No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:

But if this was a long-overdue war to depose SH, then why couldn't we
be _honest_ about it and call it that ?

Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
they could be the same sort of *******.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:


But if this was a long-overdue war to depose SH, then why couldn't we
be _honest_ about it and call it that ?


Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
they could be the same sort of *******.

I don't follow your reasoning. Please expand, on the connection.

In article ,
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Andy Dingley wrote:

But if this was a long-overdue war to depose SH, then why couldn't we
be _honest_ about it and call it that ?

Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
they could be the same sort of *******.

I don't follow your reasoning. Please expand, on the connection.

Less than one-third of the countries in the United Nations have what you
could call a "representative government."

Some of the loudest voices against the US deposing a dictator like
Saddam Hussein are, well, dictators like Saddam Hussein...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:56:30 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
they could be the same sort of *******.

Fair comment, but this isn't a UN action anyway, it's a unilateral
action by the US and Blair got caught in the draft of tailgating
Bush's ass.

If it's OK to ignore the UN now, why so squeamish in '91 ?

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

Andy Dingley wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:56:30 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Because two-thirds of the United Nations is run by people who *wish*
they could be the same sort of *******.

Fair comment, but this isn't a UN action anyway, it's a unilateral
action by the US and Blair got caught in the draft of tailgating
Bush's ass.

If it's OK to ignore the UN now, why so squeamish in '91 ?

1) Because they had not yet proven to be worthless
2) Because there was hope that popping SH in the nose would either
straighten him out or convince his folks to overthrow him
3) Because we didn't know France, Germany and Russia would sell their
souls for construction contracts
4) Because 4 airliners and 3 buildings made many in the US remember
that we cant ignore problems 'over there' and hope they will go away
5) Because we had hoped to build a better understanding with more
moderate Arab countries
6) Because we got tired of sitting in the desert of Saudi Arabia
accomplishing nothing without a cold beer.
7) Because George Sr believed in a 'kinder and gentler' world, when
the same old scum still are out there.

Just a few thoughts

Andy Dingley wrote:

If it's OK to ignore the UN now, why so squeamish in '91 ?

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods


9-11 happened. The same people who had the infamous "dots" that lead to
9-11
came to Bush and said "We gotta problem, and if it is real it could
cause millions
to die." Bush said "what's the chance these "dots" are real?" and no
matter what percentage they
gave him. He had to act and act fast. Failure to act, with the
information coming
on the heels of 9-11, seems to be too much of a chance to take. If he
was wrong,
and I'm still on the fence, he was wrong. But given the fact that the
people who
were telling him of this issue just failed him on 9-11, he had no choice.
kwc

Not hardly, but that's not a good enough reason to go to war with every no-good
murderous ****head in the world. Imminent danger from Saddam would have been,
but we can't even prove imminent, having spent over 6 months and billions of
dollars looking. How long and how much will it take for you and your apologist
buddies to admit that there was nothing there and stop making excuses for
picking a fight? We behaved like international bullies, we've lost most of our
allies and their respect, and we have precious little to show for our efforts
other than growing casualty lists and an Iraqi oil infrastructure that's going
to drain us dry trying to repair it. Even worse, it's going to make Halliburton
rich because they're the ones who are going to end up with all that money we're
going to be spending on it, and they didn't even have to bid on their contract,
a little something that has its own distinctive outhouse type smell to it.

George Z.

Peter Glasø wrote:
Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely
missed,right?


"Michael Petukhov" skrev i melding
om...
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...=21801&lang=en

No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

05 October 2003

As the first progress report from the Iraq Survey Group is released,
Cambridge WMD expert Dr Glen Rangwala finds that even the diluted
claims made for Saddam Hussein's arsenal don't stand up


Last week's progress report by American and British weapons inspectors
in Iraq has failed to supply evidence for the vast majority of the
claims made on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by their governments
before the war.

David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told congressional
committees in Washington that no official orders or plans could be
found to back up the allegation that a nuclear programme remained
active after 1991. Aluminium tubes have not been used for the
enrichment of uranium, in contrast to US Secretary of State Colin
Powell's lengthy exposition to the UN Security Council in February. No
suspicious activities or residues have been found at the seven sites
within Iraq described in the Prime Minister's dossier from September
2002.

The ISG even casts serious doubt on President Bush's much-trumpeted
claim that US forces had found three mobile biological laboratories
after the war: "technical limitations" would prevent the trailers from
being ideally suited to biological weapons production, it records. In
other words, they were for something else.

There have certainly been no signs of imported uranium, or even
battlefield munitions ready to fire within 45 minutes. Most
significantly, the claim to Parliament on the eve of conflict by Jack
Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that "we know that this man [Saddam
Hussein] has got ... chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses,
bacilli and ... 10,000 litres of anthrax" has yet to find a single
piece of supportive evidence.

Those who staked their career on the existence in Iraq of at least
chemical and biological weapons programmes have latched on to three
claims in the progress report.

First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced". Mr Straw
claimed the morning after the report's release that this agent was
"15,000 times more toxic than the nerve agent VX". That is wrong:
botulinum type A is one of the most poisonous substances known, and
was developed in weaponised form by Iraq before 1991. However, type B
- the form found at the biologist's home - is less lethal.

Even then, it would require an extensive process of fermentation, the
growing of the bug, the extraction of the toxin and the weaponisation
of the toxin before it could cause harm. That process would take
weeks, if not longer, but the ISG reported no sign of any of these
activities.

Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
"seed banks".

