Re: Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets
Stan de SD
"Tim Howard" <tim.h...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fKkvg.2659$Mz3.1756@fed1read07...
> firel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Check out when DU was first used in the Iraqi theater, and compare
> > to today's date. Over what time frame are you expecting to see these
> > effects? Today + 1, for any current value of "Today"?
> >
> > What areas of Iraq do you believe are contaminated? What effects
> > have you seen on the civilian population living in the areas you
> > believe
> > are contaminated?
>
> It is already happening. Here are some examples:
>
> Iraqi cancers, birth defects blamed on U.S. depleted uranium
Blamed by who? The usual blame-America-for-everything crowd?
> SOUTHERN DEMILITARIZED ZONE, Iraq -- On the "Highway of Death," 11
> miles north of the Kuwait border, a collection of tanks, armored
> personnel carriers and other military vehicles are rusting in the desert.
>
> They also are radiating nuclear energy.
You're way too fucking stupid to understand what "depleted" means, Timmy.
> In 1991, the United States and its Persian Gulf War allies blasted
> the vehicles with armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium -- the
> first time such weapons had been used in warfare -- as the Iraqis
> retreated from Kuwait. The devastating results gave the highway its name.
>
> Today, nearly 12 years after the use of the super-tough weapons was
> credited with bringing the war to a swift conclusion, the battlefield
> remains a radioactive toxic wasteland -- and depleted uranium
> munitions remain a mystery.
More speculation. The more likely explanation is the large amount of
chemical WMD's that Iraq HAD, actually USED against the Iranians and Kurds,
and were NEVER fully enocuntered for. But then again, that wouldn't give
idiots like you a reason to blame America for everything.
tiny_url
Say Stan, weren't those Chemical WMD's that you refer to provided to
Iraq by US companies during the reign of right wing scumbags Reagan and
Bush the First?
Zenin
>snip<
>> SOUTHERN DEMILITARIZED ZONE, Iraq -- On the "Highway of Death," 11 miles
>> north of the Kuwait border, a collection of tanks, armored personnel
>> carriers and other military vehicles are rusting in the desert.
>>
>> They also are radiating nuclear energy.
>
> You're way too fucking stupid to understand what "depleted" means, Timmy.
Depleted uranium is still radioactive (not nearly as hot as say,
enriched uranium, but still hot nonetheless).
That said, radiation isn't the main health risk from depleted uranium,
it's the material itself: It is an incredibly toxic heavy metal. In a
solid form as found in armor and munitions it is relatively safe to
handle, however the way a depleted uranium tipped round penetrates
causes the uranium to oxidize into a super-heated plasma form which
kills everyone inside. That's all fine and dandy...until that plasma
cools and solidifies into a super-fine depleted uranium oxidize dust.
It's that dust which easily enters the lungs and blood stream and even
in small quantities causes very serious health issues. -BTW, that dust
is also still radioactive...but again that's not the main way it harms.
--
-Zenin - "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!"
kujebak
This is just a tired old marxist lullaby. Chemical weapons technology
was actually provided to Saddam by the Soviets in the late seventies.
Iraq received inordinately more weaponry and technical assistance from
the USSR than it did from the US just before going off the deep end.
Yez
[...]
> Say Stan, weren't those Chemical WMD's that you refer to provided to
> Iraq by US companies during the reign of right wing scumbags Reagan
> and Bush the First?
I'm not Stanley, thank (insert your godname here) but yes, see the Reigle
Report.
'rena
kujebak
All the Reigle report proved was that Saddam had chemical and
biological weapons, and that some U.S. personnel might have been
exposed them during Desert Storm. The alleged complicity of the
Reagan Administration in the development of Saddam's WMD pro-
gram is nothing but a liberal urban myth. Despite the nature of our
relationship with Iran in the eighties, the simple fact is the U.S.
played quite an insignificant role in Saddam's weapons procurement
prior to the Gulf War.
Bill Z.
