Politics > Politics-USA > What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq??
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Mark Fox" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2004 05:20:12 PM |
| Object: |
What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive
contaminated equipment in Iraq????? All this stuff is not supposed to
exist in Iraq according to the liberal media and the Democratic Party
leadership?
I thought you liberals and Democrats said that there were no WMDs in
Iraq???
So why is the UN complaining below about all this stuff that is not
supposed to exist????
What were chemical weapons tools doing at an Iraqi Missile site in May
of 2003 and where did they go???
If Iraq doesn't have any nuclear facilities then why is the UN
concerned about stolen contaminated equipment?
If Iraqi Rockets were destroyed then why are they showing up in scrap
yards in Rotterdam??? What the heck is going on here????
Have the liberals been lying to us again as they give aid and comfort
to Saddam and the Islamic terrorist organizations?
Were they lying then or are they lying now?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Mr. Perricos accompanied his briefing with a report showing
satellite photos of a fully built-up missile site near Baghdad
in May 2003 and the same site denuded in February 2004.
His spokesman, Ewen Buchanan, said that items removed from
the site included fermenters, a freeze drier, distillation
columns, parts of missiles and a reactor vessel - all tools
suitable for making biological or chemical weapons.
He said that a fermenter was a good example ..."You can
also use it to breed anthrax."
Another photo showed an engine from a banned SA-2 surface-to-air
missile that had been tagged by the United Nations in Iraq in 1996
and recently discovered in a scrap yard in Rotterdam, the port
city in the Netherlands.
Mohamed El Baradei, director of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, warned the Security Council in April that nuclear
facilities were unguarded and that large amounts of material,
some of it contaminated, were being smuggled out of the country.
Read the whole story at the New York Times website below.....
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/international/middleeast/10nati.html
-------------------------------
Suspect Items From Iraq Shipped Abroad, U.N. Says
By WARREN HOGE
Published: June 10, 2004
UNITED NATIONS, June 9 - Equipment and material that could have been
used to produce banned weapons and long-range missiles have been
emptied from Iraqi sites since the war started and shipped abroad, the
head of the United Nations inspectors office told the Security Council
on Wednesday.
Demetrius Perricos, deputy to the former chief weapons inspector Hans
Blix and now the acting executive chairman of the United Nations
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, told a closed
session of the council that many of the items bear tags placed by
United Nations inspectors as suspect dual-use materials having
capabilities for creating harmless consumer products as well as
unconventional weapons.
Mr. Perricos accompanied his briefing with a report showing satellite
photos of a fully built-up missile site near Baghdad in May 2003 and
the same site denuded in February 2004.
His spokesman, Ewen Buchanan, said that items removed from the site
included fermenters, a freeze drier, distillation columns, parts of
missiles and a reactor vessel - all tools suitable for making
biological or chemical weapons.
"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment,
where is it now and what is it being used for," Mr. Buchanan said.
He said that a fermenter was a good example of a dual-use item that
was potentially dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands. "You can
make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a
fermenter," he said. "You can also use it to breed anthrax."
Another photo showed an engine from a banned SA-2 surface-to-air
missile that had been tagged by the United Nations in Iraq in 1996 and
recently discovered in a scrap yard in Rotterdam, the port city in the
Netherlands.
The report said that workers there had told inspectors from the
monitoring commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency that
as many as 12 such engines may have passed through the yard in January
and February this year and that additional items made of stainless
steel and other corrosion-resistant metal alloys with the inscriptions
"Iraq" and "Baghdad" had been observed since November 2003.
"This is only a snapshot," Mr. Buchanan said. Two inspectors, he said,
acting on information from the Netherlands, went to scrap yards in
Jordan last week and found 20 more such engines in addition to tagged
processing equipment such as chemical reactors, heat exchangers and a
solid propellent mixing bowl.
"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through
these yards and other yards elsewhere," he said. "We can't really
assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity
that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."
Inspectors are hoping to check scrap yards in Turkey, he said.
Last month, The New York Times reported that large quantities of new
reconstruction equipment and sensitive military material is being
plundered in Iraq and trucked to Jordan to be sold as scrap. Mohamed
El Baradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned
the Security Council in April that nuclear facilities were unguarded
and that large amounts of material, some of it contaminated, were
being smuggled out of the country.
The United Nations inspectors were removed from Iraq just before the
war broke out in March 2003 and, the report says, have been ignored by
the American-led Iraq Survey Group that has been searching for arms
since then.
In the negotiations leading to Tuesday's passage of a Security Council
resolution on Iraq, Russia pressed for inclusion in the measure of
language promising to reinvigorate the United Nations inspectors, but
the final version simply pledged to "revisit" their mandate.
.
|
|
| User: "Sogobia" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
10 Jun 2004 05:20:14 PM |
|
|
"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a258afb5.0406101420.55327eb@posting.google.com...
What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive
contaminated equipment in Iraq????? All this stuff is not supposed to
exist in Iraq according to the liberal media and the Democratic Party
leadership?
I thought you liberals and Democrats said that there were no WMDs in
Iraq???
So why is the UN complaining below about all this stuff that is not
supposed to exist????
What were chemical weapons tools doing at an Iraqi Missile site in May
of 2003 and where did they go???
If Iraq doesn't have any nuclear facilities then why is the UN
concerned about stolen contaminated equipment?
If Iraqi Rockets were destroyed then why are they showing up in scrap
yards in Rotterdam??? What the heck is going on here????
Have the liberals been lying to us again as they give aid and comfort
to Saddam and the Islamic terrorist organizations?
--
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban
affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US,
under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr,
sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and
botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to
tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella
melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which
causes gas gangrene.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
--
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S.
had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and
military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official
neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald
Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security
Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the
Middle East.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 12:28:26 AM |
|
|
(Mark Fox) wrote in message news:<a258afb5.0406101420.55327eb@posting.google.com>...
What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive
contaminated equipment in Iraq????? All this stuff is not supposed to
exist in Iraq according to the liberal media and the Democratic Party
leadership?
Listen, while they're combing the junkyards, could you see if they can
dig up a grille for a 1960 Ford Galaxie? Thanks.
I thought you liberals and Democrats said that there were no WMDs in
Iraq???
So why is the UN complaining below about all this stuff that is not
supposed to exist????
What were chemical weapons tools doing at an Iraqi Missile site in May
of 2003 and where did they go???
If Iraq doesn't have any nuclear facilities then why is the UN
concerned about stolen contaminated equipment?
If Iraqi Rockets were destroyed then why are they showing up in scrap
yards in Rotterdam??? What the heck is going on here????
Have the liberals been lying to us again as they give aid and comfort
to Saddam and the Islamic terrorist organizations?
Were they lying then or are they lying now?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Mr. Perricos accompanied his briefing with a report showing
satellite photos of a fully built-up missile site near Baghdad
in May 2003 and the same site denuded in February 2004.
