O/T: New Iraqi Towns

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:26:46 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |In article <[email protected]>, |[email protected] says...
> |> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:52:20 GMT, "S.G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> |>
> |> |> |Remember 10 years ago Hussein was our friend. Donald Rumsfeld and he
> |> |were
> |> |> |pictured together shaking hands at numerous state meetings - we were
> |> |ALLIES
> |> |> |against Iran.
> |> |>
> |> |> Are you on drugs? That is totally false.
> |> |
> |> |Totally false? I think no one, except maybe you, denies that we aided Iraq |in the war against
> |> Iran. As such, one could say we were "Allies" at that |time.
> |>
> |> Yes, totally false.
> |>
> |> The US and Iraq weren't close to being allies in 1993, let alone Hussein being our friend.
> |>
> |> Think about it a bit before replying.
> |>
> |>
> |
> |Semantics. That's almost as bad as correcting grammar. So it was 13-14 |years ago. That makes it
> better I suppose.
>
> Hardly semantics. Merely a naive, misinformed calim. Characterizing Hussein as "our friend" 10
> years ago, let alone 13-14 years ago is pure hyperbole.
>
> The picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein was taken in 1983.
>
> 20 years ago.
>
>

Excuse me, in 1989-1990 the US was buying 1/4 of Iraqs oil production. In l989, the Bush
administration doubled the Commodity Credit Corporation program for Iraq, raising their available
credit to over one billion dollars. That's not even including the interest free loans, the
subsidized sales of helicopters and agricultural equipment, the frequent personal gifts to saddam
himself. And this is a year AFTER it was made known that US made helicopters sold to Iraq in 1995
were converted to military use and used in the gassing of Kurd in norther Iraq. No god damn wonder
Saddam invaded Kuwait, he said he wanted to, he said he was going to, he killed a bunch of civilians
just to see if the US gave a damn, the money kept coming as per usual so he figured what the hell
it's not like anyone else is going to get in the way. To this day I don't know how in the span of 4
months Bush went from shoveling this guy heaps of money to saying he wants to kill him on
international TV. I'm thinking maybe saddam banged Barbara, wouldn't that be a classic story.
"Dubbya, I'm your father."

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On 11 Apr 2003 09:57:29 -0700, [email protected] (Spider) blathered:
>
> >> >Don't you love how, once everyone knew no forbidden weapons would be found, the spin changed
> >> >to the "liberation of the Iraqi people." Ugh.
> >>
> >> I think others covered the fact that the WMD will be found.
> >
> >Oh, yes, I'm certain they will be found as well. After all, Dubya's reputation is riding on it,
> >and once the military controls the countryside, there is no doubt that something will "turn up."
>
> etc etc
>
> Interesting piece in the Times on Monday, saved to my webspace to save you having to register -
> http://www.btinternet.com/~peteajones/temp/anti-american.htm
>
>
> Pete
> ----
> http://www.btinternet.com/~peteajones/
>

It's unfortunate that none of us will live long enough to see this play out in Iraq, much less
the rest of the middle east. What's even more unfortunate? is that Bush will be gone in a few
years and who knows what policy the new administration will support. At least with guys like
Castro, you get the same ******** for 50 years, instead of an ever changing variety of it like in
our "free" society.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 21:29:24 +0000 (UTC), Pete Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

|On 11 Apr 2003 09:57:29 -0700, [email protected] (Spider) |blathered:
|
|>> >Don't you love how, once everyone knew no forbidden weapons would be found, the spin changed to
|>> >the "liberation of the Iraqi people." Ugh.
|>>
|>> I think others covered the fact that the WMD will be found.
|>
|>Oh, yes, I'm certain they will be found as well. After all, Dubya's reputation is riding on it,
|>and once the military controls the countryside, there is no doubt that something will "turn up."
|
|etc etc
|
|Interesting piece in the Times on Monday, saved to my webspace to save |you having to register -
|http://www.btinternet.com/~peteajones/temp/anti-american.htm

Interesting article.

