UN inspectors: Saddam didn't lie

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:17:28 -0500, "Duke of URL"
macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote in Message-Id:
:

"M.Hamer" wrote in message


Just found someone who would rehash old speculations with the slant
the way you wanted it to go, did you?

Hmmm...sounds just like what the Americans and British did just
before we illegally invaded Iraq.

Historical revisionist f*ckhead.
flame intensity="100%"
Clot thee, the donkey you rode in on, the little dog following behind,
and the fleas jumping off his ass. Thou'rt the out-of-wedlock-begotten
offspring of a syphilitic Port Said bum-boat operator and a scrofulous
camel. I could carve a better brain out of congealed bacon grease.
Thou'rt so narrow-minded couldst see through a keyhole with both eyes.
Were I like thee, thou unmuzzled fly-bitten maggot-pie, I'd throw away
myself. Couldst find a better mind in a reliquary. Thou art a churlish
earth-vexing clotpole. Igneous rocks exert a firmer grasp upon
empirical reality than thou dost. Thy bones are hollow; thy brain is
clabbered; impiety hast made a feast of thee. My sincerest wish is thy
beslubbering mother runs out from under the porch and bites what
little thee hast left smooth off.
/flame
FLLUUUSSHHH... Away, moldy fen-sucking creamfaced loon, away!

The above ad hominem attack is a sterling example of the last resort
of a debater devoid of reasonable factual arguments: Attack the
person, not his rhetoric.

It's what would one expect of an article spammed across
soc.culture.russian, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.europe,
rec.aviation.military and sci.military.naval, I suppose.

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"M.Hamer" wrote:
:But they weren't used. Why? Because they didn't exist!

By this reasoning, chemical weapons didn't exist in any of the
countries participating in WWII. Clearly specious reasoning.

No, because we've still got facilities at Porton we built to evaluate
and analyse captured German chemical weapons.

(What have we captured in Iraq?)


The complication is that Iraq seems to have lied thoroughly to
exaggerate its holdings; perhaps to boost local standing in the hope
that this was just another bout of US sabre-rattling (perhaps to deter
it from being more than that). Caveat - speculation is just that.

The "missing weapons" are not small or compact items - the missing
shells would need something like 250 forty-foot trailers to haul - and
they (and the facilities to make them, and the precursors for them)
don't take kindly to being buried or abandoned.

I'm not finding it convincing that all this material existed, was
carefully hidden, and remains concealed. Of course, it may all have
existed and been sold to terrorists in the chaotic aftermath of the
invasion - which I don't consider a net gain.


Trouble is, Iraqi lies are tough to call. I'd have gone for more
inspection to produce a usable UN consensus backed by military action in
the autumn, rather than a snap war in the spring (bear in mind that 'go
in without the French' is not precluded by a little patience, and aided
by isolating diplomacy); but nobody asked me.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

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

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:56:56 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"M.Hamer" wrote:
:But they weren't used. Why? Because they didn't exist!

By this reasoning, chemical weapons didn't exist in any of the
countries participating in WWII. Clearly specious reasoning.

No, because we've still got facilities at Porton we built to evaluate
and analyse captured German chemical weapons.

Although I'm not certain whether any of those original facilities at
Porton Down; all the test facilities I've seen there are more modern
(although they might be hiding them from us foreigners). Nonetheless,
Mr. Adam is quite correct in his overall point.

During the period 1945-1948, the US scuttled at sea approximately
32,000 tons of captured German chemical weapons. Smaller quantities
were dumped in the Gulf of Mexico and off our Atlantic Coast. There is
a well-known incident in which a trainload of captured German chemical
munitions leaked as it was being shipped from New Orleans,
contaminating a rather long stretch of rail line in Mississippi, and
another in which a Liberty ship full of captured munitions was
discovered to be leaking (I think it was in Baltimore, but I don't
have the reference handy). After the war, the British dumped
approximately 75,000 tons of chemical weapons from the captured German
stockpile. During 1955-56, the British dumped a further 17,000 tons of
captured German chemical munitions. There were several sites within
Germany where munitions were buried. I have no figures to cite, but
the Russians captured significant caches of German weapons, and
removed the entire production plant for Tabun and the Sarin pilot
plant for transport to the USSR.

There are ample, well-documented literature sources describing the
very large amounts of chemical munitions possessed by Germany. This is
not, at least as yet, the case for Iraq.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:56:56 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

The "missing weapons" are not small or compact items - the missing
shells would need something like 250 forty-foot trailers to haul - and
they (and the facilities to make them, and the precursors for them)
don't take kindly to being buried or abandoned.