His spokesman, Ewen Buchanan, said that items removed from
the site included fermenters, a freeze drier, distillation
columns, parts of missiles and a reactor vessel - all tools
suitable for making biological or chemical weapons.
He said that a fermenter was a good example ..."You can
also use it to breed anthrax."
Another photo showed an engine from a banned SA-2 surface-to-air
missile that had been tagged by the United Nations in Iraq in 1996
and recently discovered in a scrap yard in Rotterdam, the port
city in the Netherlands.
Mohamed El Baradei, director of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, warned the Security Council in April that nuclear
facilities were unguarded and that large amounts of material,
some of it contaminated, were being smuggled out of the country.
Read the whole story at the New York Times website below.....
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/international/middleeast/10nati.html
-------------------------------
Suspect Items From Iraq Shipped Abroad, U.N. Says
By WARREN HOGE
Published: June 10, 2004
UNITED NATIONS, June 9 - Equipment and material that could have been
used to produce banned weapons and long-range missiles have been
emptied from Iraqi sites since the war started and shipped abroad, the
head of the United Nations inspectors office told the Security Council
on Wednesday.
Demetrius Perricos, deputy to the former chief weapons inspector Hans
Blix and now the acting executive chairman of the United Nations
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, told a closed
session of the council that many of the items bear tags placed by
United Nations inspectors as suspect dual-use materials having
capabilities for creating harmless consumer products as well as
unconventional weapons.
Mr. Perricos accompanied his briefing with a report showing satellite
photos of a fully built-up missile site near Baghdad in May 2003 and
the same site denuded in February 2004.
His spokesman, Ewen Buchanan, said that items removed from the site
included fermenters, a freeze drier, distillation columns, parts of
missiles and a reactor vessel - all tools suitable for making
biological or chemical weapons.
"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment,
where is it now and what is it being used for," Mr. Buchanan said.
He said that a fermenter was a good example of a dual-use item that
was potentially dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands. "You can
make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a
fermenter," he said. "You can also use it to breed anthrax."
Another photo showed an engine from a banned SA-2 surface-to-air
missile that had been tagged by the United Nations in Iraq in 1996 and
recently discovered in a scrap yard in Rotterdam, the port city in the
Netherlands.
The report said that workers there had told inspectors from the
monitoring commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency that
as many as 12 such engines may have passed through the yard in January
and February this year and that additional items made of stainless
steel and other corrosion-resistant metal alloys with the inscriptions
"Iraq" and "Baghdad" had been observed since November 2003.
"This is only a snapshot," Mr. Buchanan said. Two inspectors, he said,
acting on information from the Netherlands, went to scrap yards in
Jordan last week and found 20 more such engines in addition to tagged
processing equipment such as chemical reactors, heat exchangers and a
solid propellent mixing bowl.
"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through
these yards and other yards elsewhere," he said. "We can't really
assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity
that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."
Inspectors are hoping to check scrap yards in Turkey, he said.
Last month, The New York Times reported that large quantities of new
reconstruction equipment and sensitive military material is being
plundered in Iraq and trucked to Jordan to be sold as scrap. Mohamed
El Baradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned
the Security Council in April that nuclear facilities were unguarded
and that large amounts of material, some of it contaminated, were
being smuggled out of the country.
The United Nations inspectors were removed from Iraq just before the
war broke out in March 2003 and, the report says, have been ignored by
the American-led Iraq Survey Group that has been searching for arms
since then.
In the negotiations leading to Tuesday's passage of a Security Council
resolution on Iraq, Russia pressed for inclusion in the measure of
language promising to reinvigorate the United Nations inspectors, but
the final version simply pledged to "revisit" their mandate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 08:44:09 AM |
|
|
(z) wrote...
mark_fox_@yahoo.com (Mark Fox) wrote
What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive
contaminated equipment in Iraq????? All this stuff is not supposed to
exist in Iraq according to the liberal media and the Democratic Party
leadership?
Listen, while they're combing the junkyards, could you see if they can
dig up a grille for a 1960 Ford Galaxie? Thanks.
If it has been modified into a gas seperator for refining weapons
grade plutonium do you still want it?? I can get you a really good
deal! If you put it on your car then you won't need headlights as the
bumper already glows in the dark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Simpson" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 07:37:00 PM |
|
|
Mark Fox wrote:
Listen, while they're combing the junkyards, could you see if they can
dig up a grille for a 1960 Ford Galaxie? Thanks.
If it has been modified into a gas seperator for refining weapons
grade plutonium do you still want it?? I can get you a really good
deal! If you put it on your car then you won't need headlights as the
bumper already glows in the dark.
That's how Hussein operated -- diverting something to be used for
developing nukes and WMDs instead of forming a component at a power
plant (who cares if Iraqis go without electricity?) or sewage
treatment or water purifying plant.
(I'm joking about what you wrote, but it's the truth. The worst
victims among the population abused by Hussein were used for
propaganda and given glad support in the West by the extreme Left.
"END THE [EVIL, IMPERIALISTIC] SANCTIONS NOW!" not "Why is Hussein
continuing to defy the the rest of the world and abuse his own
people?")
Dave Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
12 Jun 2004 07:16:39 AM |
|
|
(Dave Simpson) wrote in message news:<23e7f86e.0406111637.1c886cdc@posting.google.com>...
Mark Fox wrote:
Listen, while they're combing the junkyards, could you see if they can
dig up a grille for a 1960 Ford Galaxie? Thanks.
If it has been modified into a gas seperator for refining weapons
grade plutonium do you still want it?? I can get you a really good
deal! If you put it on your car then you won't need headlights as the
bumper already glows in the dark.
That's how Hussein operated -- diverting something to be used for
developing nukes and WMDs instead of forming a component at a power
plant (who cares if Iraqis go without electricity?) or sewage
treatment or water purifying plant.
(I'm joking about what you wrote, but it's the truth. The worst
victims among the population abused by Hussein were used for
propaganda and given glad support in the West by the extreme Left.
"END THE [EVIL, IMPERIALISTIC] SANCTIONS NOW!" not "Why is Hussein
continuing to defy the the rest of the world and abuse his own
people?")
On the other hand, the left has been against the US government
propping up Hussein for the past 20 years. Molly Ivins, for example.
Who do you think is more culpable as accessories in Saddam's crimes;
people who said 'End the sanctions now', or people who actually
supplied Saddam with weapons and military intelligence? (Not to
mention people who sold him oil well equipment through foreign
subsidiaries, to evade the sanctions and make a handsome profit).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Avanti_Ken" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
12 Jun 2004 05:40:55 PM |
|
|
Yep, and I could use a good replatable pair of taillight housings for my
1964 Studebaker Avanti R2.
Glow in the dark chrome would really attract attention at the Saturday Night
Cruise!