> Yez wrote:
> > tiny_url wrote on ca.politics:
> >
> > I'm not Stanley, thank (insert your godname here) but yes, see the Reigle
> > Report.
> >
> > 'rena
>
> All the Reigle report proved was that Saddam had chemical and
> biological weapons, and that some U.S. personnel might have been
> exposed them during Desert Storm. The alleged complicity of the
> Reagan Administration in the development of Saddam's WMD pro-
> gram is nothing but a liberal urban myth. Despite the nature of our
> relationship with Iran in the eighties, the simple fact is the U.S.
> played quite an insignificant role in Saddam's weapons procurement
> prior to the Gulf War.
>
> http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
Care to post a link to something other than personal opinion? Here's
what you get for your web site's page on its contributors
<http://www.command-post.org/desk/archives/014188.html>:
To help you get a flavor of the people behind the posts, we've
collected here short bios for some of our contributors, and
links to their home blogs. One of the best ways to recognize
these fine people is to read their home blogs, and we
encourage you to pay them a visit.
Founders:
* Alan Nelson, Strengthen The Good and Command Post: Alan is
a full-time management consultant and part-time blogger.
* Michele Catalano, A Small Victory: Bio coming soon ...
Contributors:
* Billy Beck, Two-Four: A stage-lighting designer with
twenty-seven years of rock touring experience, and a
lifelong student at Beck University, principally interested
in economics, history, and philosophy. A guitarist since
1969, private pilot since 2001, and misanthrope since
birth. He never, ever, votes.
* Alan E. Brain, A. E. Brain:Alan Brain is a 40-something
Australian Software Engineer, specializing in Military and
Space Applications (and currently looking for work). His
blog includes intermittent postings from Canberra,
Australia on Software Development, Space, Politics, and
Interesting URLs. And of course, Brains...
...
Sounds to me like amateur hour. :-)
kujebak
Bill Z. wrote:
Are you actually disputing the numbers, or are you just proving that
one cannot really have a meaningful discussion with a snooty liberal
demagogue?
Bill Z.
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> >
> > Care to post a link to something other than personal opinion? Here's
> > what you get for your web site's page on its contributors
> > <http://www.command-post.org/desk/archives/014188.html>:
> >
> > Sounds to me like amateur hour. :-)
>
> Are you actually disputing the numbers, or are you just proving that
> one cannot really have a meaningful discussion with a snooty liberal
> demagogue?
You made the claim. I'm suggesting that you actually back it up with
some reasonable citations rather than the opinions of a group of
amateurs who were running some random web site. Instead, you now rant
about a "liberal demagogue" in a futile attempt to cover up sloppy
scholarship on your part. Your URL was, it appears, a citation used
to justify your statements, so I'd say you have a bit more homework to
do. I'd give you a D- for not knowing how to find credible reference
material.
Karel Kriz
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
Yeah, the MO is the same. As always.
1. Locate some dubious factoid
2. Post it as verified gospel truth straight from the horse's mouth
3. Reject any requests for clarification, sources and proof
4. Accuse anyone questioning these self serving factoids of "liberalism"
and "treason"
5. Maintain silence or post a similar item on another topic to dilute
the attention.
Bingo!
Karel
kujebak
It is obvious your concept of "credible reference material" is quite
different from mine, but that is really not the issue here.
Conventional
discussions of historical context usually involves alternative propo-
sitions, but, of course, you don't even bother to disprove my claim.
Instead, quite predictably, you attack the credibility of my source.
The graphs on the Command Post web page merely provided a con-
venient illustration of my own recollection of the share of the
different
foreign players in Iraq's arms buildup under Saddam, as well as other
relevant (and certainly credible) sources of information about this
subject,
such as Anthony Cordesman's "American Strategic, Tactical, and Other
Mistakes in Iraq: A Litany of Errors (CSIS Publications). The same
chart
is available on SCISs own web site.