Mr. Adam's general point is well-taken, but I would disagree in some
of the specifics. The total amounts of missing WMEs that I've seen
tend to be just under 400 tons; the number of truckloads required for
transportation depends on the type of container. Bulk storage, bombs,
and rocket warheads tend to have a higher proportion of agent to metal
than do artillery projectiles. Thus, if the missing agent was filled
into 105 mm projectiles, it would fill many more truckloads than if it
were filled into drums and bombs.

Regarding burial, it depends on where and for how long. I've seen
photos of projectiles buried in moist soils for 60 years that looked
so bad they couldn't be safely moved. On the other hand, a year or two
buried in desert sand might not affect the usability of the munition
that greatly. The likelihood that WME are out there to be found
appears fairly low, but it's not zero.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Dr. George O. Bizzigotti wrote:

:On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:56:56 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
:
:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"M.Hamer" wrote:
::But they weren't used. Why? Because they didn't exist!
:
:By this reasoning, chemical weapons didn't exist in any of the
:countries participating in WWII. Clearly specious reasoning.
:
:No, because we've still got facilities at Porton we built to evaluate
:and analyse captured German chemical weapons.

:There are ample, well-documented literature sources describing the
:very large amounts of chemical munitions possessed by Germany. This is
:not, at least as yet, the case for Iraq.

Yes, I know. But go back and read the claim - "They weren't used ...
because they didn't exist!" This is his argument for the
non-existence of Iraqi chemical weapons; that they weren't used, so
must not exist.

BY THAT REASONING nobody in WWII must have had chemical weapons,
either, since they weren't used.

THAT REASONING is clearly specious, since as has been noted, chemical
weapons most certainly WERE held by the participants in WWII and yet
they were not used.

I'm pleased you and Mr Adam agree with me, although the wording
appears to indicate this was perhaps not the intent.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

"Leslie Swartz" wrote:
YGBSM!

"Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, LBJ has Got To Go . . . "

Oops sorry wrong decade, d00d.

Steve Swartz

(Napalm a WMD? "Asked and Answered, Counselor!")


"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in
message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:49:35 +0100, "John
Mullen" wrote:



Napalm was used in the Pacific Theatre
(and Italy?).



Napalm is *not* a CW any more than phosphorous
grenades are.

Many consider both to be so. See for example
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...ertharigel.htm

They certainly seem, at least arguably to
breach both the Hague and Geneva
Conventions.

Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs
of War on Land, The Hague,
October 18, 1907 - (Hague IV)
Preamble, paragraph 8 - De Martens clause:
"Until a more complete code of
the laws of war has been issued, the High
Contracting Parties deem it
expedient to declare that, in cases not included
in the Regulations
adopted
by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents
remain under the protection
and the rule of the principles of the law
of nations, as they result from
the usages established among civilized peoples,
from the laws of humanity,
and the dictates of the public conscience."
Annex to the Convention, REGULATIONS RESPECTING
THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF
WAR
ON LAND, Section II, Chapter I, Article 22:
"The right of belligerents to
adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited."

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949, and
Relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts
(Protocol I of 1977) prohibits employment
of "weapons, projectiles and
material and methods of warfare of a nature
to cause superfluous injury or
unnecessary suffering" (Article 35, paragraph
2), as well as employment of
"methods or means of warfare which are intended,
or may be expected, to
cause widespread, long-term and severe damage
to the natural environment"
(Article 35, paragraph 3; also: Article 55).
The use of DU weapons also
violates provisions of the same Protocol,
regarding the protection of
civilian population against effects of hostilities
(Article 48; Article
51,
paragraphs: 1, 4-c, 5-b; Article 57, paragraph
2-a-ii).

John




Then how come some 20+ countries have DU rounds for aircraft and armor?
And it's not just the US and Brits who have used it in combat: When the Russians
first went into Chechenya, they did face Rebel armor-mainly T-55s and T-62s.
I'm sure Russian tankers put DU 125mm rounds into said Rebel armor from their
T-72s and T-80s.
Napalm or Napalm substitute? Great for "killing things that kill Marines",
to quote a USMC officer in GW II. Bottom line-a treaty is only as good as
its enforcement mechanism. And where were these lilly-livered crybabies when
the Iraqis used DU ammo from their tanks during the Kuwait invasion and GW
I?

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!