--
Avanti_Ken
======================================
"Mark Fox" <mark_fox_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
gzuckier@snail-mail.net (z) wrote...
mark_fox_@yahoo.com (Mark Fox) wrote
What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive
contaminated equipment in Iraq????? All this stuff is not supposed to
exist in Iraq according to the liberal media and the Democratic Party
leadership?
Listen, while they're combing the junkyards, could you see if they can
dig up a grille for a 1960 Ford Galaxie? Thanks.
If it has been modified into a gas seperator for refining weapons
grade plutonium do you still want it?? I can get you a really good
deal! If you put it on your car then you won't need headlights as the
bumper already glows in the dark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
10 Jun 2004 06:36:25 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jun 2004 15:20:12 -0700, (Mark Fox) wrote:
What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive
contaminated equipment in Iraq????? All this stuff is not supposed to
exist in Iraq according to the liberal media and the Democratic Party
leadership
You must not get out much. No one claimed what you indicate they
claimed.
Obviously Iraq had stuff like that lying around from years ago, and no
one would ever claim otherwise.
When an argument can't be refuted, people sometimes create an argument
which can be refuted, and attribute that to their opponents. That
logical dodge is called The Straw Man Argument.
I thought you liberals and Democrats said that there were no WMDs in
Iraq???
That's correct, we have now determined that. And not just liberals.
David Kay says those who claim otherwise are delusional.
He means you.
Stuff contaminated with radioactivity was there left over from the old
days, all one hundred percent accounted for per the UN before the war,
and does not constitute a weapon. Missiles were permitted in Iraq for
self-defense. They manufactured missiles, and that was fine. Chemical
weapons equipment is vague, but what is it really? A bucket? A bunson
burner? High schools have that stuff too. So what? It's not a deadly
weapon.
So why is the UN complaining below about all this stuff that is not
supposed to exist????
They aren't.
What were chemical weapons tools doing at an Iraqi Missile site in May
of 2003 and where did they go???
Lying around, I imagine. Or being used to make rocket fuel? Which is
perfectly legal and permitted?
If Iraq doesn't have any nuclear facilities then why is the UN
concerned about stolen contaminated equipment?
They do have such facilities. No one said they didn't. Stuff left over
from the old days, not constituting nuclear weapons at all, fully
accounted for per UN. All above board, premitted, not a risk, unless
the stuff is dispersed risking radiation sickness or something.
If Iraqi Rockets were destroyed then why are they showing up in scrap
yards in Rotterdam??? What the heck is going on here????
THey were permitted to have and manufacture rockets, for self-defense.
They were permitted to have guns, tanks, jeeps, grenades etc. So what?
You seem to think this wasn't permitted by the UN. You are mistaken.
And this stuff posed to risk to us.
Have the liberals been lying to us again as they give aid and comfort
to Saddam and the Islamic terrorist organizations?
Why do you keep calling David Kay a liberal?
ANd you haven't mentioned any lies. What you have mentioned are
confusions on your part.
Were they lying then or are they lying now?
No.
Inquiring minds want to know.
If you open your nostrils really wide some of those bees buzzing in
your head might fly out, sparing you needless aggravation.
Mr. Perricos accompanied his briefing with a report showing
satellite photos of a fully built-up missile site near Baghdad
in May 2003 and the same site denuded in February 2004.
His spokesman, Ewen Buchanan, said that items removed from
the site included fermenters, a freeze drier, distillation
columns, parts of missiles and a reactor vessel - all tools
suitable for making biological or chemical weapons.
He said that a fermenter was a good example ..."You can
also use it to breed anthrax."
And you can use a bucket to make chemical weapons. So what?
All nations, other than the truly desparate, have fermenters.
They have cars, too, even though a car could be used to transport a
small nuclear weapon.
Another photo showed an engine from a banned SA-2 surface-to-air
missile that had been tagged by the United Nations in Iraq in 1996
and recently discovered in a scrap yard in Rotterdam, the port
city in the Netherlands.
The UN found a few missiles in Iraq that they had previously intended
to destroy but somehow missed. So what?
It's not anything posing a risk to us.
These babies are not WMD.
They are spread all over the world, and terrorists can get them many
places, with or without Iraq.
Mohamed El Baradei, director of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, warned the Security Council in April that nuclear
facilities were unguarded and that large amounts of material,
some of it contaminated, were being smuggled out of the country.
Read the whole story at the New York Times website below.....
The IAEA reported before the war that IRAQ had no nuclear program, as
far as they could tell, and that all the old stuff was accounted for.
That the US did not guard old nuclear materials has nothing to do with
Iraqi violations and everything to do with US incompetence.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/international/middleeast/10nati.html
-------------------------------
Suspect Items From Iraq Shipped Abroad, U.N. Says
By WARREN HOGE
Published: June 10, 2004
UNITED NATIONS, June 9 - Equipment and material that could have been
used to produce banned weapons and long-range missiles have been
emptied from Iraqi sites since the war started and shipped abroad, the
head of the United Nations inspectors office told the Security Council
on Wednesday.
Yes. So what?
Demetrius Perricos, deputy to the former chief weapons inspector Hans
Blix and now the acting executive chairman of the United Nations
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, told a closed
session of the council that many of the items bear tags placed by
United Nations inspectors as suspect dual-use materials having
capabilities for creating harmless consumer products as well as
unconventional weapons.
in other words stuff in every country in the world. You can find them
in bora bora I guess too.
A bucket is a dual use item.
So what?
It's not a WMD, and there is zero reason to think the things were
being used to make WMD
Iraq like anyone else COULD make WMD if it wanted. We have seen that
they did not want to.
Mr. Perricos accompanied his briefing with a report showing satellite
photos of a fully built-up missile site near Baghdad in May 2003 and
the same site denuded in February 2004.
So what?
THey were permitted to have missile sites. That the US doesn't guard
the thing isn't the fault of the Iraqis.
His spokesman, Ewen Buchanan, said that items removed from the site
included fermenters, a freeze drier, distillation columns, parts of
missiles and a reactor vessel - all tools suitable for making
biological or chemical weapons.
"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment,
where is it now and what is it being used for," Mr. Buchanan said.
I guess this proves we were dumb to go to Iraq, because stuff like
this could get dispersed.
seems like you are repeating yourself so I'm leaving now
He said that a fermenter was a good example of a dual-use item that
was potentially dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands. "You can
make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a
fermenter," he said. "You can also use it to breed anthrax."
Another photo showed an engine from a banned SA-2 surface-to-air
missile that had been tagged by the United Nations in Iraq in 1996 and
recently discovered in a scrap yard in Rotterdam, the port city in the
Netherlands.
