General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

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)

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.

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?

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?

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?

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


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

In article ,
(WalterM140) wrote:



Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want - but it was a
war the
civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that
this
situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly,
no-drive
zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,� says Zinni."

I have been unable to avoid paraphrasing this, but I fear I must do it
to stop it bouncing around my skull.

"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."

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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

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.

Bad logic. We never declared, as part of a ceasefire agreement from the
*last* conflict, that we had no individuals who could/would commit criminal
acts in our military services. And you seem to be forgetting the other round
reported (mustard), the hiding of equipment and documents related to WMD
development (as reported by Kay in his report), the continuing development
work on ricin (also testified to by Kay), etc....



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.

You are the only ignoramus who has claimed that "all of the artillery shells
the Iraqis had were filled with Sarin". To be completely honest (something
you are, I know, loathe to be), AFAIK we have not found *any* shells "filled
with Sarin". What we have found is the remains of one shell that was filled
with the binary components of sarin (another wee problem, since the Iraqis
never acknowledged having *any* such shells in their possession, at *any*
time--which is another violation...), evidence of their attempting to hide
equipment, documents, and cultures related to bio/chemical warfare programs,
a continuing ricin development effort, etc. But I am quite sure that if it
suits your purpose (being the damning of GWB at all costs, of course), you
will soon assign the "all of the artillery shells" quote to *him* at the
nearest opportunity--who cares if it is accurate, right? Just as you
obviously don't care about accuracy in regards to your "single artillery
shell...filled with Sarin" statement, eh?

Brooks


George Z.

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:

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


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .


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.

Is Sarin a chemical weapon? Would the components of a binary weapon by
a chemical weapon if they were held in two separate locations?

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the Australia Group
agreements, and the US Militarily Critical Technologies list, unitary
sarin is definitely a chemical weapon, as are the phosphofluoro
precursors. The latter are in the same Class I category as GB (Sarin).
Plain isopropanol and elemental sulfur, the basic second components of
GB and VX, are only "dual use" by a generous interpretation --
isopropanol is common rubbing alcohol. A better binary precursor (OPA)
mixes diisopropylamine with isopropanol; if there is at least 30%
diisopropylamine, the mixture is considered a dual use material not
explicitly classifed by the Australia Group.

Is a
biological weapon only a biological weapon when it is employed,
otherwise it's just a case of the sniffles?

I would say that it has to be weaponized and associated with a plausible
disposal system. The same botulinus toxin used in medical Botox is a
weapon when in much larger quantities and associated with a dispersion
system.


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?

For simplicity, any nuclear explosive should be considered WMD. That
being said, PGMs may be as or more useful for a given application as
were tactical nuclear weapons with much less accurate delivery.


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?

Let me speak to the more general case of cholinesterase inhibitors
("nerve gasses"). Diisopropyl fluorophosphate was one of the first such
agents considered by the US, but also has perfectly legitimate
applications in opthalmology. How much does the local distributor have
in its warehouse? I don't know.

Research laboratories may legitimately have small quantities of nerve
agent precursors or actual agents. Increasingly, there are licensing
and quantity restrictions. Certainly, any laboratory that needs to check
detectors needs some quantity, and a reference laboratory that confirms
particular agents will need samples. Quantity limits on biological
toxins are much more stringent.

Some sample regulations based on Federal regulations, this example from
the University of Pennsylvania:

The medical use of toxins for patient treatment is exempt.

The following select agent toxins are exempt if the aggregate amount
under the control of one principal investigator does not, at any time,
exceed:
- 0.5 mg of Botulinum neurotoxins
- 5 mg of Staphylococcal enterotoxins
- 100 mg of abrin, Clostridium perfringens epsilon toxin, conotoxin,
ricin, saxitoxin, shigatoxin, shiga-like ribosome inactivating protein,
and tetrodotoxin
- 1,000 mg of diacetoxyscirpenol and T-2 toxin

The following select agent organisms or toxins are also exempt:
- Any agent or toxin that is in its naturally occurring environment
provided it has not been intentionally introduced, cultivated, collected,
or otherwise extracted from its natural source.
- Non-viable select agent organisms or nonfunctional toxins.
- The vaccine strains of Junin virus (Candid #1), Rift Valley fever virus
(MP-12), Venezuelan Equine encephalitis virus vaccine strain TC-83

So, the bottom line is that an acceptable quantity is greater than zero.

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?

Let us focus on the "mass" in mass destruction. Aside from the aspect
of fear (personally, I'd far rather die of sarin than napalm), to be a
WMD, the weapons have to be available in militarily significant
quantity, such that they cause more destruction/effect than an
equivalent quantity of conventional weapons. I'm certainly willing to
bend this rule to include active R&D or manufacturing programs.

The rule of thumb for a militarily significant amount of G-agents is in
the tons. Yes, with skilled dispersion, a chemical weapon can cause far
more casualties than conventional weapons. In our one terrorist example,
compared to the massive quantities used in WWI, Aum Shinryo managed
about a dozen deaths. Casualties numbered in the hundreds to low
thousands, but a significant proportion of cases were trauma caused by a
panicking crowd, or psychosomatic. Several Claymore mines on a subway
platform would almost certainly cause more casualties.

"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.

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

For the US:
1)Iraq is tactical target
2)Saudi Kingdom is strategic target
3)Egypt is the trophy.

Unfortunately US planners forgat something that some others might have
different great game plans (like following):
1)Iraq is nothing
2)Saudi Kingdom is tactical target
3)Iran and Turkey are strategic targets
4)USA is the trophy

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

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
How many WMD rounds does it take to equal possession of WMD in your
convoluted logic?

To quote something I wrote earlier...

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. 1991 or earlier, I'd raise
the bar quite a lot higher, because they prepared to fight a defensive
war and then lost it massively and that's where large amounts of kit go
missing. (We're still occasionally digging up buried caches of 1940s No.
76 grenades here in the UK, which is a problem because they're beer
bottles filled with a benzene, rubber and white phosphorous mixture -
not nice to accidentally put a spade through one)

Post-1998, "a pallet" of filled basic munitions or of filler for them,
or a single weapon that was a significant advance on their previous
capability, would be conclusive proof. Less than that would be a very
unwelcome surprise, though not decisive (we know they *wanted* to keep
their programs going, but the claim was that the programs existed and
were an immediate threat)



Opinion, assayed at $0.02 exact.

--
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.

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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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