BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 28 Dec 02 - 09:28 AM

Hi all,

Very interesting thread.

My view is simple (some might say simplisitic but that's a semantic call)

1. President Bush is Captain Ahab. Hussein is the white whale.

2. A caveat from Tom Lehrer:
"Anyone who surfs the net deserves all the misinformation they get."

3. If the US bombs Iraq, will the other Arab nations stand by and let that happen? Anyone care to promote WWIII.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 02:11 PM

You may think that, and I may think that - but it's all guesswork and speculation. Interpreted by media more concerned to distort news ("spin") than to explain it.

There was a letter in the Guardian on Christmas Eve from someone with an interesting angle on all this, based on his having been in the German army in Stalingrad:

Listening to the call-to-war noises made by Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Straw, forcefully reminds me of the noises made by Hitler and Goebbels to justify their planned attacks on other countries. As I had been "educated" in the Hitler youth, I believed every word they were saying, as well as in their superior intelligence and honourable patriotic intentions.
However, about three years into the war, trudging back through the white hell after having lost the battle of Stalingrad, I began to wake up to the fact that my trust in my leaders had been betrayed. It was then, walking back through the regions our triumphant advance in the previous summer had laid waste, that I realised the unmeasurable crime we had committed against the ordinary Soviet people - and all for the sake of reaching the rich oilfields to the south-east on behalf of our masters.

There is still time to stop and think and remind our leaders of the consequences of war, which they themselves have never experienced.
Henry Metelmann
Godalming, Surrey

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:55 AM

I think the witholds and the claimed omissions are different sets of data, KM, just to keep things fair. But I am inclined to support your position about trusting either of these clowns.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:36 AM

It's a great game this - censor the text and than claim that there are omissions from what were in it in the first place that justify going to war, and everyone is supposed to take it on trust.

I'd trust George Bush about as far as I'd trust Saddam Hussein.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 02 - 10:15 AM

Sorry I missed it earlier, buddy.

Nothin' like a good war to make folks look better than they are....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 02 - 06:39 PM

Yeah, Amos, I posted this on a different thread last week. A german newspaper got an "UNEDITED" disclosure and got the names of the US corporations who either have or still are in bed witrh Saddam. But now, as I understand, the US is *cleaning up* the copies being provided to the countries on the UN Security Council. Hmmmmmmmmm?

Man, wouldn't it be too bad (Yeah, right...) if Junior couln't have his war because he got caught tampering with the evidence. (Like what evidence, I ask. We're still waiting?) and had to go about doing presidential things, like running the country, rather than playing the world's bully.... Well, you wouldn't have to worry about '04 'cause you can bet that if Junior can't shoot his big gun then he ain't stickin' 'round...

Give me a break...

Peace thru RESISTENCE!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 26 Dec 02 - 02:51 PM

It appears that Bush is not only witholding what he does or does not know about the arms status of Iraq in NBC categories. He is also being careful not to talk about all the American companies which aided Iraq in building whatever such capabilities it has.

At least, that is the implication of this report which I have no way to fact-check at the moment.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Amos
Date: 18 Dec 02 - 11:48 AM

You guys gotta getcha some of these. They're right on the mark.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 07:37 PM

Of course there were atrocities by the other side, no one said there weren't. However, I was speaking of the post-war actions of the victors. When you win, you get your revenge or justification by winning. When you lose, you just feel resentful you lost, and wait until you have another chance, perpetuating the cycle of war.

In the case of WWII, a concerted effort was made by the victors to make peace with the losers -- subverting the "we'll get them next time" syndrome.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 07:26 PM

I find it quite interesting that the "atrocities" mentioned my NicoleC in her last post were committed by the Allies. No mention (or thought?) of the Holocaust or the massacres of Slavic peoples by Germany. No mention of the Rape of Nanking and Shanghai, or Bataan.
Hmmmm

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 11:43 AM

But look at what the Allies did to achieve unconditional surrender in Japan. Is there really no better way to make peace than to devastate a nation so we can rebuild it? I would like to think that it may be possible to avoid the war entirely, and with Iraq letting the inspectors back in, there may be a chance.