Rather than get into conspiracy theories about the US planting WMD, I offer this bit of humor amidst
this sea of politics:

http://64.39.15.171/

(I'm buying a tee shirt) Pete Fagerlin

Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:28:50 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

|In article <[email protected]>, |[email protected] says...
|> [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
|>
|> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote ...
|>
|> >> The only other possibility is that Saddam actually DID destroy them all, but just forgot to
|> >> mention it (you were saying something about "naive"... how naive would you have to be to
|> >> believe THAT?)
|> >
|> >IIRC, several pointed comments were made during the "inspection process" about "we do not have
|> >any WMD." Or is the gingko not kicking in yet?
|>
|> Naaah, don't need it. I have the UN weapons inspection documents where Iraq admits having (among
|> MANY other things) 8,500 liters of anthrax, stores of VX, hundreds of artillery shells filled
|> with mustard gas, etc. To then say years later "well we don't have any of it" without ANY proof
|> to the contrary... sorry, I'll need better drugs than gingko to buy THAT one... ;-)
|>
|
|Do you also have the ducments where the UN inspectors destroyed all |these weapons too? There
weren't there just to take pictures, they were |destrying what they found.

Chris, if you have those documents or know where they are you better get in touch with the UN.

Heck, Blix apparently is really interested in your info:

" Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, giving a report which could be crucial to whether war is
waged on Iraq, said on Friday that banned Iraqi weapons still were unaccounted for and Baghdad must
detail the status of anthrax and VX stocks and long-range missiles.

Blix also told a tense meeting of the U.N. Security Council that two versions of Iraq's al Samoud 2
missile exceed the maximum range of 93 miles set by the United Nations.

"The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most
important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the
questions," he said.

Pete Fagerlin

Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm

 

[Chris Phillipo]

> I guess we agree to disagree then. This isn't a new war, but a continuation of the old one due to
> blatant disregard by Iraq of the terms of the cease fire. If anything, Bush made a mistake by
> trying to get UN buyin at all, in deference to Tony Blair and to Colin Powell's wishes. Thing is,
> France told Powell they'd go along with a new resolution, then stabbed him in the back.
>
> France made it clear they would veto any resolution authorizing force, thereby making the UN
> totally irrelevant in the decision. When the scope of the Iraqi WMD program comes to light, France
> and Germany's prestige in the UN will drop dramatically (I predict). Perhaps we're due for that UN
> SC shake-up you mention.
>
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
>

I guess you better keep propping up Turkey as the next superpower then so you have a new buddy on
the council. Those Bell Cobras sure come in handy when you want to exterminate Kurds in a couple
thousand villages on your side of the border. Boy after shipping them 145 attack choppers you guys
must really be ****** you weren't allowed to drive into Iraq on their roads.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

> known that US made helicopters sold to Iraq in 1995 were converted to

Sorry that should say 1985, I wouldn't want someone jumping down my throat for a typo, not that it
ever happens.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Penny S.]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 21:29:24 +0000 (UTC), Pete Jones
>
> Rather than get into conspiracy theories about the US planting WMD, I offer this bit of humor
> amidst this sea of politics:
>
> http://64.39.15.171/
>
> (I'm buying a tee shirt) Pete Fagerlin

What is it with the shoes? Is it a cultural thing?

penny

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:11:44 -0700, "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote:

|P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
|> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 21:29:24 +0000 (UTC), Pete Jones
|>
|> Rather than get into conspiracy theories about the US planting WMD, I offer this bit of humor
|> amidst this sea of politics:
|>
|> http://64.39.15.171/
|>
|> (I'm buying a tee shirt) Pete Fagerlin
|
|
|What is it with the shoes? Is it a cultural thing?

Yes, a cultural thing.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/10-4-19103-0-33-19.html

 

[Bb]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:34:03 GMT, Mark Hickey wrote:

> I guess we agree to disagree then. This isn't a new war, but a continuation of the old one due to
> blatant disregard by Iraq of the terms of the cease fire.

You're not disagreeing with me, your disagreeing with a whole bunch of international law experts. As
much as I'd like to take the opinion of a bike frame maker over theirs, its a little tough.

> France made it clear they would veto any resolution authorizing force, thereby making the UN
> totally irrelevant in the decision. When the scope of the Iraqi WMD program comes to light, France
> and Germany's prestige in the UN will drop dramatically (I predict). Perhaps we're due for that UN
> SC shake-up you mention.

Naa. There'll just be more tossing blame around. They'll keep reminding us that we went to war
immediately after the inspectors had reported good progress. Unless we can come up with some
irrefutable evidence that they'd have never found those WMD without an all-out war, of course.

