[Rhodes22-list] Politics: Brad's Article about Kurds

Tue Sep 28 09:44:07 EDT 2004

Ed,

I read the article when it was first published but
just scanned it bebfore posting.  There have been
several articles written about this incident and the
New Yorker seems to have gotten it right.  I have
subscriptions to both the New Yorker and Atlantic
Monthly but find myself reading both with clenched
teeth much of the time because of their liberal bias. 
The New Yorker was almost militant after 911 but they
quickly faded to their leftist corner.  Everytime
something happens that falls within my narrow area of
expertise, like a plane crash, I am appalled at how
erroneous and speculative the reporting is.  It always
makes me think, "if the news is so far off base from
reality on this issue, how wrong is it on other
issues?".  The news media is a good source to find out
what the developing issues are but to really
understand what really happened with anything, you
have to be patient and do more in-depth research.

Saddam gassed his own people, they got that fact
correct.

Brad Haslett
"CoraShen"

--- ed kroposki <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:

> Brad:
> 
> 	I just had time to look at your article about the
> Kurdish area of
> Iraq.  Did you really read this whole thing or just
> scan it.  
> 	The first thing that I see is use of the byline
> 'FACT'.  That must
> just be a colloquial use of the word, just as Bill
> uses it.  The rest of use
> want a narrow identifiable point, not 26 pages.  
> 	It must be the New York media trying to embellish
> the American
> English language with their own interpretations of
> words or as seen in the
> past creating their own words or pronunciations,
> like their pronunciation of
> Qatar.  Or creating the word 'gravitas'.
> 
> Ed K
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On
> Behalf Of brad haslett
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 10:05 PM
> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> 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. 
> 
=== message truncated ===

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com