The report said that workers there had told inspectors from the
monitoring commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency that
as many as 12 such engines may have passed through the yard in January
and February this year and that additional items made of stainless
steel and other corrosion-resistant metal alloys with the inscriptions
"Iraq" and "Baghdad" had been observed since November 2003.
"This is only a snapshot," Mr. Buchanan said. Two inspectors, he said,
acting on information from the Netherlands, went to scrap yards in
Jordan last week and found 20 more such engines in addition to tagged
processing equipment such as chemical reactors, heat exchangers and a
solid propellent mixing bowl.
"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through
these yards and other yards elsewhere," he said. "We can't really
assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity
that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."
Inspectors are hoping to check scrap yards in Turkey, he said.
Last month, The New York Times reported that large quantities of new
reconstruction equipment and sensitive military material is being
plundered in Iraq and trucked to Jordan to be sold as scrap. Mohamed
El Baradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned
the Security Council in April that nuclear facilities were unguarded
and that large amounts of material, some of it contaminated, were
being smuggled out of the country.
The United Nations inspectors were removed from Iraq just before the
war broke out in March 2003 and, the report says, have been ignored by
the American-led Iraq Survey Group that has been searching for arms
since then.
In the negotiations leading to Tuesday's passage of a Security Council
resolution on Iraq, Russia pressed for inclusion in the measure of
language promising to reinvigorate the United Nations inspectors, but
the final version simply pledged to "revisit" their mandate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The True AntiLiberal" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 01:36:53 AM |
|
|
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message > >
unless the stuff is dispersed risking radiation sickness or something.
So this stuff falling into the hands of terrorist wouldn't be a threat
to the US?
THey were permitted to have and manufacture rockets, for self-defense.
You seem to think this wasn't permitted by the UN. You are mistaken.
It wasn't permitted and prior to the war Iraq didn't account for it.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993485
Where are the WMD. All Hussein had to do was account for the stuff and
there would have been no war. Since sanctions were based on his not
complying, and you say there was nothing there, why did Saddam Hussein
pretend to have WMD in Iraq? Why did he force the inspectors out in
1998? Didn't he want the sanctions lifted?
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 01:39:01 AM |
|
|
"The True AntiLiberal" <thetrueantiliberal@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[...]
Where are the WMD. All Hussein had to do was account for the stuff and
there would have been no war. Since sanctions were based on his not
complying, and you say there was nothing there, why did Saddam Hussein
pretend to have WMD in Iraq?
Why did he force the inspectors out in
1998?
He didn't force them out. They left just before Clinton did his bombing, and
Saddam wouldn't let them back in (not much difference, to be sure, but
still, get the facts straight).
Didn't he want the sanctions lifted?
Why? A semi-starving country is easier for a despot to control than a
thriving, healthy one. Food for thought when thinking about how we deal with
Castro.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The True AntiLiberal" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 09:07:59 AM |
|
|
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
He didn't force them out. They left just before Clinton did his bombing, and
Saddam wouldn't let them back in (not much difference, to be sure, but
still, get the facts straight).
Why did they just leave? Hussein wouldn't let them do there job.
That's why Clinton did the bombing.
The facts are: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
# Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
# Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary
evidence.
# Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from
videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi
personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Why? A semi-starving country is easier for a despot to control than a
thriving, healthy one. Food for thought when thinking about how we deal with
Castro.
That explains 1991 until 2002. At the beginning of 2003, it was
obvious he was going to have to come clean. So Hussein chose to
continue the lie, be invaded and now captured, because there were no
weapons?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 12:12:31 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2004 07:07:59 -0700, (The True
AntiLiberal) wrote:
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
He didn't force them out. They left just before Clinton did his bombing, and
Saddam wouldn't let them back in (not much difference, to be sure, but
still, get the facts straight).
Why did they just leave? Hussein wouldn't let them do there job.
The UN agreed to Hussein's demand that the inspectors not be permitted
to go to "Presidential Sites" without advance notice because the US
salted the inspectors with military spies gathering information
unrelated to weapons which could be used to kill Hussein.
Specifically, they developed ways to overhear Saddam's personal
guards.
Then Saddam could hide things from the inspectors, so we felt
inspections were pointless.
But really we have only ourselves to blame because we broke UN rules
to try to get a bead on Saddam, probably so we could send a cruise
missile to where he was.
That's why Clinton did the bombing.
The facts are: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
# Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
# Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary
evidence.
# Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from
videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi
personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Why? A semi-starving country is easier for a despot to control than a
thriving, healthy one. Food for thought when thinking about how we deal with
Castro.
That explains 1991 until 2002. At the beginning of 2003, it was
obvious he was going to have to come clean. So Hussein chose to
continue the lie, be invaded and now captured, because there were no
weapons?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arnold Dulcimer" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 09:38:32 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2004 07:07:59 -0700, (The True
AntiLiberal) wrote:
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
He didn't force them out. They left just before Clinton did his bombing, and
Saddam wouldn't let them back in (not much difference, to be sure, but
still, get the facts straight).
Why did they just leave? Hussein wouldn't let them do there job.
That's why Clinton did the bombing.
The facts are: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
# Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
# Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary
evidence.
# Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from
videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi
personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Why? A semi-starving country is easier for a despot to control than a
thriving, healthy one. Food for thought when thinking about how we deal with
Castro.
That explains 1991 until 2002. At the beginning of 2003, it was
obvious he was going to have to come clean. So Hussein chose to
continue the lie, be invaded and now captured, because there were no
weapons?
Your mistake is that you seem to think that any of this is important.
It isn't. Whether or not saddam had banned weapons is irrelevant. With
or without these weapons , Iraq was not a threat to the United States.
The only justification for a pre-emptive war is that there be
something to pre-empt. There wasn't. The invasion and occupation was
illegal. Period.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The True AntiLiberal" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 02:35:21 PM |
|
|
Arnold Dulcimer <ArnoldDulcimer@network23.net> wrote in message
Your mistake is that you seem to think that any of this is important.
It isn't. Whether or not saddam had banned weapons is irrelevant.
Whether the President lied or not is irrelevant?
The invasion and occupation was illegal. Period.
Exactly what law was that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 03:15:14 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive
contaminated equipment still in Iraq??
From: (The True AntiLiberal)
Date: 6/11/2004 3:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <1f3b80af.0406111135.69d690a0@posting.google.com>
Arnold Dulcimer <ArnoldDulcimer@network23.net> wrote in message
Your mistake is that you seem to think that any of this is important.
It isn't. Whether or not saddam had banned weapons is irrelevant.
Whether the President lied or not is irrelevant?
It is interesting to see how low the bar is set for a republican president but
my god the bar could never be raised enough to screw a democrate. The
president wanted a war and as president he had the ability to start on. He is
happy as a war president. The dead are just dead.
The invasion and occupation was illegal. Period.
Exactly what law was that?
