and never deviated once.

Bertie