What is WMD?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 7:45 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview On 8/4/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is in the first Key Judgment on page 5 of the report (page 9 in Acrobat). The first two sentences read: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program in defiance of the UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapons program. A program is not a weapon, just a plan to get rich is not money. You're reading it the way you want to, not using the meanings it makes clear. Do realize how very, very carefully they pick the language in these reports? Who and how many people review it (which actually is classified)? Where it says weapons, if it mean weapons of mass destruction, it would have said so. Maybe you think this is nitpicking... but this is an intelligence brief for the president and security council, they are very, very precise in what they say. If they weren't, then how would the consumers of the report know when they are talking about ordinary weapons, which Iraq certainly had, and WMDs? _By definition_ chemical and biological weapons are WMD. Yes they are careful in what they write, but they do not anticipate a defense lawyer trying to explain a totally different meaning to a jury from the one intended. The common use of the term MWD, as well as the prevalent use by the Administration is the grouping of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. When the administration has deviated from this, it is by extending the definition to other forms of mass destruction. For example, the planes that hit the WTC and Pentagon were called, by some, WMD. Another example of a more consistent extension of WMD is the extension to the use of radiological weapons (e.g. a conventional bomb covered with Cs-137. So, while all WMD may not be biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons; all biological chemical or nuclear weapons are WMD. Thus, saying biological WMD weapons is redundant. The other lawyerly hair splitting that you did is to distinguish between massive supplies of things like sarin gas, and sarin gas weapons. For this distinction to be a valid one, one of two things has to be true. 1) There is another, legitimate reason for a country to have massive quantities of sarin gas besides having it ready for an attack. It is true that some materials that can be weaponized also has legitimate use. One good example of this comes from home grown terrorism: Oklahoma city. If a farmer has massive quantities of fuel oil and nitrogen fertilizer stored on his property, he probably has a very good reason for this. The fuel oil is for his diesel tractor, while the fertilizer is for his crops. Possession of these materials is not suspicious in his case. If a bunch of neo-Nazis have hundreds of pounds of fertilizer and barrels of fuel oil in a basement, it is very suspicious. They have no good reason to have these. Thus, further investigation is warranted. 2) The development of the delivery system is a significant problem, apart from the development of the active agent. The only example I can think of is the effort required to develop an atomic bomb, once one has the requisite number of kilos of enriched uranium or plutonium. With chemical and biological weapons, this is not the case. IIRC, the WMD attack on the Kurds involved the spraying of the villages from helicopters. Something akin to a simple crop duster is a sufficient delivery mechanism. With a couple of weeks, given a very simple machine shop and a charge card good at Home Depot, I could personally put together something that would work. A more efficient way of doing this from a distance would be missiles or artillery shells. The report noted that Hussein did have a number of these shells found earlier. Other shells, IIRC, were not properly accounted for. Even if he had none on hand, the ability to fill a rocket or a shell with high pressure gas or anthrax powder is fairly straightforward. I probably wouldn't want to do it myself, but there are machine shops I could have a rush order done in a week or so that I know of. Even if you stretch the implications of the intelligence as much as you would, then it still doesn't present a foundation for what the administration said to justify the war. It's not a matter of stretching the implications. It's a matter of taking the common understanding of the words. Having hundreds of tons of chemical agents, such as mustard gas or sarin, is considered by most to be, by definition, having WMD. I realize that the report didn't state that Iraq had delivery systems, it only pointed out how trivial delivery systems were
RE: What are WMD?
Correct the header. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What be WMD?
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:20 PM Subject: RE: What are WMD? Correct the header. :-) Dan M. Modernized now. G xponent Header Follies Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What be WMD, me hearties? Aaaaarrrrrrrrr!
On 06/08/2006, at 7:13 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Modernized now. G Pop culture topicalised now... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What be WMD, me hearties? Aaaaarrrrrrrrr!
Charlie Bell wrote: On 06/08/2006, at 7:13 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Modernized now. G Pop culture topicalised now... It's always fun when pirates are in fashion. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
War is Peace: US Army Admits it used WMD White Phosphorus in Falluja -- Pentagon Denies
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/9/164137/436 WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/8/125531/161 Pentagon Denies: http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNewsstoryI D=2005-11-08T203257Z_01_WRI861294_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-USA-WEAPONS.xml ROME (Reuters) - The U.S. military in Iraq denied a report shown on Italian state television on Tuesday saying U.S. forces used incendiary white phosphorus against civilians in a November 2004 offensive on the Iraqi town of Falluja - Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons This protocol (III) was _not_ signed by US. PROTOCOL ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF INCENDIARY WEAPONS (PROTOCOL III) Article 1 Definitions For the purpose of this Protocol: 1. Incendiary weapon means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances. (b) Incendiary weapons do not include: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities. 2. Concentration of civilians means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads. 3. Military objective means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. 4. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3. 5. Feasible precautions are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations. Article 2 Protection of civilians and civilian objects 1.It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. 2 It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. 3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incen- diary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentra- tion of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. 4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incen- diary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives. Entry into Force: 2 December 1983 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
More on Iraq's WMD
Convenient analysis of the alleged WMD artillery shell found in Iraq. http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002919.html#002919 Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
EU developing Digital Rights WMD
Orrin Hatch would be proud... The actual article has a few links embedded in it that didn't cut n'paste into here, so follow the link if you're interested. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1540370,00.asp The Nuclear Weapon of Digital Rights Law By Sebastian Rupley February 27, 2004 Few examples of technology-related federal legislation have stirred up more controversy in recent years than the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and now the European Union is considering a similar, yet far more sweeping actone that could extend to virtually all kinds of intellectual property protectionswhich critics describe as nuclear weapons of IP law enforcement. A coalition of over 50 civil liberties groups is opposing draft legislation titled the European Union Directive for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. The draft legislation will be considered for passage into law throughout Europe by the European Plenary March 8th through 11th. The provisions within the directive have produced scathing attacks from the civil liberties groups opposing it. For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted material opposing it under the title European Union Considers Warped Intellectual Property Directive. Two specific provisions within the directive, titled Anton Pillar Orders and Mareva Injunctions call for recording industry executives to have the right to raid the homes of P2P file sharers. This goes far beyond the DMCA, which mainly focused on copyright protection, says Robin D. Gross, executive director of IPJustice, an international civil liberties organization. If you make a copy of a CD and give it to your mother, there are provisions within this directive for recording industry officials to raid your house, and there are similar provisions for doing things like freezing your bank account before there is any kind of hearing. The directive was originally intended to organize European Union member states' existing laws against large-scale commercial counterfeiting. But through EU back-room deals, the directive's scope has been extended to any infringementincluding all minor, unintentional, and non-commercial infringements such as P2P file-sharing, claims an advisory from IP Justice. The full text of the directive is available online. One statement within the text of the directive describes its scope: It is necessary to define the scope of this Directive as widely as possible in order to encompass all the intellectual property rights covered by Community provisions in this field and/or by the national law of the Member State concerned. Opposition groups are concerned that the legislation is being fast-tracked by European Union members. The directive's Rapporteur French MEP Madame Janelly Fourtou (who is also the wife of Vivendi-Universal's CEO) has placed it on a 'First Reading,' a rarely used fast-track procedure for uncontroversial directives where there is unanimous agreement on a subject, says IP Justice's advisory. Wildly controversial, this directive should be forced to undergo a 'Second Reading' where its monumental provisions can be adequately debated by the public and legislators before they are imposed throughout Europe, continues the advisory. In addition to opposition pages on the Internet from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, IP Justice has posted a page called CODECampaign for an Open Digital Environmentwhere individuals can learn more and respond to the directive. _ Find things fast with the new MSN Toolbar includes FREE pop-up blocking! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