Regarding the allegations in the Reigle report that the United States
supplied materials for Iraq's germ warfare technology - while it is
true
that a private company in Virginia (American Type Culture Collection)
has long provided germ cultures to medical research institutions all
around the world, its dealings with Iraq have been taken out of
context,
and grossly distorted by the left-wing anti-Bush propaganda machine.
This whole widely-held belief among you libs (which is fed to our
children
by cretins like Jay Benish) that the U.S. "armed" Saddam for his
invasion
of Kuwait, and for his suppression of Iraq's minorities is nothing but
a load
of malicious, unsubstantiated hogwash. Iraq's military capability has
always been based on Soviet technology.
kujebak
I knew I'd get your goad with this one :-))
Bill Z.
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Bill Z. wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Care to post a link to something other than personal opinion? Here's
> > > > what you get for your web site's page on its contributors
> > > > <http://www.command-post.org/desk/archives/014188.html>:
> > > >
> > > > Sounds to me like amateur hour. :-)
> > >
> > > Are you actually disputing the numbers, or are you just proving that
> > > one cannot really have a meaningful discussion with a snooty liberal
> > > demagogue?
> >
> > You made the claim. I'm suggesting that you actually back it up with
> > some reasonable citations rather than the opinions of a group of
> > amateurs who were running some random web site. Instead, you now rant
> > about a "liberal demagogue" in a futile attempt to cover up sloppy
> > scholarship on your part. Your URL was, it appears, a citation used
> > to justify your statements, so I'd say you have a bit more homework to
> > do. I'd give you a D- for not knowing how to find credible reference
> > material.
>
> It is obvious your concept of "credible reference material" is quite
> different from mine, but that is really not the issue here.
Actually, it is the issue here, and is specifically *all* I asked about
as I was not otherwise participating in the "discussion". BTW, my
concept of "credible reference material" is something that would not
get you laughed out of the room if you used it during a talk at a
university. Yours obviously is different.
<snip>
Stan de SD
"kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1153467479.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Do unserstand that Yez is a mindless little twit whose limited cerebral
capacity has reduced her to chanting her singular mantra "Democrats good,
Republicans bad"
Jirka Sirka
> Do understand that Yez is a mindless little twit whose limited cerebral
> capacity has reduced her to chanting her singular mantra "Democrats good,
> Republicans bad"
This is the very essence that keeps me on the right track. I love guidance of
this kind and calibre. So refreshing, inspiring, simply great!!
Thanks, all Stans of this world! Keep it up!!!!
Jiri Borsky
aka J S
kujebak
Jirka Sirka wrote:
> Stan de SD wrote:
>
> > Do understand that Yez is a mindless little twit whose limited cerebral
> > capacity has reduced her to chanting her singular mantra "Democrats good,
> > Republicans bad"
>
> This is the very essence that keeps me on the right track. I love guidance of
> this kind and calibre. So refreshing, inspiring, simply great!!
But of course, as usual, you're just flattering yourself.
You wouldn't know the right track, if you tripped over it.
There's no right, or wrong in your world, only countless
shades of "objective reality".
>
> Thanks, all Stans of this world! Keep it up!!!!
Only thou knowe not to whom thou speake ;-)
Yez
> "kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com> wrote...
I missed the post from Kujebak, thanks for drawing it to my
attention... I don't know command-post.org from Adam's off ox, never
heard of them but I did read the Reigle Report. This breakout quotes
directly from it...
U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq
[...]
The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has
oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act. Pursuant to
the Act, Committee staff contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce and
requested information on the export of biological materials during the
years prior to the Gulf War. After receiving this information, we
contacted a principal supplier of these materials to determine what, if
any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an
offensive or defensive biological warfare program. Records available
from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that
during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic
(meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were
exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S.
Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available,
according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were not
attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. According to
the Department of Defense's own Report to Congress on the Conduct of
the Persian Gulf War, released in April 1992:
[...]
Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials
(which have been considered by various nations for use in war), with
their associated disease symptoms:
Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax is a disease-producing bacteria identified
by the Department of Defense in The Conduct of the Persian Gulf War:
Final Report to Congress, as being a major component in the Iraqi
biological warfare program.
