[Rhodes22-list]Politics: Another Fearless Prediction

[Roger Pihlaja]

Bill,

You only seem to be willing to listen to evidence that supports your point
of view.  There is also an entire body of evidence pointing in the exact
opposite direction, which you ignore.  Instead, you make sweeping statements
like:

"The entire world knew before we invaded Iraq that Iraq did not have WMD.
Our government claimed to have intelligence no one else had proving the
world wrong, and us right.  The whole world now knows there was no such
evidence, and claims to the contrary were simply untrue.  We knew no more
than anyone else, and after invading Iraq, our own experts have clearly
stated that Iraq had no WMD before the war."

I'm sorry, but the "entire world's" view on this issue is not nearly so
homogeneous or black & white as you claim.  There is room for doubt & there
is much that is still not known regarding these issues.  You do a lot of
very hard working, dedicated people a huge disservice when you make such
sweeping claims.

In this respect, your position on Iraq is similar to your position on the
potential harm that 2-cycle emissions may be causing to the environment.
Again, you only seem to be willing to listen to arguments & evidence which
support your point of view & discount anything to the contrary.

Bill, the fact is, that in the real world, the answers are not in the back
of the textbook.  We grope along the best we can using the best data &
techniques available to us at the time.  Because the answers are not in the
back of the textbook & the consequences of being wrong can be pretty dire,
it's best to err on the side of caution.  In the case of 2-cycle emissions,
the toxins being released into the environment cause cancers & genetic
effects in lab animals that can require years, if not decades, to work up
the food chain & perhaps finally show up in the human population.  It's not
a question if these toxins are in 2-cycle exhaust.  They are definitely
there, as a byproduct of incomplete combustion.  The real questions have to
do with how fast these materials biodegrade in the environment, how fast
they are bioconcentrating, & what human exposure has resulted from these
emissions.  Are you really willing to wait until these toxic effects are
manifest in the human population before taking action?  Consider this, there
are literally millions of potential toxins being released into the
environment by modern technology.  If the standard of proof before any
particular source can be regulated is that a forensic level of cause &
effect on human health has to be established; then, every the regulation of
every toxin will involve a legal battle similar to the one that has raged
for decades regarding tobacco.  The resources to provide this level of proof
are simply not available.  Even if the resources were available, the work
takes years for each substance.  I don't think the world can afford to wait
that long!  A more reasonable standard is that if a particular chemical
agent is shown to be present in a given effluent stream & this chemical
agent can be shown to have toxic effects on representative target animal
species or tends to bioconcentrate up the food chain; then, game over.  Err
on the side of caution & the emissions of this chemical agent need to be
regulated.  That's where we are with 2-cycle emissions.

If you don't think Saddam Hussein was a bogey man, I'd be interested in
hearing your definition of the term.

Bill, we live in a very dangerous period in history.  If any of us are going
to survive to tell the tale of this time to our grandchildren; then , we
need to be open minded & willing to consider all the evidence on any given
issue, not just that which supports our own position.  We also need to be
willing to err on the side of caution & act on a less-than-perfect standard
of evidence before something slam dunks us, because the world cannot afford
to be slam dunked too many more times.

Roger Pihlaja
S/V Dynamic Equilibrium

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list]Politics: Another Fearless Prediction