At 10:43 PM 10/30/03 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:02 PM Subject: RE: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria At 12:29 PM 10/30/03 +0530, ritu wrote: The Fool forwarded: WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. intelligence officials Wednesday released an assessment that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been transferred to neighboring Syria. I think the Iraqi WMDs are on a Mid-East tour. After Syria, they are probably headed towards Iran. :) Cool! Where can I get a T-shirt? Weapons Of Mass Destruction World Tour 03 - 04 Iraq - Sold Out Syria Iran Sudan Pakistan Libya Alabama They are bringing them to Anniston to burn them? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:29 PM 10/30/03 +0530, ritu wrote: The Fool forwarded: WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. intelligence officials Wednesday released an assessment that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been transferred to neighboring Syria. I think the Iraqi WMDs are on a Mid-East tour. After Syria, they are probably headed towards Iran. :) Cool! Where can I get a T-shirt? Hm. I know someone who does up t-shirts and sells them through a website and at SF cons. Maybe I ought to mention this to him Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
The Fool forwarded: WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. intelligence officials Wednesday released an assessment that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been transferred to neighboring Syria. I think the Iraqi WMDs are on a Mid-East tour. After Syria, they are probably headed towards Iran. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
Ritu wrote: I think the Iraqi WMDs are on a Mid-East tour. After Syria, they are probably headed towards Iran. :) Why not Pakistan? O:-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
Alberto Monteiro wrote: I think the Iraqi WMDs are on a Mid-East tour. After Syria, they are probably headed towards Iran. :) Why not Pakistan? O:-) Because Mushy is a good ally of the US? Or because we South Asians are lucky enough to not attract so much attention from Wolfie, Rummy and co.? :) Or perhaps because Pakistan has its own WMDs and they seem to be fond of taking itty-bitty trips to other countries? ;) Ritu GSV Let's Meet Up In Iransaid the Iraqi WMDs to the Pakistani WMDs class ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ritu Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 05:41 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria Alberto Monteiro wrote: I think the Iraqi WMDs are on a Mid-East tour. After Syria, they are probably headed towards Iran. :) Why not Pakistan? O:-) Because Mushy is a good ally of the US? Or because we South Asians are lucky enough to not attract so much attention from Wolfie, Rummy and co.? :) Well, if you'd only do more for American companies, then you too could host the WMD.. -j- GSV Why Does Anthrax Always Call Shotgun? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
I think the Iraqi WMDs are on a Mid-East tour. After Syria, they are probably headed towards Iran. :) Cool t-shirt. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
At 12:29 PM 10/30/03 +0530, ritu wrote: The Fool forwarded: WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. intelligence officials Wednesday released an assessment that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been transferred to neighboring Syria. I think the Iraqi WMDs are on a Mid-East tour. After Syria, they are probably headed towards Iran. :) Cool! Where can I get a T-shirt? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:02 PM Subject: RE: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria At 12:29 PM 10/30/03 +0530, ritu wrote: The Fool forwarded: WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. intelligence officials Wednesday released an assessment that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been transferred to neighboring Syria. I think the Iraqi WMDs are on a Mid-East tour. After Syria, they are probably headed towards Iran. :) Cool! Where can I get a T-shirt? Weapons Of Mass Destruction World Tour 03 - 04 Iraq - Sold Out Syria Iran Sudan Pakistan Libya Alabama xponent Tourbooks For Sale Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
Robert Seeberger wrote: Weapons Of Mass Destruction World Tour 03 - 04 Iraq - Sold Out *rofl* Syria Iran Sudan Pakistan No! No! Pakistan is a horrible destination! xponent Tourbooks For Sale Maru *chuckles* This reminds me of an article on the BBC about how a travel agency in London which kept on getting calls from people who wanted to go sight-seeing in Iraq while the war was going on. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I think the Iraqi WMDs are on a Mid-East tour. After Syria, they are probably headed towards Iran. :) Cool! Where can I get a T-shirt? I just had the words. No t-shirts, no place to print them. :) Ritu, who'd like at least one 'print your own t-shirt' place in Delhi ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
U.S. now saying WMD went from Iraq to Syria
http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/1029aaa030d6 upiSys=rmmillerFid=NATIONALType=NewsFilter=National%20News U.S. says WMD went from Iraq to Syria WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. intelligence officials Wednesday released an assessment that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been transferred to neighboring Syria. The officials, in the first assessment of its kind, said the transfer occurred during the weeks prior to the U.S.-led war against the Saddam Hussein regime. Middle East Newsline reported the U.S. assessment was based on satellite images of convoys of Iraqi trucks that poured into Syria during February and March. U.S. intelligence officials say the trucks contained missiles and WMD components banned by the U.N.'s Security Council. - If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. - Diebold Internal Memos ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
John D. Giorgis wrote: That's o.k., I participate on a Catholic discussion List where I am considered a flaming liberal. oh yes, and after discussing certain economic policies with my officemates, one of them printed off a picture of the Kremlin for me to hang on my cube, because he thought that I was basically a communist. That could very well be one of the most frightening things I've ever read. :) I bet there are frogs with asses less watertight than people who'd consider you a liberal, John. ;) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The election was 2 1/2 years ago. Circumstances and the list have changed. I would guess that between 80-90% of the list were in favor of the invasion, and that at least half have a favorable opinion of Bush right now, though I'm guessing his popularity will continue to slip here and everywhere else. Doug 80-90%? Not a chance. 50%, at most. Dan M. whom you called a conservative, much to my (and, I'd guess, his, amusement) was against it, I believe, just to pick an example. As for his popularity slipping, well, he's not going to stay at 60+%, no. OTOH, the odds that he's going to win in 2004, well, let's just say that I'm not urging my politically active friends to count on getting a Democratic White House job in 2005. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. So? There's something wrong with that? Tom Beck It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. Even most Democratic activists don't hate Republicans the way you do, Tom. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. So? We're supposed to be? Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 02:59:17PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. So? We're supposed to be? Tom, are you having a bad day? Or are you really a conservative in disguise, trying to make liberals look stupid? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 02:59 PM 6/15/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. So? We're supposed to be? Tom, a brief chronology for you: 1) Gautam stated that he considered Brin-L to be weighted heavily towards the liberal end of the spectrum. 2) Doug P. disagreed with this characterization. 3) Gautam used the above statistic regarding the election to rebut Doug's disagreement. Hopefully this all makes sense to you now. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Heh heh. Would it surprise you then to know I am a registered Democrat and voted for Gore? Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Now Building: Tamiya's M151A2 MUTT w/TOW ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Damon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heh heh. Would it surprise you then to know I am a registered Democrat and voted for Gore? Damon. Well statistically it shocks the hell out of me, Damon. Army officers are what, 90% Republican? Something in that range. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) Dan M. But, as you yourself would say, by the standards of American politics, you're pretty far to the left. A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. OK, if we look at all the current subscribers who voted in the 2000 election, I bet it's going to be less than 100. And of all those, I bet that not everyone who voted for a presidential candidate chose either Bush or Gore. So your breakdown has a little problem -- maybe it should be more like 25/70/5 Bush/Gore/Other. I mean, *I* wasn't particularly happy with either major party candidate, and I cast a vote for a third party candidate. Without my having said that, who would you have pegged me for voting for? And my having said that, who do you think I voted for? My guess: I can't imagine you voting for Pat Buchanan of the Independant party (then again, I can't imagine anyone who isn't ultra-conservative voting for him), and you say you didn't vote for Bush or Gore... That leaves the Libertarian and Green parties. Regrettably, I don't remember the Libertarian candidate. I would guess you probably voted Libertarian. Just a guess though. And am I the only one? You should know better than that. Everyone here who was present in 2000 should know that I voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. :-) Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Damon wrote: Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Heh heh. Would it surprise you then to know I am a registered Democrat and voted for Gore? I'm glad to know that you are so enlightened. 8^) /serious No, not at all. I've observed you are hawkish on matters of national defense, and based my assessment on those observations - especially as this was a discussion on WMD. Would it surprise any of you that I was once a registered Republican and that, having participated in all the elections starting in 1972, I have never voted for a presidential candidate that lost the popular vote? Doug Converted by GHWBush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Would it surprise any of you that I was once a registered Republican and that, having participated in all the elections starting in 1972, I have never voted for a presidential candidate that lost the popular vote? Huh. So far every presidential candidate I've voted for lost! :( Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Now Building: Esci/Italeri's M60A1 Patton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Damon wrote: Would it surprise any of you that I was once a registered Republican and that, having participated in all the elections starting in 1972, I have never voted for a presidential candidate that lost the popular vote? Huh. So far every presidential candidate I've voted for lost! :( Not the popular vote 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Erik is tough to gage (and in my judgment the most objective person on the list, BTW), but I'd put him close to the middle along with Thompson, Sharkey, Gabriel, Seeburger, Nunn and Bautista. All of the above people were (I believe) in favor of the invasion, BTW. Hardly a liberal echo chamber. On the left, to varying degrees I count myself, Lipscomb, Fool, Miller, Daly, Tacoma, Harrel, Grimaldi, Arnett Zim and ,Bell. grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Debbi Degrees Of Variance Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Deborah Harrell wrote: grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Oh, I only mean left and right in a very general sense. Jan, for instance just mentioned he was socially liberal but he has come off quite hawkish as pertains to Iraq. Han seems very liberal but came down in favor of handgun ownership too. I didn't mean to pigeon hole anyone or everyone into fixed categories, in fact quite the opposite - I thought that the idea that brin-l was a liberal echo chamber was way off base; that we're a rather diverse group. It has also got me wondering if Gautam thinks this list is liberal, what he would think of the Culture list... Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WMD Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:01:12 -0700 (PDT) --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Erik is tough to gage (and in my judgment the most objective person on the list, BTW), but I'd put him close to the middle along with Thompson, Sharkey, Gabriel, Seeburger, Nunn and Bautista. All of the above people were (I believe) in favor of the invasion, BTW. Hardly a liberal echo chamber. On the left, to varying degrees I count myself, Lipscomb, Fool, Miller, Daly, Tacoma, Harrel, Grimaldi, Arnett Zim and ,Bell. grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Debbi Degrees Of Variance Maru *nods* I did support the war and am middle of the road on some issues and definitely not on others. It would be interesting to see if there are any quizzes online that sample your political position on hot-button issues and give you a left/middle/right rating. Jon _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WMD Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:10:48 -0400 From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WMD Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:01:12 -0700 (PDT) --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Erik is tough to gage (and in my judgment the most objective person on the list, BTW), but I'd put him close to the middle along with Thompson, Sharkey, Gabriel, Seeburger, Nunn and Bautista. All of the above people were (I believe) in favor of the invasion, BTW. Hardly a liberal echo chamber. On the left, to varying degrees I count myself, Lipscomb, Fool, Miller, Daly, Tacoma, Harrel, Grimaldi, Arnett Zim and ,Bell. grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Debbi Degrees Of Variance Maru *nods* I did support the war and am middle of the road on some issues and definitely not on others. It would be interesting to see if there are any quizzes online that sample your political position on hot-button issues and give you a left/middle/right rating. Well, one thats a bit better than the one we took a few weeks ago with the 'race' question. Jon _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
list history Re: WMD
At 09:53 AM 6/14/2003 -0500, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 5:09 AM Subject: Re: WMD Deborah Harrell wrote: grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Oh, I only mean left and right in a very general sense. Jan, for instance just mentioned he was socially liberal but he has come off quite hawkish as pertains to Iraq. Han seems very liberal but came down in favor of handgun ownership too. I didn't mean to pigeon hole anyone or everyone into fixed categories, in fact quite the opposite - I thought that the idea that brin-l was a liberal echo chamber was way off base; that we're a rather diverse group. It has also got me wondering if Gautam thinks this list is liberal, what he would think of the Culture list... Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) Dan M. You beat me to it Dan. You're considered a flaming right wing nut job on the culture. It was fun to see the same position get beat on from both ends on the two lists. Well, you were picking apart their arguments, while here yours were being picked at. While I'm nowhere near the voice of reason, in fact I hate posts like these, I would like to ask what's been going on the last few days? Is it the weather? The fact that there are no good books or movies out? (I have not seen the matrix, not really planning to.) Just wondering how everyone is feeling. This page was generated in 1999. Anyone know what it's about? http://www.vavatch.co.uk/essays/iamvery.htm Oh, it's Adrian Hon. I've heard of him. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
On 13 Jun 2003 at 21:59, Doug Pensinger wrote: Additionally, the non US members on the list are, I think, actually very moderate, the exception being Illana (sp?), who is probably among the most conservative on the list. It can be pretty hard to use left/right for Israel. I mean, some of my Isralie friends are staunchly communist and also complete hawks about Palestians. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 09:59 PM 6/13/2003 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: I take comfort in the fact that politics on this list are, to a large extent, politics inside the liberal echo chamber. Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. I must be on Gautam's List. I've always felt that Brin-L was solidly left-wing. I agree that it has become less-so in recent years but I think that it is still solidly left--wing. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 09:53 AM 6/14/2003 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: It has also got me wondering if Gautam thinks this list is liberal, what he would think of the Culture list... Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) That's o.k., I participate on a Catholic discussion List where I am considered a flaming liberal. oh yes, and after discussing certain economic policies with my officemates, one of them printed off a picture of the Kremlin for me to hang on my cube, because he thought that I was basically a communist. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