P.S. I agree entirely with you, Don. Our president is not the most comforting figure. Have you heard about the Information Awareness Office? It's headed by Poindexter, a man who was heavily implicated (convicted but overturned) in the Iran Contra scandal and will soon be able to track all of your online information transfers, including posts like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 07:17 AM

The difference Nicole was that the Allies insisted on the unconditional surrender on the part of the Axis powers, all the others you quoted were negotiated peace settlements, with the exception of Korea where only a ceasefire was negotiated. As you rightly point out what followed the end of hostilities in 1945 was the thing that ensured peace - pro-active engagement in the reconstruction of devastated countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 10:46 PM

Does it? The Gulf War brought peace to Iraq, right? How about Korea... real peaceful, isn't it? Vietnam? Somalia? There's been so much success for all the wars fought by Israel, it's a real peace zone, isn't it?

Nor did WWI bring peace. Nor has thousand and thousands of years of constant warfare. With all that war, damn, you'd think we'd be awfully peaceful!

WWII might be the exception. Why the difference? WWII was followed by a massive campaign on the part of the US to wage peace -- to heal scars, rebuild economies, and re-establish friendly relations. Despite atrocities like the fire-bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima and generations of young men dead, that plan to wage peace worked.

Maybe, just MAYBE we ought to try breaking thousand of years of tradition and try waging peace for a change, with the same passion and glory and effort with which we wage war. Mudcat is all up in arms about Veterans Day. But when was the last time the nation declared a holiday to celebrate the relief workers, medical staff and volunteers who risk their lives to wage peace by building infrastructure, healing disease and training people?

Guess there's no glory in dying of dysentary in a remote village trying to teach people how to dig better wells. Better drum up another war so another generation of young men can die on the battlefield gloriously for a cause that they have no say in and have rarely been told why the war is really being fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 10:41 PM

Wrong, Dougie. Every war has brought another... and another ... and another...and another... and another... and another....and another... another...and another... and another... and another....and another... and ....

Get it? War only brings about the next one, my friend. Nothing more than just another war.

Where do you find the peace in any of it?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 10:10 PM

Ah, but war might be the only thing that will eventually bring peace, Nicole. That's what brought peace with Germany and Japan isn't it? Peace is what has happend after every war, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 03:29 PM

An administration that thinks that war = peace?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 02:18 PM

Bush's domestic policy? The Patriot Act? Homeland Security?

Scares me a bit. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 02:08 PM

Well, what should we be worried about, McGrath? Hussein has agreed to let inspectors in, though he denies that there is anything for them to find. If he has no motive to launch an attack, and Dubya doesn't give him one once the inspectors do find something, what ought we to worry about?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:45 PM

There's no reason to think Iraq is in any way capable of launching this kind of attack, which is by no means easy, or indeed has any motive for wanting to do so.

Maybe it's time to read The Story of Chicken Little. With the moral that, if you fill your heads with worrying about the wrong things, the things you ought to have been worried about are more likely to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:01 PM

Thanks Don. I think you supplied enough information for me. It doesn't sound good.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 01:53 PM

Huge amount of information on pneumonic plague to be found on google.com.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 01:45 PM

Most people have heard of "bubonic plague," but "pneumonic plague" is just as deadly. Bubonic plague is spread by fleabites, whereas pneumonic plague is spread as an aerosol, which makes it a better candidate as a biological weapon.

Bubonic Plague:

A contagious, often fatal epidemic disease caused by the bacterium, Yersinia pestis, transmitted from person to person or by the bite of fleas from an infected host, especially a rat, and characterized by chills, fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and the formation of buboes. (American Heritage Dictionary)
 Bacteria invade lymph nodes, which swell and are called Buboes
 Blood vessels break, causing internal bleeding
 Dried blood under the skin turns black, hence the name, "Black Death"
 Spread is slow from person-to-person
 Mortality is very high (up to 75%) in untreated cases
 Early treatment with antibiotics is very effective

Pneumonic Plague:

 Bacteria invade victim's lungs
 Lungs fill with frothy bloody liquid
 Spread is common from person-to-person

Further information HERE (requires Adobe Reader).

