BS: US & British war plans blocked

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:41 PM

jimmyt-If cheering people were all it took to make a leader good, Saddam would have had Bush and Blair beat by a long shot. His people cheered him whenever he wanted, and no one ever said a word against him ( or at least not more than once). I do not mean to state that Bush and Blair are using the same means of coercion, or intend to, but I don't know if the Iraqis realize that they don't have to cheer if they don't want to. If your only experience was in a police state, and someone invaded with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, you'd cheer too.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: jimmyt
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:22 PM

I am watching every network right now and in each case I have seen cheering Iraqis waving AMerican flags, tearing down statues of this monster, and thanking the president of the United States. Not too much more needs to be said. Thank God for men like Tony Blair and George W Bush who have the courage of their convictions to do the right thing.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:16 PM

Claymore-Just because some countries kill protestors, that doesn't make it moral to disperse a legally gathered crowd with excessive force. I'm not sure what you meant by the first sentence of the second paragraph of your post, but I understand that the court system is the judicial mechanism of the state. I simply disagree with its assessment of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, et al. How do you reconcile some of these things with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 08:29 PM

Forum L, While the wording of the sentence was perhaps to artful for your understanding or referring to history you seem unaware of, the following nations spring to mind: Japan, Germany, and Italy, as well as the Vichy French (people do forget that the first American casualties occuring in the European theater of WWII were by the Vichy French in North Africa) and every nation in Europe helped by the Marshall Plan.

As for my comments about the protesters and the Court system (which you cannot, for some reason, understand that the appeals process in which the above referenced decisions were made, IS THE LEGAL SYSTEM) remains virtually intact. And were they to be protesting in many other countries of the world, the bullets would have a periodic table number closer to plumbium.

And as you cast out your last sentence, you must have heard the snickering down the hall...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 08:09 PM

How peaceful and law-abiding you could be and still have Governor Moonbeam shooting at you?

Maybe you know the facts. I don't. But I've got to tell you, if Jerry thinks you should be shot at. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:48 PM

Claymore-It is quite possible that the French government has been selling materials necessary for a nuclear reactor to Saddam. Does that make it legitimate to nationalize French companies' property, given that not all of said companies engaged in such activity? Recall, we also have had billions of dollars tied up in regimes that tortured and oppressed their own people.

What "democratic, stable, and self-sufficient Arab nations" have we created?

You seem to have missed the occassion on which peaceful, legal protestors were fired on by police with rubber bullets and wooden dowels. You also may not have noticed that, according to the Patriot Act, those protestors were terrorists because they were undertaking illegal action (resisting arrest, for no particular crime) and endangering human life (their own, by being fired on) in an attempt to alter government policy (redress of grievances, anyone?). Regardless of what a number of stacked courts may say, anyone with half a brain can see that the Constitution DOES NOT make any exceptions to due process whatsoever.

Do you have any idea how many nations have supported terrorists? Let's see, the United States is up near the top of the list, with the Taliban as one of its best efforts. To invade every country that supported terrorism as much as Iraq did would require centuries of warfare, culminating in civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:30 PM

FL, you clearly invoke your own prejudices.

The French have literally billions of dollars tied up in a regime that tortured and repressed its own people. To the extent that Jimmy Carter needed to offset the Iranian exremists, we began to give military aid to Iraq. But we realized our mistake, and to the extent of some one hundred casualties, and the other costs we have paid to liberate the country, we are doing our best to rectify things. The French have no such off-set. They were helping Saddam build nuclear weapons up until March 19th.

We have said over and over that we do not need Iraqi oil, and we don't. Moreover, using the Iraqi example to create a democratic, stable, and self sufficient Arab nation (as we are the only nation in the history of the world to do several times before) we do far more to ensure the stability of the worlds energy markets than the 7% that Iraqi oil would contribute to our Nations needs.

As for the lamposts, let the Iraqis determine how they are decorated. The Black Muslim is now back in the States and our justice will see to his fate.

By the way, your comment about the protestors was appallingly stupid; the anti-war protestors in the States have been totally ignored, and except for when they block traffic, left to stew in their own ignominy. As for the enemy combatants and terrorists, the Administrations position has been upheld by every court in the land, at every level, with few modifications and no reversals.

As to your point, about Al-Qaeda and Irag, I do not see how it relates to anything I have written, except to say that, obviously, not everything about this subject has been written. As I noted above, I suspect that several nations that have supported terrorism in the past, are undergoing the Bush International IQ Test, and some interesting answers will be forth coming.

And some point you will have to realize you and yours have lost... totally and for at least the next ten years, maybe forever... Your lies and exaggerations do not survive daylight, and while you gather in groups to fester your views, the world is moving on. To the extent that your views are held with sincere conviction, the world will look back in pity. To the extent your views were promulgated with lies and deceit, the world will look back with quiet satisfaction. But make no mistake, the world will be looking back...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:04 PM

Claymore-That's it exactly. Let's illegally steal large quantities of infrastructure from nations we profess to consider friendly, and use it to make it easier for our oil companies to build their own power base in our new colony. Let's butcher the former government in massive lynch mobs, rather than giving them a fair trial, because after all that only applies to Americans, and only then when they aren't terrorists, or enemy combatants, or protestors, or . . .

And need I point out that NO evidence exists to link Iraq to Al Qaeda?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:58 PM

Gareth-It's true that there haven't been many American or British casualties; in fact, Americans and bad luck have killed more British troops than the Iraqis. I can't be too happy about Iraqi casualty figures, though; current reports are more than 1,200 civilian deaths and twice that in military, most of whom are draftees.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:56 PM

On the 22nd day of the war, we control Bhagdad, Iraqis fill the streets with cheering crowds as Saddam's statue is torn down, the prison torture chambers are being shown on TV, no-one can claim the media did not get full access to this war, no SCUDS hit Israel and only two in Kuwait, we got no cooperation from Turkey and still were in the city on the 18th day, few oil wells are burning, the civilian casualty count is well below the monthly number of civilians killed by Saddams regime for the past twelve years... I'd say the better men, Blair and Bush won again.

Now to help the Iraqis nationalize all French, German and Russian investments, turn the palaces into hospitals, universities, and seats of local government, and decorate the lampposts of Iraq with dead Ba'athists and Special Republican Guards... and one Black Muslim...

And to those nations who harbor terrorists, we have destroyed the governments of two terrorist nations in seven months; Life is an IQ test...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:44 PM

Well so far so good, I mean from the hysteria posted in these threads, youd have thought :-

1/. The Iraqui's loved Saddam Hussain.

2/. That there would be mass civilian casualties,

3/. That there would be many Allied deaths

Etc.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 04:31 PM

. . . tick . . . tock . . . . tick . . . tock . . .

(But you guys have to admit that was a LOT of pesticide. . . )

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 03:58 PM

Well. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:56 AM

I'll tell you right up front, that if we go in and it's a purely conventional war, I'll be the first one to admit that I was wrong and that we had no business there in the
first place. (Troll)

Wolfgang (waiting)

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: gnu
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 05:05 PM

No no no, the Big Boys. Not a wee punt like the 117, which IS semi-helpless on a full moon. A grand ship like the B-52. Supported by advanced AWAC's, A-6's, Arrdvarks, Warthogs, Apaches, Cobras, Thomahawks and killer drones. This would advance a ground force which could be covered by stealth, Patriots and Star Wars during the dark phase of the moon.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 04:06 PM

Gnu, they shot down the f117 using eyes not radar. No moonligh, is my guess.

Speaking of blocking War plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/14KRUG.html?th

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: gnu
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:59 PM

JtS... as I understand it, most of the southern radar and C&C was knocked out as far back as three to four weeks ago. This would give the Big Boys a go on the full moon, to be closely followed, if not concurrently accompanied, by a ground movement to set up artillary before sandstorm season really gets underway. I really don't think the lads want to delay the "ultimate" confrontation into the next dark phase of the moon... that is, the one after which you refer to. They would be at a much higher degree of disadvantage and many more troops would be lost.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:55 PM

Teribus, if you look at the following post of yours which predates my link by a good four days (you posted the article on 06 Mar 03 - 04:18 AM. I posted the link to that very same article on 10 Mar 03 - 01:27 PM), you will see the following paragraph about four paragraphs into the article (in YOUR post):

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 04:18 AM

Hi Don:

"NELLIS TO RESUME DEPLETED URANIUM MUNITIONS TESTING

International media reports have raised questions about the health and environmental impacts of DU munitions used in recent conflicts. The World Health Organization, RAND and numerous other organizations have determined that the employment of depleted uranium is safe and presents no significant risk to human health or the environment.

YOU posted the article. All I did was to post a link to the article YOU posted. AFTER you posted it. And I did it as a courtesy to you in case your lengthy copy/paste article was deleted since it is against Mudcat rules for you to be posting lengthy copy/paste articles.

Earlier on in the thread MGOH posted a link relating to the four-fold increase in the incidence of cancer in Iraq.

Bobert, Don, Carol and others attribute this to the use during the Gulf War of DU munitions.

Please show me where I have done this.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 12:39 PM

Earlier on in the thread MGOH posted a link relating to the four-fold increase in the incidence of cancer in Iraq.

Bobert, Don, Carol and others attribute this to the use during the Gulf War of DU munitions.

For that to be true - whatever radiation and heavy metal particles result from the such ammunition must be the only carcinogens in the whole of Iraq. Now that is pattently absurd, as there are others.

One possible source could be from the deliberate poisoning of the waters in the South of Iraq, carried out by Saddam Hussein as part of his campaign of genocide against the Ma'dan (Marsh Arabs). No, of course not Saddam wouldn't do that - would he??

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:26 AM

CarolC,

The lines you have attributed to me are, as described a direct quotation from the link you, yourself supplied - i.e. Not my words.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 05:11 PM

And you can find all sorts of people who'll tell you that smoking is good for you. Or, at the very least, there has been no established connection between smoking and cancer.

Yeah! Right!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 04:58 PM

P.S. so far environmental studies and medical studies support my contention.

Some do, and some don't.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 02:26 PM

Gnu, since the US forces justifiably claim to "own the night" and since they lost an f117 stealth "fighter" in Cosovo becase the enemy could see it in a full moon. The smart money may not be on the 17th. If we're starting a pool I'll take March 25th.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 01:50 PM

My prediction got stuffed by world opinion last time. However, I think I'd put money on it this time. March 18 is a full moon, give or take a day.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 01:39 PM

Interesting points, Wolfgang. I have not been arguing whether or not DU is dangerous, but rather, that it has not been shown to be safe, and that we need to do a lot more research on it before we use any more of it on the battlefield.

CarolC,

Please point out exactly where in any of my posts related to DU munitions that I have said it is safe - the point I have tried to illustrate is that it is not a dangerous as you and others would like to make out - so far environmental studies and medical studies support my contention.

Here you go, Teribus:

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 04:33 AM

From the link supplied by CarolC (which was nothing more than a link to an online source for the article posted by Teribus):

"International media reports have raised questions about the health and environmental impacts of DU munitions used in recent conflicts. The World Health Organization, RAND and numerous other organizations have determined that the employment of depleted uranium is safe and presents no significant risk to human health or the environment."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 08:27 AM

Again, I say, if it was safe, there would be no such guidelines. I'm guessing that the WHO has no guidelines for the safe limits of exposure to milk, for instance (Carol)

Milk isn't a good example for two reasons. First, it consists of too many different more elementary compounds and the relative contribution may vary considerably. The policy of the WHO has been to publish safe limits for identifiable elements or more complex chemicals and not for a food. So it would recommend safe limits for mercury in fish but not safe limits for fish (for the amount of mercury can vary a lot).

Second, components of milk of course have a recommended safe limit of exposure. Take the naturally occuring aflatoxin for instance and then you may read in a WHO discussion:

These (the EU countries) delegations noted that aflatoxin M1 was a genotoxic carcinogen, a lower level was needed to
    protect high level consumers of milk and vulnerable populations such as infants and young children (http://www.who.int/fsf/Chemicalcontaminants/AflaM1_32ccfac.htm)

The existence of recommended safe limits is not a good argument for (or against) relative danger.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 06:32 AM

CarolC,

Please point out exactly where in any of my posts related to DU munitions that I have said it is safe - the point I have tried to illustrate is that it is not a dangerous as you and others would like to make out - so far environmental studies and medical studies support my contention.

Bobert says:

"The real "experiemental group" is in Iraq where so many DU rounds were used, compared to Kosova. And throw in the time lapse between the contamination and effects in Iraq and the spike in cancer and birth deformities, it is entirely possible and very probable that DU's ain't this wonderfully safe stuff."

Meanwhile the WHO says:

"No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans."

I know who I would accept as being the greater authority on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:58 PM

CarolC:

You can give up on T! T ain't gonna look under any rocks that might cast a shadow on T's guys (i.e, George Bush and anyone that Bush says is okay by him...).

The real "experiemental group" is in Iraq where so many DU rounds were used, compared to Kosova. And throw in the time lapse between the contamination and effects in Iraq and the spike in cancer and birth deformities, it is entirely possible and very probable that DU's ain't this wonderfully safe stuff.

Then when the US governemnt orders the good doctor not to dig too deep in treating Gulf War Syndrom vets, does make ya' wonder.

But, heck, this goverment can come up with more wonderful sounding organizations to say the stuff is safe that eventually they will have us thinking that they outta bottle DU up and sell it in the health stores...

As per usual, beam my boney butt up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:55 PM

Correction:

United States Government General Accounting Office

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:53 PM

This site has some very interesting information regarding what the United States Government Accounting Office has to say about DU:

The potential health and environmental effects of DU is well-documented and many studies warn against DU use in munitions (for a good bibliography see the WISE home page, www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dlit.html). Contrary to their previous statements, the US government is aware of the potential risks of inhaling DU dust in the battlefield. In 1993, the US government General Accounting Office released a report that concluded, inter alia, that inhaled insoluble oxides [which makes up more than half of the DU dust created at impact with armour] stay in the lungs longer [than a year] and pose a potential cancer risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive and a toxicity risk'. 1 (GAO/NSIAD-93-90: Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal with Depleted Uranium)

NATO Notes

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:25 PM

This is some of what RAND has to say about it. Nowhere in this site do they say that it is safe. They say that studies conducted so far do not show correlations between some of the conditions being examined and certain health consequences. But they also say that more research is needed (on people who have already been exposed) in order to determine more conclusively what the possible health hazards are:

"Because risk assessment has advanced greatly since many of the standards for both occupational and population exposures were developed, reexamination of those standards and refined dose response end points by these organizations would be helpful.

