From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: FYI: Why did the United States invade and destabilize Iraq?
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:01:27 -0800


What EXPLICITLY is the presumption here which would INDUCE you to declare
this a satisfactory answer to the question contained in the subject line?
(cf. statement by Canada) And you have not disclosed why Canada has not
participated at all in buggering up Iraqi's, and neither has Mexico, both of
which are the best and only neighbours of the US.

Your logic completely defies the normal definition of logic as usual.

I suppose that a 'presumption' of quilt is satisfactory. So where is the
WMD's?

And where is the overwhelming support of a 'pre-emptive strike'?

As usual Anthony you are confusing ontic with ontological.

Of course, maybe, in the future we will know if the US led action in Iraq
will serve it's purpose.

johnF




----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:17 AM
Subject: RE: FYI: Why did the United States invade and destabilize Iraq?


> Well, why don't we let CANADA answer that question.
>
> From the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
> http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/middle_east/iraq_weapons-en.asp.
>
> ================> Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction
> Canada continues to be concerned by the legacy of Iraq's weapons of mass
> destruction (WMD) and missile proliferation, as well as its decade-long
> non-compliance with its disarmament obligations under United Nations
> Security Council resolutions.
>
> Military action by the United Kingdom, United States and coalition
partners
> against Iraq was precipitated by persistent concerns regarding Iraq's
> PROBABLE STOCKS OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS and fears that it may
> have resumed a nuclear weapons development programme. Despite resumed
United
> Nations weapons inspections under Security Council resolution 1441 (2002)
> and subsequent searches by the coalition partners, hard information on
Iraqi
> WMD development programs has to date remained unattainable. While there is
> no evidence we are aware of that Iraq had resumed production of chemical
> weapons (CW) agents since the departure of UN weapons inspectors in 1998,
> nor clear evidence that it had resumed nuclear weapons-related activities,
> THERE WAS CONCERN THAT IT WAS REBUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE IT WOULD NEED
TO
> DO SO.
>
> There is also a HIGH PROBABILITY that under the government of President
> Saddam Hussein, Iraq retained small quantities of biological weapons (BW)
or
> BW agents. While there is no evidence we are aware of that Iraq had
resumed
> production of BW agents since 1998, IT COULD HAVE DONE SO WITHOUT BEING
> DETECTEDit could have done so without being detected. The retention and
> continued possession by Iraq of any CW or BW capability would be a matter
of
> grave concern.
>
> Saddam Hussein's Iraq retained at least a modest technical capability that
> could be A BASIS FOR THE RESUMPTION [see paragraph 3 of UN resolution
1441]
> of a nuclear weapons development program. It is believed, however, that
Iraq
> neither possesses a nuclear weapon nor is close to having one, in large
> measure due to the difficulty of producing or otherwise acquiring the
> necessary weapons-grade fissile material. At present, Iraq cannot produce
> sufficient quantities of fissile material to produce a nuclear explosive
> device, and would find it difficult to obtain such material from external
> sources without detection.
>
> Important outstanding disarmament questions have been documented by United
> Nations weapons inspectors and provided to the Security Council. The
return
> of United Nations-mandated inspectors to Iraq is needed to resolve these
> questions and to establish an effective system of ongoing monitoring and
> verification to ensure that Iraq does not seek to reacquire these
> capabilities. Canada welcomed the recent return of IAEA inspectors
pursuant
> to Iraq's safeguards agreement under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
> (NPT) to secure nuclear facilities, which had been looted, and investigate
> the status of nuclear and radioactive materials at those facilities.
> However, Canada continues to support the return of the IAEA and UNMOVIC
> inspectors to Iraq on a timely basis so that they may complete their
> UNSC-mandated work. This is very important in order to provide an
> independent and objective assessment of Iraq's WMD capabilities and to
> verify disarmament.
>
> UN Special Commission
> The former Government of Iraq formally accepted UN Security Council
> Resolution 687 (April 1991), establishing the terms and conditions of the
> cease-fire that ended military operations following Iraq's invasion of
> Kuwait. Under these terms, Iraq accepted unconditionally and under
> international supervision the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless
of
> all its weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to allow
UN
> inspections to verify Iraq's compliance. The UN Special Commission
(UNSCOM)
> was established in 1991 to carry out immediate on-site inspections, and to
> verify Iraqi compliance with its obligations. Although UNSCOM inspections
> and other activity over the period 1991-1998 did uncover and result in the
> destruction of considerable elements of the Iraqi WMD and missile
> development programs, SYSTEMATIC IRAQI EFFORTS TO CONCEAL SUCH PROGRAMS
AND
> TO DECEIVE UN INSPECTORS RESULTED IN SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAINTY IN SOME
AREAS.
>
> =====================> More at the link cited above.
>
> Anthony Crifasi
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of slow downloads and busy signals?  Get a high-speed Internet
> connection! Comparison-shop your local high-speed providers here.
> https://broadband.msn.com
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---