At 10:38 PM 5/31/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) What is wrong with that strategy? It seems to me we are finally doing what is necessary to make the world a better place to live in, even if, especially if, you are a middle eastern Muslim. War is never the best way to solve anything. I do not believe I am mistaken when I say that I think we tried all the better ways. If not, I sure would like to hear what they are. Then why not admit it? Why not tell the truth? Why not just come right out and say that's what they were doing? They were going to be castigated by much of the rest of the world anyway - so why not simply be honest and tell the truth right from the start? Because we are a republic, and the reasons that were most important to them may not have been the reasons that would have resounded the loudest with the electorate and their elected representaties. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) Dan M. But, as you yourself would say, by the standards of American politics, you're pretty far to the left. A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) Dan M. But, as you yourself would say, by the standards of American politics, you're pretty far to the left. A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. The election was 2 1/2 years ago. Circumstances and the list have changed. I would guess that between 80-90% of the list were in favor of the invasion, and that at least half have a favorable opinion of Bush right now, though I'm guessing his popularity will continue to slip here and everywhere else. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 09:59 PM 6/13/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Hmm. This would be a surprise to people on other lists (not the c-list) who think I'm a right-wing nut¹. Guess I need to rant a little harder here . . . _ ¹Or is that right wing-nut? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: _ ¹Or is that right wing-nut? Righteous wing-nut, maybe? Doug Just kidding, just kidding, don't start whistling. 8^) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 08:20 PM 6/14/2003 -0700, you wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) Dan M. But, as you yourself would say, by the standards of American politics, you're pretty far to the left. A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. The election was 2 1/2 years ago. Circumstances and the list have changed. I would guess that between 80-90% of the list were in favor of the invasion, and that at least half have a favorable opinion of Bush right now, though I'm guessing his popularity will continue to slip here and everywhere else. Doug Maybe you should define 'in favor of the invasion' because I'd have said 20-25%. (I'm defining 'in favor' as: going in NOW, no matter what...not waiting for the UN nor congress, unilateral with 30 nations) Popularity continue to slipwell again there's a fudge factor. I'm mad about some of the education things he supported, probably a few other things. But there is no one else I want to run for president, no one else I will vote for.* The only way he'd lose my vote would be to sign some gun restriction legislation. The assault weapon issue was off of my radar. I'm sure others feel that way, there is an issue or five they are mad about, but they would vote for him. And the converse: many who wouldn't vote for him no matter what he does. *PA has a closed primary. I can only vote for candidates in my party in the primary. I was thinking of switching to dem to vote for Sharpton, if he was still running. But they are talking about finding a strong repub to run against Spector. Praise Tunare, I'd vote for anyone other than Spector. I'd vote for Teresa Heinz if she ran, no matter what party. Just get Spector out. Kevin T. - VRWC Wishing we could recall our governor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Doug Pensinger wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Oh, I only mean left and right in a very general sense. Jan, for instance just mentioned he was socially liberal but he has come off quite hawkish as pertains to Iraq. Han seems very liberal but came down in favor of handgun ownership too. I didn't mean to pigeon hole anyone or everyone into fixed categories, in fact quite the opposite - I thought that the idea that brin-l was a liberal echo chamber was way off base; that we're a rather diverse group. I was just being contrary and objectionary, dear lad, and that's why I tossed in those grins etc. ;) I knew you weren't actually labeling us; your thinking doesn't come across as two-dimensional from your posts. But I'll Try To Be More Clearly Silly* When That's What I Mean Maru *no comments from the peanut gallery, please! ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 09:03 PM 6/14/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: _ ¹Or is that right wing-nut? Righteous wing-nut, maybe? Doug Just kidding, just kidding, don't start whistling. 8^) I can't whistle and laugh at the same time . . . ;-) -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: WMD
Doug Pensinger wrote: It has also got me wondering if Gautam thinks this list is liberal, what he would think of the Culture list... So far to the left as to be practically invisible :) Ritu GCU Speculations ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: list history Re: WMD
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped most This page was generated in 1999. Anyone know what it's about? http://www.vavatch.co.uk/essays/iamvery.htm Oh, it's Adrian Hon. I've heard of him. LOL Thanks for posting that! But as I wasn't here then, I have no idea what it was about. Debbi who, having ridden or taught riding half of yesterday and a couple of hours today, is in a very good mood :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 10:50 PM 6/14/2003 -0500, you wrote: At 09:59 PM 6/13/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Hmm. This would be a surprise to people on other lists (not the c-list) who think I'm a right-wing nut¹. Guess I need to rant a little harder here . . . _ ¹Or is that right wing-nut? Ronn Whoops, I never saw that e-mail Doug. I have it, but I'm reading backwards. Maybe the vocal people did make it seem to me that there were more against invasion. Squeaky wheels and all that. Kevin T. - VRWC At the GirlSchool ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Tom, not to be rude, but are you even capable of discussing these things, or do you just start frothing at the mouth as soon as someone mentions George Bush? I mean, you seem like a bright and reasonable guy - right up until someone mentions a Republican and then I swear to God someone else takes over your body - it's like the Exorcist or something... A) Sometimes I exaggerate to make a point. Or sometimes I'm just baiting... B) Yes, Bush does push just about every button I possess. C) I don't always have the time to write something reasoned and well thought out. I'm just spitballing here, not writing position papers. D) There are plenty of conservatives who are the exact same way about Democrats and liberals and the Clintons. I realize that's not necessarily an excuse. E) Not to be rude, but there are some people who cannot mention George Bush and Iraq without getting all hagiographic and trembling with rapturous joy and admiration. Any criticism of any aspect of the recent war is automatically wrong and completely out of the question. They start frothing at the mouth as soon as anyone mentions looting or not enough troops, or anything similar... F) If you calm down, I will too. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And God forbid that anyone should ever suggest that Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/etc. are anything less than the very living incarnations of Jesus Christ himself... Tom Beck Tom, not to be rude, but are you even capable of discussing these things, or do you just start frothing at the mouth as soon as someone mentions George Bush? I mean, you seem like a bright and reasonable guy - right up until someone mentions a Republican and then I swear to God someone else takes over your body - it's like the Exorcist or something... But I would say almost the same thing about you when someone is critical of Bush or the U.S. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I would say almost the same thing about you when someone is critical of Bush or the U.S. Doug But, Doug, if you read my posts with any degree of attention, you'd be wrong. I have variously criticized Bush Administration policies on a fair variety of fronts. I haven't on Iraq because not only do I think I couldn't do better, I can barely imagine _anyone_ doing better. As for the US - my record of criticisms of domestic and foreign policy (fair ones) stands with anyone. I just look that way sometimes on this list because, to be blunt, anything short of hysterical anti-Americanism often looks like being a far right-winger on this list. Even more so because - unlike a lot of people here - I don't get all turned on and enthusiastic by self-flagellation. It's not my thing, so I don't post as much on those issues. It doesn't make me feel superior to go on and on about the bad things my country did (or might not have done). I take comfort in the fact that politics on this list are, to a large extent, politics inside the liberal echo chamber. Most of the politically vocal Americans on this list are off the liberal deep end compared to the American population as a whole. That's not in the least an exaggeration. President Bush's unfavorables in some polls run around 20%. What do you think the ratio is on this list? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I would say almost the same thing about you when someone is critical of Bush or the U.S. Doug But, Doug, if you read my posts with any degree of attention, you'd be wrong. I have variously criticized Bush Administration policies on a fair variety of fronts. I haven't on Iraq because not only do I think I couldn't do better, I can barely imagine _anyone_ doing better. As for the US - my record of criticisms of domestic and foreign policy (fair ones) stands with anyone. I just look that way sometimes on this list because, to be blunt, anything short of hysterical anti-Americanism often looks like being a far right-winger on this list. Even more so because - unlike a lot of people here - I don't get all turned on and enthusiastic by self-flagellation. It's not my thing, so I don't post as much on those issues. It doesn't make me feel superior to go on and on about the bad things my country did (or might not have done). I'm not going to argue with you on this because it would require research that I don't have the time to do, but IMO you have gone off the deep end on several occasions with your patriotic zeal. I take comfort in the fact that politics on this list are, to a large extent, politics inside the liberal echo chamber. Most of the politically vocal Americans on this list are off the liberal deep end compared to the American population as a whole. That's not in the least an exaggeration. President Bush's unfavorables in some polls run around 20%. What do you think the ratio is on this list? Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Erik is tough to gage (and in my judgment the most objective person on the list, BTW), but I'd put him close to the middle along with Thompson, Sharkey, Gabriel, Seeburger, Nunn and Bautista. All of the above people were (I believe) in favor of the invasion, BTW. Hardly a liberal echo chamber. On the left, to varying degrees I count myself, Lipscomb, Fool, Miller, Daly, Tacoma, Harrel, Grimaldi, Arnett Zim and ,Bell. Additionally, the non US members on the list are, I think, actually very moderate, the exception being Illana (sp?), who is probably among the most conservative on the list. Again, IMO, that seems a relatively balanced group. I think you must be hanging around your own echo chamber too much. Oh and by the way, check your numbers please. Gallup has Bush's disapproval rating up to 34%, down 10 points in the last two months, and it hasn't been as low as 20% in a year: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm I look for it to be pushing 50% this time next year, voodoo economics and all. 8^) Doug * Disclaimer: the above judgments are my general perception of the people discussed. I apologize in advance if I've misrepresented you, or if I've left you off the list. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
[older messages, April 9, 2003] Jeffrey Miller wrote: Yes, its ok, except that we disagree on both the amount and nature of those WMD. :) Gautam wrote: Well, one of us is going to be proved right in a few months, and I'm feeling pretty confident. You? Almost two months later... On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 08:19:55AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wanted to ask you a question before Teri and I leave for a cruise to celebrate our 25th anniversary. (in other words, I won't be on line for almost 10 days). I remember you making a virtual bet that we'd find a smoking gun for WMD in Iraq by about now. Any guesses as to why we didn't? Was it about now? If so, I was overoptimistic when I made it - 6-9 months seems like a better time scale. I don't really expect to find that much, though. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [older messages, April 9, 2003] Jeffrey Miller wrote: Yes, its ok, except that we disagree on both the amount and nature of those WMD. :) Gautam wrote: Well, one of us is going to be proved right in a few months, and I'm feeling pretty confident. You? Almost two months later... Well, at least to me 2 months few months 1 year. So I feel okay. Although, admittedly, having asked people who know something about this sort of thing, and read some stuff on how hard it is to find these items, I was probably overoptimistic. But God forbid that a little knowledge or expertise would be injected into this loop. Gautam = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Although, admittedly, having asked people who know something about this sort of thing, and read some stuff on how hard it is to find these items, I was probably overoptimistic. But God forbid that a little knowledge or expertise would be injected into this loop. And God forbid that anyone should ever suggest that Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/etc. are anything less than the very living incarnations of Jesus Christ himself... Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And God forbid that anyone should ever suggest that Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/etc. are anything less than the very living incarnations of Jesus Christ himself... Tom Beck Tom, not to be rude, but are you even capable of discussing these things, or do you just start frothing at the mouth as soon as someone mentions George Bush? I mean, you seem like a bright and reasonable guy - right up until someone mentions a Republican and then I swear to God someone else takes over your body - it's like the Exorcist or something... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
20,000 soldiers is a hell of a lot, and the US has more urgent/important things to do ... The message was that the Iraqi government had some weaponised anthrax and radio-active materials, both of which would cause a great deal of trouble if released in Washington, DC or London, England. If Bush was not lying, gathering that material was highly urgent and important. One fear is that is would fall into hands less deterable than that of the Iraqi government. Also, some 466000 coalition troops were involved (most for logistics, operating ships at sea, repairing trucks and airplanes, and the like). I am talking about shifting the task of fewer than 5% of the total troop number for a short time. Moreover, if the army had needed another 2 troops, Bush could have delayed the start a little longer to wait for them and their equipment to arrive. But my main question is why you think that dealing with the threat of an anthrax or radio dusting attack on some west European city (easier to get to than the US) or an attack on the US (coming in through Mexico, perhaps) is not very `urgent/important'? Incidentally, today's BBC news, 2003 May 31 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/2951440.stm says the following: The Pentagon has a list of around 900 sites which may provide clues to Saddam Hussein's alleged chemical and biological arsenal. So far, around 200 locations have been searched, said Pentagon officials on Friday. That means that so far the US has not searched 700 sites whose location the US knows about. Most likely most of those 700 locations will be empty or clueless. Who thinks the US intelligence services know much? But suppose one of those sites contained enough weaponized anthrax to fill a Johnson Baby powder container like those that that many grown up travelers carry? What if someone who is unfriendly to the US and has the right contacts gets hold of it before a US Army team comes by? It may be that none of those 700 uninvestigated sites have or had anything dangerous in them. But the question is what proof can you offer *now* that no one hostile to the US has visited any of those sites in the past 6 weeks, and taken something small? As far as I can see, at this stage, the only response is to say `we don't know'. And the only hope, for Americans who favor security, can be that their President was lying before hand on what is generally considered a national rather than a partisan issue, and incompetent in his follow through. If you say that Bush was not lying, then you must admit the chance that sometime in the past 6 weeks, someone hostile to the US has taken something dangerous from one of the 700 uninvestigated sites. (I am leaving out of this discussion the issue of additional sites yet to be specified -- I have no idea what effort the US is putting into finding them.) -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 05:58 PM 5/30/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A) What could possibly be more important than finding the weapons of mass destruction that were the entire justification for the invasion in the first place? John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded Off the top of my head: -Toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein -Restoring Civic Order -Preventing Mass Civilian Casulaties I see: my understanding is that you are saying that for Americans as a whole, restoring civic order in Bagdad is more important than preventing an anthrax or radiological bomb attack against Washington, DC. This is the crux of the question. Many people I know think that restoring civic order in Bagdad is important, but also think that for many Americans (but not necessarily for all Americans or for others), it is more important to take steps against another major terrorist attack, whether in Washington, DC, or Omaha, Nebraska, or some place else. And it is not clear to me that the trade off was `restoring civic order in Bagdad' versus `protecting American'. I understand you to be saying the US could not do both. I think the US is strong enough to have both protected Americans against a threat the US president stated he saw and restored civic order in Bagdad in a military occupation. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 08:55:23PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: saying the US could not do both. I think the US is strong enough to have both protected Americans against a threat the US president stated he saw and restored civic order in Bagdad in a military occupation. Of course it is strong enough. It is just incompetently managed in everything other than pure military operations, as the poor handling of restoring civic order in Baghdad demonstrated. By the way, Robert, thanks for the clearly reasoned posts on this matter. It is refreshing to see some clear thinking on the subject. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