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 03:17:40 PM |
|
|
"InsuranceBroker" <insurancenj@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040611161514.13427.00000769@mb-m04.aol.com...
Subject: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive
contaminated equipment still in Iraq??
From: (The True AntiLiberal)
Date: 6/11/2004 3:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <1f3b80af.0406111135.69d690a0@posting.google.com>
Arnold Dulcimer <ArnoldDulcimer@network23.net> wrote in message
Your mistake is that you seem to think that any of this is important.
It isn't. Whether or not saddam had banned weapons is irrelevant.
Whether the President lied or not is irrelevant?
It is interesting to see how low the bar is set for a republican president but
my god the bar could never be raised enough to screw a democrate. The
president wanted a war and as president he had the ability to start on. He is
happy as a war president. The dead are just dead.
You must have missed the vote
in congress.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 06:09:34 PM |
|
|
Arnold Dulcimer <ArnoldDulcimer@network23.net> wrote in message news:<vrgjc017jsenli11kpb7h37bf2p1hvgrg4@4ax.com>...
On 11 Jun 2004 07:07:59 -0700, (The True
AntiLiberal) wrote:
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
He didn't force them out. They left just before Clinton did his bombing, and
Saddam wouldn't let them back in (not much difference, to be sure, but
still, get the facts straight).
Why did they just leave? Hussein wouldn't let them do there job.
That's why Clinton did the bombing.
The facts are: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
# Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
# Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary
evidence.
# Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from
videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi
personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Why? A semi-starving country is easier for a despot to control than a
thriving, healthy one. Food for thought when thinking about how we deal with
Castro.
That explains 1991 until 2002. At the beginning of 2003, it was
obvious he was going to have to come clean. So Hussein chose to
continue the lie, be invaded and now captured, because there were no
weapons?
Your mistake is that you seem to think that any of this is important.
It isn't. Whether or not saddam had banned weapons is irrelevant. With
or without these weapons , Iraq was not a threat to the United States.
The only justification for a pre-emptive war is that there be
something to pre-empt. There wasn't. The invasion and occupation was
illegal. Period.
Iraq is not part of Bush's new policy of pre-emption. Period. Saddam
gave up his sovereignty when Iraq invaded Kuwait who then asked for
American help repelling the invaders. Period. This is Kuwait's
sovereign right under the UN charter. Period. Saddam then signed a
surrender treaty promising to destroy all of his WMDs and WMD PROGRAMS
but he didn't obey it. Period. Thus the original war is still on.
Period. This is not some liberal game where you can quit and go cry to
your mama when you don't think you are going to win the war. Period.
Just as America had the right to finish off Germany and Japan, Kuwait
still had the sovereign right to finish off Saddam and to ask for
American help doing it. They did, and Saddam is in a cage. Period.
It's all totally legal. Period.
It is not illegal just because you don't like it.
Period!
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 06:29:13 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2004 16:09:34 -0700, (Mark Fox) wrote:
Arnold Dulcimer <ArnoldDulcimer@network23.net> wrote in message news:<vrgjc017jsenli11kpb7h37bf2p1hvgrg4@4ax.com>...
On 11 Jun 2004 07:07:59 -0700, (The True
AntiLiberal) wrote:
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
He didn't force them out. They left just before Clinton did his bombing, and
Saddam wouldn't let them back in (not much difference, to be sure, but
still, get the facts straight).
Why did they just leave? Hussein wouldn't let them do there job.
That's why Clinton did the bombing.
The facts are: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
# Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
# Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary
evidence.
# Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from
videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi
personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Why? A semi-starving country is easier for a despot to control than a
thriving, healthy one. Food for thought when thinking about how we deal with
Castro.
That explains 1991 until 2002. At the beginning of 2003, it was
obvious he was going to have to come clean. So Hussein chose to
continue the lie, be invaded and now captured, because there were no
weapons?
Your mistake is that you seem to think that any of this is important.
It isn't. Whether or not saddam had banned weapons is irrelevant. With
or without these weapons , Iraq was not a threat to the United States.
The only justification for a pre-emptive war is that there be
something to pre-empt. There wasn't. The invasion and occupation was
illegal. Period.
Iraq is not part of Bush's new policy of pre-emption. Period. Saddam
gave up his sovereignty when Iraq invaded Kuwait
By that standard we've given up our sovereingty a hundred times over I
guess.
It's ok for the USSR to invade us because we invaded Grenada?
who then asked for
American help repelling the invaders. Period. This is Kuwait's
sovereign right under the UN charter
So Grenada could ask the USSR to invade us and it's ok?
.. Period. Saddam then signed a
surrender treaty promising to destroy all of his WMDs and WMD PROGRAMS
but he didn't obey it. Period.
He did destroy all his WMD and WMD programs as promised, with trivial
nonmaterial exceptions.
And Saddam signed a deal with the UN, I imagine. You sign a contract
with Sears and I can go to court to sue them if they don't give you
what they promised?
President Bush said he was going to get a vote on our going in. He
passed, because we could only get 4 of the 11 needed votes .
Isn't it the call of the UN to enforce the treaty they signed, and not
our call?
the original war is still on.
Period. This is not some liberal game where you can quit and go cry to
your mama when you don't think you are going to win the war. Period.
Just as America had the right to finish off Germany and Japan, Kuwait
still had the sovereign right to finish off Saddam and to ask for
American help doing it. They did, and Saddam is in a cage. Period.
It's all totally legal. Period.
It is not illegal just because you don't like it.
It's illegal because we did not get 11 votes in the Security Council.
But who cares? The US does illegal things several times every day, I
imagine.
The real point is that it is costing us vastly more than it's
benefitting us.
It's a huge loser, a blunder of the first magnitude.
Period!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
21 Jun 2004 06:51:01 PM |
|
|
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<phfkc01n1su93gakdp6r3c4rrs2b9papa6@4ax.com>...
On 11 Jun 2004 16:09:34 -0700, (Mark Fox) wrote:
Arnold Dulcimer <ArnoldDulcimer@network23.net> wrote in message news:<vrgjc017jsenli11kpb7h37bf2p1hvgrg4@4ax.com>...
On 11 Jun 2004 07:07:59 -0700, (The True
AntiLiberal) wrote:
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
He didn't force them out. They left just before Clinton did his bombing, and
Saddam wouldn't let them back in (not much difference, to be sure, but
still, get the facts straight).
Why did they just leave? Hussein wouldn't let them do there job.
That's why Clinton did the bombing.
The facts are: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
# Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.
# Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary
evidence.
# Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from
videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi
personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Why? A semi-starving country is easier for a despot to control than a
thriving, healthy one. Food for thought when thinking about how we deal with
Castro.
That explains 1991 until 2002. At the beginning of 2003, it was
obvious he was going to have to come clean. So Hussein chose to
continue the lie, be invaded and now captured, because there were no
weapons?
Your mistake is that you seem to think that any of this is important.