> Roger,
>
> According to the CIA, the State Department, the Defense Department, United
Nations weapons inspectors, our own weapons inspectors, and independent
chemical engineers all over the world, you are mistaken.
>
> The entire world knew before we invaded Iraq that Iraq did not have WMD.
Our government claimed to have intelligence no one else had proving the
world wrong, and us right.  The whole world now knows there was no such
evidence, and claims to the contrary were simply untrue.  We knew no more
than anyone else, and after invading Iraq, our own experts have clearly
stated that Iraq had no WMD before the war.
>
> While many of the things you say are true, the fact of the matter is that
Iraq was unwilling or unable to manufacture chemical, biological, or nuclear
WMD after 1991, and they destroyed everything they had manufactured before
that date to the satisfaction of every expert in this field who ever set
foot in Iraq.  There is no evidence, absolute zero, to the contrary.
>
> It is time to stop making fearless predictions, and to start using your
intellect to better purposes.  This country is in trouble.  Our young people
are dying for political slogans.  Skilled working age men like you are
unable to find work.  Our parents are eating dog food to make ends meet.
>
> All these problems have solutions, and each of us has something to
contribute.  Blaming everything on bogeymen won't help.
>
> Bill
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roger Pihlaja
> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 12:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list]Politics: Another Fearless Prediction
>
>
> Bill,
>
> As a chemical engineer, I can tell you that blister agents and the
> precursors for nerve agents are relatively easy to produce.  The equipment
&
> feed chemicals to produce these materials have many legitimate uses & are
> available on the open market from many sources.  Likewise, spray dryers,
> fermentation vessels, and the equipment to produce bioweapons have many
> legitimate uses & are available on the open market from many sources.
> Neither of these materials require particularly high tech chemistry or
> processing.  It doesn't have to be a very big facility either.
Significant
> quantities of either type of weapon could be manufactured in a process
that
> would fit into a few semi trailers or a small warehouse.  The Iraqi's are
> smart, well-educated people & there were billions of dollars of resources
to
> throw at the problem.  The fact that the United States cut off their
supply
> of chemical & biological agents means nothing.  It would have simply
spurred
> Saddam to build up his own production capability & he had years & the
entire
> world to shop from.
>
> Don't you recall that almost imediately after the Iraqi's produced their
> 10,000 pages of documentation, there were questions regarding the fate of
> the existing stockpiles?  There were no records produced of the
destruction
> of these weapons, there was no incineration facility, no witnesses to the
> destruction process came forward to testify.  You don't just dispose of
some
> of the most toxic stuff known in a bonfire.  It requires a specially
> designed incinerator & carefully controlled procedures.  This is a process
> that had to require months if not years to complete.  Yet, it didn't seem
to
> leave any sort of footprints behind.
>
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 10:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list]Politics: Another Fearless Prediction
>
>
> > Brad,
> >
> > We supplied Iraq with that WMD, and we sanctioned its use.  We thought
it
> was the only way Iraq had a chance against Iran.  Iran also used WMD
against
> the Iraqis, but to a lesser extent.
> >
> > The Kurds sided with Iran in the war as a way to possibly carve a piece
> out of Iraq if Iran won the war.  Iraqis do not regard Kurds as "Our Own
> People" any more than southerners saw freed slaves as "Our Own People"
> during the civil war--and for many years thereafter.
> >
> > When we stopped providing the precursor chemicals, Iraq lost the ability
> to make WMD.  The stuff does have a limited shelf life.  At some point
> everyone destroys the WMD on the shelf, because old casings start leaking
> and your own soldiers start keeling over.
> >
> > Iraq provided 10,000 pages of documentation showing when and where they
> had destroyed their WMD.  The UN inspection teams verified that the stuff
> was destroyed.  There were bookkeeping errors--some of the chemicals have
> multiple uses--but no one could find so much as a gram of the stuff where
it
> wasn't supposed to be.
> >
> > The United States said that as soon as we "liberated" Iraq, the Iraqi
> scientists would show us where the WMD had been made and had been hidden,
> but not a single scientist materialized after the invasion.
> >
> > David Kay was one of the leading United States experts who insisted
before
> the war that Iraq had WMD.  He spent 6 months desperately looking for them
> and then finally concluded that Iraq did not have them and had not had
them.
> He's the one who said we were almost all wrong on this issue.
> >
> > We know exactly what happened to the WMD Saddam had, and we know he
lacked
> the ability to make more.  Let's not start speculating about whether space
> aliens (or Syrians) drove off with it.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: brad haslett
> > To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 10:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list]Politics: Another Fearless Prediction
> >
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > Where have you been hiding?  WMD conspiracy theories?
> > I love/hate the New Yorker Magazine but I'll use it to
> > make a point.  Saddams's possession AND use of WMD is
> > well documented.  Where are they now?  Don't know.
> >
> > http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1
> >
> > There's tons of info on this attack and others.  I'm
> > using this article out of convenience because I
> > remember reading it when it was first published.
> >
> > Brad Haslett
> > "CoraShen"
> > --- Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Brad,
> > >
> > > That's the 1991 analysis of chemical agents.  CIA
> > > was wrong about their ability to create and store
> > > chemical agents after 1991.  They couldn't and
> > > didn't.  We know that now.
> > >
> > > We provided Iraq with the biological weapons.  They
> > > didn't have the ability to develop them by
> > > themselves.  Iraq never developed the ability to
> > > make them.  They never had nukes, and never came
> > > close.  We provided the precursor chemicals required
> > > for Iraq's manufacture of chemical weapons, and we
> > > authorized their use, but when we pulled the plug
