Text 24339, 82 rader
Skriven 2008-12-01 17:23:36 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Loyalties
=================
Hello Jeff,

On Saturday November 29 2008 21:13, you wrote to me:

 MV>> I am just saying that *if* there were no WND's, no back door was
 MV>> used and so that would explain why he could not tell us where it
 MV>> was.

 JS>     And I would agree. But the question of WMD's has existed long
 JS> before 9/11. Hussein has internationally been known to have used and
 JS> desired WMD's.

And you know that to be a fact? What I know is that some people have tried very
hard to make it look that way. What I know is that some people have tried very
hard to make us *believe* tha Saddam Hussein had WMD's and that he was the
madman that would use them. As I said, lots of rumour, allegations and inuendo.
And you know what? The people who tried to make us believe all that, are the
ones in control of the largest stockpile of WMD's on this earth.

 JS>  Are the Iraqi deaths due to Hussein's use of WMD's on
 JS> Iraqi people any less sad or wrong?

You know that for a fact? That Saddam use WMD's against his own people? Well, I
don't. Even so, if he did use gas against the Kurds, that was in 1985. A *long*
time before 9/11. All that stuff was destroyed by the weapons inspectors after
the first Gulf war. And if any was left over, it would have decomposed long
ago.

 MV>> There is not a shred of cridible evidence that there were WMD's
 MV>> in Iraq after say 1994. Oh, yes there is a lot of rumour,
 MV>> allegations and innuendo. But there is no verifiable credible
 MV>> evidence. Nothinbg, nada,  zilch.

 JS>      That would depend on your view as credible Michiel.

I think we simply have a basic difference over what is "proof". I do not
consider a picture of a truck taken from a satellite or high altitude spy plane
as "proof" that here are WMDs in the truc. I do not considere a drawing made by
refugee as "proof" that there were mobiel chemical labs. I do not consider
Colin Powell waving a vial filled with suger as proof that there ara stockpiles
of anthrax in Iraq.

 MV>> No WMD's were found. No eveidence that they ever were there after
 MV>> say 1994 was found. Not by the team of Hans Blix and not by the
 MV>> US weapons inspectors that came after the invasion. And do not
 MV>> tell me they didn't try...

 JS>     Sure they tried Michel. They tried several times over a ten year
 JS> period to search for WMD's. The result when they left was that
 JS> although they hadn't found WMD's to the extent expected they were not
 JS> satisfied with the search and fealt it incomplete.

That is a twist of the facts. Hans Blix left early because Bush could not wait
for him to complete the job and started to invade. Hans Blix was annoyed over
that, but never did he indicate that given more time, he would have found
anything. In hindsight, it is obvious why Bush did not want to give him more
time. The longer Hans Blix would look and find nothing, the more people would
start to believe that the reason he found nothing was that there was noting to
find and support for the invasion would crumble.

The US weapon inspectors that came in later did not find anything either and
they were given all the time in the world. They simply gave up because there
was nothing that they could find. End of story.

 JS>     What I believe Michiel is simple. I think that WMD's did exist in
 JS> Iraq at a time prior to 9/11. There is sufficient info available to
 JS> support the prior use of WMD's.

No, there is not. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence for either use or
existence of WMDs in Iraq after say 1994.

 JS> I also think that there was not sufficient evidence of WMD's in Iraq
 JS> to warrant the use of WMD's as a reason for the Iraq war by anyone.
 JS> Regardless of who (Intel) may have suggested otherwise.

It is not that the evidence was insufficient. There was no evidence. Period.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)