[ExI] israelis defeat physics

Jeff Davis jrd1415 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 18 23:39:33 UTC 2009


On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:23 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> It wasn't that he kept their destruction secret, rather he gave indications
> to the contrary.

Could be, but there was lots of low quality info around at the time.
I for one thought the sneaky crafty old bastard would have hidden
whatever he thought he could get away with, but in hindsight, I
suspect I was a victim of the full court fress to demonize Saddam and
make everyone believe that he had those WMDs.  For sure I didn't have
a thirty billion dollar intelligence budget or access to top secret
info on the boogieman of Baghdad.

> He interfered with the UN inspectors.  Why?

We already know that the UN inspection teams were being used by
US/Western intelligence to gather info on Iraqi security matters.  If
Saddam knew, then he would not have cooperated -- justifiably and
legally -- with that aspect of the inspection/disarmament protocol.

>  We were
> getting mixed signals on whether Saddam was interfering.  Scott Ritter said
> he wasn't, or not substantially.

Scott reported on the US Intel intrusion into the inspections process.
 He wrote this little book -- actually, someone interviewed him
extensively and compiled the little volume from the transcripts --
about his experience as a UN weapon's inspector.  In it he mentioned
that a Clinton political appointee to the inspections process
PREVENTED the completion of certain inspections in order to be able to
avoid reporting that the inspection process was complete and that
Saddam had complied fully.  Ritter's explanation was that such a
certification would have been a necessary condition for lifting the
sanctions, and that removal of Saddam was US policy and consequently
so was maintaining the sanctions, until Saddam was gone.  The
inspections protocol was for WMD elimination, not regime change or
espionage in preparation for regime change.  Regime change, threats,
and unauthorized war are all violations of the UN charter, which
having been signed onto by the US, is US law as well.  But the law,
..., the Constitution,... quaint artifacts from a bygone age, suitable
perhaps for a museum exhibit somewhere. ;-[

>  Hans Blix said he was.  My recollection of
> the treaty signed in 1991 had no authority in there for Saddam to eject UN
> weapons inspectors.

You might go back and check into that.  (Or you might not.  Rehashing
this is a terrible waste of time, yes?) Not the part about "no
authority for Saddam to eject..." (although that might be pertinent as
well), but the part about the "ejecting" vs the UN "withdrawing" its
personnel.  It's been a while, so I don't recall exactly, but I seem
to remember Clinton bombing Saddam in '98, and Saddam saying he
couldn't guarantee the UN inspectors' safety, and the UN pulling them
out in response, and the West spinning that as Saddam "ejecting" the

> As I recall this UN resolution 1441 was the last chance for peace:

The "last chance" phrasing was all Bush speak.  UN 1441 did not
authorize military action.  Bush went to the UN to satisfy Blair's
need for legal cover.  Britain is a signatory to the ICC, and Blair
anticipated legal problems absent UN approval.  Nevertheless, he stood
by Bush and the US despite the lack of UN approval for military

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441
> Saddam didn't comply with UN 1441.

UN 1441 required a full an complete accounting of the WMD, and Saddam
did comply and claimed that the accounting, was as required: full and
complete.  And again, from my recollection, fuzzy though it may be,
and hindsight, clear as crystal: Bush was bent on war -- Downing
street memo -- 1441 was a formality, Saddam's response preordained to
be rejected .

> He didn't want to look weak in a
> dangerous neighborhood.  In retrospect, we now understand that sentiment a
> lot better than we did then.

"We"?  "Understand?" "I" understand (vanilla version: no quotes
necessary) that the Bush cabal did to the US and selected countries
around the world what Josef Fritzl did to his daughter.

> ...  Even former ambassador Joe Wilson ... wasn't
> sure enough of anything to actually write a report....

Up to this point you were cogent, though clearly under the influence
of Kool-aid.  But this... oy!   .
Joe Wilson was absolutely certain.  No written report was requested or
required.  A one word oral report quite adequate:


I will leave you to have the last word.  I'm through with the Iraq
retrospective.  Rehashing old screw-ups seems such a waste iof time
when there are so many big, shiny new screw-ups to obsess over.

Best, Jeff Davis

I know it is a weakness of human nature to become emotionally invested
in inconsequential tribal spats, but people who want to be
transhumanists need to be able to get past that almost as a
prerequisite.  In fact, a good portion of the transhumanist ideals are
all about shedding this behavior.
                j. andrew rogers

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list