"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before* the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that the UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no
weapons moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he issued
his assessment.

The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but that
the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took place.

The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of their
nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing "incriminating
technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they they were moving
records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems, Computers, missles and
other equipment that they weren't allowed to sell Saddam. Trucks were seen
loading at sites north of Bagdad and driving east. Since they had
information on our satellite systems they could time the travel so that we
couldn't see where they went.

It's very easy to produce biological and nerve gas agents. The delivery
systems are the hard part. HE had the delivery systems. Biolgical would
take 10 days. Chemical would require less time but chemicals we were
tracking were hard to accuire. When sanctions were lifted that would be no
problem. That's why he had to go, all it takes to have and use these
weapons is the will to use them. They are cheaper and more effective that
nuclear or conventional explosives. They leave the infrastructure intact,
perfect weapons for a dictator who wants to control the worlds major oil
reserves. Once he has them he can threaten to blow them up if he is
attacked. Heard that before?

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...


The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of their
nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing
"incriminating technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they
they were moving records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems,
Computers, missles and other equipment that they weren't allowed to sell
Saddam. Trucks were seen loading at sites north of Bagdad and driving
east. Since they had information on our satellite systems they could time
the travel so that we couldn't see where they went.


Frankly, who could blame them for having equipment there? There's only so
far you can go with testing certain technologies before you finally have to
try them in real world situations. We are no different. Remember some of the
news reports in the first days of Desert Storm? All the networks were
reporting comments from the military, and even companies like Raytheon,
about new technologies we were pleased with (or those which needed work).

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...


The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of their
nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing
"incriminating technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they
they were moving records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems,
Computers, missles and other equipment that they weren't allowed to sell
Saddam. Trucks were seen loading at sites north of Bagdad and driving
east. Since they had information on our satellite systems they could
time the travel so that we couldn't see where they went.


Frankly, who could blame them for having equipment there? There's only so
far you can go with testing certain technologies before you finally have
to try them in real world situations. We are no different. Remember some
of the news reports in the first days of Desert Storm? All the networks
were reporting comments from the military, and even companies like
Raytheon, about new technologies we were pleased with (or those which
needed work).

Well no kidding. But the UN didn't have sanctions on Iraq in the 80's. In
the 90's, the sanctions were in place, and Russia was a signatory to them.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...


The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of
their nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing
"incriminating technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they
they were moving records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems,
Computers, missles and other equipment that they weren't allowed to sell
Saddam. Trucks were seen loading at sites north of Bagdad and driving
east. Since they had information on our satellite systems they could
time the travel so that we couldn't see where they went.


Frankly, who could blame them for having equipment there? There's only so
far you can go with testing certain technologies before you finally have
to try them in real world situations. We are no different. Remember some
of the news reports in the first days of Desert Storm? All the networks
were reporting comments from the military, and even companies like
Raytheon, about new technologies we were pleased with (or those which
needed work).

Well no kidding. But the UN didn't have sanctions on Iraq in the 80's.
In the 90's, the sanctions were in place, and Russia was a signatory to
them.


So? We violate treaties when it's convenient.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...


The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of
their nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing
"incriminating technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they
they were moving records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems,
Computers, missles and other equipment that they weren't allowed to
sell Saddam. Trucks were seen loading at sites north of Bagdad and
driving east. Since they had information on our satellite systems they
could time the travel so that we couldn't see where they went.


Frankly, who could blame them for having equipment there? There's only
so far you can go with testing certain technologies before you finally
have to try them in real world situations. We are no different. Remember
some of the news reports in the first days of Desert Storm? All the
networks were reporting comments from the military, and even companies
like Raytheon, about new technologies we were pleased with (or those
which needed work).

Well no kidding. But the UN didn't have sanctions on Iraq in the 80's.
In the 90's, the sanctions were in place, and Russia was a signatory to
them.


So? We violate treaties when it's convenient.

So what. You specifically mentioned the US weapons found in Iraq during the
first Gulf War. I simply reminded you that those weapons were sold to Iraq
during the Iraq/Iran conflict when no trade embargo existed.

NOYB wrote:
So what. You specifically mentioned the US weapons found in Iraq during the
first Gulf War. I simply reminded you that those weapons were sold to Iraq
during the Iraq/Iran conflict when no trade embargo existed.


Hmm... no trade embargo against Iraq in the 1980s, yes... but wasn't
Saddam just as brutal a dictator then as he was in the 1990s? Wasn't he
trying to build atom bombs so he could launch them with Bull's orbital
super-cannon? Didn't he shoot up a U.S. Navy warship and kill a bunch of
American sailors?

You say it's perfectly OK to sell weapons to a brutal anti-US dictator
under those circumstances, even if he didn't have WMDs in 2003 or any
links to Al-Queda?

DSK

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:21:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US
claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.

Uh, the UN report says nothing about equipment being moved *before* the
war. The report is concerned with known dual use equipment that the UN
was actively monitoring until the war. Much of that equipment has now
gone missing while under nominal US control.

It's interesting you are willing to miss- characterize the report from
the evil UN, but completely ignore the US' own Iraq Survey Group's main
findings. Iraq did not possess chemical or biological weapons, and only
had aspirations of nuclear weapons. It further states, quite clearly,
that there is no evidence that WMD was moved to Syria.

Saying "we found no evidence" is a lot different from "there were no
weapons moved". Duelfer emphatically clarified this point when he issued
his assessment.

The report *did* mention that the transfer may have taken place, but that
the ISG could not confirm nor absolutely deny that it ever took place.

The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of their
nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing
"incriminating technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they
they were moving records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems,
Computers, missles and other equipment that they weren't allowed to sell
Saddam. Trucks were seen loading at sites north of Bagdad and driving
east. Since they had information on our satellite systems they could time
the travel so that we couldn't see where they went.


The day after we hit that convoy in early April, Condi Rice (an expert on
the former Soviet Union) went to Moscow to meet with Putin. Perhaps to say
"we know what you're doing. Cut it out, stay on the sidelines, and we'll
agree to keep it under lids."

Deputy undersecretary of defense, John Shaw, exposed the Russian involvement
right before the election, but we were still trying to use diplomatic
maneuvering with the them.

Interestingly, right after Shaw was silenced by the White House, Putin came
out and practically endorsed Bush. The backroom deal had been struck.