Anthrax is an often-fatal infectious disease due to ingestion of
spores. It begins abruptly with high fever, difficulty in breathing,
and chest pain. The disease eventually results in septicemia (blood
poisoning), and the mortality is high. Once septicemia is advanced,
antibiotic therapy may prove useless, probably because the exotoxins
remain, despite the death of the bacteria.
Clostridium Botulinum: a bacterial source of botulinum toxin, which
causes vomiting, constipation, thirst, general weakness, headache,
fever, dizziness, double vision, dilation of the pupils and paralysis
of the muscles involving swallowing. It is often fatal.
Histoplasma Capsulatum: causes a disease superficially resembling
tuberculosis that may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and
spleen, anemia, an influenza-like illness and an acute inflammatory
skin disease marked by tender red nodules, usually on the shins.
Reactivated infection usually involves the lungs, the brain, spinal
membranes, heart, peritoneum, and the adrenals.
Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause chronic fatigue, loss
of appetite, profuse sweating when at rest, pain in joints and muscles,
insomnia, nausea, and damage to major organs.
Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bacteria which causes gas
gangrene. The bacteria produce toxins that move along muscle bundles in
the body killing cells and producing necrotic tissue that is then
favorable for further growth of the bacteria itself. Eventually, these
toxins and bacteria enter the bloodstream and cause a systemic illness.
In addition, several shipments of Escherichia Coli (E.Coli) and genetic
materials, as well as human and bacterial DNA, were shipped directly to
the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.
The following is a detailed listing of biological materials, provided
by the American Type Culture Collection, which were exported to
agencies of the government of Iraq pursuant to the issuance of an
export licensed by the U.S. Commerce Department:
Date : February 8, 1985
Sent to : Iraq Atomic Energy Agency
Materials Shipped: Ustilago nuda (Jensen) Rostrup
Date : February 22, 1985
Sent to : Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped: Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC32136)
Class III pathogen
Date : July 11, 1985
Sent to : Middle and Near East Regional A
Materials Shipped: Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC32136)
Class III pathogen
Date : May 2, 1986
Sent to : Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped: 1. Bacillus Anthracis Cohn (ATCC 10) Batch #08-20-82
(2 each)
Class III pathogen.
2. Bacillus Subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn (ATCC 82) Batch # 06-20-84 (2each)
3. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 3502) Batch# 07-07-81 (3 each)
Class III Pathogen
4. Clostridium perfringens (Weillon and Zuber) Hauduroy, et al (ATCC
3624) Batch# 10-85SV (2 each)
5. Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 6051) Batch# 12-06-84 (2 each)
6. Francisella tularensis var. tularensis Olsufiev (ATCC 6223)Batch#
05-14-79 (2 each)
Avirulent, suitable for preparations of diagnostic antigens.
7. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 9441) Batch# 03-84 (3 each) Highly
toxigenic.
8. Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 9564) Batch# 03-02-79 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
9. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 10779) Batch# 04-24-84S (3 each)
10. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 12916) Batch# 08-14-80 (2 each)
Agglutinating type 2.
11. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 13124) Batch# 07-84SV (3 each)
Type A, alpha-toxigenic, produces lecithinase C.J. Appl.
12. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14185) Batch# 01-14-80 (3 each) G.G.
Wright (Fort Detrick) V770-NP1-R. Bovine anthrax,
Class III pathogen
13. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14578) Batch# 01-06-78 (2 each)
Class III pathogen.
14. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14581) Batch# 04-18-85 (2 each)
15. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14945) Batch# 06-21-81 (2 each)
16. Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 17855) Batch# 06-21-71
Class III pathogen.
17. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 19213) Batch# 3-84 (2 each)
18. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 19397) Batch# 08-18-81 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
19. Brucella abortus Biotype 3 (ATCC 23450) Batch# 08-02-84 (3 each)
Class III pathogen
20. Brucella abortus Biotype 9 (ATCC 23455) Batch# 02-05-68 (3 each)
Class III pathogen
21. Brucella melitensis Biotype 1 (ATCC 23456) Batch# 03-08-78 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
22. Brucella melitensis Biotype 3 (ATCC 23458) Batch# 01-29-68 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
23. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 25763) Batch# 8-83 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
24. Clostridium botulinum Type F (ATCC 35415) Batch# 02-02-84 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
Date : August 31, 1987
Sent to : State Company for Drug Industries
Materials Shipped:
1. Saccharomyces cerevesiae (ATCC 2601) Batch# 08-28-08 (1 each)
2. Salmonella choleraesuis subsp. choleraesuis Serotype typhi (ATCC
6539) Batch# 06-86S (1 each)
3. Bacillus subtillus (ATCC 6633) Batch# 10-85 (2 each)
4. Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae (ATCC 10031) Batch# 08-13-80
(1 each)
5. Escherichia coli (ATCC 10536) Batch# 04-09-80 (1 each)
6. Bacillus cereus (11778) Batch# 05-85SV (2 each)
7. Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC 12228) Batch# 11-86s (1 each)
8. Bacillus pumilus (ATCC 14884) Batch# 09-08-80 (2each)
Date : July 11, 1988
Sent to : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:
1. Escherichia coli (ATCC 11303) Batch# 04-87S Phage host
2. Cauliflower Mosaic Caulimovirus (ATCC45031) Batch# 06-14-85 Plant
virus
3. Plasmid in Agrobacterium Tumefaciens (ATCC37349)
(Ti plasmid for co-cultivation with plant integration vectors in E.
Coli) Batch# 05-28-85
Date : April 26, 1988
Sent to : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:
1. Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s) X q26.1 (ATCC 57236) Phage vector;
Suggested host: E.coli
2. Hulambda14-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57240) Phage vector;
Suggested host: E.coli
3. Hulambda15, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s) X q26.1 (ATCC 57242) Phage vector;
Suggested host: E.coli
Date : August 31, 1987
Sent to : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:
1. Escherichia coli (ATCC 23846) Batch# 07-29-83 (1 each)
2. Escherichia coli (ATCC 33694) Batch# 05-87 (1 each)
Date : September 29, 1988
Sent to : Ministry of Trade"
Materials Shipped:
1. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 240) Batch#05-14-63 (3 each)
Class III pathogen
2. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 938) Batch#1963 (3 each)
Class III pathogen
3. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 3629) Batch#10-23-85 (3 each)
4. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 8009) Batch#03-30-84 (3 each)
5. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 8705) Batch# 06-27-62 (3 each)
Class III pathogen
6. Brucella abortus (ATCC 9014) Batch# 05-11-66 (3 each)
Class III pathogen
7. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 10388) Batch# 06-01-73 (3 each)
8. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 11966) Batch# 05-05-70 (3 each)
Class III pathogen
9. Clostridium botulinum Type A Batch# 07-86 (3 each)
Class III pathogen
10. Bacillus cereus (ATCC 33018) Batch# 04-83 (3 each)
11. Bacillus ceres (ATCC 33019) Batch# 03-88 (3 each)
Date : January 31, 1989
Sent to : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:
1. PHPT31, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT)
Chromosome(s) X q26.1 (ATCC 57057)
2. plambda500, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
pseudogene (HPRT) Chromosome(s): 5 p14-p13 (ATCC 57212)
Date : January 17, 1989
Sent to : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:
1. Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s) X q26.1 (ATCC 57237) Phage vector;
Suggested host: E.coli
2. Hulambda14, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57240) Cloned from human
lymphoblast Phage vector; Suggested host: E.coli
3. Hulambda15, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s) X q26.1 (ATCC 57241) Phage vector;
Suggested host: E.coli
kujebak
I appreciate your acknowledgement you don't have anything to add
to the substance of my point, as well as your revelation that even Ds
must be earned in your class ;-)
Yez
header for some reason:
> "kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com> wrote...
