General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"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 article ,
Howard Berkowitz wrote:

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

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?

Or something in between. There were some prototypes hidden away, and one
or more was given to people setting up IEDs.

....but the people handing them out didn't bother to mention that they
needed to be fired out of a cannon to work?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

Original comments restored to show just how dishonest you are.

Actually, that's a quote of Mr. Adams' comment.

....and since you quoted it, you commented on it.

That's two low-quality lies in a row.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
Howard Berkowitz wrote:

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

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?

Or something in between. There were some prototypes hidden away, and
one
or more was given to people setting up IEDs.

...but the people handing them out didn't bother to mention that they
needed to be fired out of a cannon to work?


Quite possibly not, if it was a manager that didn't understand the
details.

If I had an engineering knowledge of the weapon, and wanted to throw
fear into the Americans, I might suggest they use a small charge --
really just a burster, and hope for some local mixing. GB is more
likely to work that way than VX -- binary VX is far more likely to burn.
Again, my purpose is terror, not wiping out a large force.

Your history is failing you again. But, I digress. The fact of the
matter is that US containment policy was consistent from Truman
through the collapse of the SU in 1989. To ascribe it to one party or
the other is definitely revisionist.


But to give credit to Reagan alone -- per you- is not.

Surely you can do better than this.

Walt


I think that most readers would say I did do better. You started by
saying that Reagan was the worst president (a near tie, according to
you with Bush 43.) You asserted that he always took the easy way out.

That's all true.

Reagan approved illegal activity. He should have been impeached and convicted.


I responded with a number of Reagan policies that were significant.

Tax cuts don't show courage. Trading arms for hostages doesn't show courage.
Going behind Congress and the People's back doesn't show courage.

I
did not say that the SU collapsed because of a policy of
containment--you did.

You indicated that Reagan could take credit, which is simplistic and wrong.


I DID say that Reagan's reversal of the demilitarization, disarmament
policies of Carter were instrumental in the collapse.

Carter was only president for 4 years.

The reversal of
the trend started by Carter caused the Soviet response to demand more
than their strained economy could sustain. That was the Reagan policy
that I referred to.

The Minuteman missiles, the B-52 force, and the SSBN force were all in place
well before Carter took office. It was those type systems that the Soviets
couldn't match. It's true they finally imploded from trying to match us, but
Reagan just build on what went before -- and it wasn't a tough choice for him
to make. What would have been tough would have been to eschew the huge budget
deficits his policies produced -- but he didn't have the courage to do that. He
- always took the easy way out.


One should also note that the generational shift in Soviet leadership
from the 80-year old Stalinists to the new generation Gorbachev also
led to reforms that hastened the collapse.

Reagan's luck.

Glasnost and perestroika
opened the door to interactions that raised the expectations of the
Soviet people and created demand for change.


Thanks for suggesting it had little to do with Reagan.


Once again, complexity over simplicity leads to understanding of what
went on.


I'm quite familiar with all those themes.

Walt

If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should
not have been incurred in Iraq.

Well, besides the fact that it's been one of the big financial and
logistical supporters of worldwide terror for a long, long time,

Source?

Saddam Hussein.

Quotes? You're edging up on something, but I don't know what.

He used to take loud personal credit for his support of
terror groups like Hamas (giving cash to families of people who sent
kids off to be suicide bombers) and sheltering (for example) one of the
fugitives from the first WTC attack.

Whatever Saddam did or said, wiser heads than yours have said the invasion of
Iraq was unncessary. You might could gainsay those wiser heads, but you
haven't done it yet.

Walt

"General Zinni said that he generally avoids generalizations about the
general belief of all generals, but, in this case, he believes the
general consensus of generals is that the general policy of containment
was, in general, effective."


That's generally true. His lieutenants have called the invasion a major
mistake. The Bush administration needs corporal punishment.

Walt

Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should
have believed that bum and his neocon liars..


To date, nobody has shown any statement made by the Bush administration in
support of the war to be a lie.


They've told a number of lies.

They lied about the rationale for the war. There were never any WMD. That's
been well shown and Bush has admitted it himself.

They lied about, or were wrong about:

How the Iraqis would react to our invasion. We didn't get the flowers and
adulation they suggested.

That the Iraqi oil industry could pay for rebuilding the country.

They decided to suspend the Geneva Convention in Iraq. But they didn't bother
to tell anyone.

Walt

Oh, boy, another, "It is not WMD unless it meets my (ever changing)
definition of the *amount* required!"

We're talking -one- shell in -one- year.

Can you cite someone who said, "here is my criterion"? That would the only way
you could show an "ever changing" definition.

Is the Bush campaign paying you?