AP/Reuters Says Blackhawk Hostile Fire Loss and First Chem Munitions Found

"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:36:11 +1100, "L'acrobat"
allegedly uttered:


"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Wrapped up neatly in mylar, huh? Regardless, they were not *accounted
for*
by Saddam in his numerous "disclosure" statements. Bad on him.


Tut tut indeed.

Think it justified going to war?!

Certainly.

Assuming they were Chem rounds, could you explain why you think that such
a
direct breach of the cease fire agreement wouldn't justify going to war?

Well, from the UK point of view (where "regime change" was a bad
phrase to use), the reason for going to war was the *immediate threat*
of the WMD, which at the time I supported.

A couple of dozen 120mm mortar shells in the condition that these were
found are a threat to no one except the poor buggers who have to clean
them up. Hardly worth dozens (let alone hundreds) of your own soldiers
paying the big price.

Well you seem to be ignoring the fact that they would have been workable
when cached and Saddam was required to disclose the lot.



A few WP shells course, leaves us back to where we were before. No
WMD found, and no end to the casualties in sight.

No weapons, but a great deal of evidence of WMD making intent - a secret
network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi
intelligence service; bioorganisms kept in scientists' homes, including a
vial of live botulinum; and, ``new research on BW-applicable agents,
Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin
and aflatoxin'' -- all ``not declared to the U.N.''

It's pretty hard to argue that Saddam stuck to either the spirit or the word
of the ceasefire agreement.

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

No weapons, but a great deal of evidence of WMD making intent - a
secret
network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi
intelligence service;

I would be careful about the 'weapon laboratories' claim if I were you...
Have you seen this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39...evelyan_vi.ram


I don't run real media, could you summarise?

On or about Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:06:23 +1100, "L'acrobat"
allegedly uttered:


"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
.. .
Well, from the UK point of view (where "regime change" was a bad
phrase to use), the reason for going to war was the *immediate threat*
of the WMD, which at the time I supported.

A couple of dozen 120mm mortar shells in the condition that these were
found are a threat to no one except the poor buggers who have to clean
them up. Hardly worth dozens (let alone hundreds) of your own soldiers
paying the big price.

Well you seem to be ignoring the fact that they would have been workable
when cached and Saddam was required to disclose the lot.

Not at all. That wasn't my point. The point was, when we went to war
there is currently no evidence that there was a viable threat. Was
Saddam a bad man, no doubt. Did he want WMD, absolutely. Was there an
active program in the last year? Unproven.

IMO he was preparing for a new WMD production program to be launched
when sanctions were lifted, but only a little R&D until then.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:06:23 +1100, "L'acrobat"
allegedly uttered:


"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
.. .
Well, from the UK point of view (where "regime change" was a bad
phrase to use), the reason for going to war was the *immediate threat*
of the WMD, which at the time I supported.

A couple of dozen 120mm mortar shells in the condition that these were
found are a threat to no one except the poor buggers who have to clean
them up. Hardly worth dozens (let alone hundreds) of your own soldiers
paying the big price.

Well you seem to be ignoring the fact that they would have been workable
when cached and Saddam was required to disclose the lot.

Not at all. That wasn't my point. The point was, when we went to war
there is currently no evidence that there was a viable threat. Was
Saddam a bad man, no doubt. Did he want WMD, absolutely. Was there an
active program in the last year? Unproven.

IMO he was preparing for a new WMD production program to be launched
when sanctions were lifted, but only a little R&D until then.

In which case he was in direct breach of the ceasefire agreement.

He didn't have to constitute a 'viable threat', just breach the ceasefire
agreement.

We are in agreement that he did that.