It isn't. Whether or not saddam had banned weapons is irrelevant. With
or without these weapons , Iraq was not a threat to the United States.
The only justification for a pre-emptive war is that there be
something to pre-empt. There wasn't. The invasion and occupation was
illegal. Period.
Iraq is not part of Bush's new policy of pre-emption. Period. Saddam
gave up his sovereignty when Iraq invaded Kuwait
By that standard we've given up our sovereingty a hundred times over I
guess.
It's ok for the USSR to invade us because we invaded Grenada?
Did we invade Grenada at the invitation of the government of Grenada?
Saddam didn't have the invitation of the Kuwaiti government to invade.
who then asked for
American help repelling the invaders. Period. This is Kuwait's
sovereign right under the UN charter
So Grenada could ask the USSR to invade us and it's ok?
It would have been a bit weird for Grenada to ask for our help and
then complain to the Soviet Union about our giving it.
. Period. Saddam then signed a
surrender treaty promising to destroy all of his WMDs and WMD PROGRAMS
but he didn't obey it. Period.
He did destroy all his WMD and WMD programs as promised, with trivial
nonmaterial exceptions.
You cleverly twist and twist.
Saddam was required to destroy (not sell for scrap) all WMDs and
dismantle all the programs AND PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE TO THE UNITED
NATIONS. Saddam did not do this.
And Saddam signed a deal with the UN, I imagine. You sign a contract
with Sears and I can go to court to sue them if they don't give you
what they promised?
You are required to sue to resolve your contract disputes, however
nations may launch a military attack if treaties aren't obeyed. Its
allowed under the UN charter.
President Bush said he was going to get a vote on our going in. He
passed, because we could only get 4 of the 11 needed votes .
more twisting the facts.....
Bush said he would go to the UN to ask them to invade with the United
States. The UN said no so the USA and the other 44 countries in the
coalition had to do the job that the UN should have done. The job
that was outlined in UN resolution 1441.
Isn't it the call of the UN to enforce the treaty they signed, and not
our call?
The UN charter calls upon all member states to act to enforce UN
resolutions. The United States of America was enforcing UN resolution
1441 and several others.
the original war is still on.
Period. This is not some liberal game where you can quit and go cry to
your mama when you don't think you are going to win the war. Period.
Just as America had the right to finish off Germany and Japan, Kuwait
still had the sovereign right to finish off Saddam and to ask for
American help doing it. They did, and Saddam is in a cage. Period.
It's all totally legal. Period.
It is not illegal just because you don't like it.
It's illegal because we did not get 11 votes in the Security Council.
You are confused. The United States of America isn't subordinate to
the United Nations. America is a sovereign and free nation. The 11
votes were to get the UN to PARTICIPATE not to APPROVE the invasion of
Iraq. The United Nations already approved the invasion in resolution
1441 which was passed by unanimous vote.
But who cares? The US does illegal things several times every day, I
imagine.
This is a bald faced lie. A vague lie at that. Care to claim
anything specific?
The real point is that it is costing us vastly more than it's
benefitting us.
Security and safety for Americans and the rest of the free world from
terrorist attack with Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and long
range rockets is worth every penny.
It's a huge loser, a blunder of the first magnitude.
Wrong. Your President and the Congress says it's the right thing to
do. I think I'll go with his judgement over yours. Imagine that??
Period!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
22 Jun 2004 04:16:14 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jun 2004 16:51:01 -0700, (Mark Fox) added
the following words, followed by my wisdom:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<phfkc01n1su93gakdp6r3c4rrs2b9papa6@4ax.com>...
On 11 Jun 2004 16:09:34 -0700, (Mark Fox) wrote:
The real point is that it is costing us vastly more than it's
benefitting us.
Security and safety for Americans and the rest of the free world from
terrorist attack with Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and long
range rockets is worth every penny.
Surely you're not still swallowing that line, are you?
It's a huge loser, a blunder of the first magnitude.
Wrong. Your President and the Congress says it's the right thing to
do. I think I'll go with his judgement over yours. Imagine that??
So you are a blind follower of politicians?
Best wishes,
Jeff
There is so much living to be done, yet so little time in which to live.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
24 Jun 2004 06:56:03 PM |
|
|
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in message news:<pb8hd055v6tnptevdfgslnnlv3q8co3vrq@4ax.com>...
On 21 Jun 2004 16:51:01 -0700, (Mark Fox) added
the following words, followed by my wisdom:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<phfkc01n1su93gakdp6r3c4rrs2b9papa6@4ax.com>...
On 11 Jun 2004 16:09:34 -0700, (Mark Fox) wrote:
The real point is that it is costing us vastly more than it's
benefitting us.
Security and safety for Americans and the rest of the free world from
terrorist attack with Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and long
range rockets is worth every penny.
Surely you're not still swallowing that line, are you?
Have you been watching the news today. More artillery shells with
serin gas in them. "swallowing that old line"?? LOL!
It's a huge loser, a blunder of the first magnitude.
Wrong. Your President and the Congress says it's the right thing to
do. I think I'll go with his judgement over yours. Imagine that??
So you are a blind follower of politicians?
Nope. Not a blind follower. That's why I don't blindly follow John
Kerry and his lies.
Best wishes,
Jeff
There is so much living to be done, yet so little time in which to live.
There will be more time to live when Bush rounds up the terrorists so
they don't kill your family.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
25 Jun 2004 03:25:55 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jun 2004 16:56:03 -0700, (Mark Fox) added
the following words, followed by my wisdom:
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in message news:<pb8hd055v6tnptevdfgslnnlv3q8co3vrq@4ax.com>...
On 21 Jun 2004 16:51:01 -0700, (Mark Fox) added
the following words, followed by my wisdom:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<phfkc01n1su93gakdp6r3c4rrs2b9papa6@4ax.com>...
On 11 Jun 2004 16:09:34 -0700, (Mark Fox) wrote:
The real point is that it is costing us vastly more than it's
benefitting us.
Security and safety for Americans and the rest of the free world from
terrorist attack with Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and long
range rockets is worth every penny.
Surely you're not still swallowing that line, are you?
Have you been watching the news today. More artillery shells with
serin gas in them. "swallowing that old line"?? LOL!
It's a huge loser, a blunder of the first magnitude.
Wrong. Your President and the Congress says it's the right thing to
do. I think I'll go with his judgement over yours. Imagine that??
So you are a blind follower of politicians?
Nope. Not a blind follower. That's why I don't blindly follow John
Kerry and his lies.
There is so much living to be done, yet so little time in which to live.
There will be more time to live when Bush rounds up the terrorists so
they don't kill your family.
Hopefully Bush will be rounded up with them.
Best wishes,
Jeff
There is so much living to be done, yet so little time in which to live.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
27 Jun 2004 08:55:51 PM |
|
|
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in message news:<vh2pd0tqkkpmsarfs4gtge2iae6jt0eosg@4ax.com>...