Respectfully submitted,

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:36 PM

Forum Lurker: "Pneumonic plague." Now that's a new one on me. What is it? How does it affect one?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 02:43 PM

Again, the issue is not so much whether he HAS is as whether he will USE it. Even without smallpox, biological weapons are extremely dangerous. Pneumonic plague, readily located and cultivated anywhere in the Eastern hemisphere, will kill 1 in 3 if it is antibiotic resistant (a procedure so simple it is done in high school biology), and there are dozens more just like it. What needs to be done is to avoid any reason to use them, namely, not to threaten war before an official response has been given to the U.N. resolution. Anything else is incredibly irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 11:44 PM

"But I think any rumors (and it is a rumor, not a verified fact) about what Iraq does and does not have right now should be treated with skepticism while the US Government is spending millions in PR dollars to convince the American public how bad Iraq is."
Whistling in the dark and wishing won't make it so. If it is a rumor, it seems pretty well substantiated and some fairly well informed people (not just Americans) are taking it seriously.
I guess they feel that they can't afford NOT to.
When we were all immunized after WWII, I don't recall anyone dieing. I was pretty young at the time but I would have heard if anyone in my greatly extended family had died and I would remember it. We kids were not sheltered from death in those days and a lot of deaths all at once would have been a major topic of discussion, not only at home but in church as well.
Maybe the people of today just don't have as firm a grip on life.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 10:18 PM

Debka.com an alternate source of propaganda

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 06:00 PM

They didn't clarify, Doug, but I got the impression it was spending money on things likes guns and anti-aircraft missiles, not long-term research. Nuclear research would qualify as a long term thing that doesn't have a quick payoff.

Whether Iraq will accept the resolution or not... Since Iraq has already agreed to inspections priot to the passage, it may be a short and sweet wait. BUT -- although I may not think Saddam is suicidal, petty dictators and bullies have this habit of pointless defiance. If he thinks it will go bad for him either way, he'll probably put his back up against the wall and hide behind talk of Iraq's sovereignity being insulted.

I hope not. I would *SO* like to see this thing end peacefully. Of course, Saddam's advisors may take matters into their own hands is Saddam beces intractable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 04:56 PM

Niclole: "they needed to spend their limited funds on researh that would have a quicker payoff?" Like nuclear weapons?

It would seem that we should know within a reasonable time whether all of the second guessers, or Bush, is right about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. The Inspectors should be in Iraq pretty quickly now that ALL nations, including Syria, voted yea on the US/British proposed U.N. Resolution.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 04:08 PM

By the way folks, GREAT discussion on Talk of the Nation today on smallpox. Their guests were both well informed and polite to each other. One of the guests was the author of "Devil in the Freezer." (BTW, both thought that mass vaccination, as of now, was a bad idea, because we lose immunity so quickly.)

One of the most interesting points, in light of this discussion, was that if Iraq has been pursuing smallpox as a biological weapons, there's a commonly known and not very difficult avenue to developing a vaccine-resistant form. In 1995, Iraq admitted that prior to 1990 they had been developing a genetically ehanced bioweapon program. (Must like the US and Soviet programs). They stopped because they needed to spend their limited funds on research that would have quicker payoffs.

I personally doubt that Iraq has since aquired the resources to continue that research... question is, given that this vaccine-resistant smallpox is supposed to be fairly easy... did they complete it prior ending/redirecting/stalling bio research.

Food for thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:54 PM

Which is why labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are bunk. Lately, the so-called conservatives are the ones trying to rewrite our Constitution, not the so-called "liberals."

You didn't hear about people dying of the smallpox vaccine when it was in wide use for the same reason you rarely hear about the kids that die (a couple dozen a year) from routine vaccinations -- the dangers of NOT getting those vaccine are worse.

Troll, the vaccine is effective almost immediately -- in fact, it can be used to treat the disease up to 4 days after exposure. A tricky concept; smallpox symptoms usually don't show up for 7-10 days.

I agree that smallpox is a biological weapon that should be closely monitored and inspected. INCLUDING the biological labs active in the US that are manufacturing -- er, "studying" it. Remember, the last death from small pox (in 1978) was from laboratory exposure. It's pervasive, easily spread, and very hard to kill. Unlike anthrax, an aerosol can of smallpox on a subway could actually be effective in starting a wide outbreak. If smallpox was revived in the wild, I'd probably be in the vaccine line real quick.

But I think any rumors (and it is a rumor, not a verified fact) about what Iraq does and does not have right now should be treated with skepticism while the US Government is spending millions in PR dollars to convince the American public how bad Iraq is.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:15 PM

And Nicole: I'm surprised to see you are taking the conservative view on vaccination. We all know that conservatives are opposed to change, right? And renewing the vaccination program would be just that. Change! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:11 PM

As I recall the conversation on the NPR DR show, the man from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta used the 300 person figure Troll.

Everyone who served in the military in WW II and probably into the late sixties received the smallpox vaccine. You did not read of mass deaths from the vaccine then did you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:02 PM

Hello Greg. I reported what the story said. Nothing more.
Considering that smallpox kills about one in every three who contract the dangers of innoculation don't look so bad. Keeping in mind that it will take time to innoculate everyone (assuming the vaccine is available) and that it takes a certain amount of time before the vaccine is effective.
If a biological attack with smallpox does take place, it will come with no warning. So it behooves the US to gather as much intelligence as we can and try to assess the danger.
Possession of the virus is bad but it must be coupled with some sort of delivery system. This is part of what will be going on with the weapons inspections, if they can actually find the stuff that has already been manufactured and then hidden away.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Greg F.
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 10:51 AM

Golly Gee, Richard-
You mean this war is about <>I>OIL?
and <>I>MAKING MONEY?

Troll, you forgot the FIFTH country with stocks of live smallpox virus- the United States. Don't kid yourself...

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Richard H
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 11:12 PM

Delivering a feature address in Barbados yesterday, American economist and former CNN business reporter Stuart Varney was full of praise for the Bush administration.

He said there will be war with Iraq and this could be good news for Caribbean tourism.

According to the newspaper report, "He said the price war on gas would come to an end as prices plummeted after America gained control of the (Iraqi) oil... The American economy ...should show growth by a further four percent early next year if there was an attack on Iraq."

This is what most non-Americans have suspected all along as the real reason for the war, but to hear it put that brazenly was, to say the least, ...frightening.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:20 PM

I'm assuming when the Washington post reported there was a "possibility" they believed it.

There is also a possibility that I will win the Lottery Saturday. That doesn't mean I'm spending my millions yet. When I get to 4 numebrs in a row, then I'll get excited :)

Quote from an article about 1 month ago in USAToday:
"For every million immunized, one or two people will die from the vaccine, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Sunday. About half of those vaccinated for the first time suffer muscle aches or fever. Serious side effects were rare during mass vaccinations in the '60s, he said, and complications in people being revacci- nated were even rarer. It's estimated that 64% of today's workforce probably was vaccinated before 1972, when routine smallpox vaccination ceased.

But it's a different world today. Ronald Atlas, president of the microbiology society, said 20% to 25% of those who suffered reactions were people who had not been vaccinated, but caught the vaccine virus from recently immunized people. Today, with so many more cancer patients, people with HIV/AIDS and others with weakened immune systems, the number of serious side effects could be "much higher, by orders of magnitude.""

So we're talking about the deaths of hundreds, maybe even thousands. Anyone who has some types of thyroid diseases, diabetes, MS or other common illnesses are at higher risk. And vaccines are being implicated in many conditions that don't appear right away (like autism and immune disorders). Additionally, the brain infection that kills most people that die of the small pox vaccine can be debilitating.

The vaccination itself is a "live" vaccine, and can cause the spread of the smallpox virus. Not a problem in a control condition. But a mass innoculation would have people lined up to get jabbed. (I've been through one -- a measles epidemic. 30,000 people on campus vaccinated in 2 days. Nasty experience, and we all caught everyone else's colds.)

A mass innoculation would without a doubt reintroduce the disease to the world, causing the deaths of thousands more worldwide.

We stopped vaccinating for small pox because it was a very risky vaccine compared to the others, and the chances of catching it had dropped very low. Without a clear indication that we are at a substantial risk, it seems like the vaccine is the greater danger.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:06 PM

The article said that there were 4 countries that had stocks of live smallpox virus. There are, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, and France. The only one that was rated as "medium" in likelyhood was North Korea.
We already have good information from Russian scientists that Russia sold smallpox technology in the early 90's. There is other evidence as well. There is no smoking gun but the evidence suggests a high probability that Iraq has smallpox virus. The technology they were sold was for manufacturing the liquid form of the virus.
I am aware of the reports that say that Saddam won't use his WMD's unless he is attacked.
OK.
Who can gaurantee that this scenario will hold good for the foreseeable future? Saddam has pledged to destroy Israel. A good fast plague would do just that and it could be spread by means other than missles or bombs.
The figure I saw was 300 deaths if the whole country were innoculated. If someone else has different data, please correct my figures. I read the article in the Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese English-language newspaper. It was a reprint from the Washington Post.
As I said in my initial post, I'd like to know what others think about this news. I am assuming that it is credible.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:46 PM

Last I heard, there was nowhere near enough vaccine for the US, but they were hoping they could dilute the dosage and were going to test that out. I guess they finished short-term tests; long term protection can't be tested yet. I wonder how long it takes smallpox to decay out of the environment? I diluted dosage would almost certainly be safer.