Second, a large part of the ISG report is taken up with assertions
that Iraq had been acquiring designs and under- taking research
programmes for missiles with a range that exceeded the UN limit of
150km. The evidence here is more detailed than in the rest of the
report. However, it does not demonstrate that Iraq was violating the
terms of any Security Council resolution. The prohibition on Iraq
acquiring technology relating to chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons was absolute: no agents, no sub-systems and no research or
support facilities.

By contrast, Iraq was simply prohibited from actually having
longer-range missiles, together with "major parts, and repair and
production facilities". The ISG does not claim proof that Iraq had any
such missiles or facilities, just the knowledge to produce them in
future. Indeed, it would have been entirely lawful for Iraq to develop
such systems if the restrictions implemented in 1991 were lifted,
while it would never have been legitimate for it to re-develop WMD.

Third, one sentence within the report has been much quoted: Iraq had
"a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the
Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment subject to UN
monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research". Note what that
sentence does not say: these facilities were suitable for chemical and
biological weapons research (as almost any modern lab would be), not
that they had engaged in such research. The reference to UN monitoring
is also spurious: under the terms of UN resolutions, all of Iraq's
chemical and biological facilities are subject to monitoring. So all
this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=450121

Source: Dr Glen Rangwala The Independent

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
Not hardly, but that's not a good enough reason to go to war with every no-good
murderous ****head in the world.

There is a reason to go to war with the murderous ****head.
Since it's only Los Angelos bank robbers who are really murderous ****heads.
since they use SUVs to kill.

But Hussein uses toxic gas.

And we use cruise missles that can take any random assortment
of 100 or so Middle East Palaces that has ever been built.

"Peter Glasø" wrote:

Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely
missed,right?

It was worth every single of those 20,000+ civilian lives to remove this
ex-CIA puppert, right?


"Michael Petukhov" skrev i melding
om...
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...=21801&lang=en

No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

05 October 2003

As the first progress report from the Iraq Survey Group is released,
Cambridge WMD expert Dr Glen Rangwala finds that even the diluted
claims made for Saddam Hussein's arsenal don't stand up


Last week's progress report by American and British weapons inspectors
in Iraq has failed to supply evidence for the vast majority of the
claims made on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by their governments
before the war.

David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told congressional
committees in Washington that no official orders or plans could be
found to back up the allegation that a nuclear programme remained
active after 1991. Aluminium tubes have not been used for the
enrichment of uranium, in contrast to US Secretary of State Colin
Powell's lengthy exposition to the UN Security Council in February. No
suspicious activities or residues have been found at the seven sites
within Iraq described in the Prime Minister's dossier from September
2002.

The ISG even casts serious doubt on President Bush's much-trumpeted
claim that US forces had found three mobile biological laboratories
after the war: "technical limitations" would prevent the trailers from
being ideally suited to biological weapons production, it records. In
other words, they were for something else.

There have certainly been no signs of imported uranium, or even
battlefield munitions ready to fire within 45 minutes. Most
significantly, the claim to Parliament on the eve of conflict by Jack
Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that "we know that this man [Saddam
Hussein] has got ... chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses,
bacilli and ... 10,000 litres of anthrax" has yet to find a single
piece of supportive evidence.

Those who staked their career on the existence in Iraq of at least
chemical and biological weapons programmes have latched on to three
claims in the progress report.

First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced". Mr Straw
claimed the morning after the report's release that this agent was
"15,000 times more toxic than the nerve agent VX". That is wrong:
botulinum type A is one of the most poisonous substances known, and
was developed in weaponised form by Iraq before 1991. However, type B
- the form found at the biologist's home - is less lethal.

Even then, it would require an extensive process of fermentation, the
growing of the bug, the extraction of the toxin and the weaponisation
of the toxin before it could cause harm. That process would take
weeks, if not longer, but the ISG reported no sign of any of these
activities.

Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
"seed banks".

Second, a large part of the ISG report is taken up with assertions
that Iraq had been acquiring designs and under- taking research
programmes for missiles with a range that exceeded the UN limit of
150km. The evidence here is more detailed than in the rest of the
report. However, it does not demonstrate that Iraq was violating the
terms of any Security Council resolution. The prohibition on Iraq
acquiring technology relating to chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons was absolute: no agents, no sub-systems and no research or
support facilities.

By contrast, Iraq was simply prohibited from actually having
longer-range missiles, together with "major parts, and repair and
production facilities". The ISG does not claim proof that Iraq had any
such missiles or facilities, just the knowledge to produce them in
future. Indeed, it would have been entirely lawful for Iraq to develop
such systems if the restrictions implemented in 1991 were lifted,
while it would never have been legitimate for it to re-develop WMD.

Third, one sentence within the report has been much quoted: Iraq had
"a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the
Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment subject to UN
monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research". Note what that
sentence does not say: these facilities were suitable for chemical and
biological weapons research (as almost any modern lab would be), not
that they had engaged in such research. The reference to UN monitoring
is also spurious: under the terms of UN resolutions, all of Iraq's
chemical and biological facilities are subject to monitoring. So all
this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=450121

Source: Dr Glen Rangwala The Independent

kirill wrote in message ...
"Peter Glasø" wrote:

Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely
missed,right?

It was worth every single of those 20,000+ civilian lives to remove this
ex-CIA puppert, right?

We don't know. Since Hussein was a CIA puppet only in the
sense that some New Yorkers look like CIA.

But in New York, some New Yorkers look like Martians,
and some New Yorkers look like Julius Caesar. Some
New Yorkers look like Jesus Christ, and some
New Yorkers even look like Hitler.

But no New Yorkers look like oil drillers.