Text 16619, 212 rader
Skriven 2005-11-20 15:57:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 16469 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
Ärende: Collateral Damage
=========================
 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.

U=In the middle of desert nowhere? One day the building is there and the next
day it is gone? Does that look innocuous?

 >>> 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?

Not all of it. Just the summaroies actually.

 > 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.

What agenda?

They were George Bush' own inspectors remember. The only agenda that seesm
plausible is that they would - at all cost - like to prove the WMD's were
there.

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

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

What consequences? Saddam is neutralised, they don't have to fear him any more.

 >>>>> 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.

The drivers would know they were transporting something they were not supposed
to know what it was. And why would *they* remain silent?

History tells us that in the end there is alway some who talk. If only
posthumously. In the end it always comes out.

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

I am sure he was offered some deal: tell us where the WMD's are and we will see
that you do not get the death sentence.

When that failed, he got the treatment with the glove off.

 >>> 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?

What about them? I think you (the USA) has manouvred itself on a "cry wolfe"
situation.

 >>> 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.

You'r clutching at straws....

 >>> Chemicals that were "precursors" for chemical weapons

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

 > Exactly !

So presence of steel is not proof of presence of a sword.


It looks like we are looking at this from totally different sides. You seem to
believe or at least to have believed at some time the WMD's existed during or
shortly before the invasion.

I and many, if not most people this side of the pond on the other hand never
believed they were there in the first place.

George Bush wanted a war. He claimed there were WMD's in Iraq and he said he
had proof, but he would not tell us what the proof was. The UN send inspectors
but they coukd not find anything. Hans Blix, the team leader complained he got
no cooperation from the US. If they had proof he said, why would they not tell
him where to look? The IAE send inspectors. Al Baradei reported there was
nothng to indicate Iraq was working on a nuclear programme.

When finally on Feb. 2003 Colin Powell presented the "proof" to the UN it was
totally unconvincing. A picture of a truck is not proof that there is something
bad inside. He had nothing, nada zilch and he knew it.

And to top it off, when the invasion finally happened the WMD's were not found.
Not by the regular army and not by the specialists that came later. They
searched for more than a year and fimally gave up reporting there was nothing.

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

Sorry, I don't buy that.

 > In reading the reports, and other forthcoming material, I'm
 > really tending to agree.

To me all this sounds like a desperate rear end battle.

It is going to do no good. In this stage of the game mere circumstantial
evidence like "the tubes could have been used for centrifuges" is not good
enough. Very solid evidence will be needed and it is not coming.

 > 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?

The "cherry picked" information that Colin Powell presented to the UN did not
convince the Un and it did not convince me. So why did it convince GWB? The
only answer to that can be that he wanted to be convinced. IOW he needed an
excuse to go to war.

No, and I don't believe something was held back. Something that convinced GWB
but was withheld from the UN. Collin Powell is too smart not to have realised
that the evidence he presented was razor blade thin. He would not have withheld
key information.

 > 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.

Then maybe replacing the head of the CIA was not such a smart move. Over here
such people are not replaced with a change of government.

 > THere is unrest in other agencies as a result of this
 > Administration, especially the NSA.

 > Not as far-fetched as you might think,

I think it is exteremely far fetched. But if it is true it does not make things
look better. If it is true GWB was not in control of what was supposed to be an
instition working for him.

Over here a prime minister in that position would have no other choice but to
resign.

 > 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 ;-)

It may work for you but you do not seem to realise how it looks in the eyes of
the rest of the world. In another message you said it is important how it
looks. Well this is how it looks:

Rejection of Kyoto: selfish reasons.
The the Hague invasion act: for selfish reasons.
Import quotes on steel: selfish reasons.
Iraq: An illegal invasion justified by a lie.
Aibu Graib: torture
Gitmo Bay: Violation of Geneva convention, possible torture
World: Secret interrogation facilities
Iraq: Use of a forbidden weapon; white phosphor

The US is doing what all the bad guys have been doing all the time....

It doesn't just look "not good", it looks very bad.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.nodelist.org (2:280/5555)