On 24 Jun 2004 16:56:03 -0700, (Mark Fox) added
the following words, followed by my wisdom:
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in message news:<pb8hd055v6tnptevdfgslnnlv3q8co3vrq@4ax.com>...
On 21 Jun 2004 16:51:01 -0700, (Mark Fox) added
the following words, followed by my wisdom:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<phfkc01n1su93gakdp6r3c4rrs2b9papa6@4ax.com>...
On 11 Jun 2004 16:09:34 -0700, (Mark Fox) wrote:
The real point is that it is costing us vastly more than it's
benefitting us.
Security and safety for Americans and the rest of the free world from
terrorist attack with Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and long
range rockets is worth every penny.
Surely you're not still swallowing that line, are you?
Have you been watching the news today. More artillery shells with
serin gas in them. "swallowing that old line"?? LOL!
It's a huge loser, a blunder of the first magnitude.
Wrong. Your President and the Congress says it's the right thing to
do. I think I'll go with his judgement over yours. Imagine that??
So you are a blind follower of politicians?
Nope. Not a blind follower. That's why I don't blindly follow John
Kerry and his lies.
There is so much living to be done, yet so little time in which to live.
There will be more time to live when Bush rounds up the terrorists so
they don't kill your family.
Hopefully Bush will be rounded up with them.
Bush was reading books to school children in Florida when the United
States was attacked. You clearly want the enemy to win. Have a nice
day.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
28 Jun 2004 10:34:17 PM |
|
|
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote...
On 27 Jun 2004 18:55:51 -0700, (Mark Fox) added
Bush was reading books to school children in Florida when the United
States was attacked. You clearly want the enemy to win. Have a nice
day.
Actually they were reading to him as he is functionally illiterate.
Bush IS the enemy, of all Americans and anyone in the world...
Time to take your medicine again?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
29 Jun 2004 04:34:23 PM |
|
|
On 28 Jun 2004 20:34:17 -0700, (Mark Fox) added
the following words, followed by my wisdom:
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote...
On 27 Jun 2004 18:55:51 -0700, (Mark Fox) added
Bush was reading books to school children in Florida when the United
States was attacked. You clearly want the enemy to win. Have a nice
day.
Actually they were reading to him as he is functionally illiterate.
Bush IS the enemy, of all Americans and anyone in the world...
Time to take your medicine again?
Do you dislike the truth about your hero?
--
Beware the Axis of Evil (Chimp, Cheney, Rumswilled, Asscroft)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 06:18:51 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jun 2004 23:36:53 -0700, (The True
AntiLiberal) wrote:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message > >
unless the stuff is dispersed risking radiation sickness or something.
So this stuff falling into the hands of terrorist wouldn't be a threat
to the US?
maybe an economic threat, in that radiation spread over manhattan
would likely harm real estate values.
I have heard it might increase the odds of getting cancer by one
percent were you to live in an area with a "dirty bomb" exploding
radiation around.
But of course such low grade uranium is already all over the world in
industrial and medical sites.
It's sort of pathetic that the US govt chose not to guard this old
uranium during the war.
THey were permitted to have and manufacture rockets, for self-defense.
You seem to think this wasn't permitted by the UN. You are mistaken.
It wasn't permitted and prior to the war Iraq didn't account for it.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993485
Your link does not support your assertion
Where are the WMD. All Hussein had to do was account for the stuff and
there would have been no war.
You should say - where are the WMD which may or may not have existed,
since the list was merely an inferred list of things we thought
existed.
And the answer is that some never existed, and were on the list of
possible WMD by mistake, and others were destroyed earlier.
We arranged the accounting to assure it would be impossible to
account, so we could keep sanctions on forever, of we wanted to.
The US military until recently could not account for three trillion
dollars it has spent. Now it's down to just one trillion.
We can't account for our military spending even in our bookkeeping
rich world, so why would you expect them to be able to do better?
Saddam said - we dumped VX at this site. That's the account. We go
there, find VX had been dumped. But there is no scientific method to
know how much was dumped. It's a yes-no test, not a how much test.
Irav said, well here's a list of 83 workers involved, talk to them.
We say - too late, we are going to invade.
Saddam did not have records which would permit him to account. IN the
early nineties he was cheating, making weapons against rules. At a
certain point they decided not to do that, and they destroyed weapons
and on purpose did not keep records so that inspectors could not later
come by and say, god you had prohibited weapons.
that's why there are inadequate records of destroying the things.
Because they were held in secret and then destroyed in secret.
But we had Blix to march around and look at stuff.
We knew by the time we invaded, or should have known, that our
evidence for the WMD was lame, and that we should get more info before
we invaded. Blix was there to gain more info. We didn't care. We
wanted to invade whether they had WMD or not.
Since if we cared, we would have worked harder to find out the truth.
Since sanctions were based on his not
complying, and you say there was nothing there, why did Saddam Hussein
pretend to have WMD in Iraq? Why did he force the inspectors out in
1998? Didn't he want the sanctions lifted?
He didn't pretend to have them, to my knowledge. He said - no weapons.
Saddam did not force inspectors out in 1998 but got the UN to agree to
rules making their inspections incomplete, and we thought therefore
pointless, because they were probably trying to kill him. We put
military spies in with the inspectors, violating UN rules. They
somehow were able to listen in on Saddam's personal guards, meaning we
could locate him, meaning we could send him a cruise missile. That is
why Saddam got the UN to permit advance warning of inspectors going to
PResidential sites. So he could arrange not to be there.
WE broke the rules leading to the advance notice requirement on
Presidential sites ,leading us to think inspections couldn't be
effective. So WE removed the inspectors. Saddam did not force them
out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The True AntiLiberal" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 03:33:19 PM |
|
|
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<2a4jc097tqf2dnr1cs1qvj8t01gpqfae20@4ax.com>...
On 10 Jun 2004 23:36:53 -0700, (The True
AntiLiberal) wrote:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message > >
unless the stuff is dispersed risking radiation sickness or something.
So this stuff falling into the hands of terrorist wouldn't be a threat
to the US?
maybe an economic threat, in that radiation spread over manhattan
would likely harm real estate values.
I have heard it might increase the odds of getting cancer by one
percent were you to live in an area with a "dirty bomb" exploding
radiation around.
You mentioned radiation sickness. Are you saying that the dirty bomb
wouldn't cause this? The threat from the bomb is the contamination of
people (and to a lesser extent property) and not cancer.
THey were permitted to have and manufacture rockets, for self-defense.
You seem to think this wasn't permitted by the UN. You are mistaken.
It wasn't permitted and prior to the war Iraq didn't account for it.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993485
Your link does not support your assertion
You should say - where are the WMD which may or may not have existed,
since the list was merely an inferred list of things we thought
existed.