--
-BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[Chris]

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:28:50 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |In article <[email protected]>, |[email protected] says...
> |> [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
> |>
> |> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote ...
> |>
> |> >> The only other possibility is that Saddam actually DID destroy them all, but just forgot to
> |> >> mention it (you were saying something about
"naive"...
> |> >> how naive would you have to be to believe THAT?)
> |> >
> |> >IIRC, several pointed comments were made during the "inspection process" about "we do not have
> |> >any WMD." Or is the gingko not kicking in yet?
> |>
> |> Naaah, don't need it. I have the UN weapons inspection documents where Iraq admits having
> |> (among MANY other things) 8,500 liters of anthrax, stores of VX, hundreds of artillery shells
> |> filled with mustard gas, etc. To then say years later "well we don't have any of it" without
> |> ANY proof to the contrary... sorry, I'll need better drugs than gingko to buy THAT one... ;-)
> |>
> |
> |Do you also have the ducments where the UN inspectors destroyed all |these weapons too? There
> weren't there just to take pictures, they were |destrying what they found.
>
> Chris, if you have those documents or know where they are you better get in touch with the UN.
>
> Heck, Blix apparently is really interested in your info:
>
> " Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, giving a report which could be crucial to whether war is
> waged on Iraq, said on Friday that banned Iraqi weapons still were unaccounted for and Baghdad
> must detail the status of anthrax and VX stocks and long-range missiles.
>
> Blix also told a tense meeting of the U.N. Security Council that two versions of Iraq's al Samoud
> 2 missile exceed the maximum range of 93 miles set by the United Nations.
>
> "The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most
> important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling
> the questions," he said.
>
> Pete Fagerlin
>
> Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm
>

When you quote news, either post the link with it or, at the very least, mention a specific source.
What is the date on that article? It mentions a Blix report that "could be crucial to whether war is
waged on Iraq" - yet those days seem long behind us.

Chris

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 01:33:16 GMT, "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:

|> |Do you also have the ducments where the UN inspectors destroyed all |these weapons too? There
|> weren't there just to take pictures, they were |destrying what they found.
|>
|> Chris, if you have those documents or know where they are you better get in touch with the UN.
|>
|> Heck, Blix apparently is really interested in your info:
|>
|> " Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, giving a report which could be crucial to whether war
|> is waged on Iraq, said on Friday that banned Iraqi weapons still were unaccounted for and Baghdad
|> must detail the status of anthrax and VX stocks and long-range missiles.
|>
|> Blix also told a tense meeting of the U.N. Security Council that two versions of Iraq's al Samoud
|> 2 missile exceed the maximum range of 93 miles set by the United Nations.
|>
|> "The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most
|> important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling
|> the questions," he said.

|When you quote news, either post the link with it or, at the very least, |mention a
specific source.

Are you unable to Google up this simple piece of information?

|What is the date on that article?

February 14, not that it matters. The Iraqis continued to deny they had anthrax or VX while being
unable to produce any documentation/proof right up until the government disappeared.

It mentions a |Blix report that "could be crucial to whether war is waged on Iraq" - yet |those
days seem long behind us.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that if Chris knows the location of the documents that wherein there
is proof that the UN inspectors destroyed all of those weapons, the head of the UN inspectors would
be VERY interested in seeing such documents.

For the Google impaired:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030214/80/dt9e1.html

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/1975494/detail.html

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 03:59:06 GMT, "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:

|> |When you quote news, either post the link with it or, at the very least, |mention a specific
|> source.
|>
|> Are you unable to Google up this simple piece of information?
|>
|
|I shouldn't have to - it's just irresponsible to not include sources when |posting extended quoted
material that falls out of the range of common |knowledge.

Irresponsible? ROTFLMAO!

For someone who claims to be neither ignorant nor misinformed you seem to lack a great deal of
common knowledge about major issues that led up to the war.

Google lessons available, by appointment only.

Pete Fagerlin

Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm

 

[Chris]

"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 01:33:16 GMT, "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |> |Do you also have the ducments where the UN inspectors destroyed all |these weapons too? There
> |> weren't there just to take pictures, they
were
> |> |destrying what they found.
> |>
> |> Chris, if you have those documents or know where they are you better get in touch with the UN.
> |>
> |> Heck, Blix apparently is really interested in your info:
> |>
> |> " Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, giving a report which could be crucial to whether war
> |> is waged on Iraq, said on Friday that banned Iraqi weapons still were unaccounted for and
> |> Baghdad must detail the status of anthrax and VX stocks and long-range missiles.
> |>
> |> Blix also told a tense meeting of the U.N. Security Council that two versions of Iraq's al
> |> Samoud 2 missile exceed the maximum range of 93 miles set by the United Nations.
> |>
> |> "The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most
> |> important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid
> |> belittling the questions," he said.
>
> |When you quote news, either post the link with it or, at the very least, |mention a
> specific source.
>
> Are you unable to Google up this simple piece of information?
>

I shouldn't have to - it's just irresponsible to not include sources when posting extended quoted
material that falls out of the range of common knowledge. .
> |snip the rest

Chris

 

[G.T.]