Research to better understand the mechanisms and dose response of exposure to DU on renal function would be helpful. Attempts should be made to correlate nephrotoxicity with renal uranium concentration following different modes and levels of exposure. Knowledge of cortical concentration would be more informative than total renal uranium levels. The U.S. Transuranium Registry is a continuing source of these data (Kathren and Ehrhart, 1998). It is also important to continue work to understand the mechanism by which natural and depleted uranium exert toxic effects on the body. This would include work to understand the nature and toxicological significance of the separate uranium pools kinetically identified in the kidney. Modern techniques should permit analysis of distribution of the toxic metal in the kidney, and more-sophisticated dose-effect studies than those relying on total tissue concentration at one arbitrary time are appropriate.

The work of the DU Follow-Up Program being conducted and expanded at the Baltimore VA Medical Center is important and needs to continue. The cohort and research represents the best opportunity to study the effects of human exposure to DU over time that is now available.

Although ionizing radiation from DU is in the form of alpha particles, the decay products emit gamma and beta radiation that could affect those in proximity to DU weapons. Although research to date has indicated that levels of exposure are significantly below occupational levels, ongoing efforts to study the levels of exposure from such radiation to soldiers in proximity to DU weapons or armor should continue, especially as weapons and weapon systems vary over time."

RAND

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 12:04 PM

No need to get personal there, Teribus. I read the contents of the link. And I need to look at some more sites before I feel that I can debate effectively on this subject. My point in my last post was only that if it were safe there would be no guidlines for maximum exposure. And it was to illustrate my point that I chose the part I did to copy/paste.

Here's some more guidelines that support my contention (that the WHO does not say DU is safe):

"Following conflict, levels of DU contamination in food and drinking water might be detected in affected areas even after a few years. This should be monitored where it is considered there is a reasonable possibility of significant quantities of DU entering the ground water or food chain.

Where justified and possible, clean-up operations in impact zones should be undertaken if there are substantial numbers of radioactive projectiles remaining and where qualified experts deem contamination levels to be unacceptable. If high concentrations of DU dust or metal fragments are present, then areas may need to be cordoned off until removal can be accomplished. Such impact sites are likely to contain a variety of hazardous materials, in particular unexploded ordnance. Due consideration needs to be given to all hazards, and the potential hazard from DU kept in perspective.

Small children could receive greater exposure to DU when playing in or near DU impact sites. Their typical hand-to-mouth activity could lead to high DU ingestion from contaminated soil. Necessary preventative measures should be taken.

Disposal of DU should follow appropriate national or international recommendations."

Again, I say, if it was safe, there would be no such guidelines. I'm guessing that the WHO has no guidelines for the safe limits of exposure to milk, for instance, which we generally acknowledge to be safe.

Your contention is that DU is safe. You posted an article that quoted the World Health Organization as saying it is safe. In no part of the page I posted by the WHO, including the part of it that you copy/pasted, does it even remotely say that DU is safe. You're obfuscating, Teribus, and you're using obfuscation to try to prove that an apple is an orange. That's your most frequently used debating tactic here in the Mudcat. Unfortunately for you, obfuscation only works on lazy thinkers, so it isn't terribly effective here.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 08:26 AM

CarolC -

Thanks for the link - you are very good at posting these and very selective in your quotations from them - unfortunately you are not so good at reading them.

From Carol's link:

"Applications of depleted uranium

Due to its high density, about twice that of lead, the main civilian uses of DU include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shields in medical radiation therapy machines and containers for the transport of radioactive materials. The military uses DU for defensive armour plate.

DU is used in armour penetrating military ordnance because of its high density, and also because DU can ignite on impact if the temperature exceeds 600°C.


Exposure to uranium and depleted uranium

Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used.

A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.

A UN expert team reported in November 2002 that they found traces of DU in three locations among 14 sites investigated in Bosnia following NATO airstrikes in 1995. A full report is expected to be published by UNEP in March 2003.

Levels of DU may exceed background levels of uranium close to DU contaminating events. Over the days and years following such an event, the contamination normally becomes dispersed into the wider natural environment by wind and rain. People living or working in affected areas may inhale contaminated dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water.

People near an aircraft crash may be exposed to DU dusts if counterweights are exposed to prolonged intense heat. Significant exposure would be rare, as large masses of DU counterweights are unlikely to ignite and would oxidize only slowly. Exposures of clean-up and emergency workers to DU following aircraft accidents are possible, but normal occupational protection measures would prevent any significant exposure.


Intake of depleted uranium

Average annual intakes of uranium by adults are estimated to be about 0.5mg (500 ìg) from ingestion of food and water and 0.6 ìg from breathing air.

Ingestion of small amounts of DU contaminated soil by small children may occur while playing.

Contact exposure of DU through the skin is normally very low and unimportant.

Intake from wound contamination or embedded fragments in skin tissues may allow DU to enter the systemic circulation.


Absorption of depleted uranium

About 98% of uranium entering the body via ingestion is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces. Typical gut absorption rates for uranium in food and water are about 2% for soluble and about 0.2% for insoluble uranium compounds.

The fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood is generally greater following inhalation than following ingestion of the same chemical form. The fraction will also depend on the particle size distribution. For some soluble forms, more than 20% of the inhaled material could be absorbed into blood.

Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days.


Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium

In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.

In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group.

Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.

Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).

No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.

No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.

Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported.

I find nothing in the above that would support your description of the passage I quoted from the article on Nellis Range that would allow it to be call propagandist.

According to the above, people living in Aberdeen and parts of Cornwall, who have never seen a DU shell, missile or Bomb in their lives, appear to be at greater radiation risk than those people in Kosovo or Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:27 AM

Just getting used to some new expressions:

freedom leave
freedom letter
freedom polish
freedom kiss

Well, after a bit of time that'll feel as common as Kitchener, Ontario

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:59 PM

Looks like the article you posted, and that I provided a link to is just another propaganda site. It says the "The World Health Organization...(has) determined that the employment of depleted uranium is safe and presents no significant risk to human health or the environment."

I haven't checked out the other organizations mentioned in the article, but the WHO most certainly does not say it is safe or that it poses no significant risk to human health. In fact, it has issued guidlines about maximum recommended exposure for humans. If it was safe, there would be no recommendations of that nature. These are the recommendations I found on the WHO website on DU:

World Health Organization

"The general public should not receive a dose of more than 1 millisievert (mSv) in a year. In special circumstances, an effective dose of up to 5 mSv in a single year is permitted provided that the average dose over five consecutive years does not exceed 1 mSv per year. An equivalent dose to the skin should not exceed 50 mSv in a year.

Occupational exposure should not exceed an effective dose of 20 mSv per year averaged over five consecutive years or an effective dose of 50 mSv in any single year. An equivalent dose to the extremities (hands and feet) or the skin should not surpass 500 mSv in a year.

In case of uranium or DU intake, the radiation dose limits are applied to inhaled insoluble uranium-compounds only. For all other exposure pathways and the soluble uranium-compounds, chemical toxicity is the factor that limits exposure."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:31 PM

Well, here's the latest ((click):

WASHINGTON, March 11 — Show the flag and pass the ketchup was the order of the day in House cafeterias Tuesday. Lawmakers struck a lunchtime blow against the French and put "freedom fries" on the menu. And for breakfast they'll now have "freedom toast." (Associated Press)

I have to say that I'm deeply embarrassed that this sort of propaganda comes from my country. Well, this is the land that renamed sauerkraut to "liberty cabbage," so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Do you think maybe it could just be a joke?
Maybe the current Powers That Be in Washington are a joke.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 04:33 AM

From the link supplied by CarolC:

"International media reports have raised questions about the health and environmental impacts of DU munitions used in recent conflicts. The World Health Organization, RAND and numerous other organizations have determined that the employment of depleted uranium is safe and presents no significant risk to human health or the environment."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 01:27 PM

BTW, here's the link to to the article Teribus copy/pasted:

Air Combat Command News Service

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 01:09 PM

Teribus, you can test things in a laboratory or on a proving ground or any other controlled situation and generally get a pretty good idea of what results you will get. But—the real proof is when you use it in the actual situation. Factors can show up that you never anticipated. This, of course, is very upsetting to those who conducted the tests, especially when the tests are run while wanting to get a particular result.

Reread the article I linked to. There's your actual, "in the field" result of using depleted uranium. Not all the special pleading in the world can deny that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 12:52 PM

What they did do at Nellis Range was to set up live fire tests, i.e. give pilots real targets to fly and fire at. Those targets would be hit, they would then be inspected - I presume by people.

By people in protective gear. (If not, that's just one more thing to convince me that the current US administration is insane.) The people who were exposed to inhaled DU previously did not have protective gear.

The effects on the environment would be identical to those in Iraq, possibly not identical to conditions in Kosovo.

The effects on the environment perhaps, but not the effects on people who are exposed to inhaled DU.

As the article I posted stated an environmental study was carried out, and as a result of it's findings testing has been resumed in conjunction with ongoing environmental monitoring.

Nowhere did you mention studies being one on people who were exposed to inhaled DU. If you know of any such studies, please post a link to them.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 08:51 AM

CarolC:

What they did do at Nellis Range was to set up live fire tests, i.e. give pilots real targets to fly and fire at. Those targets would be hit, they would then be inspected - I presume by people. The effects on the environment would be identical to those in Iraq, possibly not identical to conditions in Kosovo. As the article I posted stated an environmental study was carried out, and as a result of it's findings testing has been resumed in conjunction with ongoing environmental monitoring.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:24 PM

"...the scientist say
it'll all was away
but we don't believe in them
anymore..."

Sure the *government" is going to say the stuff is safe! What else *can* they do, for cripes sake. But they fire the good doctor when he was close to sniffin out some real positive correlations between DU's and significant health risks.

And then we have the "experiemental group" (the Iraqis) who have expienced a major spike in cancer and birth deformity rates. How much a spike? Some doctors in Iraq have reported ten fold which is probably exaggerated but even if it's only 3 fold, I don't think it can be easily dismissed because the *governemnt* says the stuff is safe.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 12:30 PM

Teribus, I'm guessing you didn't read the article Don linked to. If you had read the article, you might have addressed the issue of particulate DU causing health problems when it is inhaled. The article you copy and pasted (without providing any link) does not address this problem either. The only way they can do tests on inhaled DU is to have people inhale it and then do studies on those people. I don't think they're going to be doing that at the Nellis range. But they can do this with the people who have already inhaled it during the last Gulf War, and in the Balkan countries where it was used.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 04:18 AM

Hi Don:

"NELLIS TO RESUME DEPLETED URANIUM MUNITIONS TESTING

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) -- The Air Force announced today it will resume limited use of depleted uranium munitions on the Nevada Test and Training Range.

Software upgrades and ballistic testing of the ammunition for the 30mm cannon on the A/OA-10 aircraft are scheduled to begin in 2002.

"Depleted uranium munitions are absolutely critical to our future success in combat. Resuming ballistics testing will ensure our pilots have the confidence and skill to use these munitions effectively in combat," said Gen. Hal Hornburg, commander of Air Combat Command.

International media reports have raised questions about the health and environmental impacts of DU munitions used in recent conflicts. The World Health Organization, RAND and numerous other organizations have determined that the employment of depleted uranium is safe and presents no significant risk to human health or the environment.

DU's ability to penetrate armor and its increased range and accuracy over other munitions make it an ideal weapon for the A/OA-10 mission.

Currently, the Air Force tests gun-sight software with simulations and trains A/OA-10 pilots in classroom instruction, which is unrealistic and does not satisfy training requirements. Without live-fire testing and limited training, software upgrades can only be validated through combat.

The Air Force and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mutually agreed to stop the use of DU munitions at the Nellis range in 1993. The Air Force then reexamined using DU at the range and completed an environmental assessment in 1998. The assessment found no significant impact on human health or the natural environment from the use of these munitions at target complex 63-10, situated about 12 miles inside the range. Upon completion of the EA, the USFWS signed a memorandum of agreement accepting the Air Force's decision to resume testing and training.

The Air Force will implement a rigorous management and monitoring plan that covers every aspect of DU testing and training, from weapons use to clearance and disposal.

"Our plan involves life cycle monitoring, air and soil sampling, clearance and disposal of DU rounds and targets," said Hornburg. "The Nellis range is critical to our readiness. We must be good stewards of the natural resources on the range while preserving the military's primary mission."

Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium, which can be handled safely with bare hands. DU is used in the protective armor of the Army's M1A1 Abrams tank, commercial and medicinal radiation shielding, drill bits, and as ballast to balance the center of gravity in civilian aircraft and sailboats."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 02:48 PM

Depleted Uranium

'Nuff said.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 04:14 PM

Don't be prockly Wolfgang, that was a straightforward reqest on my part. I meant it, I wasn't being sarky or anything.

But it sounds to me as if you would be much better equipped than I am to search out the truth on this.

All I've ever heard, and that has mstly been the mainstream papers and the mainstream broadcasters, has been to the effect that depleted uranium is extremely toxic when the dust is inhaled, and that using it in shells produces a lot of dust that never goes away. But then the journalists writing this aren't experts either.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:29 PM

Well, sure the DU's were test fired prior ro their use in the Gulf War. Problem is that the "control group" was not subjected to 320 tons of them as was the "experiemental group" (i.e., the Iraqis...).

And how come they fired a 20 some year veteran Doctor for refusing to stop researching the correlation of unanium in the bodies of his patients and the high level of those same patients with Gulf War Syndrome symptoms?

Can anyone really give me a logical explanation for this curious coincident? The doctor was told they were cutting back at that Wilmington, Delaware VA hospital but soon after his firing he was *indeed* replaced. Hmmmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:26 PM

Lots and lots of figures, Teribus. Those who deny the existence of a "Gulf War Syndrome" have one set of figures. Those who say they suffer from Gulf War Syndrome and their advocates have an entirely different set of figures. As they say--go figure. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 04:41 AM

Thanks for the post above Wolfgang, your points are very well put.

On the subject of DU ammunition, I would like to elaborate on a question I raised earlier.

These munitions were made and tested in various countries around the world, the US military is not the only armed force that has developed them. They must, therefore, have been tested in those countries and those tests would have included live firings against the targets they were meant to destroy. The effects would therefore have been similar, albeit to a slightly lesser degree.