I missed the post from Kujebak, thanks for drawing it to my
attention... I don't know command-post.org from Adam's off ox, never
heard of them but I did read the Reigle Report. This breakout quotes
directly from it (please note that these horrific materials were not
attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction...
kujebak
politically motivated inquiry into the origins of Saddam's
WMD technology in the aftermath of the discovery of the
Gulf War Syndrome. While it is quite conceivable a signi-
ficant number of U.S. soldiers might have been exposed
to some of Saddam's chemical, and/or biological agents,
no part of the report, including the passage you keep re-
posting, establishes a connection between the former
Republican administration and Saddam's chemical/bio-
logical weapons program.
Tel me Yez, what do you see in this passage?
Not only you have not heard of Command-post.com,
clearly, you're no microbiologist either ;-) so let me
explain some of these "horrific materials" :
Saccharomyces cerevesiae - common brewer's yeast
Staphylococcus epidermidis - common inhabitant of healthy
human skin.
Histoplasma capsulatum - pathogenic yeast found in bird shit
Bacillus anthracis - common soil organism found in dry regions
of the world - can be easily obtained from rotting carcasses
of wild and domestic animals. No shortage of animal and
human carcasses in Iraq under Saddam, I'm sure :-)
Clostridium botulinum - also common soil inhabitant easily iso-
lated from improperly prepared canned food.
Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli - predominant bacte-
ria species inside normal human colon.
Etc., etc.
There is not a single item on your entire list the Iraqis could not
isolate, or otherwise obtain without *anyone's* help. That's all
I've got to say about your post.
Yez
> Let me say it again...
Why bother?
> no part of the report, including the passage you keep re-
> posting, establishes a connection between the former
> Republican administration and Saddam's chemical/bio-
> logical weapons program.
Huh? I'm not laying blame on party, the docs prove that shit happened
under Reagan and Bush I, I don't care about parties, I want to see the
lists of what and who we sold shit to under Clinton and Bush jr too. Hey,
we pay for this and we have a right to know. More Senate Committee
Hearings!
> Not only you have not heard of Command-post.com,
No because that isn't the url you originly posted but yes, I've never
heard of this one either.
[...]
> There is not a single item on your entire list the Iraqis could not
> isolate, or otherwise obtain without *anyone's* help. That's all
> I've got to say about your post.
So why did they see the need to buy them from us then? And why the hell
would we sell a political puppet lethal shit like that. Like I said I want
to see the chemical bill of lading from the date of the Reigle Report
forward.
'rena
Bill Z.
I.e., you backed up your claim with the opinions expressed on what
appears to be an "amateur hour" web site, with no credible
documentation, and are now trying to blame me for not taking your
discussion seriously.
As to what might have gone on between Saddam and the Reagan
administrations, you just might consider that (a) Iraq and Iran were
invovled in a nasty war, and (b) the U.S. was pissed at Iran due to
the hostage crisis in the late 1970s. It would hardly be surprising
if we gave Saddam some help in retaliation or if we were playing one
side off against the other in the hopes of weakening both, in which
case any documentation regarding what we were doing would be highly
classified (even today). So, what does the alleged lack of any
publicly accessible documentation show (other than whatever that
famous picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam together might suggest to the
casual observer).
kujebak
Exactly my point. Absolutely nothing. Unless, of course, you're
a nutwing Bush-hating conspiratorialist like Yez :-))
Just because support by the U.S. of Iraq in the war against
the ayatollahs would have made strategic sense at the time,
does not mean it actually happened in any significant way.
>From what I remember of the Iran-Iraq War, all we supplied
Saddam with was "structured intelligence". OTOH, things that
make absolutely no sense, such as the left-wing allegations
Saddam received his WMDs from the U.S., have exactly zero
probability of having happened. Period. That's all I am saying.
Bill Z.