I disagree about the better safe than sorry comment though. We know with absolute certainty that a significant number of people will die from the vaccination itself. Vaccinations *aren't* safe, but most of the stuff we vaccinate for has a higher probability of death if you contract it. It's a calculated risk.

Without a credible threat of a small pox epidemic, a mass vaccination program is comdemning people to die for something it's extremely unlikely they'd get. Nor is smallpox necessarily deadly; the mortality rate used to be high in it's hey-day, but treatment is far better now.

I personally need a better reason to roll up my sleeve than a rumor. It seems more likely at this point one of the bio labs around town would accidentally release some. If we knew, for example, that Al Qaida was trying to smuggle some into the country... well, that's be a different story.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:31 PM

Maybe we have a different definition of "hysteria", Don. To me it implies debilitating fear and panic. You know from what I have contributed to this thread that I am more than slightly p.o'd about Bush's war plans, but I still got my wits 'cause if I loose that then I'm not going to be of any value to the resistence movement.

But I know what you mean, my friend.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:08 PM

Perhaps you are right, Nicole, but I think better safe than sorry. I, myself, am not hysterical, but I might become so were serveral cases of smallpox to break out somewhere around here.

A NPR program recently devoted a hour to this subject (the DR show). Evidently there is enough vaccine to cover everyone in the U. S. I dont' know what supplies are available in other countries.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 03:49 PM

It seems to me that those who don't get a little hysterical about this whole thing must not have a very good grasp of the situation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 03:28 PM

Well, T-Bird, you wanta see hysteria. Bring on your war and you'll get a real dose of hysteria, from the poor folks who get caught in the middle of the crossfire, the relatives of those who get killed which may indeed be folks we know and love. As fir now, no hysteria on my end. Concern? Yeah. Anxiety? Yeah. Anger? Yeah. But no hysteria, my friend. I'm a tad long in the tooth for panicing.

But I thought since numbered my concerns that I'd get at least a little more than name calling. Oh well...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 03:05 PM

Actually, I think mass vaccinations -- which we KNOW will cause deaths and injuries -- in response to a rumor of a possibility published in the Washington post is the "hysterical" reponse.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 03:03 PM

I agree with you on principle, Doug, but one little problem: do we have six billion doses? If smallpox is used on American soldiers, it will be spread to the rest of the world. If we are genuinely worried that Hussein will use bioweapons if attacked, a reasonable fear, then we cannot risk attacking, regardless of our own immunity, if such an attack will reintroduce smallpox to the world. Our own intelligence agencies have said, and Mossad agrees, that Saddam will use WMD's if AND ONLY IF he is attacked. With that in mind, no argument yet presented can possibly justify U.S. military action.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:47 PM

The comparison in the two posts above from Bobert and DougR, in response to a question posed by Troll, speaks volumes.

From DougR - we get a sane and logical answer to the question.

From Bobert - we get the same old hysteria

Hmmmmmmm?

Visit an innoculation centre at a theater near you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:43 PM

Well said, Trapper...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:37 PM

Troll:a short answer to your question: I think the population should be inoculated against small pox. There are risks associated with that because a number of people are sure to die as a result of the inoculation (at least that's what I heard on NPR), but I think the risk of an epidemic is much worse.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Trapper
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 12:57 PM

Just posted this on another thread, a new song I wrote as an allegory to this topic.

- Al

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:54 AM

Well danged, troll, why didn't ya' tell us earlier? This cahnges everything. Excuse my boney Wes Ginny butt while I go on down to the recruiting office and sign up to go kill a bunch of folks... Opps, that was Dougie's line.

Ahhhh, lots of dangerous folks in the world. Just which one's are on your "A List" to be taken out and how you plan on doing the *taking out* without:

1. Gettin lots of folks, including civilians, killed?

2. Creatin' a generation of pissed off kids who will one day strap bombs on themselves and visit a theater near you?

3. Gettin bogged down in an endless war, jumping from one battlefield to the next?

4. Further subverting the foundation of the United Nations?

5. Sending out an undenbiable message to other countries that attacking their neighbors is perfectly acceptable?

And those are just for starters.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq, and War: PART EIGHT
From: Troll
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 10:17 AM

According to an article in the Washington Post, Iraq very likely has a stock of smallpox virus. What does the Forum think should be done?

troll