 sj |
||
|
||
BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously
|
|
|
Subject: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 27 Sep 02 - 09:37 PM Hey, all I hear from folks who want to go to war with Iraq is about WMD's but no one has ever really explained what the heck they are. I've been asking all the hawks in the Catbox but they ignore me. I am perfectly serious in asking for a clarification. Aftrrall, when so many folks around this joint have their minds made up that the US *must* attack Iraq over these things, I think its a fair question to ask, "Just what the heck are they?" I mean, really, does anyone *really* know? This is a serious question for which I can't get one person to answer!!!!! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: rangeroger Date: 27 Sep 02 - 09:44 PM Weapn of Mass Destruction rr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Dave Swan Date: 27 Sep 02 - 09:54 PM I train firefighters to respond to weapons of mass destruction. We worry about nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. I have no special information concerning who has them and who's likely to release them. I am very concerned about what will happen if and when WMD's are released. By definition, you're behind the curve when the problem is detected.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 27 Sep 02 - 09:54 PM Heck, I know that part, Roger. Like, I'm talking what are the list of weapons that fall in that category. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Nerd Date: 27 Sep 02 - 09:58 PM "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a euphemism created to encompass Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Weapons. It's a convenient umbrella category for warmongers to use. Now you can't ask "is there any reasonable chance that SH has nuclear weapons?" anymore, because nuclear weapons is subsumed in the WMD category. Instead, they can argue that because Saddam Hussein has mustard gas and some germs, he must be attacked because those things are somehow in the same category as a nuclear bomb. This is a wonderful example of the kind of verbal sleight-of-hand that politicians love; all countries everywhere have access to chemical and biological weapons, but they won't tell you that. Just that Iraq has "WMDS." This reminds me of the New information Rumsfeld is offering: that Iraq must be attacked because there is evidence (what evidence? Never mind, he's not telling!) that Al Qaeda terrorists have been in Iraq in the last few months. Are we bombing Manila? Frankfurt? No, but Al Qaeda terrorists have been there. Will we bomb Riyhad? Tehran? No. But somehow this is sufficient reason to bomb Baghdad. Beggars belief.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: mack/misophist Date: 27 Sep 02 - 09:59 PM They are the same ones they told you about in boot camp, years ago, ABC. Atomic, Bacteriological, Chemical. That doesn't seem too hard to understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Nerd Date: 27 Sep 02 - 10:08 PM It doesn't SEEM hard, which is exactly why it's rather insidious. What does Mustard Gas REALLY have in common with a nuclear bomb? If the latter is justification for an attack, is the former too, by association? If not, then the WMD category is not a useful category for the argument on whether to go to war with Iraq. But because it seems reasonable in other contexts, people accept it as a natural category... Sorry. Off soap box now.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 27 Sep 02 - 10:13 PM Well, thank you, Nerd. I am now enlightened. For other's, let me ask you if a Ryder Truck with a load of manuer and kerosene is a WMD? Or a Volkswagen bus in the Holland Tunnel filled with cans of gasoline and a couple bottles of oxygen? Or a Cesna loaded with pipe bombs flown into the Super Bowl? Hey, crazy folks do crazy things. I wouldn't do any of this stuuf because I am a peace loving person, but hey, some folks ain't. I think if the US is going to go into an urban war, where lots of our kids are going to get their heads blown the heck off, that we need to better define exactly what WMD that Saddam may have that we are willing to sacrifice these kids lives for. This is *not* and unreasonable question. Mustard Gas? Hmmmmmmmm? Think about it? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Nerd Date: 27 Sep 02 - 10:24 PM I would agree with you, Bobert. My point (and I think maybe yours too) was that every government can get together enough manure to blow up a tunnel. So, if that counts as a WMD, then to use the WMD category as a justification for going to war is ridiculous. Since the right wing pundits I have heard have seemed to include pretty much any chemical gas that kills people (including Mustard Gas) in the WMD category, I'd say just about every country in the world has access to them. The only one that's truly hard to get is enough Uranium for a nuclear bomb, and there's no evidence that SH has that. It's a lot of spin! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 27 Sep 02 - 10:31 PM Well, thanks, Nerd. This is the point I've been trying to get folks to take seriuouslu for a couple of weeks now but they think I'm just funnin' 'em. It's a real question for which I think you have brought a lot of clarification. Just wonderin' why the hawks are so silent on this major point? No, I'm not.. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Nerd Date: 27 Sep 02 - 10:37 PM Just to show I'm not blowing smoke (as it were) about mustard gas, here is an excerpt of a document on Iraq and Iran's WMDs prepared in 1998 by the Washington Institute for a body called "The Rumsfeld Commission," which I assume was headed by Rumsfeld: Chemical Weapons Iraq is believed to still possess a small stockpile of lethal agents, munitions, precursor chemicals, and production equipment that provide it with the ability to inflict massive casualties on an unprotected civilian population, though it probably does not have sufficient quantities of chemical munitions for effective battlefield use. This residual inventory probably includes stocks of blister and nerve agents, possibly including quantities of "VX salt" -- a form of the highly lethal nerve agent that can be stored on a long-term basis. The U.S. government believes that if inspections and monitoring were to cease, Iraq could resume production of mustard agent in weeks, sarin within months, and VX in 2-3 years.iv Note that Mustard Agent is included as a WMD in this report, along with other toxins. Bobert, if you search on "Iraq WMDs" in google, you'll find gov't and think-tank reports that will give you a sense what's being talked about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 27 Sep 02 - 10:56 PM Hmmmmmmm, Nerd? So without spending a couple days on Google, you'd say that a lot of what Iraq has are things that are pretty generic found in the closets of most defense departments all countries? Hmmmmmm? Now, you can bet that Iraq, left with out any deterent whats so ever, might find survival tough in their neighborhood... Just an observation, but one for ponderance. Especially when one looks at a larger picture of stability in the Middle East, regardless of rulers/presidents/dictators/ whatevers. Hmmmmmm? Me and the Wes Ginny slide rule gonna have to spend some time with this one, too. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: DougR Date: 27 Sep 02 - 11:41 PM Bobert: Nerd, Dave and others have explained what WMD are. Now I know you are in WV, and what with all the country roads and such, it might be a bit difficult for you to comprehend the simple explanations they have provided in response to your query. So let me me have a shot at it, in language you might understand. You got this .22 rifle, see? Now that is NOT a WMD. Normally it will dispatch maybe one squirrel at a time. You got this .12 gauge shotgun. It can bring down several squirrels at one time provided they are traveling in groups (they never did in Texas so far as I know but WV may be different). Then you have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Any one of them can kill all the squirrels in West By God Virginia (and then maybe even some). Got it? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 28 Sep 02 - 01:32 AM Yeh, prob'ly kill all the possums too. Maybe they kin send one a them WMD's down here and get ridda these damned armadillos. But seriously folks.... How come only countries that happen to be on America's shit list have "weapons of mass destruction"? You'll never hear any of the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the arsenals of Israel or France or India or even Russia referred to as WMD's. That makes "weapons of mass destruction" not a euphemism as Nerd stated, but exactly its opposite. A euphemism is a polite way of saying something bad. As the WMD term is only used in reference to "The Bad Guys" it's more of a perjorative than a euphemism. Calling the nuclear missiles in the U.S. arsenal "weapons of defense" is the real euphemism. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: DougR Date: 28 Sep 02 - 01:42 AM Bruce: I don't agree with you (surprise!). It is common knowledge, I think, which countries have WMD and those that do not. It is only those who have a record of agression against their neighbors and ambitions beyond their borders that we need to be concerned about. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? Those that have had the weapons for many years have not used them! Duh! But no country I know of, perhaps you do, has shown agressive tendances as Iraq has. First Iran, then Kuwait (and Israel at the same time). Tomorrow the world? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Nerd Date: 28 Sep 02 - 03:05 AM DougR, I know you won't agree with me, but what the hey... WMDs are a cover story, a smokescreen. Any country you want to name either has them or could have them in a couple of months, if you include everything Rumsfeld includes in the WMD category. It's a bad excuse among many. For example: Iraq's "aggressive tendencies" and "ambitions beyond its borders" were last in evidence twelve years ago, and are only being highlighted by our government now because it's convenient. One could easily cite Israel as another example of aggressive tendencies coupled with WMDs, even though I'm generally sympathetic to Israel's position. India and Pakistan would be other examples, which were much more recently "hot." Iran should be mentioned. And, of course, several former Soviet republics, which are just as aggressive and are far more likely to have real WMDs. But our government doesn't suggest that we have to go to war with them, right now, before election day. The argument that Hussein is a monster doesn't fly either. Reagan and Bush I gave him money and equipment when he was already obviously a sociopathic megalomaniac. Guess what: they didn't care! It was only after he disobeyed US instructions and invaded Kuwait that suddenly his monstrous behavior became intolerable to the US government. Then the war came, the accords, and his subsequent refusal to comply with UN directives, which has been going on for years. Suddenly, just before a US election in which the Republicans are desperate to pick up seats, it becomes super-urgent to do something about this ongoing situation. Can't wait six weeks; Saddam might make some mustard gas! We must resolve this NOW! Could it be that the administration wants the entire national discourse to be taken up with war on Iraq so domestic issues (like the massive deficits brought on by foolish tax cuts that ignored the possibility of an emergency) won't be discussed? Furthermore, Bush lays before congress a ridiculously expansive piece of war legislation, saying "the President will have the authority to do whatever he wants to secure peace and stability in the Middle East." This gives Dems two choices: sign, and give Bush carte blanche, or look like obstructionists.
The proposed war has nothing to do with WMDs, and nothing to do with the farcically trumped-up connections to September 11th. It is Must...get...off...soapbox! Must...listen...to...folk...music! arrggh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 28 Sep 02 - 03:37 AM Doug, explain "Tomorrow the world." What they used to tell me, back when I was in the Big Red One, was that to conquer a country (or a world) you need infantry because that's what infantry is for. "The mission of infantry," they said, " is to take and hold land." Saddam doesn't have enough troops to conquer the world, nor the resources to support those troops, and I understand what troops he has aren't real well-trained. Why are you afraid of him? He can't take the world, and in case you meant that as picturesque exaggeration, there's no way he can even take the United States. Believe it or not. And if you think he can, I bet he doesn't. Clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: ard mhacha Date: 28 Sep 02 - 04:52 AM The Big Red One, I hope you are not referring to the Tinker`s daughter, my one and on |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 28 Sep 02 - 08:30 AM Doug: So the Wes Ginny Slide Rule was reading you talkin' about the bad folks with the WMD. You know, like you said the ones who have "ambitions beyond their borders". Well, the WGSR was going "Euuu, Euuu, I got it. I got it Bobert!" So I ask the WGSR fir the answer and by now you guessed it, my friend. Yep, according to the WGSR it's the good ol' US of A... BTW, I don't need to shoot the squireels. I have a dog that can run 'em down. But I'll shoot deer, which like my gardens, in a heatbeat, or in their case... lack there of. Plus, I kinda have to agree with Clint. If you're gonna go messin' in someone's else's neigborhood, ya' better take some buddies with ya' and even Juniors drum beaters admit that Saddam ain't got much in the way of foot soldiers. Ya' know, Doug, your war looks a little uglier every time I look at it. I'd bet that Junior is wishin' he;s just kept his mouth shut now. He's painted himself intop a corner... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: paddymac Date: 28 Sep 02 - 09:01 AM Weapons of Mass Destruction ? Damn. All this time I thought it was about Water Management Districts. Always wondered why ol' what's his face would need any of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 28 Sep 02 - 10:43 AM Okay. Let's try this one more time.... "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that belong to countries that are, for whatever reason, not on friendly terms with The United States of America. At this time, that would mean Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the countries Bush has labelled "An Axis of Evil". The very same weapons belonging to any other country are not called "weapons of mass destruction". If I am mistaken, please cite one instance when the term has ever been used to refer to the weponry of a "friendly" country. Pakistan is currently a "friendly" country and, therefore, it's nuclear bombs are not WMD's. But let an Islamic revolution take place there or let their ongoing tiff with India heat up to the point where the U.S. has to take sides and they suddenly will be. Get it? It's all just a matter of semantics. And for anyone who thinks that Iraq's chemical weapons have some special staus because it is the only country since World War One to actually use them, remember who is the only country to ever have actually used atomic bombs. I'm in no way trying to defend SH here. I just think that it's important that we realize how politicians use perjorative terms to try to influence public opinion. Personally, I think they're all weapons of mass destruction regardless of whose hands they're in. Let's get rid of all of them. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST Date: 28 Sep 02 - 11:36 AM Material things such as WMDs are only the MEANS of killing millions of innocent human beings...
History has a long list of EVIL MEN who did it without WMDs...Joseph Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Hirohito, and what's-his-name from South America...
Just to name a few in recent memory...
and a point to ponder - Germany and Japan scientists were working on the principle of the A-Bomb in WWII--
Of course a few nuts may try to convince someone that they were developing it for peaceful purposes!
