ESA Funding question

(Henry Spencer) wrote:
And the case that S.H. was a near-term threat to the world this time (as
opposed to 1990-1, when it was pretty clear) is weakening by the day.

It's not clear that the case is actually weakining, unless you only
look at the simple-minded 'no evidence, no justification for invasion'
angle. (Which is the only angle the popular press is playing.)

There is however ample evidence that Saddam had a bomb program in the
past, and maintained an active interest in obtaining WMD. There is
ample evidence that he actively interfered with the UN inspectors
trying to get at the truth of the matter. There is evidence emerging
of a mothballed program of ongoing WMD research.

Saddam appears to have taken the unusual tack of trying to appear
'dangerous', without actually having the means to back it up. He
gambled, again, that the US lacked the will to carry out it's intent,
and failed as he did before.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

In sci.space.policy Derek Lyons wrote:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
And the case that S.H. was a near-term threat to the world this time (as
opposed to 1990-1, when it was pretty clear) is weakening by the day.

It's not clear that the case is actually weakining, unless you only
look at the simple-minded 'no evidence, no justification for invasion'
angle. (Which is the only angle the popular press is playing.)

Which would be because except for people enganing in revisionist plug-up
of a campaign of lying, they still remember that this was the reason brought
both in UN and otherwise.


There is however ample evidence that Saddam had a bomb program in the
past, and maintained an active interest in obtaining WMD. There is
ample evidence that he actively interfered with the UN inspectors
trying to get at the truth of the matter. There is evidence emerging
of a mothballed program of ongoing WMD research.

You know, interfering with finding what was not there in the first place
is pretty hard, if not impossible.


Saddam appears to have taken the unusual tack of trying to appear
'dangerous', without actually having the means to back it up. He
gambled, again, that the US lacked the will to carry out it's intent,
and failed as he did before.

Which just means that the right location for at least a certain amount of
US administrtaion is in jail - and probably for a long term.



D.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Rick C" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
"Sander Vesik" wrote

You know, interfering with finding what was not there in the first place
is pretty hard, if not impossible.

Tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians.


after the 2nd gulfwar there wasn`t any attacks with c-weapons. and hey who`s
planing to interfer with the iranians right now, heared something about
chasing terrorists there. but diskus that somewhere else this here is about
science and space.

In sci.space.policy Rick C wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote

You know, interfering with finding what was not there in the first place
is pretty hard, if not impossible.

Tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians.


By all evidence, those stocks either ran out or were destroyed.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote:
In sci.space.policy Rick C wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote

You know, interfering with finding what was not there in the first place
is pretty hard, if not impossible.

Tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians.


By all evidence, those stocks either ran out or were destroyed.

There's also the inconvenient fact that most of their CBW systems were
of such low quality that they had a shelf life measured in days and
weeks....but let's not let reality get in the way of our foreign policy.

~Jon

In sci.space.policy Derek Lyons wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

In sci.space.policy Derek Lyons wrote:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
And the case that S.H. was a near-term threat to the world this time (as
opposed to 1990-1, when it was pretty clear) is weakening by the day.

It's not clear that the case is actually weakining, unless you only
look at the simple-minded 'no evidence, no justification for invasion'
angle. (Which is the only angle the popular press is playing.)

Which would be because except for people enganing in revisionist plug-up
of a campaign of lying, they still remember that this was the reason brought
both in UN and otherwise.

The popular press is playing this angle because the other is somewhat
more complex to explain and leaves the press short of breathless
soundbites.

There is no other angle - for the UN resolution to be relevant inthe matter,
there would have needed to be a second one authorising use of force over
the failure to comply with the first. Such did not exist and hence there
is no angle. UNless you mean teh falsified and bogus data presented to
UN.



There is however ample evidence that Saddam had a bomb program in the
past, and maintained an active interest in obtaining WMD. There is
ample evidence that he actively interfered with the UN inspectors
trying to get at the truth of the matter. There is evidence emerging
of a mothballed program of ongoing WMD research.

You know, interfering with finding what was not there in the first place
is pretty hard, if not impossible.

Hmm... UN Inspectors need to talk to scientist/technocrat 'X' in
order to determine what he has or has not done or did.. Iraq prevents
the UN inspectors from speaking to him.

Hmm... UN inspectors need to visit location 'Y' to determine if in
fact WMD related activities did or did not take place there.. Iraq
prevents the UN inspectors from visiting the location.

So either talking to expert 'X' or visting facility 'Y' would have allowed
them to find evidence of the WMD's? I don't see how any credibility can be
attributed to that, as it would presuppose the ability of WMDs to
mirraculously appear.


Hmm... Seems it's pretty easy to interfere with finding what was not
there in the first place, by not allowing the inspectors acess to the
information they need to confirm the presence or absence of an
activity.


Saddam appears to have taken the unusual tack of trying to appear
'dangerous', without actually having the means to back it up. He
gambled, again, that the US lacked the will to carry out it's intent,
and failed as he did before.

Which just means that the right location for at least a certain amount of
US administrtaion is in jail - and probably for a long term.

A nice non-sequiter that utterly fails to adress the point under
discussion.

Not at all - it addresses the 'US lack of will to carry through its
intent' point - the US had the intent of having a war with Iraq and
occupying it, which it first tried to achieve via presenting the UN
security council with known bogus information and then having failed
to pursue this course, held an illegal war causing massive civilian
causalities. For which those responsible should be appropriately
persecuted.


D.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote:
drivel snipped

Sir;

You are uninterested in having a discussion, rather your main aim is
to justify a bias, by lies, misleading statements, evasions, and
deliberate misunderstanding of basic English.

How you can behave like this while deriding Maxon for doing the same
escapes me.

EOT.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Derek Lyons wrote:

You are uninterested in having a discussion, rather your main
aim is to justify a bias, by lies, misleading statements,
evasions, and deliberate misunderstanding of basic English.

Where have you been the last few weeks, Derek? We've missed you. :-)

Jim Davis

On 31 Jul 2003 01:45:18 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Derek Lyons wrote:

You are uninterested in having a discussion, rather your main
aim is to justify a bias, by lies, misleading statements,
evasions, and deliberate misunderstanding of basic English.

Where have you been the last few weeks, Derek? We've missed you. :-)

And notice, *I* didn't even rise to the bait this time.

Of course, I've got my blog to keep my juices pumping these days...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: