Text 16469, 144 rader
Skriven 2005-11-17 23:23:28 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
     Kommentar till en text av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Collateral Damage
=========================

 MV>>> Without leaving a trace to show that they were there? Sure a
 MV>>> nuclear weapon would fit in a truck. But what about the
 MV>>> equipment for enrichment etc, etc? I don't think one can make
 MV>>> that disappear so easily on such a short notice.

 >> Bury the factory in the desert.. it's a big placed and we have
 >> not been everywhere yet.

 MV> The satellites see everywhere. Such a big digging operation would
 MV> leave traces that can be seen by the infrared sensors in the
 MV> satellites.

 >> one good sandstorm, and the traces are gone..

 MV> The satellites will already have spotted the places of unusual
 MV> acitivity.

Unless it looks innocuous. Absent "Ground Truth," buildings look like...
buildings. One thing we seem sort on are human agents. It's a flaw we've had
for years. even when I was in the business it was bemaoned. they thought
Satellites could do it all. They can't.

 >>>> and as for Chemicals, well, a lot goes a little ways. a
 >>>> couple tank trucks, or a flatbed with 55 gallon drums, and
 >>>> there you go..

 MV>>> As with the nukes, that still leaves the problem of getting
 MV>>> rid of the stuff required to make it.

 >> Common pesticides. they found gallons of those, /thousands/ of
 >> gallons.. Saddam had a high-security "pesticide" plant, wiht stuff
 >> stored in bunkers..

 MV> yet, the inspector said that there was noting to show there were
 MV> chemical weapons.

Have you read the reports? some of the inspectors put really confining limits
on what was and was not Chemical Weapons. I have the snealing suspicion that
there was an Agenda afoot.

 >>>> Most people don't know this however.. They seem to think in
 >>>> terms of military vehicles and large bulky packages.

 MV>>> I have a fair idea of the auxillery equipment required for any
 MV>>> big project. Not only is that a lot of stuff, there are
 MV>>> inevitably quit a lot of people involved. No way to keep them
 MV>>> all silent forever.

 >> Oh yes, there is, and Saddam never hesitated if he had to, we
 >> know this.

 MV> There must be hundreds if not thousands of people involved. You can't
 MV> get them all, there are always a few who manage to get away. Or who
 MV> tell someone else before they are silenced.  And even if you manage to
 MV> kill them all, how do you get rid of the killers? And the killer's
 MV> killers?

Diffcult, but not impossible. there are people that would be executioners
willingly and keep silent, knowing the consequences.

 >>>> All you need is one night and a convoy, and poof, they're gone.

 MV>>> Without a trace showing they were there? And with all the people
 MV>>> knowing about it remaining silent? I don't buy that.

Of course not. but it's possible nonetheless. and if the trucks are
pre-loaded, the drivers present no problem as they don't know anything.

 >> I can see it, easily. The desert can hide many things..

 MV> Not for the eyes of the satellites.

Even from them, Infrared only shows so much, and ground penetrating radar from
sapce is not all that good either. I've seen it. Large thing like udnderground
rivers, that's one thing. tiny small details, relatively speaking, not so
much.

 MV> Even so: Saddam was captured alive and I am sure he was thouroughly
 MV> "debriefed".

 MV> Don't you think that by now his "debriefers" would have "persuaded"
 MV> him to tell about the hiding places if there was someting to tell.

Possibly not, he's been handeled with relative kid gloves.

 MV>>> Face it Ray, the WMD's were never there, your president lied to
 MV>>> you.

 >> I noticed no one saw my earlier post about the items that
 >> /were/ found.

 MV> Perhaps the readers get tired of reading old reporst that turned out
 MV> to be based on false information.

Or perhaps they choose not to believe what they see. and what about the new
reports?

 >> I'm not going to repost it, y'all can look on your own, it was
 >> within the last few weeks In a nutshell it quoted the Duelfer
 >> an Kay reports, and delineated the items that /were/ found,
 >> including parts of nuclear enrichment centrifuges,

 MV> Them aluminium tubes again. Debunked long ago.

And later verified /by testing/ that they were more then suitable for
centrifuges, by an outside nuclear agency. In France.

 >> Chemicals that were "precursors" for chemical weapons

 MV> Every "precursor" for pesticides is also a "precursor' for chemical
 MV> weapons. Steel for a plow is steel for a sword.

Exactly !

 MV> Your own US inspectors said there were no WMD's in Iraq. Not after
 MV> and
 MV> not before the invasion.

 MV> For me that is where the discussion ends.

Again as I stated and as the Kay adn Duelfer reports, show, the rules were
possibly overly stringent. As if they were /told/ not to find anything.. In
reading the reports, and other forthcoming material, I'm really tending to
agree.

Suppose, just as a thought, the CIA had it in for GWB, and deliberately
cherry-picked Intelligence, provided him with the information he needed to
start the war, and then hamstrung the inspectors so he would be shown up as a
liar?

His director was a carry-over from the previous administration, I can see this
happening. His replacement has caused many people in the Agency to become
extremely dissatisfied. THere is unrest in other agencies as a result of this
Administration, especially the NSA.

Not as far-fetched as you might think, it's not necessarily a conspiracy
theory. Alhtough admittedly it sounds like one.

we disagree, based on what we know, we should leave it a that. I respect your
opinion, and I believe mine. works for me ;-)

---
 * Origin: Ray's Rocket Shop - Out to Launch (1:3613/48)