Rave on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Don Firth Date: 28 Sep 02 - 02:31 PM Re: the Rumsfeld Commission article posted above by Nerd ( 27-Sep-02 - 10:37 PM)-- "Precursor chemicals." I love the phrase. Any country (of our choice, of course) that possesses "precursor chemicals" can be on the list as possibly possessing weapons of mass destruction. Now that's downright yummy!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 28 Sep 02 - 06:15 PM How about tear gas and pepper spray coupled with a good old fashioned granade in a packed room? Hey, just asking. And why not a 50 Caliber machine gun? How about a helicoptor gun ship? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Sep 02 - 06:42 PM Here are some real bonafide weapons of mass destruction: Alcoholic beverages, tobacco, cocaine, refined sugar, caffeinated drinks, junk food, soft drinks, and cell phones in the hands of impatient drivers. They've killed far more people than the A-bomb, but they tend to do it (mostly) in a slower and far less dramatic fashion. Nevertheless, I think the Joint Chiefs should give serious consideration to launching a devastating first strike on the place most responsible for promoting and harbouring these WMD's... The USA. Ooops. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Sep 02 - 07:10 PM "Iraq's chemical weapons have some special staus because it is the only country since World War One to actually use them"
Not actually true. The United Kingdom used them in what was then called Mesopotamia, in the 1920s (now it's called Iraq) - and that was against the Kurds as well.
And of course the United States used enormous quantities of Agent Orange in Vietnam - and people are still dying from it, in a second and third generation, mostly in Vietnam, but also in the USA. If the weapons inspectors are free agents, not in the pocket of some government, I'd be happy to accept their judgement on this, if they ever get allowed to go in. (And I have the US in mind as the most likely people to stop them going in, I'm afraid, even more than Saddam.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 28 Sep 02 - 07:38 PM ard mhacha: Sorry, I don't get the Tinker's daughter reference. But *my* daughter always thought the "big red one" sounded obscene. Clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Sep 02 - 07:49 PM "Peter O'Toole" sounds obscene too, but you don't see people getting all shirty and petulant about that now, do you? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 28 Sep 02 - 08:41 PM Gotta agree with you, McGrath. The US is more likely to satnd in the way of any inspections than Saddam by their insistance of having every detail go their way and if not.... Well, I rather not think of the "if nots" becasue its not a pretty sight. The US is so used to just winning these things that lots of folks haven't looked at the realities of fighting in an urban setting with the other guys hiding amongst the population. Talk about collaterial damage! But in a realistic world, I would think that Iraq would be left with at least enought of an arsonal to protect itself from its neighbors. This isn't about Saddam, so whatever troll is lurking, forget it. It's just that the Middle East is a dangerous neighborhood and it's not a realistic policy for the US to strip any country of its ability to defend itself. I'm not talking on enough to attack, mind you, which Iraq at presant may be incapable of doing anyway. The other alternative is to just make Iraq a territory of the US. How many Catters for that? Keep in mind, this is gonna cost a lot of money... Oh, silly me, that's right. We'll just take their oil in exchange for protection... Hey, sounds like every pizza joint in North Jersey (jus funnin...) Hmmmmm? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST,Ireland Date: 28 Sep 02 - 08:58 PM This makes interesting reading, compare with the mordern day speel on Iraq. 22 August, 1920 A Report on Mesopotamia by T.E. Lawrence -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ex.-Lieut.-Col. T.E. Lawrence, The Sunday Times, 22 August 1920 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Mr. Lawrence, whose organization and direction of the Hedjaz against the Turks was one of the outstanding romances of the war, has written this article at our request in order that the public may be fully informed of our Mesopotamian commitments.] The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster. The sins of commission are those of the British civil authorities in Mesopotamia (especially of three 'colonels') who were given a free hand by London. They are controlled from no Department of State, but from the empty space which divides the Foreign Office from te India Office. They availed themselves of the necessary discretion of war-time to carry over their dangerous independence into times of peace. They contest every suggestion of real self- government sent them from home. A recent proclamation about autonomy circulated with unction from Baghdad was drafted and published out there in a hurry, to forestall a more liberal statement in preparation in London, 'Self-determination papers' favourable to England were extorted in Mesopotamia in 1919 by official pressure, by aeroplane demonstrations, by deportations to India. The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. they have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.* Yet our published policy has not changed, and does not need changing. It is that there has been a deplorable contrast between our profession and our practice. We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to deliver the Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish Government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil. We spent nearly a million men and nearly a thousand million of money to these ends. This year we are spending ninety-two thousand men and fifty millions of money on the same objects. Our government is worse than the old Turkish system. They kept fourteen thousand local conscripts embodied, and killed a yearly average of two hundred Arabs in maintaining peace. We keep ninety thousand men, with aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats, and armoured trains. We have killed about ten thousand Arabs in this rising this summer. We cannot hope to maintain such an average: it is a poor country, sparsely peopled; but Abd el Hamid would applaud his masters, if he saw us working. We are told the object of the rising was political, we are not told what the local people want. It may be what the Cabinet has promised them. A Minister in the House of Lords said that we must have so many troops because the local people will not enlist. On Friday the Government announce the death of some local levies defending their British officers, and say that the services of these men have not yet been sufficiently recognized because they are too few (adding the characteristic Baghdad touch that they are men of bad character). There are seven thousand of them, just half the old Turkish force of occupation. Properly officered and distributed, they would relieve half our army there. Cromer controlled Egypt's six million people with five thousand British troops; Colonel Wilson fails to control Mesopotamia's three million people with ninety thousand troops. We have not reached the limit of our military commitments. Four weeks ago the staff in Mesopotamia drew up a memorandum asking for four more divisions. I believe it