<rant snipped>
Oh, so you mean you take some amateur hour web site as the absolute
truth, ignore the possibility that some details of what might have
gone on are no doubt still classified, and rant about a "nutwing
Bush-hating conspiratorialist" to cover up your lack of documentation
for the statement you made. Meanwhile, the *real* conspiracy theory
seems to be the one that came out of the Whitehouse regarding Saddam's
non-existent weapons of mass destruction (non-existent in light of the
unsuccessful effort to find any even after we had U.S. troops all over
Iraq beating the bushes trying to find them.)
And then you whine about me not taking your opinion seriously.
kujebak
Bill Z. wrote:
> Oh, so you mean you take some amateur hour web site as the absolute
> truth, ignore the possibility that some details of what might have
> gone on are no doubt still classified, and rant about a "nutwing
> Bush-hating conspiratorialist" to cover up your lack of documentation
> for the statement you made. Meanwhile, the *real* conspiracy theory
> seems to be the one that came out of the Whitehouse regarding Saddam's
> non-existent weapons of mass destruction (non-existent in light of the
> unsuccessful effort to find any even after we had U.S. troops all over
> Iraq beating the bushes trying to find them.)
But isn't it *your* proposition, that absence of evidence does
not constitute proof of absence? I have a hunch they will show
up. Real soon.
Bill Z.
Reduced to trying to misrepresent what I posted?
Your "hunch" is an unsubstantiated conjecture, but I can see why you
would have to grasp at straws if you feel a need to defend one of the
worst presidents in all of U.S. history.
Let me give you a hint, though. If someone claims you have an assault
weapon in your house, reports it to the police, who believe the guy
for some reason, and the police kick in your door and search
everywhere they can and find nothing, what would you presume that
shows about the alleged weapon in your house?
As to "absence of evidence does not constitute proof of absence", are
you really so daft as to not see the difference between "we don't have
the ability to measure something" and "we did an exhaustive search (or
very close to that) and found nothing". They tried everything to find
these weapons. They searched for them by beating the bushes, they
tried to bribe people for information, and who knows what they did in
Bush's torture chambers (e.g., Abu Ghraib). The reason they found
nothing is probably what they learned when they captured someone who
had been high up in the Iraqi government: he stated that as far as he
knew there were no such weapons - after the first Gulf War, the Iraqis
lost the ability to make them and maintain them and whatever
stockpiles they may have had were mostly destroyed as a result of the
fighting.
Stan de SD
Well, kuje, it looks like you nailed old Silly Billy Zaumen... ROTFLMAO!!!
Bill Z.
> "kujebak" <kuj...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153768123.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Well, kuje, it looks like you nailed old Silly Billy Zaumen... ROTFLMAO!!!
[canned response]
For anyone who does not know what is going on here, wannabe head troll
Stan Me SD has been really mad at me ever since I pointed out his idol
King George of the House of Bush refused to lift a finger during the
electrical shortage in the summer of 2001 (no doubt to screw Gray
Davis, who was considered a political threat due to his fundraising
abilities), as Enron and other Texas based companies tried their best
to screw California. Stanley, of course, pretended otherwise.
As little Stanley ranted on as usual, he tried to sound macho and
threatening. I simply laughed at him, and Stanley then jumped into an
aside regarding a topic he knew nothing about, quickly getting himself
into hot water as he obviously didn't even know "Terminology 101." As
he tried to justify himself, he blurted out how he had sat on a lofty
perch, snapping pictures and eating lunch, as some poor dude expired.
Since Stanley couldn't bring himself to admit that he was simply too
inexperienced to do anything, he ended up looking rather crass and
cowardly, and he has been mad at me ever since.
In a fashion typical of this low life, Stanley has been posting a
combination of lies and mindless speculations one after the other for
years, not to mention "declaring victory" every time he makes a fool
of himself. I suspect it is in part due to him having problems of the
sort Sigmund Freud so aptly described. He made such a fool of himself
that it threatened his fragile male ego and it will be at least a
decade before he recovers.