And the answer is that some never existed, and were on the list of
possible WMD by mistake, and others were destroyed earlier.
We arranged the accounting to assure it would be impossible to
account, so we could keep sanctions on forever, of we wanted to.
We knew by the time we invaded, or should have known, that our
evidence for the WMD was lame, and that we should get more info before
we invaded. Blix was there to gain more info. We didn't care. We
wanted to invade whether they had WMD or not.
The link I posted is "... a list of 29 outstanding disarmament issues
compiled by UN weapons inspectors, and made public after chief
inspector Hans Blix's report to the UN on Friday." Just prior to the
war, those were specifically what Hussein needed to account for to the
UN inspectors. Are you saying that Blix was actually working for the
US and the list of 29 was compiled by the US?
Saddam did not force inspectors out in 1998 but got the UN to agree to
rules making their inspections incomplete, and we thought therefore
pointless, because they were probably trying to kill him. We put
military spies in with the inspectors, violating UN rules.
WE broke the rules leading to the advance notice requirement on
Presidential sites ,leading us to think inspections couldn't be
effective. So WE removed the inspectors. Saddam did not force them
out.
So you're saying that Saddam Hussein wanted incomplete inspections
because Clinton was trying to kill him? That's the first I heard of
that one. And the only bombing Clinton ever did to Iraq was after the
inspectors left, so why did Hussein think Clinton wanted to bomb him
before that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 05:14:07 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jun 2004 13:33:19 -0700, (The True
AntiLiberal) wrote:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<2a4jc097tqf2dnr1cs1qvj8t01gpqfae20@4ax.com>...
On 10 Jun 2004 23:36:53 -0700, (The True
AntiLiberal) wrote:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message > >
unless the stuff is dispersed risking radiation sickness or something.
So this stuff falling into the hands of terrorist wouldn't be a threat
to the US?
maybe an economic threat, in that radiation spread over manhattan
would likely harm real estate values.
I have heard it might increase the odds of getting cancer by one
percent were you to live in an area with a "dirty bomb" exploding
radiation around.
You mentioned radiation sickness. Are you saying that the dirty bomb
wouldn't cause this? The threat from the bomb is the contamination of
people (and to a lesser extent property) and not cancer.
If you take a barrel of yellowcake home, you will get really sick. If
te stuff spreads out from the Empire State Building I guess you might
not get sick, but those in the area over the next many years will have
a one percent greater chance of getting cancer.
I think I read in the paper. I could be wrong.
THey were permitted to have and manufacture rockets, for self-defense.
You seem to think this wasn't permitted by the UN. You are mistaken.
It wasn't permitted and prior to the war Iraq didn't account for it.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993485
Your link does not support your assertion
You should say - where are the WMD which may or may not have existed,
since the list was merely an inferred list of things we thought
existed.
And the answer is that some never existed, and were on the list of
possible WMD by mistake, and others were destroyed earlier.
We arranged the accounting to assure it would be impossible to
account, so we could keep sanctions on forever, of we wanted to.
We knew by the time we invaded, or should have known, that our
evidence for the WMD was lame, and that we should get more info before
we invaded. Blix was there to gain more info. We didn't care. We
wanted to invade whether they had WMD or not.
The link I posted is "... a list of 29 outstanding disarmament issues
compiled by UN weapons inspectors, and made public after chief
inspector Hans Blix's report to the UN on Friday." Just prior to the
war, those were specifically what Hussein needed to account for to the
UN inspectors. Are you saying that Blix was actually working for the
US and the list of 29 was compiled by the US?
Blix tested US intelligence by going to something like 40 places at
our suggestion. There were defectors who said at site X this is going
on. Each and every time the claim was not supported.
Saddam did not force inspectors out in 1998 but got the UN to agree to
rules making their inspections incomplete, and we thought therefore
pointless, because they were probably trying to kill him. We put
military spies in with the inspectors, violating UN rules.
WE broke the rules leading to the advance notice requirement on
Presidential sites ,leading us to think inspections couldn't be
effective. So WE removed the inspectors. Saddam did not force them
out.
So you're saying that Saddam Hussein wanted incomplete inspections
because Clinton was trying to kill him?
No. I am saying Saddam insisted on advance warning of inspectors going
into Presidential Sites because the US abused the inspection process,
and that the UN, agreeing with him, changed the rules to provide that
protection. That this change happened because the US abused the
inspectors to include military spies who developed the ability to
identify Saddam's physical location.
Was the US planning on killing Saddam? Probably. But I don't know
that.
That's the first I heard of
that one. And the only bombing Clinton ever did to Iraq was after the
inspectors left, so why did Hussein think Clinton wanted to bomb him
before that?
The changes imposed because of US misbehavior made the US think the
inspections were not guaranteed to be accurate, because of the advance
warning provision for "Presidential Sites" which included about any
place Saddam might go, inculding all kinds of govt faciliities.
Thus we decided to remove inspectors, and destroy places which we knew
could be useful for weapons development. We continued to bomb Iraq
once or twice a week after that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive contaminated equipment still in Iraq?? |
11 Jun 2004 08:30:34 AM |
|
|
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message news:<utqhc0t883008d3b0ag4q75hgpljgv5jjr@4ax.com>...
On 10 Jun 2004 15:20:12 -0700, (Mark Fox) wrote:
What?? Missiles, chemical weapons equipment and radioactive
contaminated equipment in Iraq????? All this stuff is not supposed to
exist in Iraq according to the liberal media and the Democratic Party
leadership
You must not get out much. No one claimed what you indicate they
claimed.
Obviously Iraq had stuff like that lying around from years ago, and no
one would ever claim otherwise.
When an argument can't be refuted, people sometimes create an argument
which can be refuted, and attribute that to their opponents. That
logical dodge is called The Straw Man Argument.
I thought you liberals and Democrats said that there were no WMDs in
Iraq???
That's correct, we have now determined that. And not just liberals.
David Kay says those who claim otherwise are delusional.
He means you.
Stuff contaminated with radioactivity was there left over from the old
days, all one hundred percent accounted for per the UN before the war,
and does not constitute a weapon.
Read the UN resolutions. They are not supposed to be "accounted for"
they were supposed to be destroyed with evidence of their destruction
presented to UN inspectors. If they were destroyed then they can't
show up in a scrap yard in Rotterdam. Thats the point that you are
refusing to deal with.
Missiles were permitted in Iraq for
self-defense. They manufactured missiles, and that was fine.
We are talking about missiles tagged by UN inspectors. These are not
the missiles that were permitted.
Chemical
weapons equipment is vague, but what is it really? A bucket? A bunson
burner? High schools have that stuff too. So what? It's not a deadly
weapon.
The point of the article, bonebrain, is that these things were located
at a missile site. What was that equipment doing at a missile site if
they were being used for legal purposes?
So why is | | |