was forwarded to the War Office, which has now sent three brigades from India. If the North-West Frontier cannot be further denuded, where is the balance to come from? Meanwhile, our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply, are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the wilfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad. General Dyer was relieved of his command in India for a much smaller error, but the responsibility in this case is not on the Army, which has acted only at the request of the civil authorities. The War Office has made every effort to reduce our forces, but the decisions of the Cabinet have been against them. The Government in Baghdad have been hanging Arabs in that town for political offences, which they call rebellion. The Arabs are not at war with us. Are these illegal executions to provoke the Arabs to reprisals on the three hundred British prisoners they hold? And, if so, is it that their punishment may be more severe, or is it to persuade our other troops to fight to the last? We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the world. all experts say that the labour supply is the ruling factor in its development. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST,Ireland Date: 28 Sep 02 - 09:02 PM I forgot to point out that WMD of that time were used against these people. Now a new crowd is going to use modern day WMD. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST,Ireland Date: 28 Sep 02 - 09:41 PM Just to show America can join in the chem weapon also. Taken from http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c06-s03.html In July 1958, a military coup by nationalist officers in Iraq threatened U.S.-British control of the oil-producing regions for the first time (a threat by the conservative nationalist government of Iran had been aborted by the U.S.-British intervention to restore the Shah five years earlier). The coup set off a wide range of reactions, including a U.S. Marine landing in Lebanon. In an analysis of the crisis based on the public record, William Quandt concludes that the U.S. "apparently agreed to help look after British oil interests, especially in Kuwait," while determining that an Iraqi move against Kuwait, infringing upon British interests, would not be tolerated, though it seemed unlikely. Quandt takes President Eisenhower to have been referring to nuclear weapons when, in his own words, he ordered Joint Chiefs Chairman General Twining to "be prepared to employ, subject to [Eisenhower's] approval, whatever means might become necessary to prevent any unfriendly forces from moving into Kuwait." The issue was "discussed several times during the crisis," Quandt adds. The major concern at the time was Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser -- the Hitler of the day -- and his Arab nationalism Who is now being called a modern day Hitler. To post ww1 Germans Hitler made a lot of sense, look were he led us to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 28 Sep 02 - 10:10 PM Thank you, GUEST, Ireland for the historical perspective. If I might just venture an over simplifictaion and correct me if I'm wrong. Seems, Iraq has always been trying to please the colonial master, though used, confused and exploited by these masters. Then, one little slip of not knowing exactly what the orders of the day were and we're here on the threshold of one very screwed up mess where a lot of folks are gonna die to protect the colonial intersts... How far off? I suspect, not far at all... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Mark Cohen Date: 28 Sep 02 - 10:35 PM I have this idea for a political cartoon, but since I can't draw two circles that look alike (hell, I can't even draw one circle that looks alike!), maybe somebody who can draw will do something with it. Feel free. First panel. A bunch of guys in suits standing around the president's desk. Guy in suit: "Mr. President, we have a situation here, where a country has huge stockpiles of dangerous weapons of mass destruction, and the country's leader is making threatening statements about 'going to war against our sworn enemies.' What should our response be?" Next panel. President: "Regime change." Next panel. Guy in suit: "Very good, Mr. President." Next panel. Guy in suit: "You're fired." Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: artbrooks Date: 29 Sep 02 - 12:11 AM Well, you can make chlorine gas with common household bleach and napalm with gasoline and Ivory soap. There were a number of individual WW2 air raids that killed a lot more people with "simple" explosives than did the 2 nukes dropped on Japan. There are atomic artillery shells in the US Army inventory that have less destructive power than the OK City bomb. My personal opinion is that the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is entirely a matter of intent. Maybe the intent of the politicians who use the phrase is the important thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Hrothgar Date: 29 Sep 02 - 01:51 AM The Italians used mustard gas in Abyssinia. Let's bomb Rome! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST Date: 29 Sep 02 - 11:46 AM According to today's Observer (UK newspaper), the Australian government has just admitted that deaths were caused by a weed-spraying program using herbicide 2,4,5-T - a main component of Agent Orange. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: allanwill Date: 29 Sep 02 - 11:57 AM Just curious - does Bush Mark 1 have any influence in what is happening at the moment, given that everyone now seems to think he should have "gone in" back in '91? Allan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: DougR Date: 29 Sep 02 - 01:53 PM Allan: you certainly will find those who think Bush 2 is proposing replacing Saddam because Bush 1 did not do it at the close of Desert Storm. Reasonable people will agree, I believe, that Bush 1's mandate from the U. N. did not include toppling Saddam, and that was the majority thinking of that day. Even Al Gore, who in a speech recently alluded to the fact that we are facing what we are today, because Bush 1 did not finish the job in 1991. He did not mention in that same speech that he supported, as a U. S. Senator, stopping Desert Storm when Iraq's forces were forced out of Kuwait. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: allanwill Date: 29 Sep 02 - 02:23 PM Thanks Doug. I have a mental picture of three puppets, all with their little wooden hands up each others backs - little Johnny Howhigh, ooops I mean Howard, Dubya and Bush Mark 1. Allan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bullfrog Jones Date: 29 Sep 02 - 02:48 PM DougR: "It is common knowledge, I think, which countries have WMD and those that do not. It is only those who have a record of agression against their neighbors and ambitions beyond their borders that we need to be concerned about." Finally, you understand! That's why so many of us are concerned about the USA! BJ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST,Doom and Gloom Date: 29 Sep 02 - 02:54 PM Wake up and smell the coffee guys. The Ws of MD that we are concerned about are the Biologicals. We are living in the JET AGE. These nasty little fiends can be spread around the entire world within 48 hours by half a dozen nut-jobs with death wishes. Diseases like Smallpox, Anthrax, and that oldie but goodie, Pnuemonic Plague, or how about a good dose of enhanced Influenza? Worries the crap outta me, and if old Dubya wants to go whack the guy who's most likely to actually do this sort of thing, he can borrow my aluminum bat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Don Firth Date: 29 Sep 02 - 03:05 PM Doom and Gloom, if we were to whack everybody on the planet who has that capability, it could get mighty lonely on this rock. Assuming we survived all this whacking, who would we have to sell stuff to? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Sep 02 - 03:52 PM It's "bubonic" plague isn't it? Something should be done about pneumatic bustlines too, because they have caused pacemaker failure in more than one overweight and elderly American taxpayer by now. The best way to stop "crazies" from committing rash acts like blowing themselves up in marketplaces and spreading disease germs is simply this: End poverty. End hunger. Provide medical care to all. Provide jobs, education, homes, dignity, and equal justice for ordinary people everywhere. End militarily-enforced oppression in a variety of places by various dictators and various other democratically elected but nevertheless merciless powermongers...including both friends and enemies of America...at home and abroad. That would end it. I'm talking about a world society here...one with equal rights and privileges everywhere. Hey, I didn't say it was easy, did I? Much easier to just drop a whole bunch more bombs on someone, right? And more profitable too, by God! Hail Caesar! The Empire is not about to walk quietly into that good night yet, and yield its place in the sun to a united and peaceful world. "Not on your Nelly!" as Frank Burns loved to say... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Mark Cohen Date: 29 Sep 02 - 04:37 PM LH, your comments as usual are apt, accurate, and impeccably sensible. Unfortunately, for people to follow your argument, let alone your recommendations, requires that they abandon three of the most enduring human tendencies: laziness, narcissism, and demonization of the "enemy". (See Scott Peck's book People of the Lie for a more detailed explanation. It was written in 1983, and it's chillingly appropriate today.) I'm with you, guy, (and ol' Bobert too) -- but it's likely to be mighty lonely for a long time. And if the powers that be continue to have their way, it could get a lot lonelier. Kind of like playing Irish music in Waikiki--which is what I'm going to be doing today! Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Mudjack Date: 29 Sep 02 - 06:47 PM I thought I was on to finding WMD to be the Walkman Mini Disc recorder. So I'm here and have to put my two cents worth in. ABC warfare of the sixties taught me a good deal about using weapons in various = Chemical, sleeping gas sprayed over an area, troops walk in and and capture a sleeping city without firing a shot. Sure good in theory and clear back in the sixties was found to be useless since the whole concept of war is not to win. But to make the rich richer and us commoners can send our young to die.W of MD are likely a scare tactic and REAL country leaders will opt to kill, mame, cripple and torture with conventional weaponry. Mudjack with his humble opinion |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Sep 02 - 07:04 PM Thanks for those thoughts, Mark. You should have a nice time in Hawaii, it's a beautiful place, specially the quieter parts. I will see if I can find a copy of "People of the Lie" somewhere... I am afraid it's going to get lonelier too, specially for the poor. Imperial Rome is busy strenthening its grip to a killing chokehold now that Carthage is gone...and I live in one of its client states, watching as the legions clash their bloodied swords on their burnished shields, and look hungrily about for another glorious conquest. Mudjack - got that right. A scare tactic is exactly what it is. Nothing works better, when you are seeking to divide and conquer. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Mark Cohen Date: 29 Sep 02 - 07:06 PM PS, LH, the most virulent form of plague is in fact pneumonic plague. Same bug as "bubonic" plague, (Yersinia pestis), different manifestation of illness. Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Gareth Date: 29 Sep 02 - 07:22 PM Difficult defenition - Agents such as old fashioned but easy to manufacture chemical weapons such as Phosgene, Chlorine, Mustard Gas were all used by both sides on the "Western Front". A mutual fear kept them out of play 1939-1945. This despite nerve agents such as Sarine being discovered and stockpiled then. And if my reading is correct agents such as Sarine can spread further, and faster, and more effectively than "mustard Gas". I am not a good enough chemist to say wether modern day chemical agents can sterelise large areas to be effective, but it is well documented that Saddam H used those weapons on "rebellious" villages. Thus the will is there. Defoliants, such as agent Orange were not designed as Weapons of mass destruction, but intended to remove cover for "Charlie" in South East Asia. I note that Chemical weapons of mass destruction were not used in Viet-Nam. It ill behoves 'Catters to compare the use of agent Orange with a nasty such as Sarine - The intent was different, even if the technical knowledge did not emcompass what agent Orange would do in the long term. But then drugs for a peacefull purpose such as Thalominde (Sp) or Prozac can have nasty side effects. I dare say ' Catters with a historical bent will recall the deliberate infection of native Australians, and Americans, with Smallpox, to clear the land. Biological weapons, seem to be easy to spread, and with the factual evidence of fanatical behaviour in Iraq, or Palestine if those agents are available - well who knows. If Saddam Hussain will not allow weapons inspectors free access then we collectively have two choices, do nothing and except the risk or take suvh action as may be neccessay and authorised by the UN. I suggest that in such a case action may save more Iraqi lives than would be otherwise lost to the actions of the Iraqui goverment. A corollary must be the enforcement of UN decisions on Israel. BTW What was "Zyclon B" used for, and what is the difference between that and "Cymag" - used in the UK for the humane (sp) destruction of foxes, rats and other vermin. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Amos Date: 29 Sep 02 - 07:44 PM Zyclon B was used by agents of the Third Reich to perform mass assasination in batches, in concentration camps. It was combined in crystal form with water and formed lethal gases which were flooded into "shower rooms" in which hundreds of prisoners at a time were locked until they all died. They were then shoveled into mass graves and the process repeated with a new batch. The prisoners were typically Jewish or Gypsy, although other groups were not excluded. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Sep 02 - 08:13 PM If you want to prepare and carry out a biologcal attack, the last place you would do it from is the other side of the planet. You'd do it from inside the country you wanted to attack. And you wouldn't need to have some foreign government telling you what to do, any more than the boxcutter hijackers needed that on September 11th.
I cannot really imagine how blowing up buildings and killing people in Iraq is going to do anything whatsoever to reduce the possibility of a biological attack on the USA or the UK. I can imagine how it might have the reverse effect.