What are the statistics in, and around, those test areas for incidence of the illnesses reported as being attributable to DU rounds used in "Desert Storm" ?? Any figures - anybody?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Gareth
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:14 AM

New "Bunker Busting" Bombs ????

My Oh My ! - Looks like they've reinvented Barnes Wallis's "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam" - Whats next ? 617 squadron over Bagdad ?

"Click ;Ere"

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 12:09 AM

"Such is the nature of minds that are already made up." A quote from Don Firth. Doesn't that apply to all of the threads of a political nature that have been discussed here on the Mudcat? Excellent statement Don.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 05:22 PM

McGrath, if I thought I had found one, I wouldn't hesitate to tell you. I have to right to criticise even if I know of nothing better.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 05:11 PM

Everything I've been able to find says either that depleted uranium is highly dangerous, or it's as safe as mother's milk. I don't think we're going to find anything definitive, and even if we did, there will be those who won't accept it. Such is the nature of minds that are already made up.

I remember the concerns of the scientists I talked with when I was with the radio station and I'll stick with that. But if there is later, more authoritative information, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Nevertheless, aren't we nit-picking here? When it comes to homocide, does it really make any moral difference whether we kill someone with lingering lethal radiation or drive over them with a truck? We've still killed them.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:57 PM

So could you find us a website which tells it straight, and doesn't suffer from those faults, Wolfgang?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:21 PM

I know how to tell good science from bad science. That's an ability aquired in more than thirty years of training. Which doesn't mean I cannot err. I have and I will again.

The sites McGrath has linked too have many aspects of bad science:
- As Claymore has already said, for instance the three apes are propaganda. Good science needs no propaganda, it convinces by facts.
- If you compare the literature (references) with the article, you'll see that all good-journal-articles (refereed journals) are cited only for marginal points. Those references cited for the vital points are 'grey literature' that is to websites or to private prints, i.e. to publications without peer review.
- I nearly completely miss what I see in good articles, namely a critical discussions of the authors conclusions and assumptions listing also the weaknesses of the own intzerpretation.
-The documentation of the data (gathering) is far from scholarly.

Nevertheless, some strong points are made though in a version lacking any signs of real competence in gathering and presenting data.

My verdict a this point: (1) That is a blunderer with good intentions, bad knowledge, and a very selective data gathering.
(2) That is a man who lacks the schooling to make his point in the correct way but nevertheless has a potentially valid point.
(3) With what I have seen I am unable so far to make up my mind between (1) and (2).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 02:59 PM

That's a pretty interesting link that McGrath posted. It's quite technical, it takes some pretty heavy wading to get through it, and I doubt very seriously that very many people will read the whole thing. At certain points, it makes it sound like depleted uranium is pretty safe stuff.

BUT—be sure you don't miss THIS page.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 01:43 PM

Well, Don, you're right. There are a lot of people who are Phd's in physics and chemestry who do have concerns about U-238. Making DU rounds as tank killers is what the US has done. Only problem is that when a DU round punchs thru a tank it creates a firestorm of unanium dioxide which blows around and sticks to metal and contaminates the soil. According to Scott Peterson, a science writer for the Christain Science Mointor this dust "makes a Geiger counter sing".

Now the US used 320 tons of DU's in the Gulf War and killed somewhere around 4000 Iraqi armored vehicles and afterwards the Pentagon considered these contaminated vehicles to carry such a "substantial rsik" that they were buried in the Saudi desert.

Dr. Asaf Durcokovic, a former US Army Colonel, was fired from his job at a VA hospital in Wilmington, Delaware after he refused to stop performing reserach on his Gulf War patients who had high levels of uranium in their bodies and were experiencing symptoms of "Gulf War Syndrome". Hmmmmmm? Wouldn't you think the government would want as much info on the casues of the GWS, rather than balme it on other sources such as gas that *might* have been used by the Iraqis. Make that a big *might have*.

If the stuff is so harmless then why the PR campaign. Why not let scientists and physicans follow up on the effects of DU's. Right now, firing a guy for doing just that, does not add to the credibility of the governemnt's position, does it?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 01:42 PM

Well, open that site with the report about depleted uranium and find out for yourself. And decide whether you agree with Claymore's judgement about it. Perhaps you will.

The basic thing with the Internet is you never need to just trust what anyone says, unless they have earned your trust and you choose to trust them - you can go back to the source, and then back to the source of the source.

The three wise monkeys are in fact not on the first page of the report, they are on the bottom of the page which carries Chapter Nine. And their presence there seems to me a very reasonable comment on the Department of Defense (DoD) spokesman's response.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 01:29 PM

Okay, Bobert, but don't say I didn't try to help! Sigh.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 01:10 PM

Thanks for the kind words, Claymore, but I'm not exactly a one-trick pony. I'm no physicist, nor am I an expert on weapons of mass distruction (although I'm not exactly ignorant when it comes to such matters). Nor do I defer to the experts without asking at least a few questions, because I'm just curious about things.

Some of what I've heard about depleted uranium (i.e., material from spent fuel rods) comes from across-the-table conversations some years ago with nuclear physicists and engineers who worked at Hanford. I was news director in a radio station in the Tri-Cities, just south of Hanford, and thus had access to some pretty interesting and informative people. This was a matter of some local interest, because we were "downwind." One conversation concerned the problem of what to do with the increasing number of spent fuel rods. According to the physicists and engineers, the bloody things consist mostly of U-238 and are still dangerously radioactive, although no longer as radioactive as they once were. Safe storage. They hoped it was just a temporary problem and that someone somewhere sometime soon would figure out a way of disposing of them "permanently" (glassify them and bury them deep beneath the earth or dump them in a deep ocean trench, perhaps). 4.2 billion-year half-life, remember, and that's not debatable. Look it up in any physics book. You may have heard a few things in the news about the extent, the problems, and the massive expense of the "Hanford Clean-up." Well, that, and the problem of radioactive fluids leaking from storage tanks into the ground-water and seeping into the Columbia River are what it's all about.

Well, it looks like someone has finally found a use for the fuel rods. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM

I am going to try to be a little more restrained than I was last night and perhaps lend a quieter hand to the debate.

If you open the studies proffered by McGrath, you will find nothing but hokum and political satire passed off as a medical study. If you get as far down as the first page and click to the reponse comments by a "Federal Spokesman" you get a cartoon of the well-known three monkeys. This is propaganda, and I personally resent any person passing off this tripe as a "serious study". I should point out that one of my degrees is a Masters in Safety and Environmental Management from one of the leading universities in that field, West Virginia University (due to the problems with extractive industries such as coal mining, brown fields, and a host of coal-related problems.

My Masters thesis was a study of the protective measures practiced during Weapons of Mass Destruction drills to ensure that what was practiced had real world value, and that the training was appropriate to the actual level of threat. This was while I was working for the VA's Emergency Management Strategic Healthcare Group, which is the interface between the VA hospitals and DoD in war or between FEMA and the VA in case of a declared natural disaster.

It is my feeling that if individuals who proffer hokum or a TV special as proof of their arguement, and who cannot, off the top of their head tell you what the Stafford Plan is, or give you one ESF from the FRP and define the agency responsible, they need to keep their benighted blatherings to themselves. If they have never had graduate-level statistics, and don't know what the p level of significance is, or whether it was a one or two tailed test, they again should stay in the shallow end of the pool.

Don Firth is a well-spring of musical knowledge, and I defer to him frequently on those issues (I do not know McGraths or GUESTs contribution to the musical world). But go to WMD and you are in my 'hood, so just whistle as you pass through.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:53 AM

what's on your monitor, Claymore??

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:46 AM

"We weren't shooting at children, you twit"

It's not so much a question of who you are shooting at, it's who you hit. Or in this case, who breathes in the lethal stuff you are spreading irresponsibly around the environment. And planning to spread around the environment again, probably on an even larger scale.

From the same people who brought you Agent Orange, it's Depleted Uranium. And the same people who continued to give Saddam Hussein full backing after his gas massacre of Kurds at Halabja.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:26 AM

Dougie:

Don't worry about me. This is more important than spelling and dangling participles.

Not that I don't enjoy messin' with you 'cause I do, it's also important, and my responsibility, to try to hang with the *big boys*. I mean, I *am* on the humanistic side of the issues. And I am a preacher of peace, anit-war (if you will), humanism, commuictaion, summiting, talking, co-exhisting, caring, helping, loving and all that other stuff that in times like these is needed to counter the insesent pounding of the drums of war.

But, don't worry, my friend, you know that T and Claymore won't ever come between us...

You knothead! Now, you feel better?

Comeon over here and get a big hug...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 01:02 AM

Bobert, ole' buddy, I have a suggestion. I hope you will take this in the friendly fashion in which it is offered.

Why don't you limit your sparring with somebody like me, instead of taking on Teribus or Claymore? Neither one of us spell very well, and our sentence structure is a bit lousy, and we have some fun jabbing each other, but when you pit yourself against folks who have knowledge of a subject ...well, I just think you would be happier slapping me around. No offense intended.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 10:50 PM

CBC report on depleted uranium. Lots of links. 'Nuff said.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 10:45 PM

Yo McGrath, At any point while you were typing your last response after searching for a completey bogus article, to vainly try an bolster a sagging case, did it occur to you that the use of depleted uranium occured in the desert, far from population center, that Kuwaiti children were far closer to the action with NO studies by "600 Iraqi Doctors", and WE WEREN'T SHOOTING AT CHILDREN, YOU TWIT!

GUEST: I do agree with the words "sick, sick, sick"... but not the context.

And Bobert, the only reason they printed few letters on the Editorial page is because they took at least 36 column inches to finally agree with Bush. The facing page hade several letters opposing the war.

But the Post, the goddam Post endosing any war (or any Republican for any office), I NEVER thought I'd live to see the day...

Sample sub-titles: "That Iraq has the capacity to threaten vital interests has been clear since 1990...

Yet Mr. Clinton did fail to respond. Saddam Hussein had four years to strenthen his arsenal, even as the sanctions effectively collapsed...

In the end, a war in Iraq would not be primarily a humanitarian exercise, but an operation essential to American security.

The Washington Post... Oh Lord, I lift mine eyes unto the heavens whence cometh my relief... shit! I think I've just now got a sperm count of ... two. And I've got to close to clean off the monitor...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 10:27 PM

Got it out of a physics book, Claymore.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 10:04 PM

Yeah, Claymore, the Post sure did roll over. They're sprinting to the right so fast that Rev Moon is concerned that the Post will blow *right* on by the Times. Whew. Liberal rag? No quite. I've noticed that they aren't even printing letters anymore that have any sniff of anit-Bush sentiment. And other than an occasional op ed'er, the columnist's are goosestepping, too.

Well, when the Post throws in the towel to the pressures that they obviously are getting then it's a pretty good sign that you and Bush are going to get your war. Hope you all enjoy it. I sure won't.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 09:52 PM

Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who is slated to command U.S. forces if there is a war with Iraq, is being investigated by the Pentagon's inspector general for possible abuse of his office, and investigators tentatively have concluded that the Central Command chief likely violated some restrictions involving his wife, defense sources said yesterday...

Article

The General who was in charge of camp X-ray at Guantanamo, Cuba, refused to torture the civilian goat herders the CIA told us were 'al Qeada'. The General was fired. Now it looks like the General who will oversee the slaughter of innocents in Iraq is having second thoughts, so the global crime syndicate is putting pressure on the U.S. to keep him in line. So the Army goes after him through his wife. These are the type of scum who will be controlling the rest of your lives unless you do something. The American 'TIPS' program...where neighbor would spy on neighbor...was announced, and there was such a public backlash that the government announced it was cancelled. But it wasn't. It was just re-named and funding was doubled. The paranoids running the New World Order feel blackmail and threat is the only way they can 'trust' people. Sick, sick, sick. And if they treat one of their head minions like this, how will they treat you and me?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 08:12 PM

The important thing isn't whether the reason deleted uranium causes such horrible things to happen, most especially to unborn children, is radiactivity or just general toxicity. What matters is that the use of it in the last Gulf War is still is still causing terrible things to happen. It's a weapon of mass destruction:

"Hospital statistics indicated that the number of Iraqi children with cancer rose by a factor of 4´, from 32,000 in 1990 to 130,000 in 1997."

That is from a detailed report produced in 1999 by Vladimir S. Zajic which goes into all this pretty seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 07:40 PM

Teribus, I must admit that I have some problem with Don F's accounting of depleted Uranium. He is right enough of the effects of spalling inside the tank, but after that, he gets back to the effects of radiation, which these shells are not.

As for the other effects, they exactly coinside with that other great lung killer on a desert battle field... sand. But in an effort to reduce the side effects of depleted uranium, I propose that we bury all the dead Iraqi tank crews with dust masks over their faces...

PS: Bobert did you read todays editorial in the Washinton Post? I encourage all to read it, though I can't do a blue clicky. One of the most liberal papers in the history of the free world, the only paper to pull down a sitting President, 36 column inches concluding that "War may now be the only viable alternative for ending the threat of Saddam Hussein". And this before Colin Powells speech...

God, I love this New World!

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 01:37 PM

T:

I'm glad you feel that way, my friend. See, I got a truck load of the stuff I don't know what to do with. Mind if I store it at yer place for a year or so?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 04:05 AM

Apologies for the "screaming" Bobert, it wasn't written that way by intent, only to interpose my comments to your prose.

Meanwhile, nothing you have offered up as a reasoned arguement to support your contention that the US will use nuclear weapons against Iraq stands up to any degree of 'critical' scrutiny. So you jump from that to the next available straw - Depleted Uranium Rounds.

Both Claymore and Don Firth have given fairly good descriptions of this type of ammunition. It's purpose is to destroy enemy armour (Army/Air Force application) and to 'shred' incoming surface skimming missiles (Naval application in close range point defence weapons). One thing I would like to see the statistics for, in relation to the use of this type of ammunition, are the incidence figures for those involved in the manufacture and testing of it. Are special measures in place, because there has been no great outcry about abnormal illnesses attributed that I am aware of. Both those processes, i.e. manufacture and testing would create the dust that Don talks about.

A greater threat to the environment is the careless discard of Ni-Cad batteries from watches, gameboys, calculators, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 12:11 PM

I'm tickled pink at the idea that Britain is part of the "New Europe".

The letter by Aznar, Berlusconi and friends could be seen as a bit of revenge for the Franco-German stitch-up of European Union affairs, a stitch-up that Blair only dislikes because he's not part of it.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 11:22 AM

Yo, T:

Time will tell, won't it. Meanwhile back at the ranch, the US will *indeed* be using weapons of depleated uranium. "Oh, the scientists say it will all wash away, but we don't believe in them anymore..."

And T-Bird. The screaming doesn't befit your style or your arguments, my friend. Might of fact, any paragraphs that have screaming in them, I just pass on. So do most folks around here. But if you want to keep SCREAMING at folks, knock yourself out...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 11:19 AM

Rumsfeld makes interesting remarks in the last few days about exile for Saddam and his closest relations. That could be a way out.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 10:42 AM

Bobert,

Thanks for the article, "Shock & Awe - Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima?" by Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

It was interesting reading but it in no way states any clear intention on the part of the US military to use nuclear weapons against Iraq. It mentions the possibilities and the capabilities, both of which are common knowledge, but nowhere in the article is there any mention of intent to use them by any authoratative figure.

His article has a "good guy", William Arkin (L.A. Times columnist) and a "bad guy", Harlan Ullman (Defence Analyst, one time head of the USN's "extended planning (group/committee/department)" and one time lecturer at the National (presumably American) War College).

The quoted remarks from the "bad guy" are taken way out of context and are designed to paint a completely unrepresentative picture. That picture is then taken as true fact, set in stone, and handed to the "good guy" for additional embelishment.

A sample:

"Is the Hiroshima model just a metaphor? Ullman recently wrote that one way to "shock and awe" Saddam is to remind him that the U.S. has "certain weapons" that can destroy deeply buried facilities. That's a not-even-thinly-veiled reference to the newest kind of nuclear weapons, the B-61 'Bunker-Busters'. William Arkin has confirmed that the U.S. is preparing to use 'Bunker-Busters' against Iraq. That would "break down the firewall seperating nuclear weapons from everything else," Arkin warns, and "forever pit the Arab and Islamic world against us."

The only thing wrong with the above is that in introducing the B-61 'Bunker-Buster' into his article, Professor Ira Chernus omits to mention that while B-61 nuclear weapons, in various models, do exist, and remain as yet untested, the B-61-11, which is the one that can destroy deeply buried facilities, does not. It has formed part of a review and technology required to create a deep penetration bomb using conventional explosives is being studied.

The doctrine relating to the tactical use of low yeild nuclear weapons has been around for a long time dating back to the "cold war" era.

The other refernce you gave Bobert:

"Now on to Bush:

"The U.S. military and appropriate civilian agencies possess the *full range* of operational capabilities to counter the threat and use of WMD..."

There are a number of ways in which you could view this statement. It is not supplied with any reference to check within what context to comment was made. It certainly was not given with any thought to the contents of Professor Ira Chernus article.

It could allude to use of chemical, biological and bacteriological weapons (otherwise why mention civilian agencies - CIA, FBI, NSA are normally referred to a government agencies), either in America or elsewhere, and the ability of those mentioned to protect themselves.

It could allude to nuclear weapons but again the mention of appropriate civilian agencies does not ring true.

Hmmmmm? Well, so Bush has said that Iraq is a threat, (VERY TRUE BOBERT AND I BELIEVE THAT HE IS A MAJOR THREAT OF POTENTIALLY HORRIFYING PROPORTIONS IF LEFT TO PURSUE HIS OBJECTIVES ) so given testimony (WHAT TESTIMONY?) and documents (PROFESSOR IRA'S ARTICLE) that the L.A. Times have been privied to, coupled with Bush's own words (WHICH I BELIEVE REFER TO ANOTHER THREAT ENTIRELY), I don't consider it to far off the wall to bring up the strong possibility of nuclear weapons being used by the US in Iraq. - Bobert, old son, it is so far off the wall that it is derisory.

Now ask the question, "Is it possible that the U.S. could use nuclear weapons against Iraq?" - The honest answer, of course, is yes anything is possible, but that does not necessarily make it probable, desireable or inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 10:31 PM

Facts:—

Depleted uranium is very hard and very heavy. It is used to enhance the armor-piercing qualities of armor-piercing shells. When impacting metal at high velocities, it pulverizes into dust, which emits alpha particles. This dust can soar in the heat column of a burning tank or other vehicle and be blown for miles on the desert wind. It is not a health hazard unless inhaled or ingested, but the likelihood of that is very high. In the first case, lung cancer is highly probable, since it lodges in the lungs; in the second case, leukemia, since it is absorbed by the bones. The dust eventually settles into the soil, and any food grown in this soil is contaminated. It will be around for awhile, because the half-life of uranium is 4.5 billion years. "Depleted" is a relative term.

And uranium is an equal opportunity killer. It doesn't care about race, religion, nationality, or ethnic origin.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 08:51 PM

Claymore:

I have no more love for Clinton than you. I just don't call him names and, yes, I did notice that you didn't either. Good on you, my friend. Your points were better presented and received. Might of fact, I can't think of too many things that Clinton did that I can honestly say I agree with other than listen to Allen Greenspan. Other than that, his entire 8 years were yaers of negotiation and capitulation. He left a number of problems on the table when he left office.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 08:34 PM

Bobert, Point taken, but keep your spear clean too. You must remember that by this time in his Administration, Clinton had four Cabinet level officer under indictment by his own Justice Department. Later, two were convicted, one died in a plane crash though his son was convicted of the same offenses, and one was adjudicated innocent by an all black jury).

McGrath, the idea of depleted uranium is that it is depleted. According to the VA medical reports on the ex-Gulf War complaints, there is less radioactive material in a six pack of tank shells than in your radium dial wrist watch. As I recall one of the comments in a recent Senate hearing, on the subject (which I regularly get as part of the Agent Orange Study Group) "You'll get more radiation from moving your house 100 feet further up the hill towards the sun, than you'd get from handling these shells". They further pointed out that when handling the Iraqui wounded, the American medical staff took no special percautions, and have indicated no further difficulties or symtoms. Interestingly, to my knowledge, the Iraqis have made no such claims either.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:51 PM

Okay. True confession, Carolc and WG.

I only got to page 3 when my lexdexia took over and the words just started swimming on me.

But up to that point, what I got out of it was that the guy was thinking that war would force many Isalmic Middle Eastern counties to shape up and fly right.

I guess my feelings are that this can be achieved without a war. The US has not put forth it's best diplomatic foot, or used something along the lines of a Department of Peace to foster fundamantal changes in the way mankind goes about living together.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:40 PM

That's definitely an interesting article you linked to in your post, Wolfgang. I think, though, that to try to paraphrase it in any way is to do it a great injustice. I think, in order for a reader to have any understanding at all of what the author is saying, it is absolutely necessary to read the entire article very carefully.

Personally, I don't think that the author is necessarily advocating for the US to wage war unilaterally on Iraq, but, rather, if the US does wage war unilaterally on Iraq, the motivation should be something much more beneficial to the region than the motivations that have served the US in its past conduct there (while also making some points about how Arabs can approach solving some of the problems of the region).

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:21 PM

No it isn't, Wolfer. It's satire. There is a world of difference. You won't catch this ol' half nigga/ half hillbilly sayin' nuttin' racist 'cause what ever racism *the system* tried it's best to program in me, didn't stick. And in the words of Jimmy Carter, or whoever used to say 'em, you can take that to the bank...

Bro-bert

p.s. And some of my best friends are____________________. Jus funnin'.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:47 PM

Uncle Tomaj Ali

That's a nasty racist remark, Bobert. Shame on you.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:44 PM

Well, danged, I figgured it would be just a mateer of time before Uncle Tomaj Ali would get around to "Wouldn't America's Killing of a few hundred thousand Iraqis and American kids go a long way toward modernizing the Middle East?" MIght also set off World War III. But, hey, no war is perfect.

There are much better ways to modernize the Middle East than war.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:26 PM

Thanks Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:24 PM

Here's that article's summary:

SUMMARY The driving motivation behind a new U.S. endeavor in Iraq should be modernizing the Arab world. Most Arabs will see such an expedition as an imperial reach into their world. But in this case a reforming foreign power's guidelines offer a better way than the region's age-old prohibitions, defects, and phobias. No apologies ought to be made for America's "unilateralism."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:21 PM

Teribus' post is easy to find, Carol: You just have to look at all the places you posted that link and search for Teribus' next post.

It's link time, so here's one from me:
Iraq and the Arabs' future
by Fouad Ajami
From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2003

It was interesting reading for me, despite the omissions in the chain of arguments.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:09 PM

Thanks Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:06 PM

Danged if I know, CarolC, you and J the S have about a half a dozen of 'em that I've run into. I'm sure you'll find T's response. Heck, I might have mead it up but I don't think so. If I run into it again, I'll PM you with the thread...

Bobert

p.s' I did use liberal poetic license in T's reponse but it was negative...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:03 PM

Where did he do that, Bobert? I must have missed it.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 12:41 PM

Too late, CarolC, T-Bird allready stuck his head in there for a mintue or two and proclaimed it just another *bunch-of-lieing-commies* website.

T ain't interested in the truth but just arguing his pro-Bushwar rhetoric.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 12:34 PM

This site has a lot of interesting and well documented information. You might want to take a close look around this site, Teribus...

Center for Cooperative Research

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 12:15 PM

Teribus:

http://www.commondreams./org/views03/0126-01.htm

William Arkin, the military anaylist for the Los Angeles Times wites this past week in an article entitled, "The Nuclear Option in Iraq: The US lowers the Bar for Using the Ultimate Weapon."

"At the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) in Omaha and inside planning cells of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, target lists are being scruntinized, oiptions are being pondered and procedures are tested to give nuclear armaments a role in the new US doctrine of preemption."

"...The current nuclear planning, revealed in interviews and described in documents reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, is being carried out at STRATCOM's Ohmaha headquarters and among small teams in Washington and at Vice President's 'undiclosed location' in Pennsylvania."

Now on to Bush:

"The U.S. military and appropriate civilian agencies possess the *full range* of operational capabilities to counter the threat and use of WMD..."

Hmmmmm? Well, so Bush has said that Iraq is a threat, so given testimony and documents that the L.A. Times have been privied to, coupled with Bush's own words, I don't consider it to far off the wall to bring up the strong possibility of nuclear weapons being used by the US in Iraq.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 08:00 AM

"That leaves open the question whether they might or might not have them, but not in their ordnance inventories, which neither you nor I know."

They undoubtedly do have them - how else can you develop protective suits, medicines and equipment for your troops who might be faced with the threat. Munitions for these types of weapons are very specialised. The US and NATO do not have them.

"After all, Saddam Hussein hasn't got them in his ordnance inventories either, but it appears that isn't seen as conclusive proof he hasn't got them."

Wrong Kevin, from 1998 the UN knows that he does have them (around 6500 of them in fact). So far the UNMOVIC teams turned up 12 and the Iraqi's themselves found another 4. What Saddam has to do is give up the remainder, plus the stuff that goes into them.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 07:19 AM

, I do know that neither the US nor NATO has chemical, biological or bacteriological weapons in their ordnance inventories.

That leaves open the question whether they might or might not have them, but not in their ordnance inventories, which neither you nor I know. After all, Saddam Hussein hasn't got them in his ordnance inventories either, but it appears that isn't seen as conclusive proof he hasn't got them.

Shells containing depleted uranium was of course routinely contained in shells used extensively last time, and no doubt ths time. I'm not sure if that counts as chemical or whatever, - either way it's deadly stuff, with horrible effects, especially on unborn children. I imagine if Saddam used it it'd be another war crime to charge him with, and quite right too.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 06:48 AM

Bobert,

Your response to my earlier posting:

"Well, danged, Teribus. Im sure you cleared up the fact that the weapons inspectors indeed are not in Iraq to find hidden weapons. Don't make a lot of sense to me or probably 99% of the people in the world but if you say it then it has to be true."

The source of the passage quoted in my posting is from the United Nations web-site. The passage quoted clearly details the role of UNMOVIC. The, "...but if you say it then it has to be true." comment is being a bit childish don't you think? You appear unable to counter facts unless they support your personal view on things.

"So you know what the US has and oesn't have in the it's arsenal? I dought that. Seems every time they get a chance to blow up some folks they parade something out that the American people didn't know about."

Bobert, believe me, I do know that neither the US nor NATO has chemical, biological or bacteriological weapons in their ordinance inventories. Could they develope those weapons - of course they could. Would development of those weapons be desireable from the military point view - No they would not - Why, because they tend to be extremely unpredictable in terms of effect and totally indiscriminate. The US and NATO have developed highly sophisticated weapons delivery systems that are extremely accurate, therefore the need to resort to WMD is eliminated.

"Now as for that arsenal. Word of the street that nuclear bombs will be used."

Word on the street, Eh!!! Specific information from an authoritative source please Bobert. From everything I have read and listened to over the past few months Bobert, there has been no mention of the use of nuclear weapons by the US military - Could they use them - of course they could - the conditions and the situation under which they could be used are so improbable as to make mention of it laughable. But carry on Bobert - keep whipping the situation up for all you're worth, albeit on 100% speculation, rumour and fantasy - It's a lovely opportunity to relive those heady Vietnam Protest days Hmmmmmm?

Fact Tally So Far:

1. UN is living up to it's international responsibilities because of the actions of the USA.

2. UN Inspection Teams are in Iraq due to the initial stance taken by the USA which secured unanimous backing in the UNSC.

3. The US is not at war with Iraq

4. Whether there will be a war or not depends entirely on the actions taken by the Iraqi Government.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 02:13 PM

On another thread in which part of the topic was Shakespeare, I made the comment, "These were the days when national leaders (e.g., Richard III, Henry V, etc.) were expected to put on their armor, take up their swords, and lead their troops into battle. Is there any way we can revive that system?"

If you really think that a particurlar war is a good idea, are you willing to pick up a rifle and go? If not, then. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 11:16 AM

Thanks McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 09:44 AM

It's true enough, Carol that the leaders of eight countries have put their names to a letter saying that on the whole they are on the Bush side. The Uniteed Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Denmark from inside the EU, and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Of course, that's leaders. (Including that most peculiar and dodgy of leaders Berlusconi.) How far they carry their people with them is another matter, but what the hell, what matters is a name on a bit of paper.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 10:47 PM

It is very true that violence is the last resort of the desperate and the stupid.

And unfortunately, it's all too often the first resort.

I don't have all the nations, but apparently seven other New European nations have told Germany and France to go to hell with the wheels on.

Yeah, I keep hearing that from the people who are hungry for war with Iraq, but I have yet to hear or read the name of even one of them. I may disbelieve that one perhaps just a little bit less when they name the countries.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:40 PM

Claymore:

Not that you could care, but you might get a little further in advancing your ideas if you could delete the juvilnile name calling. It weakens your positions, unless of course, that is your intent.

But, hey, big guy. Of ourse it is your 1st Ammendment right to just go caling folks names, like "Bag of Puss", which in spite of my disagreements with Bush, wouldn't stengthen any of my posts, but detract from them.

And I didn't like Clinton either.

Peace starts in the heart, brother.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:38 PM

"Given a bit of effort"

QED

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:32 PM

Those are other points, Gareth. The point I was making was that it's a distortion to say "the nation" supports something just because the government does.

As for hanging, when they had a referendum in Ireland on changing the constitution to make sure the death penalty couldn't ever be sneaked back in, the vote was in favour of barring the death penalty for ever. Given a bit of effort maybe the other bits of the British Isles might catch up.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 07:14 PM

Errr, Kevin, 'Mass Observation' found that most people supported Chamberlin's actions over the Munich Agreement.

In the UK most oppinion Polls would support the reintroduction of the Death Penalty for Murder.

On this basis would you support Hanging, or "I have no further teritorial ambitions"/" I have in my hand a peace of paper ...." ???

Gareth - Tossing an explosive charge into the pool of debate !!

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:28 PM

Nations are not the same as governments. So far as the United Koingdom is concerned it is very clear that most people do not agree with Tony Blair and his government on this issue. He has admitted as much, saying that he was sure that people would come round to his way of thinking in time.

I suspect that the same would be true in many, if not in fact all, of the other European nations whose governments signed up to that letter.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:19 PM

McGrath: you failed to include an important tag to your paragraph I think: "in your opinion."

When I write something, what I write is intended to convey my opinion. Why else would I write it? (Leave aside irony, which in any case is just my opinion in fancy dress.)

But I think it is pretty generally agreed that the first responsibility for trying alleged war criminals lies with the countries from which they come. I believe this is an opinion held by the American Government, in principle.

It is only when Governments fail to do this, or are unable to do this, that the International War Crimes Tribunal comes into the picture. The United States has declined to allow this possibility, and has said that it is redundant since it can be relied on to carry out its duty in this matter, and can do it with less risk of miscarriages of justice.

And that is my opinion of the opinion of the United States and of the state of international opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 04:58 PM

Well it looks like other nations disagree with the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". I don't have all the nations, but apparently seven other New European nations have told Germany and France to go to hell with the wheels on. In their joint declaration they talked of the "American bravery, generosity, and farsightedness".

This occured at the same moment that the UN selected Libya to chair the UN Human Rights Commision and Iraq will chair the May 12-June 27 UN Disarmament Conference. Iran will co-chair. And peole wonder why we don't defer to the UN more.

And to the twits who wonder why we don't subscribe to the International Tribunal, they obviously haven't heard that the defense counsel for Slobodan Milosevic has requested the Tribunal to indict the Last Bag of Puss to Infect the White House for war crimes. Yes that's right, your old rapist-hero, Bill Clinton. And for a typicaly Clintonian offense: Failing to act to prevent the massacres in Bosnia.

And as Don Firth notes " I can go to through various Mudcat threads...put together quite a collection of posts in which several people say, in essence 'Bush said it, I believe, it and that settles it'. I don't know what you'd call that other than blind acceptance".

Well Don, I have zero doubt that what you say is true, that you could collect "several people" who have in effect made such statements. And I have enough trust in your rationale and experience in the MudCat to have you belive me when I retort that were I to cut and paste quotes as you propose, I would have a Hell of lot more than "several" people, stating "(Fill in the name of your local Puss-Bag, Dictator, Wackoid, Communist Loser, or Anybody-But-Bush person) said it, I believe it and that settles it". A Hell of a lot more...

And the acceptance of such a non-critical thinking universe of characters, indicates a far blinder acceptance. They're like monkeys with a note in their mouths, they'll follow anybody...

And with the leaders of now a sizable coalition of nations standing up along side the President, the folks who state they believe Bush are in far better company then those twits who believed Clinton...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 01:33 PM

I read yesterday that Powell will show satelite photos of Iraqi's burying weapons in the desert. Surely they must know where those spots are and can send the UN inspectors there to find them and then everyone will know for sure. Exactly why don't they do that? That would be irrefutable proof and there would no longers be lingering questions as to their compliance with sanctions. Why don't they do that?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:09 PM

Troll:

www.cns.miis.edu/research/korea

Time magazine is like pablem. They write whatever the governemnt wants them to write. Keep in mind that during these years that they say Korea was going hot and heavy in developing a nuclear weapon (if that's what they really said...) one should keep in mind that IAEA inspectors were there and that the two reactors in Yongbyon would have had to be completed to produce enough plutonium (approx 5 kilos) for make a bomb.

The IAEA were on top of the situation and obnly after their ecent departure has NK blown a lot of smoke in trying to gey the US to regoniate a more comprehensive agreement to replace the *Agreed Framework) that was signed in 1994. It should also be noted that the US was to assist in the building of two light water reactors that produce electricity that the US did not do as agreed upon.

Now, whereas the CIA says the NK *probably* possesses one bomb their is no proff, other than NK's statement which many folks believe is just a ploy to get the US back on board.

Like Iraq, this administration, rather than diplomacy choozes to threaten folks so it's no wonder that NK says it has a bomb. Even if they do, which is doubtful, they have not conducted any tests of either a weapon or delivery system.

But you can be sure, the "axis of evil" speech definately but a nuclear program back on the front burner for a lot of folks...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 11:58 AM

The hardest thing in the world is to get above physical force when you are yourself confronted with it. It is very true that violence is the last resort of the desperate and the stupid. Bush's dramatic assertions as to what Iraq has done/will do constituting a threat of physical violence and essentially particpating in the system of idea and logistics that led to the 9-11 murders is imopressive as hell until one asks for the facts. The intel picture is a mosaic of partial indications and interpretative assessments and that is understandable. But there is nothing partial or interpretative about the tens of thousands of American men and women currently standing by or en route to the Middle East prepared to follow the planes in.

I, too, deplore the quick enthusiasm for military force that Bush has demonstrated. I think it is pathetic. However, I also concede he is in a difficult position and has no idea how to get out of the situation he is in except by blasting, and somehow that overrides the costs in human misery he is signing up for. If I were in his shoes Iw ould also weant to be very sure that the potential catastrophe of Iraqi-supported terrorism never happened on my watch; I can understand his nervousness on the point.

But I believe if he had learned a little more about promoting humanism and a little less about pulling strings and working connections, he would be in a better position to deal with it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: TIA
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 09:53 AM

How about Ghandi driving the British from India armed largely with a spinning wheel?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,nice guest
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:47 AM

Doug: your last version of the question to nutty doesn't make sense to me. You want a story of armed conflict (weapons used against each other) resolved without war?

Anyway, if I understand the original intent of the question, how about: Cuban Missile Crisis?

dan

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:42 AM

Just as a fist fight is not the only option in a disagreement between adult persons...

We need some adult leadership out there right now.

Fist fights are illegal by the way, and so are pre-emptive strikes, also called wars of aggression. There's a good reason why both of them are illegal, if you stop to think about it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: nutty
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:14 AM

Doug .... I think you are deliberately missing the point that I am trying to make ........ the cold war proves that armed conflict is not the only option.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:36 AM

Bobert: your reply to Teribus indicates to me that you have no understanding at all of what the UN Resolution requires Iraq to do.

Nutty: The Cold War did not involve armed conflict between Russia and the United States. I'd welcome your informing us of any major conflict between countries that was not resolved by war. Maybe the losing side didn't like it much, but the loser seldom is able to dictate terms of capitulation.

McGrath: you failed to include an important tag to your paragraph I think: "in your opinion."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Troll
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 11:31 PM

Bobert, your reaction to my little challange was about what I expected.
Regarding NK and it's dramatic repudiation of the non-proliferation treaty, They also announced that they had been working on a nuclear program since 1994 when they signed the agreement that Jimmy Carter brokered. Basically, they had the rest of the Clinton administration to work on their nuclear program in peace while your taxes and mine supplied them with oil for fuel.
When Bush made his "Axis of Evil" speech the administration most likely had some idea of what was going on. It took Kim Jung-Il to repudiate the treaty. In the meantime, he had admitted to the world that his country was working on nukes.
You can blame Bush if you want to for his speech. So far events are proving him right.
Diesel, thanks for the comeback.
Regarding intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD's. We may know that they have them but not know where they are. You don't get some shady character meeting you in a dark alley saying "Come! I have seen them! I will show you where they are hidden."
That only happens in the movies and Grade B ones at that.
You piece things together; a bit here, a bit there until a coherent picture begins to emerge. I saw a news report that said that the Iraqi scientists are refusing to talk to the inspectors unless an Iraqi official is present. I also heard on a radio report that word had gotten out that Iraqi scientists had been sent official Death Certificates.
To me, the implication is clear, talk and you are dead.
This all makes intelligence gathering difficult. In this weeks Time magazine there was mention of tons of biological and chemical agents that were discovered after the 1st Gulf War. They were s supposed to be destroyed by the Iraqis but the inspectors have been able to find no record of their destruction. Among the things mentioned were Anthrax, Sarin Gas and VX Gas, all very nasty stuff. So we have intelligence that the stuff is there, but we don't know where it is.
I repeat, just because we have intelligence of the weapons existance, it doesn't follow that we know its whereabouts.

troll

***BTW I can't quote chapter and verse on the Time article because I dropped it off at the Hospital when I was through with it. It shouldn't be too hard to verify though. Time Magazine is a fairly common publication.***

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:51 PM

An individual who regards himself or herself above the law is a criminal. A nation that regards itself above the law. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: nutty
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:49 PM

Doug ... I also forgot to say ..... The history of a war is always written from the point of view of the victor. I doubt if the innocent victims, on both sides in a war, would say that conflict was a very good way to settle things.

I also believe that the "cold war" was an example of how, when both sides have a similar capability, war actually becomes impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: nutty
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:38 PM

Doug .... I was referring to the debacle regarding Operation Tailwind but realise from your stance on other issues that you probably believe that those journalist were mischief makers who were speading malicious rumours.

I believe that there is likely to be more truth than lies in the story.

By the way ..... if you put "nerve gas"+"vietnam" into Google you get over 7000 hits.

I also found this book most interesting and relevant but then it was written by two Brits. A Higher Form of Killing

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:16 PM

I don't thing the U. S. will ever subject its citizens to a "World Court."

I believe Saddam sees it the same way; so did Milosevic. But of course the International War Crimes Tribunal only has jurisdiction in any case when a country refuses to treat alleged war crimes seriously, including putting the alleged perpetrators on trial in a verifiably fair manner.

And that is what should be expected of any civilised and democratic country.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 02:39 PM

Well, danged, Teribus. Im sure you cleared up the fact that the weapons inspectors indeed are not in Iraq to find hidden weapons. Don't make a lot of sense to me or probably 99% of the people in the world but if you say it then it has to be true.

So you know what the US has and oesn't have in the it's arsenal? I dought that. Seems every time they get a chance to blow up some folks they parade something out that the American people didn't know about.

Now as for that arsenal. Word of the street that nuclear bombs will be used. Boy, that ought to set a good example to the other folks in the world that have them. Remember the good old days when the nuclear bomb was for deterance only. No more. Don't believe me? Stay tuned.

We allready know that depleted uranium weponry will be used in vast quantities. It has been credited with the 11 fold increase in cancer in the Iraqi citizens and also linked to Gulf War Syndrome. Oh, that's right, GWS doesn't exist. I forgot. Go tell the thousands of folks who have it that it's all in their head.

Yeah, T, you're dirty little war is going to be one that's going down in the books as one of the most un-necessary and aviodable in history but, heck, sure is going to be entertaining to you and a lot of other folks...

No matter how it turns out, it represents a complete failure on Bush's part to carry mankind a little further down the road.

And, Doug, just because in the past major conflicts between counties have resulted in war doesn't change my belief that mankind will one day get beyond it. Too bad it couldn't have happened on our watch.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 02:04 PM

I know you're just acting dumb DougR, and I know this because you're not dumb, you're actually quite intelligent. So I know that you know what I meant in my last post, and I know you know that your last response to me had nothing to do with what I said. Nice try though.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:59 PM

Sorry nutty, I forgot to comment on your not validating your statement about the U. S. using weapons of mass destruction in Viet Nam. Could you elaborate on that a bit?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:56 PM

nutty: I will be 73 in March. Perhaps you would point out one major confrontation between countries that was not settled by war? I can't think of any.

Carol C: I searched this thread pretty well and no where did I find that I called anyone a ass-hole.

Kevin: I don't thing the U. S. will ever subject it's citizens to a "World Court."

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:27 PM

Now I'd just written a response here and the Mudcat crashed...

What do I think should be done about getting alleged war crimials and suchlike put on trial? Well the first thing is to avoid committing further war crimes in the course of trying to get hold of them.

Maybe start with the more accessible ones, like Kissinger and Pinochet. Putin would be a bit tricky, but he might well be ready to hand over a few of his old colleagues from Soviet times, in return for a consideration. Perhaps Sharon and Arafat could be persuaded to do a double act and surrender themselves to be tried together. It's too late for Galtieri, but I'm sure he has some colleguages to stand in the dock alongside Thatcher.

And anyone indited would have their travelling very limited, if they knew that the moment they stepped onto the territory of a country that had signed up to the International War Crimes Tribunal, they'd find themselves banged up and awaiting trial.

It wouldn't solve everything. There'd still be rogue states with rulers who had broken treaties and started wars and imprisoned people without trial and tortured prisoners. But they'd be on notice. Sooner or later if things changed and their people decided to rejoin the rest of the world...

As for that Shock and Awe stuff - you may think it's rubbish, and the Pentagon official who said it was rubbish might even have been saying what he actually thought; the question is, does Bush and his lads think it's rubbish too? And is it going to be tried out anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 09:10 AM

...and to operate a system of ongoing monitoring and verification to check Iraq's compliance with its obligations not to reacquire the same weapons prohibited to it by the Security Council.

I'd say finding hidden weapons would certainly be covered by this language. However, since the US has (according to the US government) so much intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, it would be inexcusable for the US government to not provide this information to the inspectors to assist them in finding these weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 06:02 AM

Good stuff, Maxine, right on the button.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 04:54 AM

Sorry Kevin, something I omitted to ask in my post above:

You say:

"Of course I'd like to see any bastard who makes war against other people and murders innocent people brought to trial. There are a lot of them around."

How would you propose to accomplish this?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 04:16 AM

Thanks for the link to the CBS Artile Kevin. I would tend to go along with the Pentagon personnel who describe the "Shock and Awe" approach as a "load of bull". No-one has ever won a war simply by bombing.

To date I have seen no plan that could possibly work without the active support and involvement of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. This is a position I have maintained since the start.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Maxine
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 04:16 AM

To be sung to the tune of" If you're happy and you know it"....

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq
So to hell with the inspections,
Lets look tough for the elections
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it's all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq
If your mood is quite defected, bomb Iraq
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq

Just thought I'd share that one with you all!

Maxine

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 04:05 AM

Bobert, I asked you what Saddam and his buddies needed all the Atropin for. Your answer:

"With Bush having signaled his intention to *whack* folks a year ago in his stupid "axis of evil" speech, if I were Iraq, I would do everything I could to defend myself. Just as the US has done with smallpox and anthrax vaccines.

To do less would have been irresponsible on Saddam's part."

Exactly the point I was making Bobert - Neither the US or NATO have any NBC weapons - The US and UK believes very strongly that Saddam has. That explains the US moves wrt anthrax and smallpox. On the other hand, Saddam needs the Atropin to protect himself and his Ba'athist buddies from the stuff they know they have. As you yourself said simple and rational enough?

You then say:

"As to your other assertion that the inspector's are not in Iraq to try to find hidden weopons, I'd just ask what the heck are they there for?"

What I said was not purely my assertion. Here's what I got from the net regarding UNMOVIC

"UNMOVIC - United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission:

Some basic facts

The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was created through the adoption of Security Council resolution 1284 of 17 December 1999. UNMOVIC was to replace the former UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and continue with the latter's mandate to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological weapons and missiles with a range of more than 150 km), and to operate a system of ongoing monitoring and verification to check Iraq's compliance with its obligations not to reacquire the same weapons prohibited to it by the Security Council.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations appointed Dr. Hans Blix of Sweden to be the Commission's Executive Chairman. In addition, the Secretary-General appointed 16 individuals to serve on the College of Commissioners of UNMOVIC which provides advice and guidance to the Chairman in the execution of his duties. In conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, the Commission's staff are selected on the basis of securing the highest standard of efficiency, competence and integrity, taking into consideration the importance of recruiting staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible. The Commission's staff include weapons specialists, analysts, scientists, engineers and operational planners."

Note Bobert they are there to monitor and verify that Iraqi disarmament complies with conditions laid down by the UNSC, and to mount an inspection programme that verifies that those programmes once shut down are not reactivated.

UNMOVIC's staffing does not appear to include any "hide-and-seek" specialists.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: nutty
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:48 AM

DougR .... I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to remember these panic tactics first hand.

I remember coming out of a cinema (in the 60's) completely stunned by having watched a film called "The War Game" which was an ill disguised documentry on the effects of Nuclear War.

I consequently joined the Industrial Civil Defence and was trained how to construct fall out shelters, deal with radiation sickness and use a dosimeter. None of which would have been any use at all if a nuclear device had landed but it was the government hype of the time.

I consequently learned to be very suspicious of government hype.

The US v USSR situation cause even more stress .... the "BAY OF PIGS" incident taking things to the brink.

Ever since I have worked for peace ..... I do not believe that countries who seek a diplomatic way out of a situation are weak.

I don't believe that war ever solves anything.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 12:26 AM

DougR: there have been many posts from people with different opinions of the current government from you, who have praised the way our form of government was set up. That is what's right about America. Many of these people think that the constitution (a good thing) and our rights, liberties, and the other good things that this country are supposed to stand for (good things about the US), are being subverted and trampled upon by the current government. Putting words into other peoples mouths, especially snide ones like the ones you used is petty and small.

You said the following on another thread. I don't see you holding yourself to this standard on this thread.

Thomas: not a bad idea. People who do not agree with you are not necessarily ass-holes, ignorant, less than human, etc. They are just people with opinions.

Bobert and LH, maybe some members. I've met his family ;-)

(Just kidding!)

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:32 PM

Carol C: prove me wrong.

Nutty: I thought you knew that wmd are used as deterrents. Quoting you: "It is said America used them in Viet Nam." Said by who? What evidence exists? Several Mudcatters were involved in that war. Perhaps they could shed some light on that subject.

So your solution, nutty, is for ALL countries to have wmd? You really think that makes sense?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:01 PM

No, I think under that circumstance Claymore would kill Bush. That's my guess. I've heard about Claymore some from a mutual acquaintance, and he's a hardheaded man (determined, I mean, not stupid).

You're right, Claymore, that in most of those empires (not all of them) I would have been arrested...und taken behind ze buildink und schott! Ja!

I keep an eye on things around me, and if it looks likely to go that way where I live, I will go elsewhere, just as Marlene Dietrich and so many others did.

In the meantime, I'll continue using free speech as best I can, same as you. Here's hoping the would-be dictators among us never get their way.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:40 PM

Forget it, Don. If Bush walked into Claymore's house and told him to kill his family, he'd do it. He's a Marine and Marines just kill first and never get around to asking questions...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:10 PM

Not to belabor the point, Claymore, but I assume that when you say "But the blanket assertion that those who agree with the Bush Administration's stance are sitting back and letting others do the thinking is the stupidist thought so far evinced. The elitist thought that 'We are Thoughtful, They are Sheep' is beneath you." I presume you were referring to the paragraph in which I mention "those who sit back and accept anything and everything the government tells them."

Be that as it may, should you feel that my contention that there are those who believe everything the Bush Administration says without question is an exaggeration, I can go through various Mudcat threads, and by cutting and pasting, put together quite a collection of posts in which several people say, in essence "Bush said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" I don't know what you'd call that other than blind acceptance.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 09:34 PM

LH, I would only point out that in all of the other empire/countries you wrote of, you would have been arrested for merely expressing the views that you did. So until they come to get you, do write often.

And as for the WMD that nutty comments on, not all of them by any means were developed by the West. Japan was deeply into biological warfare. (I count Germany's race for the bomb as Western). Soviet Russia and her allies (including China) made NBC materials at an alarming rate. And for almost 58 years, despite threats to do so, no one has used them against an enemy, within or without, except Saddam... Think about that...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 08:53 PM

Precisely. Great empires always justify their ravages upon others by depicting those others as irredeemably evil. That picture is the empire's own dark reflection in the mirror of life, as it gazes out through its own hungry eyes at the world.

Empires both great and small are the enemies of common people everywhere. They are the killer, the murderer, the destroyer, armoured in righteous fury and desensitized by their own arrogance and their patriotic myths. They consume the world in the name of....liberty, progess, profit, justice, religion, race, God. They make of themselves a great false God (a demon, in fact) and then sacrifice millions to its wrath.

Great empires like Persia, Assyria, Greece, Rome, Czarist Russia, Holland, Spain, France, England, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, the United States of America...and now the worldwide multi-national corporations, who are merely using the United States of America to wield the sword of mass destruction, not because of but in spite of its Constitution.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 08:30 PM

"For evil to triumph all that need triumph is for nothing to be done."

True enough. Or for the wrong thing to be done, and nothing to be done to avert it.

If I was an Iraqi I know I would loathe the government. I am also certain that I would see the war as a nightmare even worse, and I would have no expectations that, even if I survived, what would follow would be better.

It is only too likely that after hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, and the country littered with cancer-producing weapons such as "enriched uranium shells", there'll be a government in power just as corrupt and brutal towards its citizens, though maybe rather more willing to do what its told, at least so long as the occupying garrisons stay in place. Elsewhere new fundamentalist regimes in other countries in the region. Al Qaida in a much stronger position, with an enormous increase in the number of terrorist recruits.

Or maybe it'll work out a bit better. A shaky but stable and non-repressive regime building a shattered Iraq. Other repressive regimes in the area managing to put down the riots and stay in the driving seat. There'll still be the terrorist recruits and Al Qaida will have been significantly strengthened, but you can't have everything.

In the meantime though there's the actual war. Here is a CBS report on what is planned. Well worth reading it, and reading between the lines as well.

Up to 800 Cruise missiles in the first two days.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.

One of the men who developed the plan, Harlan Ullman has an interesting comparison: "You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes."

Tacitus it was who put it best. "They made a desert, and they called it peace". He was talking of the complete destruction of Rome's defeated and helpless "rival", Cartage. Now that was a "triumph of evil" - or alternatively you could say a "Triumph of the Will."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 07:33 PM

Remember way back when the Cold War ended and people started saying the GOP et al wouldn't be happy until they found another "enemy?"

LH, as we have our own personal cycles, one wonders if the US has been entering its own Dark Night of the Soul. Certainly not what Washington, Jefferson etc. intended.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: nutty
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 07:16 PM

I find it really ironic that these "weapons of mass destruction"that Bush is so concerned about were all developed by the West.

What did Britain and America have in mind when they developed them?

They were certainly not intended to be used as deterrents but to be used in some theatre of war.

It is said that America used some of them in Vietnam.

As far as the development of Nuclear Weapons, we know from the cold war that peace was only maintained because both sides had them.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 07:08 PM

Unless that was written in a different language, I fail to see how.

Perhaps you would like to do a different take on your last paragraph above?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 07:01 PM

Err Hang Off Don. I dont interpret what Claymore said as a deliberate misinterpretation.

I have no respect for GWB, or his controllers - But for evil to triumph all it need is for nothing to be done.

It may be accurate to say that the driving force is the need to secure oil supplies for the USA oil companies - A question I will ask is what are the practicle alternatives ?? The Middle East in French hands ?? Fundamentalist Moslem hands ??? Baaathist Hands ??

How would those help the working class anywhere ???

I have no doubt that given any of the above alternative this valuble and finite resource would be used as a weapon, and a weapon of mass deconstruction.

No untill I am shewn proof to the contary I will support Tony Blair's line of critical support.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:35 PM

Typical of many of your other posts, Claymore, you distort what I said and then attack me for it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:25 PM

By the way, here is who is a major threat to the USA and its citizenry: the people who are running the USA. I think that they are going to get a whole lot of you killed quite soon if you let them. They've already done so, in fact. When it comes right down to it, your lives are no more important in the grand scheme than those of...Iraquis or Afghans.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:22 PM

What Little Hawk said, Teribus, et al.

I referred to this as "Boggie Man De Jour" a few months ago and it seems to fit. I mean, why no longer the concern about bin Laden. Might of fact, when was he last spoken of by the Bush administration? Hmmmmmm?.

Problem with Bush and CDo. is that they never met a war not worth starting. Just yesterday the US got into the largest fire fight in a year in Afganistan which just point to the fact that there are many problems on that front. Warloards now are control of 80% of the country. Al Queda and the Taliban are regrouping and the US has a "run-the-clock-out" stategy hoping that Afganistan doesn't blow up in their face before Bush can get his salesmen to clear out some of the resistence so he can crank up yet another war. Hmmmmmm?

Anyone seeing a pattern here?

And so last night, Bush carefully slips Iran into the mix as part of his overall paln for attacking Iran next. He seems to like to attack folks that he thinks he can beat. Problem is, that victory can not be accomplished from war. War just prolongs that day when either the US sits down at the table and talks with folks or the day that these folks will be setting off bombs in a theater near you...

This is an insane and suicidal foriegen policy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:02 PM

It's simple. You either believe Saddam is a major threat to the USA or you don't. I don't.

I think it's exactly the other way around, and I think Saddam is just a handy excuse for something the USA would be wanting to do in the Middle East, regardless of whether Saddam Hussein even existed or not.

He's just the latest Manuel Noriega, Muammar Quaddafi, Osama Bin-Laden figure, and America is using him as a symbol to manipulate the American public into supporting an aggressive policy in the Middle East. They used Osama to take Afghanistan, and they intend to use Saddam to take Iraq. America NEEDS Saddam. The worst thing he could do to Bush is announce his retirement, and go live in Singapore or China, or some such place. Then Bush would have to find a brand-new bogeyman to obsess about, and that would take a little time and trouble. It would be a whole new media hard sell campaign to get in gear.

America needs a "bad guy" to save the world from. Always. It has ever been so. If they can't find a real one, they just invent one. Then they smash up a country, kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of people, and DON'T generally get the "bad guy", but it doesn't matter...cos they DO get what they're really after...which is NOT him, but his country and all its resources. The "bad guy" is more often than not a former employee of America.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:50 PM

McGrath: Ya' ever wonder why the US is so against a World Court? Hmmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:27 PM

Of course I'd like to see any bastard who makes war against other people and murders innocent people brought to trial. There are a lot of them around.

When two countries have a quarrel, and one of them helps arm and finance a neighbour to make war on the other, that's what I mean by a war-by-proxy.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:23 PM

Teribus - The guys on the other side of any issue one feels strongly about always sound wrong, ill-informed, prejudiced, and like they are being "apologists" for evil.

It's the nature of the human mind to see it that way. We're all subjective creatures, based on our past experiences and upbringing.

So don't get too worked up about it. You'd probably like me fine if you knew me under some normal situation and we didn't happen to get around to discussing politics.

Go ahead and argue your side as well as you can and I'll argue mine.

I just don't consider Saddam to be nearly as important or as dangerous as you do...it's not that I am apologizing for him. I consider the USA to be very important and very dangerous. I understand that you don't see it that way (the dangerous part, I mean), and I don't find that surprising. There are obviously going to be any number of people out there whose faith rests on the assumption that the USA is the protector of the world. After all, Rome had many supporters, didn't it? Millions and millions of them.

Just consider me to be a Briton on the northern side of Hadrian's Wall. That's why we see it differently. And we will probably continue to do so until the dollar ceases to exist or Hell freezes over, whichever happens first.

If you had been born in some other location, you might be enthusiastically supporting Saddam right now and/or joining Al Queda. Would that make you an evil person? Not if you did it in all innocence, believing you were fighting against evil.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:07 PM

Well, danged, T-ster, that's any easy one. With Bush having signaled his intention to *whack* folks a year ago in his stupid "axis of evil" speech, if I were Iraq, I would do everything I could to defend myself. Just as the US has done with smallpox and anthrax vaccines.

To do less would have been irresponsible on Saddam's part.

As to your other assertion that the inspector's are not in Iraq to try to find hidden weopons, I'd just ask what the heck are they there for?

Come on, T!!!

If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:05 PM

Pleased to hear that you do not seek to excuse Saddam's attack on his neighbour (in this case Iraq). As someone on another thread asked you with regard to Saddam's attack on Kuwait - Do you think that he should be brought to account for for these criminal acts of aggression.

To describe the Iran-Iraq war as a war-by-proxy against Iran by America completely ignores the back-ground to the conflict and the primary reason for American involvement.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:48 PM

"Now go and compare that with Saddam's track record."

Neither of them come off exactly smelling of roses, especially taking Vietnam into account. And in one way the first Gulf War (Iraq versus Iran) was a war-by-proxy against Iran by America, so if you're balancing the two against each other it belongs on both sides of the scale. (And that is not in any sense seeking to excuse Saddam's attack on his neighbour.)

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,jaze
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:24 PM

Frankly, I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to understand why so many Americans would like (1)proof and (2) UN backing in this. Americans are afraid and justly so. Never before have we had to worry about people using horrendous diseases against civilians. To go it alone will only anger and alienate more of the world and make the US look like a world bully. This-- we're the strongest so we can do any thing we like-- attitude is surely firghtening to other countries. Whose next?? From the sounds of the speech last night I'd say Iran and N. Korea better prepare. I predict that if we do this without full UN support, the terrorist attacks against the US and it's citizen's will be unimaginable. Is that not a legitimate concern? Helping countries like Kososvo,and Kuwait had a nobility to it. Where is the nobility in this?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:21 PM

Bobert,

Hmmmmm, #947 is based on the incorrect premise that the job of UNMOVIC is to find Iraq's WMD.

The information that intelligence services around the world might have with regard to Iraqi weapons programmes and the existence of WMD on Iraqi soil may not necessarily pinpoint their location or status.

I'll give you a Hmmmmmm of my own Bobert (who is not an Iraqi apologist).

Saddam Hussein and his buddies have said that they do not possess any weapons of mass destruction be they nuclear, chemical, biological or bacteriological - Right?

The back end of last year Iraq bought/attempted to buy out Germany's stocks of Atropin (about one million ampules if memory serves me correctly). Thats an antidote used to counter the effects of chemical weapons (nerve gas, that sort of thing) - Still with me?

Now as chemical, bacteriological and biological weapons form no part of the US or NATO's ordinance inventory - What does he need these massive stocks of atropin for??

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:45 AM

Impressive list JennyO, none of which involve use of weapons of mass destruction.

Now go through your list and remove those examples where the US is acting:

a) As part of a duly authorised UN force. (6)

b) Where they are supporting an existing ally.(10)

c) Where their contribution has been at the request of the duly constituted government of that country.(12)


You say:

"I can't think of one instance where these bombings led to the establishment of humane democracies in these countries."

Bombing places does not make them democratic - it never has. But immediately from your list - China (1945-46 & 1950-53), Korea (1950-53) - Taiwan and South Korea. The US bombings for the period 1950 - 1953 was a UN conflict.

Bosnia and Kosovo it certainly stopped a great amount of killing and democratic governments have been established.

Afghanistan now has an interim government in place with the prospect of becoming democratic.

Did you guys bomb Grenada? A guy I used to work with lives there and was having a barbeque when the Marines landed, he and his guests were quite bemused by it all. A platoon of US Marines came bimbling through his back yard - they looked equally bemused - he asked them if they fancied a beer, but they refused - said they were busy. He didn't mention anything about any bombing - it's not a big place I would have thought he would have heard it.

Sudan in 1998 was something Clinton had against powdered milk and Osama Bin Laden. Same with Afghanistan the same year although I don't think powdered milk had anything to do with that attack.

Now go and compare that with Saddam's track record. One question you may like to answer - How many Americans are living outside the US as refugees - There are estimates of between 3 to 4 million Iraqi's living outside Iraq as refugees - Now ask yourself why.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:35 AM

Teribus:
No, I'm not an apologist for the Iraqi governemnt. I am too busy alternating between embaressment of my own and apologizing for its short sighted and anti-human foriegn policy.

So, let me ask you a simple question that should not require one of your trademark "War and Peace" length answers:

Lets say that Bush does want to find a peaceful solution. And there are weapons inpectors in Iraq. Right? Well, if the goal is to disarm Iraq by finding their WMD, should they have them, then why in the name of the Lord wouldn't the US tell the inspectors where to look? Hmmmmm, #947? If the US has the knowledge and isn't providing it, then the only assumption that can reasonably be made is that they really don't want a peaceful solution afterall. Hmmmmmm, #948, and counting...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:12 AM

Missed the previous discussion, Teribus, so I don't know what currency the term had before the Bushies started using it to mean "nasty stuff that the other guys have".

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:04 AM

Iran is in that list. Still shooting down the Iranian airbus on July 3rd 1988 wasn't technically bombing, since a missile was used and the plane was airborne at the time. It still resulted in 290 dead civilians. And of course the USA wasn't ar war with Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:43 AM

APC - neither are WMD. Napalm was described as a terror weapon, Agent Orange although horrendous was not deployed as a chemical or biological weapon.

I can remember this being discussed previously on the forum. The discussion was quite detailed and extensive as most things are here.

Again if memory serves me correctly the upshot of it was that the stuff was deployed purely with the intention to defoliate jungle, not to kill people and at the time no-one knew what the side and long term effects would be. As soon as they were known its use was abandoned.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: JennyO
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:41 AM

Teribus, since WW11, the U.S.A. has bombed 21 countries:

China (1945-46 & 1950-53)
Korea (1950-53)
Guatemala (1954 & 1960 & 1967-69)
Indonesia (1958)
Cuba (1959-61)
Congo (1964)
Peru (1965)
Laos (1964-73)
Vietnam (1961-73)
Cambodia (1969-70)
Grenada (1983)
Lebanon (1983-84)
Bosnia (1985)
Libya (1986)
El Salvador (all of the 1980's)
Nicaragua (all of the 1980's)
Panama (1989)
Iraq (1991-????)
Sudan (1998)
Afghanistan (1998 & 2001-2)
Former Yugoslavia (1999)

I can't think of one instance where these bombings led to the establishment of humane democracies in these countries.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:32 AM

Napalm? Agent Orange?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:00 AM

So from the Blair Dossier we have photographs of a missile engine test site (page 29 Figure 6 of the Dossier) that clearly shows a new engine test bed constructed by the Iraqi's after UNSCOM had supervised the dismantling of the other two engine test beds. JIC evaluation of the new test bed, based on size and position, indicated that this could be used for testing more powerful engines than would be required for missiles that Iraq would be permitted to retain.

From Dr. Hans Blix's Report to the UNSC on the 27th January we have the discovery in Iraq of 380 rocket engines (sorry got the figure wrong in my post above) that had arrived in Iraq post 1998 in clear contravention of existing UN sanctions. UNMOVIC also found technical evidence of moves on the part of Iraq to increase the diameter of existing Al-Samoud II and Al-Fatah missiles from the allowed 600mm to 760mm - again in clear contravention of a UNSC Resolution that restricts any Iraqi missile to a maximum range of 150km and a maximum outside diameter of 600mm. Documentary evidence is currently in the possession of UNMOVIC that Iraq has carried out a test firing of both missile types at ranges greater than the 150km allowed under UNSC stipulations.

I would venture to suggest that there is not a vast difference between what UNMOVIC have discovered with regard to Iraq's missile programme and the evaluation made by JIC. McGrath of Harlow contends that this does not constitute a counter example - I'd dearly then love to know what would. The JIC evaluation presented by Tony Blair to the House of Commons also predicted the shift by those involved with the Iraqi missile programme from liquid fuelled to solid fuelled engines. 380 of them have been illegally imported by the Iraqi's. The reasoning given by the JIC is that solid propellant affords greater ease of storage, handling and MOBILITY. They are also quicker to take into and out of action and can stay at a high state of readiness for longer periods.

Other inconsistancies include the removal from inspected sites of equipment, decommissioned under UNSCOM supervision, to other locations where the equipment previously decommissioned has been repaired and put back into use - currently the useage of this equipment is still under investigation.

What degree of co-operation is being enjoyed by UNMOVIC is due solely to the current military presence in the region. The cost of keeping them there being marginally greater than if they were quartered in their normal bases.

Still not addressed by MGOH is the request for details relating to governmental interference with UNMOVIC inspections on the part of the USA and UK.

No doubt Saddam's leading apologist will come up with something given time, but I tend to think that nothing UNMOVIC reports, no matter how damning, or no matter how thought provoking, will ever be sufficient.

I would ask JennyO for some examples of US use of weapons of mass destruction please?? Don't trot out Hiroshima and Nagasaki - completely different scenario to what is faced by the world today.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 08:47 AM

What I said was that the allegations about specific sites on the ground where weapons development work was going on turned out not to be accurate. The example Teribus gave didn't actually constitute a counter-example.

The weapons inspectors have said that there are still questions to be asked, and that they need to take their time. There seems no reason why they shouldn't be given as much time as they feel is necessary. All right, it is no doubt expensive and inconvenient keeping an Armada ready to invade, but it will be even more expensive and inconvenient, especially for those who get killed. And it'd be just as expesnive and inconvenient maintaining the occupation force in Iraq assuming the invasion goes according to plan.

So far as I can see the only reason for pushing ahead at this stage, rather than in a year or two years, is that that could be politically awkward for Bush. Does anyone really beieve that that this should be allowed to have any significance at all in relation to war and peace?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: JennyO
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 08:06 AM

Teribus, you said

'I love the last bit.."just not to use them on someone". This phrase when used in conjunction with Saddam Hussein, given his track record is just absolutely laughable.'

What about the U.S's track record? They don't exactly hold back on using THEIR weapons of mass destruction, do they!

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 05:04 AM

Little Hawk stated in one of his posts above:

"Iraq made a first strike on Kuwait in 1991, and paid the price for it."

Did it really? The UN manadate covering Desert Storm unfortunately only covered the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait - That was accomplished and a cease fire agreement signed - note cease fire agreement. Under the terms of that cease fire agreement Iraq undertook to do certain things detailed by a number of UNSC Resolutions - Not one of which has been complied with and verified to the satisfaction of the UN Inspectors put in place at the time.

The onus is on Iraq to disarm and prove to the satisfaction of the world community that is has done so - To date it has failed to do so, it has been given yet another chance to do so. I reiterate Dr. Hans Blix's comment that it is not the job of the UNMOVIC teams to find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction or find proof of Iraqi programmes that will lead to Iraq acquiring those weapons at some time in the future. The job of UMOVIC is to inspect and verify that Iraq has disarmed.

The security of the United States and its citizens has been threatened - of that there is no doubt - just listen to the declared and documented statements of Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaida organisation. They cannot do anything in isolation, to accomplish what they wish requires support. Remove that support and convincing countries, that may consider providing that support, against adopting that stance is essential not only for America, but for the world in general.

Kevin asks me:

"Fine, then come up with a single example of its being true."

He completely ignores the single example I gave him but qualifies what I have to come up with - Kevin perhaps you should advise UNMOVIC as to what parts of existing UNSC Resolutions they should ignore. With regard to Saddam's missile programme the Blair Dossier and JIC evaluation of intelligence regarding that site were spot on.

Bobert asks:

"..maybe some one will explanerate it to this ol' hillbilly. Ahhh, like the US has been furnishing socalled *intellegence* to the Arms Inspectors who in the last 6 weeks have made over 600 inspections at some 290 sites and not found anything that the US *intellegence* siad was there. Right?"

The jury is still out on that Bobert and Hans Blix mentioned that to the UNSC on 27th of this month. Analysis and testing of samples has not yet been completed.

LH, MGOH and Bobert have become nothing more than the apologists for one of the most repugnant regimes on this planet. A position they will adhere to irrespective of whatever rational questions or doubts that are raised.

If you are in any doubt about what I have said immediately above, just read again a couple of sentences from LH - you know "the stuff" from LH that so many of you seem to like so much:

Number 1:
"Any nation, especially any nation under constant threat of attack by larger nations, has the absolute right to have in its possession whatever weapons it is capable of arming itself with. It just doesn't have the right to a "first strike" on its neighbours."

Not only does this statement ignore past history, it denies it and laws of probability.

Number 2:
"As far as I'm concerned, Saddam Hussein's government has the same right to possess weapons of mass destruction as does the government of the USA...just not to use them on someone."

I love the last bit, "...just not to use them on someone." This phrase when used in conjunction with Saddam Hussein, given his track record is just absolutely laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:45 AM

Their credo is, "The U. S. ...always wrong!"

DougR, that's really small of you. (I'm not going to comment on Claymore's tactics because he already knows how I feel about them.)

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:22 AM

Claymore: you are fighting a losing battle if you expect the majority of Mudcatters to choose the U. S. government over any other. Their credo is, "The U. S. ...always wrong!"

Don't give up, though, it makes for intersting reading.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:06 AM

Hey Don F, I appeciate in main the points you have made and for the most part agree with some portions of them. But the blanket assertion that those who agree with the Bush Administration's stance are sitting back and letting others do the thinking is the stupidist thought so far evinced. The elitist thought that "We are Thoughtful, They are Sheep" is beneath you. I questioned the Hell out of the previous Bag of Puss who infected the White House, when you folks were sitting back, just accepting what was said and done.

The long term moral abuses of the Clinton era led to the long term corporate scandals. His failure to set accounts for the Cole led to 9/11, and so on. Talk about sitting back...

Now make no mistake, there are some folks who make assertions that do not hold water (Axis of Evil speech "causes" N Korea build up; Someone does a blue clicky on an opinion article written in a Communist [with big C] magazine, about the Big Lie that has something to do with incubator scam and the twits who clicked the article didn't have enough memory cells to remember that the Wash Post had above-the-fold articles on the Kuwaiti Ambassador connection within two weeks of the original story and THREE MONTHS before first bomb fell - ain't facts a bitch).

As an interesting world view I would suggest an op-ed in the Sunday Wash Post, by an Italian reporter, Gianni Riotta. (Don't know how to do a blue clicky but an Italian comment has got to be better than a seven year old Communist one; haven't those twits heard they lost?)