2) What is wrong with that strategy? It seems to me we are finally doing what is necessary to make the world a better place to live in, even if, especially if, you are a middle eastern Muslim. War is never the best way to solve anything. I do not believe I am mistaken when I say that I think we tried all the better ways. If not, I sure would like to hear what they are. Then why not admit it? Why not tell the truth? Why not just come right out and say that's what they were doing? They were going to be castigated by much of the rest of the world anyway - so why not simply be honest and tell the truth right from the start? Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Dan Minette asked I remember you making a virtual bet that we'd find a smoking gun for WMD in Iraq by about now. Any guesses as to why we didn't? One very distressing reason is that the US did not put enough resources on the job. Before the war, the US government said that Iraq contains hundreds of suspect sites and that most are harmless. As a practical matter, the US should have sent 2 or more troops to look at the various sites and to search for more sites. The troops would not have been able to do much except clear harmless sites and guard suspect sites -- but that would have been enough. And that could have been done over a few days in the middle of April. Remember, the goal would not have been to find a `smoking gun' but to have cleared some sites and to have provided guards for those sites that appeared dangerous to ordinary soldiers. But the Bush Administration did not do this. There are three possible explanations: * the Administration knew that Saddam Hussein was bluffing when he gave the UN inspectors a hard time; he really did not have any banned weapons or not many of them: perhaps a few long range missiles, some mobile labs, and some equipment to make poison gas. This possibility suggests that Bush lied. It also suggests that the Bush Administration was incompetent at lying, since it would make more sense for it to act surprised when later inspectors found little. * the Administration recognized that its prime hold on the US comes from fear of terrorism, and it hopes for another attack like that of 9/11 before the next election. By giving looters a chance, it increased the risk that terrorists will gain powerful weapons. Note that physically, the Sept. 11 attack did not do much damage to the US as a whole. But it enabled the Bush Administration to focus on fear and its promise of security, and to win the 2002 elections, even though the administration has managed the economy in such a way that many are hurt, and long term prospects for ordinary people are diminished. This possibility requires great cynicism. * the Administration was simply incompetent, and did not send enough soldiers to check out sites before looters came. This possibility requires believing that politicians who increased their party's vote in an off-year election could not apply that same talent to managing a politically important part of their years in office. Note that these three alternatives remain in place even if someone finds stocks of poison gas making equipment or a dozen unfired SCUDs. Please suggest another alternative, bearing in mind that the US government either did not put 2 soldiers on the search 6 weeks ago, or if it did, did not talk about the action. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please suggest another alternative, bearing in mind that the US government either did not put 2 soldiers on the search 6 weeks ago, or if it did, did not talk about the action. -- Robert J. Chassell 20,000 soldiers is a hell of a lot, and the US has more urgent/important things to do than sending them traipsing around the Iraqi desert sounds like a pretty good one. Right now, at this moment, the US military is desperately overstretched. There is a 3:1 rule for deployments - to put 20,000 troops on the ground outside the US, you need to have a minimum of 60,000 soldiers dedicated to the job. Force constraints are real, and a major concern of everyone in the defense establishment right now. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: WMD
-Original Message- From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:47 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: WMD --- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please suggest another alternative, bearing in mind that the US government either did not put 2 soldiers on the search 6 weeks ago, or if it did, did not talk about the action. -- Robert J. Chassell 20,000 soldiers is a hell of a lot, This was discussed by the US leadership (AFAIK), and I think that Saddam flatly refused allowing even one soldier in. Saddam even wanted strong restrictions placed upon the inspectors carrying pistols. and the US has more urgent/important things to do than sending them traipsing around the Iraqi desert sounds like a pretty good one. Right now, at this moment, the US military is desperately overstretched. There is a 3:1 rule for deployments - to put 20,000 troops on the ground outside the US, you need to have a minimum of 60,000 soldiers dedicated to the job. I thought it was 6:1 or 7:1. It probably depends upon the Service. (300 sites/(2/6))/3 guard shifts = 4 armed guards average per site at any one time - Hardly enough to watch a palace, much less a 30-acre suspected manufacturing plant. I see more guards outside a armored truck delivering cash! How long will it take for a 20,000 person army to run a metal detector over every open desert space... Saddam had at least 40,000 loyal soldier to assist in any WMD project- whether to destroy, smuggle or to hide in the middle of the desert. What would I do if I knew that 100,000 troops were going to storm the border to go after what I consider priceless (WMD). I'm gonna hide it in the desert. I going to silence anyone not millitary involved with the process. I would presume I could escape like Osama did, then covertly recover the weapons as needed, to apply terror again for control after the Stinking foolish American pigs leave. Coming out of character here, I think we may very well see the Smoking gun after it has fired, and not before. If I was an evil dictator or an evil minion, I would make the world pay for this insult. Nerd From Hell Force constraints are real, and a major concern of everyone in the defense establishment right now. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
20,000 soldiers is a hell of a lot, and the US has more urgent/important things to do than sending them traipsing around the Iraqi desert sounds like a pretty good one. Right now, at this moment, the US military is desperately overstretched. There is a 3:1 rule for deployments - to put 20,000 troops on the ground outside the US, you need to have a minimum of 60,000 soldiers dedicated to the job. Force constraints are real, and a major concern of everyone in the defense establishment right now. A) What could possibly be more important than finding the weapons of mass destruction that were the entire justification for the invasion in the first place? Weapons, I might add, that the Bushies claimed to know exactly where they were before the invasion. (In March, Rumsfeld was quoted saying they were in the Tikrit area.) B) We won the war - why are we now so overstretched? Maybe the Bushies underestimated what it would take to win the peace. They appear to have had no real plan for what would happen after the glorious victory, just as they have had little plan for Afghanistan other than going in and quickly declaring victory on the Bush News Channel - oops, sorry, I meant the Fox News Channel. C) If we need more troops, send 'em in. This is no time to be poormouthing things. If we don't have enough troops - why not? How can an occupation be harder to organize than an invasion? D) I'm sure the Bush apologists on this list will have all kinds of excuses for their beloved lord and master. Screwing up the aftermath does not detract from what was a successful military operation. But the point of the operation was not just to be able to declare victory. It was to find Saddam's WMD - which they swore up and down to the entire world existed and which they did claim to know where they were. I'm glad the bastard is out of power, but I'm not glad that there's anarchy in Iraq, and I'm not glad that his WMD can't be found. Where are they? Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
From http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=410730 or http://makeashorterlink.com/?P121212C4 Excerpt: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz By David Usborne 30 May 2003 The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged. The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair. Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was almost unnoticed but huge. That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Since the taking of Baghdad, Washington has said that it is taking its troops out of the kingdom. Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to the door towards making progress elsewhere in achieving Middle East peace, Mr Wolfowitz said. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia has been one of the main grievances of al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups. For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on, Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found. (more on the website) Reggie Bautista _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
I wrote: From http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=410730 or http://makeashorterlink.com/?P121212C4 Excerpt: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz By David Usborne 30 May 2003 My shorter link didn't work. Here's one that does: http://makeashorterlink.com/?X151252C4 Reggie Bautista Sorry Maru _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz By David Usborne 30 May 2003 The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair. Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was almost unnoticed but huge. That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Ok, 2 thing, 1 silly, one very important: 1) Vanity Fair?...Well, I guess that is better than quating the NY Times. 2) What is wrong with that strategy? It seems to me we are finally doing what is necessary to make the world a better place to live in, even if, especially if, you are a middle eastern Muslim. War is never the best way to solve anything. I do not believe I am mistaken when I say that I think we tried all the better ways. If not, I sure would like to hear what they are. Jan Except for Tyranny, Slavery, Genocide, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, and Terrorism, War has never solved anything. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz By David Usborne 30 May 2003 The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair. Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was almost unnoticed but huge. That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Ok, 2 thing, 1 silly, one very important: 1) Vanity Fair?...Well, I guess that is better than quating the NY Times. 2) What is wrong with that strategy? It seems to me we are finally doing what is necessary to make the world a better place to live in, even if, especially if, you are a middle eastern Muslim. War is never the best way to solve anything. I do not believe I am mistaken when I say that I think we tried all the better ways. If not, I sure would like to hear what they are. Jan Except for Tyranny, Slavery, Genocide, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, and Terrorism, War has never solved anything. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wanted to ask you a question before Teri and I leave for a cruise to celebrate our 25th anniversary. (in other words, I won't be on line for almost 10 days). I remember you making a virtual bet that we'd find a smoking gun for WMD in Iraq by about now. Any guesses as to why we didn't? Dan M. Was it about now? If so, I was overoptimistic when I made it - 6-9 months seems like a better time scale. I don't really expect to find that much, though. It depends on what you mean by a virtual smoking gun. I have been told (there have been some news reports on the subject as well, but I trust the people I spoke to more than the media) that we have pretty good evidence that Iraq was madly destroying weapons in the days before the conflict, and that's probably why we haven't found very much. We have found a mobile weapons lab, though, and various other things that they weren't allowed to have. So I guess it depends on your standards. I wish we had found more, but we haven't found much less than I was expecting at this point in the game. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 08:19 AM 5/29/2003 -0700, you wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wanted to ask you a question before Teri and I leave for a cruise to celebrate our 25th anniversary. (in other words, I won't be on line for almost 10 days). I remember you making a virtual bet that we'd find a smoking gun for WMD in Iraq by about now. Any guesses as to why we didn't? Dan M. Was it about now? If so, I was overoptimistic when I made it - 6-9 months seems like a better time scale. I don't really expect to find that much, though. It depends on what you mean by a virtual smoking gun. I have been told (there have been some news reports on the subject as well, but I trust the people I spoke to more than the media) that we have pretty good evidence that Iraq was madly destroying weapons in the days before the conflict, and that's probably why we haven't found very much. We have found a mobile weapons lab, though, and various other things that they weren't allowed to have. So I guess it depends on your standards. I wish we had found more, but we haven't found much less than I was expecting at this point in the game. Gautam And Blix wanted to see those SCUDs that they didn't have, the ones raining down on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Kevin T. - VRWC Nothing up my sleeve ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
WMD
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:10 PM Subject: RE: uranium I wanted to ask you a question before Teri and I leave for a cruise to celebrate our 25th anniversary. (in other words, I won't be on line for almost 10 days). I remember you making a virtual bet that we'd find a smoking gun for WMD in Iraq by about now. Any guesses as to why we didn't? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US Finds Evidence of WMD At Last - Buried in a Field Near Maryland
Published on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 by the Guardian/UK http://www.guardian.co.uk/ US Finds Evidence of WMD At Last - Buried in a Field Near Maryland by Julian Borger in Washington The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its investigators had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass destruction, including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous bacteria. The bad news was th at the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland countryside. The anthrax was a non-virulent strain, and the discoveries are apparently remnants of an abandoned germ warfare program. They merited only a local news item in the Washington Post. But suspicious finds in Iraq have made front-page news (before later being cleared), given the failure of US military inspection teams to find evidence of the weapons that were the justification for the March invasion. Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no documentation about the various biological agents disposed of at the US bio-defense center at Fort Detrick. Iraq's failure to come up with paperwork proving the destruction of its biological arsenal was portrayed by the US as evidence of deception in the run-up to the war. In an effort to explain why no chemical or biological weapons had been found in Iraq, the US defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said yesterday the regime may have destroyed them before the war. Speaking to the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations thinktank, he said the speed of U.S. advance may have caught Iraq by surprise, but added: It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict. The US germ warfare program. at Fort Detrick was officially wound up in 1969, but the base has maintained a stock of nasty bugs to help maintain America's defenses against biological attack. The leading theory about the unsolved anthrax letter attacks in 2001 is that they were carried out by a disgruntled former Fort Detrick employee; equipment found dumped in a pond eight miles from the base has been linked to the crimes. The Fort Detrick clean-up has unearthed over 2,000 tonnes of hazardous waste. The sanitation crews were shocked to find vials containing live bacteria. As well as the vaccine form of anthrax, the discarded biological agents included Brucella melitensis, which causes the virulent flu-like disease brucellosis, and klebsiella, a cause of pneumonia. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] w177 r0x3r y0ur s0x3rs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Finds Evidence of WMD At Last - Buried in a Field NearMaryland
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Published on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 by the Guardian/UK http://www.guardian.co.uk/ US Finds Evidence of WMD At Last - Buried in a Field Near Maryland The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its investigators had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass destruction, including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous bacteria. The bad news was th at the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland countryside. Well, we do have documentation of *providing* various pathogenic bacteria to Iraq, as well as CDC training for at least one Iraqi scientist, back in the 80's... The anthrax was a non-virulent strain, and the discoveries are apparently remnants of an abandoned germ warfare program. They merited only a local news item in the Washington Post. But suspicious finds in Iraq have made front-page news (before later being cleared), given the failure of US military inspection teams to find evidence of the weapons that were the justification for the March invasion. Even more embarrassing for the Pentagon, there was no documentation about the various biological agents disposed of at the US bio-defense center at Fort Detrick. Iraq's failure to come up with paperwork proving the destruction of its biological arsenal was portrayed by the US as evidence of deception in the run-up to the war. snipped rest Nor was there adequate documentation at the Rocky Mountain Weapons Arsenal, where sarin-type bomlets were found, nor at Lowery AFB here. And what will the gov't make of the reams of data they want to collect for Total - excuse me, *Terrorist* -Information Awareness? Listen To Your Underlings - They Might Have Valuable Information Maru :P __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
WMD: US Restarts Nuclear Program
WMD: US Restarts Nuclear Program by: Wire Services http://www.republicons.org/view_article.asp?RP_ARTICLE_ID=920 4/24/2003 The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday in its article After 'Decline,' U.S. Again Capable of Making Nuclear Arms, that the United States has restarted production of plutonium components for nuclear bombs at its Los Alamos National Laboratory for the first time in 14 years. The paper referred to the restarting as an important symbolic and operational milestone in rebuilding the nation's nuclear weapons complex. American scientists working for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have started producing the plutonium pits that are at the core of nuclear weaponry. (Conventional explosives encase a hollow plutonium sphere, or pit, and trigger a chain reaction when detonated.) Under a program put forward by the White House, the United States is also working on a new factory to supply components for hundreds of weapons each year, according to the report. The US Department of Energy, which oversees the NNSA and runs America's weapons program, could not be reached for comment late Wednesday. But the Times quoted unnamed department officials as denying that they are actually producing nuclear weapons -- only ensuring the reliability of exiting weapons. But nuclear scientists in both Russia and the United States disputed this claim. Pits are empty spheres of plutonium, they cannot age, said a senior nuclear expert at one of Russia's leading institutes, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Such production cannot be justified by the need to maintain the safety of the existing stockpile of US weapons. First of all, it could mean that America has restarted the production of nuclear warheads and that it is supporting the industry, the expert said. In Russia, such workshops are being closed down. Arjun