various

>
> thanks for these enlightened, interesting takes. more garson and
> brecher, and less fisk, please!!!

What's wrong with Fisk? I don't understand people's problems with him.

>
> Hussein's entanglement with Al Qaeda is adequately documented.
>

Where?

Most sources (CIA, FBI, etc.) point to there being no entanglement, and in
fact, emnity between the two.

If this is really about Al-Qaeda then shouldn't be be bombing the
Philipines, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.? Why aren't we? They are FAR more
obvious Al-Qaeda hang-out spots. Plus, I'm sure we
wouldn't have to dig too deep to find stories of Musharraf
enjoying the torture of children, and so on. And he's got nukes.

> issue then -- they have not complied with the terms of surrender. The
> problem seems to be Hussein and thus he will be removed from office and a
> less tyrannical and insane government will be installed.

Too bad 100's of thousands of Iraqi civilians (not too mention basically
unwilling military conscripts) (also not to mention US soldiers if we get
into urban warfare) will be killed to accomplish this man-hunt.

>
> Mandela said Bush is the one who threatens world peace and not Hussein.
> Funny, I don't recall Bush having gassed his own people, nor do I recall
> hearing about Bush's chemical weapons program. Nor do I recall Bush
> assisting terrorists, or shooting missles into Israel.
>

Well, Bush is just a figurehead. However, the US government has a long
history of:

1) Helping others gas their own people (Saddam Hussein.)
2) Encouraging Iraq's beuilding of chemical weapons.
3) Assisting, abetting, aiding, funding, and training
Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
4) Shooting missiles into weddings.

--- In metatuning@y..., Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
>
> >
> > thanks for these enlightened, interesting takes. more garson and
> > brecher, and less fisk, please!!!
>
> What's wrong with Fisk? I don't understand people's problems with
him.
>

Hmmm... he relentlessly condemns the USA for responding to being
attacked. Then when he personally is attacked he turns around and
knocks some poor guy's teeth out. Cognitive dissonance?

> 1) Helping others gas their own people (Saddam Hussein.)
> 2) Encouraging Iraq's beuilding of chemical weapons.
> 3) Assisting, abetting, aiding, funding, and training
> Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
> 4) Shooting missiles into weddings.

Curious if you have links to articles with background on #1-2. I've
heard these accusations before but never really read up on it. Not
arguing, just looking for more information...

kp

In-Reply-To: <B9BF63D3.11F8%xjscott@...>
X. J. Scott wrote:

> Is it the late breaking news I mentioned that the germ starter kits were
> acquired by Iraqi universities from US research firms under false
> 'research'
> pretenses? After looking into those articles more carefully, they don't
> seem
> to make a very compelling argument that Bush has a germ warfare program

I didn't actually say he did, but of course he does. You remember all
that fuss a while back about anthrax being sent through the post? The
strain was revealed as originating from an American laboratory. And it
was in a weaponised form. So American military laboratories hold
weaponised anthrax. Why would they do this if the US doesn't have a germ
warfare program? Or perhaps you missed all those reports, like you were
on holiday or in a coma or something. I found a report at
<http://www.economist.co.uk/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1058290&CFID=3605299
&CFTOKEN=3c5bb88-4a66cba5-1c58-42cc-a91f-6fd1189a302d> but I don't know if
you can get it without a subscription.

You may also remember that the younger Bush rejected a treaty on
biological weapons. If not, try
<http://www.economist.co.uk/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=904897&CFID=3605299&
CFTOKEN=3c5bb88-4a66cba5-1c58-42cc-a91f-6fd1189a302d> (Again, I don't know
if it'll work.)

As for chemical weapons, which I originally mentioned, try this:

<http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/factsheets/wmd/cw/cwcfs.html>

1) It says "With or without the CWC, the United States is already
destroying its chemical weapons in accordance with a law Congress passed
more than a decade ago requiring destruction of the bulk of the U.S.
chemical weapons stockpile." Which means

a) The United States must have chemical weapons.

b) They aren't planning to destroy all of them.

2) It goes on "That process is under way, with completion slated by the
end of 2004." It isn't 2004. They haven't completed the process.

3) Yes, that really is a US Government site.

> At the time, Iraq was a pretty forward looking middle-eastern country
where
> woman could go to the university, talk to who the chose, drive, and wear
> whatever clothing and makup they cared to. We had no idea at that time
that
> their president would have some sort of psychotic episode and go off the
> deep end.

Ah, you're getting hazy on Iraqi history again. Try
<http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html> and
<http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html>.

Graham