I remember a science-fiction story about biological war, I think by Arthur C Clarke (though I'm not sure about that). The twist was that it was defensive. The whole population of a country under imminent danger of attack was "immunised" in such a way that it made them carriers of a lethal disease that they couldn't catch. Any invaders would catch it and die. (Mind it must really have buggered up the tourist industry.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 29 Sep 02 - 08:56 PM Well thanks McGrath, Mark, Amos and especially to Little Hawk, for coming out with dealing with the roots of the problems rather than symptoms. WhenI started this thread a lot of folks said, "Yeah, it's just ol' Bobert stirrin' up something" but as the thread is deveoloping, I think we are al seeing that in a time when "inspections" and "interpretations" may take a front seat to Bush's burning desire for war... it is indeed a serious question and one that needs some level of attention now, rather than when Bush is planning an attack over a *misinterpretation*. And really, Little Hawk, I appreciate your world view. And it is do-able. When you think we're gonna spend over a *billion* dollars a day for waring with folks, we could sure do a lot of good for folks around the world with the same money, Heck, alot less for that matter. And then we would be investing in a securer future for mankind. Sure, some of Bush's folks are gonna have to *retool* toward industries that promote peace and add to the *quality* of life, but, hey. It;s long overdue for these folks to get off their asses, roll up their sleeves and get with making the planet a safer place to live... Peace Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Mark Cohen Date: 30 Sep 02 - 02:21 AM By the way, LH, I do know something about the quieter places in Hawaii: I lived on the Big Island for 8 years. Seems to me we've had this discussion before! Of course, my memory isn't near what I remember it to be, either... [insert stupid smiley face thing here] Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: BigDaddy Date: 30 Sep 02 - 02:22 AM Nerd, Bobert, Little Hawk and others: It sure is refreshing to know that there are folk like you out there who actually think for themselves. Too bad the likes of you are seldom heard in any of the mainstream news media. Bless you all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Grab Date: 30 Sep 02 - 04:26 PM Re weapons of mass destruction, the standard Cold War thinking was that you responded to an attack in kind. So if someone shot at you then you shot back, but you didn't nuke them and their family unto the 10th generation, kind of thing. Then someone twigged that you had problems with all these new ways to kill ppl. If someone drops a chemical or a virus on your city, and you don't happen to have any handy chemicals or viruses, what do you do? So the US invented the concept of a "weapon of mass destruction", which means "any chemical, biological or nuclear weapon", and said "If anyone uses any of these weapons on us, we'll use that type or any of the other types on them". In practical terms, it means that the response to a chemical or biological attack on the US would be a nuke, bcos the US has lots more nukes than anything else. Re the country concerned, ie. Iraq, it's just a shame that Reagan put him in power and gave him his money and weapons. And did the same for the Taliban too. And Carter did the same for Khomeini. "The enemy of our enemy is...well, our enemy in about 5 years time." Nice work guys. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: DougR Date: 01 Oct 02 - 12:49 AM Graham: If the former Secretary of Defense under Reagan can be believed (and I'm sure there are those who think he cannot) you are merely perpetuating a myth. Casper Weinberger was interviewed on the Sean Hennity and Alan Combs (I think the spelling is correct)on the Fox News Network tonight and he flatly denied that our government supplied Saddam with biological and chemical weapons at any time. Combs produced a document that was supposedly produced by one of the Federal agencies (Commerce I think) that reported we had, Weinburger said that was ridiculous. He said the government knew that both Saddam and Kohmeini were despots, and would never have supplied them with the kind of weapons you suggest that it did. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST,Boab Date: 01 Oct 02 - 02:41 AM "Iraq will find it tough in their neighbourhood without weapons'' Does anybody truly believe that Bush and Bushie-tail Blair are ever going to give up control of the oil once they're in there---without another, much more devastating fight, that is? Till the next war starts, Iraq will be well "protected", rest assured! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Teribus Date: 01 Oct 02 - 04:19 AM Bobert you do not need to ask this question here. If your sage advice and preferred course of action are adopted, just wait a few years then ask the Israelis - the survivors will explain it all to you in far greater detail than anyone can here. Every journey starts with a single step - Saddam has stumbled a couple of times - he hasn't yet lost the urge to walk of run. Oh Boab, after having fought and paid for the last one - who controls Kuwait's oil?? America and the rest of the world are, in the main oil consumers, i.e. customers - we buy. It's kind of like me saying that I control TESCO's - totally ridiculous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Oct 02 - 05:04 AM "Carter did the same for Khomeini." (Grab.) That is simply untrue. Khomeini came to power while Carter was President. Might as well say it was all down to Margaret Thatcher, or Pope John Paul II. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Wolfgang Date: 01 Oct 02 - 07:30 AM I cannot really imagine how blowing up buildings and killing people in Iraq is going to do anything whatsoever to reduce the possibility of a biological attack on the USA or the UK. I can imagine how it might have the reverse effect. (McGrath) I really do wonder how you can be so sure of your position without the slightest hint of doubt (the same is true of many others in this discussion). You cannot imagine one scenario, but you can imagine the other?? I can easily imagine both possibilities and my problem in deciding a course of action I wish for is that I don't know which is more probable. I wouldn't have the slightest difficulties with a position stating that you think the one outcome is more likely than the other and therefore... But this overconfidence in one of several possible outcomes is something I am afraid of in politicians. I think you make a quite similar mistake. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 01 Oct 02 - 12:25 PM Teribus: I guess it is your opinion that mankind will never take a serious step toward peaceful coexhistence because they are inately not able to do so. I that your position? I am suggesting that as you say that the "journey begins with a single step" that mankind must find alternatives to war, especially in a planet whose inhabitants are very much tribalized in the larger sense, more dependent on one another and armed to the teeth. The planet is more dangerous now than at anytime in history becasue of the number of countries that do have WMD. I believe that, if a Emergency Middle East Summit" were convened, that every invited nation would attend and if the goal was to not leave until the many differences were hashed out and resolved that Isreal would indedd be a safer place to live five years hence. I can't understand your logic that it would be more vulnerable. Perhaps you could better explain your theories. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST,Foe Date: 01 Oct 02 - 12:36 PM Couldn't we just fly over Irag and drop planeloads of accordians and banjos? (and kazoos) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Oct 02 - 12:57 PM Wolfgang, when I say something is my opinion, I am making a statement about me, not about the world. Obviously I can be wrong, we all can be wrong.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: DougR Date: 01 Oct 02 - 01:17 PM Graham: I owe you an apology. I suppose, on the subject of the U. S. providing biological germs to Iraq, it depends on who you believe. According to a report from the AP in our local newspaper today, "The U. S. likely supplied Iraq with germs in weapons." According to the story, "The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department." "I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector. "But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at that time." Iraq later admitted to the U. N. that it had made weapons out of the strains they received. Sources for the AP story are given as: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Senate Banking Committee, Associated Press. So if one is to believe this story, the U. S. did in fact provide Iraq with the seeds of what has become an arsenal of WMD. However, they were not sent there for that purpose. It is conceivable, I believe, (though not reported in the AP story) that the U. S. may have supplied similar or the same biological strains to other countries as well. I do not believe when they were shipped, however, it was known they would be used to produce WMD. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Wolfgang Date: 01 Oct 02 - 01:47 PM Must be my problem with the language, McGrath. I simply did not translate 'I cannot imagine' as you now explain it was meant. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Oct 02 - 04:35 PM Your English is a great deal better than my German, Wolfgang. Even with this improved translation facility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Oct 02 - 06:31 PM Agent Orange. Arguably the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam might not have involved the criminal intention to cause mass homicide, cause birth malformations, cancer etc. The fact that a proportion of the people who were killed or whose lives were wrecked in this way were and are Americans involved in using it, or their children, strengthens the case that this was not intentional. But it was absolutely criminally irresponsible to use this substance in this way, and carry out a massive experiment on human guinea pigs. And this has been compounded by a failure to provide help and reparations to the victims, especially those in Vietnam, on a scale consistent with what was done. And it is not in the past - what was done at that time continues to cause enormous suffering to this day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST Date: 01 Oct 02 - 09:21 PM WMD's??? Well let me explain what would happen if one of those aircraft had plunged into the LNG (liquified natural gas) plant in New York. The death toll would have been a million not a couple of thousand. BTW an RPG rocket launcher could have the same effect. 1 Terrorist 1 Van and 1 Rocket... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Teribus Date: 02 Oct 02 - 05:56 AM Bobert, by way of a reply: "Teribus: I guess it is your opinion that mankind will never take a serious step toward peaceful coexhistence because they are inately not able to do so. I that your position?" That most definitely is NOT my position. "I am suggesting that as you say that the "journey begins with a single step" that mankind must find alternatives to war, especially in a planet whose inhabitants are very much tribalized in the larger sense, more dependent on one another and armed to the teeth. The planet is more dangerous now than at anytime in history becasue of the number of countries that do have WMD." By and large mankind has progressed since the end of the Second World War. The United Nations is a far better and more effective organisation than its predecessor The League of Nations. At times however it needs a nudge in the right direction. You express your opinion above that, "The planet is more dangerous now than at any time in history because of the number of countries that do have WMD." I believe it would be more correct to add the word "potentially" between "is" and "more". The existence of WMD is a reality that mankind has to live with and be aware of. That awareness by its nature should include the evaluation of any regime's likely use of such weapons combined with a collective response by the world community to deter any potential aggressor from using them. "I believe that, if a Emergency Middle East Summit" were convened, that every invited nation would attend and if the goal was to not leave until the many differences were hashed out and resolved that Isreal would indedd be a safer place to live five years hence. I can't understand your logic that it would be more vulnerable." Bobert, if you read through the rhetoric of Arab leaders in years gone by, you will find many references to the ultimate goal of the total destruction of the State of Israel. Gradually that has undergone a change (Totally absent from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia - very much muted from Syria). Only from Iraq and Iran are those calls still heard. The differences with Syria could, I believe, be resolved by negotiation based on good faith by both parties. But I also believe that your proposed summit would stand a far greater chance of success if the rhetoric coming from within Iraq and Iran was modified. Of the countries in the region, these are the only two that pose any threat (Iraq a great deal more than Iran). They do so in the full knowledge that they are not geographically front-line nations and as such are less likely to suffer from any retaliatory strike by Israel (undoubtedly the most powerful military presence in the area - but that is qualified in that it is a defence force and is not geared for offensive operations unless the country goes on a war footing). The first step is to bring about that change in attitude in Iraq. Iran has its own internal problems wrt the continuing political struggles between the moderates and the fundamentalists. At the moment Iran is rather introspective. No such problems for the Ba'ath Party rulers in Iraq. IF, note IF, the "Dossier" presented to the British Parliament is correct in its content and evaluation - Your proposed Middle East Summit would be doomed to failure from the outset. History has also proved that bi-lateral talks between nations in this region are more effective. "Perhaps you could better explain your theories." On the basis that I believe Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq does pose a threat to the stability of the region. My theory is that that regime should be disarmed, this would lead to Saddam Hussein being replaced, most likely by a more moderate faction from within the Ba'ath Party (Unlike Karzia, in Afghanistan, no alternative candidate has appeared from any other political faction within Iraq). As with Afghanistan, this will require massive aid and active involvement by the western democracies to rebuild Iraq. As that work progresses full attention can be given to the Israeli/Palestinian question. Using the precendent of action over ignored sanctions wrt Iraq. Tremendous pressure can be brought to bear on Israel. But the two cannot be done at the same time - it must be one followed by the other. And Bobert, none of the above, requires military action on the part of anyone. The key is the return of the weapons inspectors to Iraq in a manner that the current regime in power knows that no interference will be tolerated, no prevarication accepted, no evasion countenanced. To get those conditions the USA and Britain want a new resolution that clearly spells that out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Grab Date: 02 Oct 02 - 07:47 AM Re Khomeini, the US removed support for the Shah at the time of the Iranian revolution - see quotes in http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/04_09_02_c.htm Not that supporting the Shah in the first place was a good move, but whether Khomeini and his associates were an improvement is questionable. Re Hussein, after the Iranian revolution, the hostage crisis and the various other Iranian incidents, he was supported extensively by the West and by Russia. Obviously it wasn't just the US, but the US was certainly a major contributor. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/0923monster.htm Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST,Rag Date: 02 Oct 02 - 08:00 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST,Rag Date: 02 Oct 02 - 08:13 AM Before talking about bombing Iraq, we should ask a few questions: 1 Why are medical drip packs, water-treatment equipment and wheelbarrows banned by sanctions? 2 Why has the UK been involved in bombing Iraq longer than the US was bombing Vietnam? 3 Why are Turkish planes allowed to bomb the kurds in the no-fly zone? 4 Why is Israel allowed to remain in breach of over 60 UN resolutions? 5 Why is Israel permitted to have WMDs, attack it own civilian population with military force, disenfranchise huge sections of its own population, and operate an apartheid state apparently without UN concern? 6 Why did the US arm both Iraq and Iran during the Russian invasion of the Afghanistan? 7 Why is Iraq more of a threat than Pakistan? 8 Why did the US support the dictatorship in Indonesia? Any serious look at these questions make it blatantly obvious that business is running the agenda in the middle east. The history of the region is all about looking after the interests of the oil companies. Who put Saddam Hussein in power? Who protects the Saud family in Saudi? Just have a retrospective look at the Brits in Dhofar, Aden, Oman. We should have no truck with the idea of invading and the UN resolutions, if they are going to be applied ought to start with Israel. The sanctions on Iraq should be lifted to save hundreds of thousands of lives. The UN resolutions demand no nuclear weapons in the middle east so disarming Israel would be a real step forward. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bobert Date: 02 Oct 02 - 10:58 AM Teribus: I appreciate your claifications and will accept them at face value. Where, perhaps, we might differ are the resolutions that Bush is now Hell-bent on getting from Congress and the United Nations. He has been huffin'n'puffing over WMD for a couple months now and just yesterday reasonable people with knowledge of inspections ironed out the final details of inspections with the Iraqis. Hey, a reasonable President would step back and give this plan a chance to work. A reasonable President might even gloat about how all the huffin-n-puffin has worked. A reasonable President, given the fact that when pinned down couldn't come up with any proof of clear dangers that Iraq poses, might even say, "Hey, Saddam, if you "crawfish" (his PR folk's word...) I'm gonna go to Congress and get permission to take you out." These seem to be *reasonable* responses. Now we hear that Bush wants to "block" the U.N. agreement which if accomplished will set back the time table to getting the inspectors into Iraq, not hasten their return. Now if this treat by Iraq is so great, why would we want to do anything that would set back what we initially wanted? Well, I'll suggest the following reasons: 1. Bush does not see himself as a conqueror by being *reasonable*. 2. Bush desperately wants to keep the drums beating ludly thru the elections. 3. Bush's folks need a war to keep out tax bucks going into their military industrail complex. 4. Like his father, Bush is ill prepared to deal with domestic issues that tend to not only bore him but also involve giving something back to the working class. 5. Bush sees the US role in shaping a new world order as the bully-boss who woulod rather hears its own self talk than to listen to others. 6. And of course there's the legacy factor in that through removing Saddam he would go a long way toward helping the revisionists who would like to clear Senior's name. Not to be lost here, he also would like to have a coonskin to nail on his own wall. 7. And there is also the issue of the War on Terrorism which frankly may not be going the way Bush had hoped. He hasn't caight bin Laden and well, the who thing has just lost that *new war* sparkle. 8. Afganistan appears to be heading back to rule of the meanist and strongest warlords rather than toward a model of "nation building". 9. And least not forget the US economy is in the crapper. 10. Because he can. The War Powers Act has not been used since 1941 but that hasn't stopped one president after another fromn waging "war". Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Teribus Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:00 AM Hi Bobert, We agree to differ. I can see no difference on the basis the inspectors are going back in on now to what was in place before. Neither you, the French, the Russians, or the United Nations can demonstrate to me that anythings changed. Assurances from the Iraqi Government I take with a pinch of salt - past experience has shown them to be worthless. The sticking point on the unconditional access centres round the eight, or is it eleven, "Presidential" Sites. As they were only created in December 1997, they are not covered by existing UN Resolution - so Saddam has a fairly good case for not allowing anyone into them - the UN can't demand entry without a new resolution - that's what Bush and Blair want. Go in without that and we get the same old run-around we got the last time. End result might be a bit different, UK's JIC estimates that within the next two years they'll have the bomb, that's roughly how long it will take to get the UN and the UNSC onboard to use military intervention. Only reason inspectors have been invited to return is down to Bush - no-one else, a fact you guys have a great amount of difficulty dealing with. Your suggested motives: 1. Bush does not see himself as a conqueror by being *reasonable*. Who exactly is he conquering? 2. Bush desperately wants to keep the drums beating ludly thru the elections. Absolutely - I don't know a politician on earth who would do otherwise in the same situation - nature of the beast. 3. Bush's folks need a war to keep out tax bucks going into their military industrail complex. Didn't help them the last time - What's changed?. War is not good for business, with the current WORLD economic situation the potential damage would be incalculable. 4. Like his father, Bush is ill prepared to deal with domestic issues that tend to not only bore him but also involve giving something back to the working class. Purely American political perception upon which I cannot comment. 5. Bush sees the US role in shaping a new world order as the bully-boss who woulod rather hears its own self talk than to listen to others. Goes against anything America has done since the end of World War Two. 6. And of course there's the legacy factor in that through removing Saddam he would go a long way toward helping the revisionists who would like to clear Senior's name. Not to be lost here, he also would like to have a coonskin to nail on his own wall. Another view of promoting the legacy factor is that with Saddam gone and major restructuring in Iraq underway (with massive assistance from the western democracies), there is a far better chance of solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem. 7. And there is also the issue of the War on Terrorism which frankly may not be going the way Bush had hoped. He hasn't caight bin Laden and well, the who thing has just lost that *new war* sparkle. The War on Terrorism has gone pretty much as expected. Al-Quaeda attacks since WTC ? Hasn't caught bin Laden - no conclusive proof he's dead or alive. The organisation he founded is on the run and more and more gets found out about with every passing month. Indication of that is the profile of those getting caught are of increasing importance to their operation. 8. Afganistan appears to be heading back to rule of the meanist and strongest warlords rather than toward a model of "nation building". Don't tell me that you were expecting immediate results Bobert - these things take time - a great deal of it (talking decades actually). 9. And least not forget the US economy is in the crapper. Take a good look round the rest of the world Bobert the World Economy is in the crapper. 10. Because he can. The War Powers Act has not been used since 1941 but that hasn't stopped one president after another fromn waging "war". Who have you been at war with Bobert?, Korea was a United Nations shindig, Vietnam was that a war? when was that war declared? Or these for that matter; Nicaragua? Grenada? Panama? Somalia was a UN party also but not a war. The last Gulf War, the one after which Saddam agreed to do all those nice things but did nothing, was a UN action to liberate Kuwait. I can see clearly why he would delay the entry of the inspectors into Iraq. If Saddam manages to fool them this time round, he knows he's home and dry. His immediate neighbours and the rest of the world will pick up the bill later - at a much greater cost. Cheers, Teribus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bagpuss Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:27 AM Sorry I don't have the source, but I read that the conditions relating to the presidential sites are not that inspectors will not be allowed in, but rather that they will be accompanied by diplomats appointed by the UN, to safeguard against a repeat of the spying that occured under UNSCOM. Anyone confirm or deny that? It sounds like a reasonable comprimise to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: Bagpuss Date: 03 Oct 02 - 09:42 AM Aha, found where I read it here It's only a letter to the Guardian,so I'm still not clear about its original source (which I haven't been able to find). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: NicoleC Date: 03 Oct 02 - 12:15 PM Bagpuss, I also think there's an issue of advanced notice, and the Iraqis consider the searching of the Presidential palaces without notice an affort to their national sovereignty. I can understand that -- if someone wanted to search Pres. Bush's bedroom, the SS would insist on the opportunity to clear out anything... embarrassing. On the other hand, depending on the amount of advanced notice, they could clean up A LOT -- to much cleaning, and the inspections become useless. They aren't looking for weapons plants in these places, they are looking for internal memos and maybe weapons diagrams. I know! I have the perfect compromise! Iraq is pissed because the US seeded the "UN" inspection team last time with outright spies. It's not only bad politics, it's bad for the efficiency of the inspection teams. Fine. UN inspection teams go in. No US personnel allowed on the teams. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously From: GUEST Date: 04 Oct 02 - 09:17 AM Vietnam was that a war? when was that war declared? Or these for that matter; Nicaragua? Grenada? Panama? Maybe the US didn't declare war, legally, in all those cases. As I recall, Japan didn't declare war before Pearl Harbor either. The fact is that the US government, in all these cases, took it into its head to invade countries whose governments they disagreed with. They didn't declare war, they just went in and invaded them, without any agreement from the UN or the rest of the world that this should be done. Satisfies every definition of war that I know of, apart from that no-one stood up and said "I declare war on you". If the neighbourhood bully comes up to you and punches you, does it mean you're not fighting just bcos he hasn't said "I'm going to hit you"? Graham. |