Makhijani, an acclaimed nuclear scientist who runs the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Tacoma, Washington, agreed: There is absolutely no need in my opinion to do this. On the contrary, it is very dangerous, Makhijani said by telephone. This is just the beginning of pit manufacturing. The US has a capacity to eventually make 50 to 80 pits a year, but the Department of Energy has proposed to build a new pit facility where they will be able to make up to 500 pits per year. The United States does not need any more nuclear warheads. Igor Ostretsov, the deputy director for science of the All-Russia Research Center of Nuclear Machine-Building, said that while the United States may need new parts to maintain the efficiency of its warheads, it looks as if it is also moving to improve its nuclear arsenal. If they are making pits, it may be linked to making new [nuclear warhead] models, he said. The move may also violate the Nonproliferation Treaty that the United States, Russia and other nuclear nations signed in 2000, in which they pledged to undertake an irreversible reduction of their nuclear arsenals. Under Article 2 of the treaty, signatories are forbidden from manufacturing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. I don't know whether it will reignite the arms race, but it is certainly in line with the U.S. strategy of continuing to use nuclear weapons as a central part of its military strategy, Makhijani said. Some military experts also said that the real aim of the program appears to be boosting the United States' nuclear complex -- a costly move that makes no strategic sense. It is a sign that after a long period of decline, the weapons complex is back and growing, Jon Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former Energy Department weapons expert, told the Times. To the average US citizen, it would be accurate to say we have restarted the production of nuclear weapons. Ivan Safranchuk, a Moscow-based researcher for the Center for Defense Information in Washington, said by telephone that it would be senseless militarily for the United States to improve its nuclear warhead arsenal, which is excessive anyway and is supposed to be reduced. Makhijani said US policy is a provocation to proliferation because it raises the question that if the most powerful country in the world by far, in conventional, or non-nuclear terms, still needs to build more nuclear weapons, what about everybody else? It is a dangerous policy because the United States and Russia continue to have between them about 4,000 nuclear weapons that can be fired in a few minutes. All content on this site is 2003 by Repbulicons.org, unless otherwise noted. Please review our privacy policy and terms of use before continuing to use this site. Technical comments should be made to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Han Tacoma ~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Son-in-law Defector and WMD Doubts
http://www.msnbc.com/news/876128.asp?cp1=1 This is an article from Newsweek. I will only post the first section. Later sections move on to related topics. But one must wonder over the number of wrinkles that show up in this war debate. Exclusive: The Defector's Secrets Before his death, a high-ranking defector said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect from Saddam Hussein's inner circle, told CIA and British intelligence officers and U.N. inspectors in the summer of 1995 that after the gulf war, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them. KAMEL WAS SADDAM Hussein's son-in-law and had direct knowledge of what he claimed: for 10 years he had run Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. Kamel told his Western interrogators that he hoped his revelations would trigger Saddam's overthrow. But after six months in exile in Jordan, Kamel realized the United States would not support his dream of becoming Iraq's ruler after Saddam's demise. He chose to return to Iraq-where he was promptly killed. Kamel's revelations about the destruction of Iraq's WMD stocks were hushed up by the U.N. inspectors, sources say, for two reasons. Saddam did not know how much Kamel had revealed, and the inspectors hoped to bluff Saddam into disclosing still more. And Iraq has never shown the documentation to support Kamel's story. Still, the defector's tale raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist. Kamel said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions. The stocks had been destroyed to hide the programs from the U.N. inspectors, but Iraq had retained the design and engineering details of these weapons. Kamel talked of hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches and even missile-warhead molds. People who work in MIC [Iraq's Military Industrial Commission, which oversaw the country's WMD programs] were asked to take documents to their houses, he said. Why preserve this technical material? Said Kamel: It is the first step to return to production after U.N. inspections wind down. Kamel was interrogated in separate sessions by the CIA, Britain's M.I.6 and a trio from the United Nations, led by the inspection team's head, Rolf Ekeus. NEWSWEEK has obtained the notes of Kamel's U.N. debrief, and verified that the document is authentic. NEWSWEEK has also learned that Kamel told the same story to the CIA and M.I.6. (The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.) The notes of the U.N. interrogation-a three-hour stretch one August evening in 1995- show that Kamel was a gold mine of information. He had a good memory and, piece by piece, he laid out the main personnel, sites and progress of each WMD program. Kamel was a manager-not a scientist or engineer-and, sources say, some of his technical assertions were later found to be faulty. (A military aide who defected with Kamel was apparently a more reliable source of tech-nical data. This aide backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks.) But, overall, Kamel's information was almost embarrass-ing, it was so extensive, Ekeus recalled-including the fact that Ekeus's own Arabic translator, a Syrian, was, according to Kamel, an Iraqi agent who had been reporting to Kamel himself all along. xponent War/Not War Maru rob You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. And whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weapons Inspector: French Sabotaged U.N. WMD Searches
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/1/25/03638 A former U.N. weapons inspector charged Friday that in the late 1990s French members of the UNSCOM inspection team actually tried to help Iraq conceal evidence of its weapons of mass destruction program. They gave them forewarning of the inspection targets, charged Bill Tierney, a former top U.N. weapons inspector, in an interview with radio host Sean Hannity. Once a list of sites were designated to be inspected, the security of that list was paramount, Tierney explained. And from the Iraqi point of view, their intelligence collection program was very easy. All they had to do was find out what that list was. Then Tierney charged point blank, The French would give the list to the Iraqis. Anytime the Iraqis would declare something a sensitive site, then only a four-man team would be allowed to go in. Tierney said he was normally the American on the designated group, which would also include a French representative. I caught [the French representative] whispering to the Iraqis after the list had been briefed to us, Tierney added. He cited another top secret inspection of an Iraqi Scud missile site that had been compromised by French leaks. There is additional information that I can't go into, the former UNSCOM inspector said, before adding, It's about time we called the French on it. Tierney also complained that former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter knew about French attempts to sabotage their work, but has never spoken out about it. xponent Frenchy Maru rob You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. And whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: +++ US National Security Policy on WMD and MAD
JDG all, Mail intended for discussion with DB should have the prefix Brin:. The old +++ doesn't do anything any more. I forwarded your message to him with the appropriate prefix. Nick -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of J.D. Giorgis Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 5:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: +++ US National Security Policy on WMD and MAD ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: +++ US National Security Policy on WMD and MAD
I thought that I remembered it changing - but I went and looked at the Administrivia Page on the Brin-L home page at mccmedia.com, and it still lists +++. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
+++ US National Security Policy on WMD and MAD
Dr. Brin recently suggested that MAD remained an appropriate logic for confronting the WMD threat posed by rogue states and terrorists. By happy coincidence I was finally getting around to reading the US National Security Policy today, and it had a very detailed rebuttal to Dr. Brin's arguments **excerpt It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first. In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is far less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations. In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States. Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action. For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat -- most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack. We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terrorism and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that can be easily concealed and delivered covertly and without warning. The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction. The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively. The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. **end excerpt*** JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
