|The US and chemical weapons...||ClydeTri|
Apr 7, 2003 10:01 AM
|yes, we have them, large stockpiles..and under international agreements that date back many years we are in the process of disposing of them. This is not a quick or easy thing to do safely. It took years for the US Army to figure out to safely do it, and they are still challenged in court on safety issues related to it. The sites are well known and inspected by international inspectors. HOw do I know this? I am a former worker in the Chemical surety program at Tooele Army Depot where we had GB, VX, Mustard and Lewisite. I carried a gas mask on my hip at work along with atropine and 2-pam-chloride (I think , memory slips) injectors in teh bag...|
|here is where I worked...||ClydeTri|
Apr 7, 2003 10:05 AM
|There you are then||Hoopes of glory|
Apr 7, 2003 10:11 AM
|Iraq was "in the process of disposing of" them too, if you believe Blix.
Sure, they weren't doing it honestly and sincerely, granted, but I can't be the only one to be uncomfortable with the degree of "there's a handy chemicals find - we'll use it to justify the slaughter" going on, as if it's some kind of smoking gun.
We knew they had this stuff for years, and we knew they weren't getting rid of it for years. Didn't justify bombing the cr@p our the place before, so why should it now?
BTW - we have some rather better new stuff now to replace all that stuff we are getting rid of.
|Can you say "post 9/11"? nm||hycobob|
Apr 7, 2003 10:14 AM
Apr 7, 2003 10:14 AM
|they didnt admit to having it, or let the world see it..or watch the disposal....
and blix is an idiot...
Iraq is the size of California.....approx 150 or inspectors in Iraq...you could place a herd of pink elephants in an area that big, have them out grazing in the open, and it might take Blix a decade to find them...and if they were hidden or underground? yeah..sure..wanna buy a bridge? The UN inspections were all a political joke...
|Aaah...||Hoopes of glory|
Apr 7, 2003 10:20 AM
|we got there in the end.|
Apr 7, 2003 12:17 PM
|My understanding is that for quite awhile we have been watching Iraq from satellite and even did some U-2 flights.
Your point that a herd of pink elephants could be grazing in Iraq and not be found by Blix may be true, however with our technology, I am certain WE would not have missed such a target. Being able to read a news headline from 60k ft should enable us to not miss the 'Herd of P.E.'
Part of the problem I had with the pre-situation was that US sources kept repeating how our intelligence 'just knew' it (wmd) was there. Going further, if we had info on this why not share so it could be found?
My view is that this operation could have been handled in a less destructive manner overall. So we crushed the ant with our sixteen pound sledgehammer. Now we attempt to justify this with the 'see what we found' ploy.
We have the technology to see a billion light years into space... We can't figure out how to wax a greasy dictator without demolishing an infrastructure?
We will spend billions to bring back the ruins... We have created more enemies than we destroyed. We may have every two bit hoodlum with minor capability crawling up our @ss to bring us down.... and yet some folks still have a view this conflict is/was:
A. The only way to handle
B. The best way to handle
C. Handled now, we won, no more worries
D. End of story
I subscribe to none of the above.
I am not being Pro/Anti on this subject, just giving my opinion that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and maybe the cat we just skinned (and his friends) have more lives than we can see at this time...
Apr 7, 2003 12:28 PM
|We, the US, supposedly, were not giving them up the good intell, supposedly for a couple reasons, not amongst them were that the UN team had a mole, somebody with allegiance to Iraq..we tell Blix where something is, before he can get there in a few days, it is gone..and more importantly, to protect sources..you tell them where something is, from intell, and if it is from human intell, you can burn a source, even get a source killed. They not only supposedly had a mole on the inspector team, but the communications were monitored.|
|can you give an example or two for the following:||cdale02|
Apr 9, 2003 10:04 AM
|1. "My view is that this operation could have been handled in a less destructive manner overall." (how - to achieve the desired result?)
2. "We can't figure out how to wax a greasy dictator without demolishing an infrastructure?" (how have we demolished an infrastructure)
3. "We have created more enemies than we destroyed."
4. "there is more than one way to skin a cat" (What was the best way to make Sadam comply with the resolutions that effectively ended the first Gulf war? )
|It's funny how memories change||purplepaul|
Apr 7, 2003 12:02 PM
|NOBODY opposed to the war said, "Yeah, he probably has WMD, but we don't feel that's a sufficient reason so invade." They all said that they didn't believe that he had them. If the inspectors had found what we just did, the war would have started then.|
|Totally untrue.||Hoopes of glory|
Apr 8, 2003 1:49 AM
|Many many people said exactly that. By the tens of thousands.
Generally in the form of explaining that a threat = capability + intention, and then asking "where's the intention?"
And often by adding that the US has them too. And pointing out that, funnily enough, Saddam and the US have one thing in common - they don't listen to the UN/rest of the world when they don't want to.
They may or may not be right, but it's complete rubbish to say that nobody said it.
Suggest you diversify your news sources.
Apr 8, 2003 8:47 AM
|That's not what was being said here in New York (no need for news sources as I could see them in person), nor was that the argument of the liberal pundits or, for that matter, the French.
All arguments against going to war centered on whether or not Saddam had banned weapons because the assumption (from everyone, not just the US) was that if he had them, of course he would use them.
You can deny, deny, deny. But you're still wrong. Perhaps you should try watching something other than old tapes of Noam Chomsky.
|I don't think that||Hoopes of glory|
Apr 8, 2003 8:52 AM
|you deserve the dignity of a substantive response.
How lucky you know everything, and everyone's opinions from "seeing them in person". Obviously that puts a different spin on matters - I didn't realise that everyone who had an opinion had actually been spoken to by you in NY - even "the French" (all of them presumably).
What an honour to have your informed opinion in those circumstances.
Now, back to your homework.
|No one cares what you think||purplepaul|
Apr 8, 2003 8:55 AM
|since you offer no evidence to back up your assertions.
But I suspect you realize your insignificance since all you can offer are weak personal attacks.
|That's right||Hoopes of glory|
Apr 8, 2003 9:09 AM
|dear - now is it your bedtime yet - I think you have tried enought grown-up thinking for one day.|| |