Chris wrote:
> "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:28:50 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>|In article <[email protected]>, |[email protected] says...
>>|> [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
>>|>
>>|> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote ...
>>|>
>>|> >> The only other possibility is that Saddam actually DID destroy them all, but just forgot to
>>|> >> mention it (you were saying something about
>
> "naive"...
>
>>|> >> how naive would you have to be to believe THAT?)
>>|> >
>>|> >IIRC, several pointed comments were made during the "inspection process" about "we do not have
>>|> >any WMD." Or is the gingko not kicking in yet?
>>|>
>>|> Naaah, don't need it. I have the UN weapons inspection documents where Iraq admits having
>>|> (among MANY other things) 8,500 liters of anthrax, stores of VX, hundreds of artillery shells
>>|> filled with mustard gas, etc. To then say years later "well we don't have any of it" without
>>|> ANY proof to the contrary... sorry, I'll need better drugs than gingko to buy THAT one... ;-)
>>|>
>>|
>>|Do you also have the ducments where the UN inspectors destroyed all |these weapons too? There
>>weren't there just to take pictures, they were |destrying what they found.
>>
>>Chris, if you have those documents or know where they are you better get in touch with the UN.
>>
>>Heck, Blix apparently is really interested in your info:
>>
>>" Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, giving a report which could be crucial to whether war is
>>waged on Iraq, said on Friday that banned Iraqi weapons still were unaccounted for and Baghdad
>>must detail the status of anthrax and VX stocks and long-range missiles.
>>
>>Blix also told a tense meeting of the U.N. Security Council that two versions of Iraq's al Samoud
>>2 missile exceed the maximum range of 93 miles set by the United Nations.
>>
>>"The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most
>>important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling
>>the questions," he said.
>>

And exactly how would that anthrax and VX reach North America? On SCUD missiles with ranges of only
300 miles?

Greg

--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons

 

[Chris Phillipo]

> Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, giving a report which could be crucial to whether war is
> waged on Iraq, said on Friday that banned Iraqi weapons still were unaccounted for and Baghdad
> must detail the status of anthrax and VX stocks and long-range missiles.
>
> Blix also told a tense meeting of the U.N. Security Council that two versions of Iraq's al Samoud
> 2 missile exceed the maximum range of 93 miles set by the United Nations.
>
> "The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most
> important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling
> the questions," he said.
>

How about something a little more recent from Blix, like perhaps from this past month:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID= 414&sID=6

Let me sum it up for you. The Iraqis were cooperating, no need to go to war. The only
non-cooperation the Iraqis have been putting forth are in areas of espionage by the United States.
Although you may think they do, the US did not have the right to use the UN inspectors as a vehicle
to infiltrate Iraq with their agents and target leaders of the regime.

Here's the info I'm sure Blix is aware of since it's in one of this reports:

Since 1991, in carrying out its mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 687, the UN Special
Commission (UNSCOM) has destroyed, or made harmless, a "supergun"; 48 Scud missiles; 40,000 chemical
munitions; 690 tonnes of CW agents; 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; and biological
warfare-related factories and equipment. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found a
nuclear weapons programme far more advanced than suspected, and dismantled it.

As has been said many times, that's over twice the amount collation forces claim to have destroyed
in air strikes during the Gulf war. What UNMOVIC has destroyed since January is very little, perhaps
since there's very little left to destroy? I find it VERY hard to believe that people as desperate
as the Baath Party leaders are right now (those that survived this long) would not use chemical
weapons if they had them.

My question to you is just how much of this stuff do you think they had? I mean the only indication
we have of how much Iraq had is their own original manufacturing documents, written before the gulf
war, before much of their capacity was destroyed in the war. And if you are so sure that this war
is about disarming Iraq, why was Saddam given the option to simply leave the country with his sons
and no action would be taken? Was it thought he would put the remaining weapons in his luggage and
take them too?

