 sj |
||
|
||
BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: What the heck are WMD's... Seriously |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
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. |