> > > they were never able to produce the stable chemicals
> > > required in sufficient quantity for a weapons
> > > program.  We have stockpiles of many of the same
> > > chemical WMD, and like the Iraqis, we destroyed
> > > several different types because they were unstable.
> > >
> > > We didn't find WMD because Iraq didn't have WMD.
> > > Our government spent over a billion dollars looking
> > > for something every knowledgeable person knew wasn't
> > > there and hadn't been there.  There are real issues
> > > to address.  Let's not spend a lot of time
> > > concocting WMD conspiracy theories.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: brad haslett
> > > To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 9:19 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list]Politics: Another
> > > Fearless Prediction
> > >
> > >
> > > Gentlemen,
> > >
> > > Here's a link to the Federation of American
> > > Scientists
> > > 1991 analysis of Iraq's bio capability based on CIA
> > > data.
> > >
> > > http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960705/73919_01.htm
> > >
> > > Brad Haslett
> > > "CoraShen"
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Roger Pihlaja <cen09402 at centurytel.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bill,
> > > >
> > > > Scott Rider's assertions to the contrary, consider
> > > > this.  At the time Iraq
> > > > developed & was using their chemical & biological
> > > > weapons, they were the 4th
> > > > largest military force in the world.  Iraq is
> > > mostly
> > > > desert & all of Iraq's
> > > > neighbors are mostly desert.  Thus, any battle
> > > > scenario that the Iraq
> > > > military could reasonably foresee, not matter
> > > > whether it was defensive or
> > > > offensive would involve desert warfare.  These are
> > > > smart people being driven
> > > > by a madman for whom failure was not an option.
> > > > Literally billions of
> > > > dollars in resources were available to these
> > > > programs.  When your family is
> > > > being held hostage & your own life is in danger of
> > > > imprisonment &/or torture
> > > > if you don't succeed, I would imagine most folks
> > > > would get right down to
> > > > business & solve the biological, chemical,
> > > > shelflife, & other technical
> > > > problems of getting chemical & biological weapons
> > > to
> > > > work in a desert combat
> > > > scenario.  No one doubts that the United States &
> > > > Russia know how to build
> > > > biological and chemical weapons.  The chemical
> > > > weapons disposal program in
> > > > the US Army involved warheads that were something
> > > > like 30+ years old & they
> > > > were treated with due respect.  Why would anyone
> > > > doubt that the Iraq
> > > > military couldn't build a similarly robust, long
> > > > shelf life weapon?
> > > > Sometimes, you have to give the devil his due.
> > > >
> > > > Roger Pihlaja
> > > > S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
> > > > To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> > > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 6:23 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Another Fearless
> > > > Prediction
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "If we find something, great, but
> > > professionally,
> > > > > I don't see how these weapons could exist. They
> > > > > defy the laws of industry, the laws of science
> > > and
> > > > > technology.They have no shelf life."
> > > > >
> > > > > Scott Ridder
> > > > > Former UN Inspector
> > > > > April 18, 2003
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Roger Pihlaja
> > > > > To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 3:34 PM
> > > > > Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Another Fearless
> > > > Prediction
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Brad,
> > > > >
> > > > > Since your news story seems to have vindicated
> > > the
> > > > prediction I made last
> > > > summer regarding smuggling WMD's out of Iraq into
> > > > Syria & Lebanon, let me
> > > > make another fearless prediction.  By, the way
> > > Bill,
> > > > you are mistaken
> > > > regarding the shelf life & stability of chemical &
> > > > biological weapons.  They
> > > > are both plenty stable enough to be transported
> > > long
> > > > distances over the
> > > > desert.  If they weren't, they would never survive
> > > > the heat & pressure of
> > > > the explosive used to disperse them when the
> > > warhead
> > > > goes off.  Anthrax, for
> > > > example, is a bacteria that lives naturally in the
> > > > soil by forming spores
> > > > that are remarkably resistant to the environment.
> > > > So-called "weaponized"
> > > > Anthrax is actually a mixture of spray dried
> > > Anthrax
> > > > spores stuck to the
> > > > surface of particles of an inert low density
> > > > substrate such as finely ground
> > > > cellulose.  The trick is to get the particle size
> > > > distribution just right so
> > > > the particles tend to get lofted into the air,
> > > float
> > > > around on air currents
> > > > for long distances, & eventually get inhaled by
> > > > potential victims.  In the
> > > > moist, warm conditions inside the respiratory
> > > tract,
> > > > the Anthrax spores
> > > > spring back to life & infect the victim.  Chemical
> > > > weapons are usually of
> > > > the so-called "binary" type wherein the warhead
> > > > actually contains two
> > > > compartments.  Each compartment contains a
> > > reactive
> > > > precusor.  When the
> > > > warhead is fired, the precursor chemicals are
> > > mixed
> > > > together & chemically
> > > > react to form the final toxin, such as a nerve
> > > > agent.  Although the final
> > > > toxin may have a short half life, each of the
> > > > precursor chemicals is quite
> > > > stable over long periods of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just heard a news story that the US State Dept
> > > > has approved the sale of
> > > > several hundred million dollars worth of
> > > > "penetrating munitions" to Israel.
> > > > Now what do you suppose Israel would want with a
> > > > boatload of bunker busters?
> > > > Unless Iran opens up its nuclear program to permit
> > > > on-site inspections, I
> > > > predict Israel will do a coordinated air assault
> > > to
> > > > take out about a dozen
> > > > key Iranian nuclear facilities all at the same
> > > time,
> > > > in a scaled-up version
> > > > of a similar operation they pulled on Iraq in
> > > 1985(I
> > > > think that was the
> > > > year?).  I predict this will happen in less than a
> > > > year from now.  The
> > > > United States will chastise Israel in public for
> > > > this action; but, in
> > >
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
>