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > Pete Fagerlin
> >
> > Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm
> >
>
> When you quote news, either post the link with it or, at the very least, mention a specific
> source. What is the date on that article? It mentions a Blix report that "could be crucial to
> whether war is waged on Iraq" - yet those days seem long behind us.
>
> Chris
>
>

Well I read it on Feb. 14, so it's at least that old. I think UNMOVIC inspectors were still
unpacking their bags at that time.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[Chris Phillipo]

> It mentions a |Blix report that "could be crucial to whether war is waged on Iraq" - yet |those
> days seem long behind us.
>
> Nevertheless, the fact remains that if Chris knows the location of the documents that wherein
> there is proof that the UN inspectors destroyed all of those weapons, the head of the UN
> inspectors would be VERY interested in seeing such documents.
>
> For the Google impaired:
>
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030214/80/dt9e1.html

I hope you didn't miss the message where I provided the info for you.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:08:09 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

|In article <[email protected]>,
|[email protected] says...
|> > Pete Fagerlin
|> >
|> > Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm
|> >
|>
|> When you quote news, either post the link with it or, at the very least, mention a specific
|> source. What is the date on that article? It mentions a Blix report that "could be crucial to
|> whether war is waged on Iraq" - yet those days seem long behind us.
|>
|> Chris
|>
|>
|
|Well I read it on Feb. 14, so it's at least that old. I think UNMOVIC |inspectors were still
unpacking their bags at that time.

UNMOVIC arrived in Iaq in late November.

Blix's comments where part of his second report to the UNSC.

Where have you read that the Iraqis have provided documents to the UN showing that they destroyed
all of their VX and anthrax.

Pete Fagerlin

Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 05:55:28 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

|>>"The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most
|>>important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling
|>>the questions," he said.
|>>
|
|And exactly how would that anthrax and VX reach North America? On SCUD |missiles with ranges of
only 300 miles?

There are these bad guys waltzing around called "terrorists" and the US has very porous borders.

That's one way.

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:06:36 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

|How about something a little more recent from Blix, like perhaps from |this past month:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=
|414&sID=6

Agaiin, you have claimed that The UN has documents where "the UN inspectors destroyed all those
weapons too" Where are those documents, since the UN apparently doesn't have the documents which you
claim they have.

From the link above, two weeks after (since apparently you have timing issues with Blix's February
14 statements)):

"More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided. Many have been found to
restate what Iraq already has declared, and some will require further study and discussion."

"Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally
destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify
the amount of anthrax said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to
interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts
to establish what quantity was actually produced."

"With respect to VX, Iraq has recently suggested a similar method to quantify a VX precursor stated
to have been unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. "

It's painfully obvious that you have confused Iraqi claims that they destroyed all VX and anthrax
with a non-existent claim that the UN has documentation that allof the VX/anthrax has been
destroyed.

|Let me sum it up for you. The Iraqis were cooperating, no need to go to |war. The only
non-cooperation the Iraqis have been putting forth are in |areas of espionage by the United States.
Although you may think they |do, the US did not have the right to use the UN inspectors as a vehicle
|to infiltrate Iraq with their agents and target leaders of the regime.

Wow. Firstly, what do you conspiracy theories have to do with your erroneous claims about the UN
having dosuments proving that all
VX/anthrax were destroyed.

Secondly, to claim that the only reason that the Iraqis weren't cooperating is because of US
espionage is unaddressable, since it is a conspiracy theory that is unprovable either way.

Being an apologist for the Iraqi regime is interesting though.

|
|Here's the info I'm sure Blix is aware of since it's in one of this |reports:
|
|Since 1991, in carrying out its mandate under UN Security Council |Resolution 687, the UN Special
Commission (UNSCOM) has destroyed, or |made harmless, a "supergun"; 48 Scud missiles; 40,000
chemical |munitions; 690 tonnes of CW agents; 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; |and biological
warfare-related factories and equipment. The |International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found a
nuclear weapons |programme far more advanced than suspected, and dismantled it.

Don't forget to read the rest of the report, part of which is quoted above. I'm still looking for
the info thatbacks up your claim that the UN has the documents where the UN destroyed all of the
VX/anthrax.

<snip>
|
|My question to you is just how much of this stuff do you think they had? |I mean the only
indication we have of how much Iraq had is their own |original manufacturing documents, written
before the gulf war, before |much of their capacity was destroyed in the war. And if you are so
|sure that this war is about disarming Iraq, why was Saddam given the |option to simply leave the
country with his sons and no action would be |taken?

That's incorrect.

If Saddam had left the country, and his regime had fallen, the inspectors would have had full,
unfettered access to all sites, and more importantly to the people involved in the programs.