My point is simply this, I tend to take the word of my own government over that of either a Korean wackoid dictator or an Iraqi wackoid dictator or any other nation, but not to slavish aquiessence. I have fought in several conflicts and do not advocate what I haven't experienced. I expect the three branches of government to engage in vigorous debate and consultation. I will watch for a sequence of facts which may cause me to agree or to disagree with the issue, and make my representatives aware of my choice. But I absolutely assure you that I am not sitting back...

Incidently, I recall the original quote ended, "May she always be right, but my country right or wrong" - (we don't want any of that slavish acceptance now would we?).

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:54 AM

L.H.: I think it is finally dawning on you what the stategy is! You indicated that a country would thing twice before attacking if the aggressor country KNEW the country being attacked had nuclear weapons! That's exactly the strategy the U. S. is using with Iraq! Hit them BEFORE they get the nukes. Which is what Clinton should have done with N. Korea! Congratulations!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 05:59 PM

Yup. That's what happened in Germany. Those who unquestioningly accepted the word of government served Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and the rest of the rotten crew...and soon found themselves living in a dictatorship. And those who questioned the government and spoke out, as some of us are doing, either had to flee the country or were arrested, and generally executed in the long run. They were accused of being...unpatriotic. It's an accusation that can prove fatal under some circumstances, regardless of whether it has any merit.

I'd call it "guilt by slander". Remember Joe McCarthy? He would gladly have ordered the execution of millions, given the chance, and there are those now who think just the way he did. What worries me is that some of them may be in very high places of power.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 04:29 PM

Little Hawk strikes again. I like your stuff!

On the matter of "US aginers" and patriotism and who's un-American and who isn't, it's been quoted a number of times on various threads, but it seems that it needs to be repeated and repeated until it finally sinks in—and some people need to tattoo it backwards on their foreheads so that every time they look in a mirror, they can read it again. The well-known part of the statement is "My country, right or wrong." And that's what you usually hear it, or see on bumper-stickers.   But the full statement is, "My country, right or wrong; if right, to keep it right; if wrong, to set it right."

[Now, every time it's been quoted on Mudcat, the next dozen posts argue over who said it, apparently missing the point of the statement itself. It's been attributed to several people and it doesn't really matter, so for crap sake, let's not have a long discussion of where it came from. Just read it and think about what it says.]

People who don't want the government to turn the United States into the World Bully, or who don't like the direction the country is going and try to do their duty as citizens to "set it right" are, to my mind, a helluva lot more patriotic than those who sit back and accept anything and everything the government tells them. It was assumed by the Founding Fathers that this country would have an "informed electorate" and that governments in general are not to be trusted. That's explicitly set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and the limits that the Constitution places on what the government can and cannot do further reflects the concept. Those who unquestioningly accept the word of government—any government—should not be surprised when they suddenly find themselves living in a dictatorship.

Question authority!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: diesel
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 03:59 PM

Troll - your comments :What if we go in and he hits our troops with the chemicals and biologicals that y'all all say he hasn't got?
What will you say then?


I'ld say they shouldn't have gone in.

If we go in and it's a purely conventional war, I'll be the first one to admit that I was wrong and that we had no business there in the first place.

We're trying to say that before it's too late with thousands dead.

Everybody - step back from the brink, pause, and let the inspectors do their work.And if you can help by telling them where to look - especially if it helps your case - then help them!


Unless of course you're just making it up !

rgds

Diesel

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 03:10 PM

Excellent point, Little Hawk.

I find it incledulous that Iraq is cooperating at all given the fact that Bush has made it clear that he is in the mood to *whack* a few folks. If it were me, I'd be spending what energy I had getting ready to defend myself and wouldn't exactly want my attacker to know how I planned on doing it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 02:45 PM

Any nation, especially any nation under constant threat of attack by larger nations, has the absolute right to have in its possession whatever weapons it is capable of arming itself with. It just doesn't have the right to a "first strike" on its neighbours.

It is the USA which is now claiming that right.

Iraq made a first strike on Kuwait in 1991, and paid the price for it.

The USA is now announcing its intentions to make a first strike on Iraq, a country the USA has already badly crippled over the last ten or more years.

In either case, it's naked aggression. As far as I'm concerned, Saddam Hussein's government has the same right to possess weapons of mass destruction as does the government of the USA...just not to use them on someone. That's why this whole brouhaha is so hypocritical in the first place. The American government which feels free to invade anyone it pleases and terrorize anyone it wants to, cannot accept a world in which its potential victims are allowed to arm themselves in a similar fashion to the way America does. What arrogance. What presumption.

It is because North Korea already has such weapons that the USA is disinclined to launch a first strike on them. This is quite a sharp lesson to other small countries. If you want the USA to keep its hands off you, get some nukes in your armoury, and do it fast would appear to be the lesson.

No one hastily attacks a country with nuclear weapons strike capability...not even the USA.

And when in history has a large aggressor been allowed to completely inspect the entire military infrastructure of its next target on the ground from A to Z...before launching an invasion? Wow. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 02:17 PM

Ahhhh, troll, the "axis-of-evil" blunder by Bush preceeded NK pronouncement that it was withdrawing from the Nonproliferation Treaty by a year.

Ya' see, when a country as powerful as the US telegraphs their intentions to *whack* you, it doesn't exactly give you those warm and fuzzy feelings that makes you sit back and happily wait the *wacking*.

Like, what are you missing here?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 01:43 PM

I'd rather see some country that has a neutral stance be the ones to go in and look to avoid any appearances that we might have planted the chemicals and biologicals there ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Troll
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 01:37 PM

So enlighten us Kevin. Where am I wrong? I wasn't aware that any of the promised fuel oil was turned back until after the nuclear program was revealed. Are you claiming that NK did not resume its nuclear program until after the US and others Failed to kep their end of the agreement?
Elecidation, please.
RE. the anthrax, I mis-spoke. There were several tons of the chemicals that are used in the manufacture of anthrax. They were supossed to be destroyed by Saddams people under the cease-fire agreement, but there is no record that they ever were.
Now for the $64 question.
What if we go in and he hits our troops with the chemicals and biologicals that y'all all say he hasn't got?
What will you say then?
I'll tell you right up front, that if we go in and it's a purely conventional war, I'll be the first one to admit that I was wrong and that we had no business there in the first place.
How 'bout it Bobert, Kevin, Carol; are you willing to do the same if the opposite is true?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 12:08 PM

Well, Danged. Here is what I don't get and maybe some one will explanerate it to this ol' hillbilly. Ahhh, like the US has been furnishing socalled *intellegence* to the Arms Inspectors who in the last 6 weeks have made over 600 inspections at some 290 sites and not found anything that the US *intellegence* siad was there. Right?

Now, Powell is huffing and puffing about all this stuff that Saddam is hiding and says, once again, that the US has *intellegence*. Kind of reminds me of a guy at the poker table with nothing who can't bring himself to *call* so he keeps on betting. Hmmmmm, Part #762?

So last week the US provided even better (Ha) *intellegence* and what did the inspectors find? Nothing but an olf chicken coup. Oh, how scarey. Maybe Saddam is planning on attacking the US with samonila infected chickens. Wow! That ought to get a few million folks to go running thru the streets in fear, you know... like they did in all those old horror movies with big bugs knocking over the Empire State building.

The centerpiece of Bush's push for war several months ago was the what we now learn fell into the *Big Lie* category. Nuclear Weapons. Remember Condi Rice's, "When are we gonna take Saddam seriously? When we see the mushroom cloud?". Man, what PR hysteria crap. Yep, the report yesterday pretty much rules out what a lot of us have thought all along. Condi Rice must have been on *shrooms* herself that night!
What a crock!

And how about the *Big Lie deJour*, Bobert? Well, looks as if the story is that Saddam is going to give up his WMD to bin Laden's buddies. Yeah, right! Okay, first of all, if he has anything at all he's going to save it to defend his country. And second of all, unless you just landed from another planet, there is no love lost between Saddam and the extremeists so why would he give them something that they might darned well turn around and use on him?

And so now we hear that the US is going to turn over yet more *intellegence*. Hmmmmmmmm? Like don't ya' think that if they had any real *intellegence* that they would have provided it first so that the would have that "smoking gun" that Bush wants so badly?

Lastly, you heard this here first. What we are going to get over the next week are lots of ariel photographs which prove absolute;ly nothing at all but look real sinister and scarey. But, hey, there's something about ariel pictures that seem so very convincing, even if they are of more and more chicken coups. Yeah, that ought to get another few million folks running andf screaming thru the streets of New York.

Beam me up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:26 AM

Sorry Troll. What can I say. We're all entitled to define "patriotism" in our own way. I wouldn't have brought it up, but DougR was accusing people who are against war with Iraq as being "US aginers", which is, I guess, DougRese for being against the US. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bagpuss
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:24 AM

Troll, there were several tons of anthrax found after the last gulf war? And we just left it there???? and expected them to dispose of it themselves? Surely if it was found then, we would have destroyed it ourselves?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:21 AM

I could be wrong though

Check the record and you will find yiu are.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:19 AM

My point about the bluff is that it wasn't a bluff. It appears pretty clear that he has no intention now, and never has had any intention, of not making war on Iraq regardless of the views of everyone else on the planet.

"All the allegations about sites on the ground identified in Tiny Blair's dossier have been shown to be completely unjustified."

That statement is simply Not True.

Fine, then come up with a single example of its being true. A single site which was identified in that dossier as being a place where weapons of mass destruction were being stored or manufactured, and where this proved to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Troll
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:17 AM

Right, Carol. Anyone who doesn't agree with your position is "anti-american". I had thought better of you but I guess that I was misled.
It seems to me that there were several tons of anthrax found after the first Gulf War. Where is it now? There seems to be no record of it or of its destruceion.
Bobert, I may be off on my timetable, but I think that the US began to "reneg" on the deal with NK AFTER they had admitted to having a nuclear program, which program had been started soon after NK signed the Carter-brokered deal in '95 or'96. I could be wrong though.
As far as France goes, the French will come around. Why? because their permanant seat on the Security Council is the only thing they have that lets them believe that they are a a "great power" and a force in world affairs. If they vote against carrying out the resolution that they have already voted in favor of, and the US goes on without UN support- which it will-, then the UN will have been proven to be virtually toothless and there goes Frances delusions of greatness.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:40 AM

These days, DougR, I think it's people like you who are anti-American. Those of us who don't want our current "government" to destroy whatever is left of our liberty and humanity through lies, deceit, and naked agression are the ones who are pro-US.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 09:04 AM

So far the Bush bluff has got the inspectors back into Iraq with the unanimous backing of the UNSC.

So far the Bush bluff has suceeded in securing the co-operation of the Iraqi Authorities to an unprecedented level, albeit with the reservations highlighted by Dr. Blix & Dr. AlBaredi (Note they are Blix's and Baredi's reservations not those of America or of the UK)

Reading what was in Hans Blix's report:
183 Rocket Motors that have been shipped to Iraq post 1991. Now they shouldn't be there, should they? Especially if Iraq was complying with the agreements they made after Desert Storm.

The high specification aluminium tubing, still under evaluation with regard to ultimate end useage - although Hans Blix himself is of the opinion that they are not related to centrifuges that could be used in the manufacture of weapons grade material. But once again they have been imported into Iraq post 1991 and they should not be there.

"All the allegations about sites on the ground identified in Tiny Blair's dossier have been shown to be completely unjustified."

That statement is simply Not True:

The UNMOVIC Inspectors have documentation relating to Iraq's missile programme that put it in non-compliance with UN Resolutions (Continued development of Al-Samoud II & Al-Fatah missiles). Indications of suspected Iraqi activity in this field were specifically mentioned in the Dossier that Tony Blair presented to the House of Commons. Hans Blix made specific mention of this proscribed programme in his report, he mentioned the more powerful motors and Iraqi technical papers that showed work towards development of those weapons with an increased diameter - indicative of an operational requirement for longer range or greater payload.


"...are the estimates of the amount of various weapons materials which were at one time said to be in existence correct, and how is it possible to verify the claims which have been made by the Iraqis that these have been destroyed."

The Iraqi documentation from the source of supply clearly states the quantity made and the number of rounds, bombs, rockets made. Iraqi documentation from their military clearly states the amount of this ordanence used. Iraqi and UNSCOM documentation details the amount subject to controlled and verifiable disposal. Taking those three sets of figures there is a shortfall - It is the responsibility of the Iraqi Government to explain exactly what has happened to this inventory - It is not the responsibility of the UNMOVIC Inspections Teams to find it, their responsibility ends with identifying that the discrepency exists.

"(Past claims by the Iraqis about the size of their stocks of weapons and so forth, which could well have been exaggerated by them for propaganda reasons, are for some reason now accepted without question.)"

Why would the Iraqis exaggerate the size of their stocks of weapons in "Secret" and "Confidential" papers? After all these would not, by intention, be in the public domain. An ordinance factory does not make 300 of something and supply paperwork for 600 - somebody in charge of a weapons storage depot has to take charge of this shipment, somebody has to organise and supply transport to get it from A to B. While only too willing to provide Saddam with a pretty lame excuse to explain the shortfall, can you honestly without the slightest doubt in your mind these things do not exist?

Hans Blix has stated that the flow of information from intelligence sources has been forthcoming and has produced results.

"Whatever the Iraqis may be doing, it seems pretty clear that the work of the inspectors has been consistently obstructed by our governments."

Specific documented examples of this consistant obstruction please Kevin - Neither Hans Blix nor Dr. AlBaredi made any reference to it in their respective reports.

Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi Declaration of December 7th was not a true and accurate account - The Iraqis knew full well that it had to be under the terms of UNSCR 1441 - They have been given a chance to revise that document.

Quite a few in this forum obviously are willing to take at face value Iraq's contention that they have no weapons of mass destruction - what then is their objection to the U2 flights, they have after all have nothing to hide - correct???

Oh yes the electoral schedule - utterly preposterous. So far not one single prediction from the gloom and doom brigade has come to pass.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 06:57 AM

"They pled for more time, and I suspect they will get it"

The same way Bush was only bluffing?

The only reason there is any hurry in all this is that Bush has an electoral schedule, and a war this spring fits into it, and a war in one or two years would be likely to screw it up.

Read what is actually in that report, and not just the headlines and the spin doctors' versions of it. It is clear that the Iraqis are cooperating with the inspectors in all kinds of ways, and that nothing of any significance has been found to indicate the existence of these weapons of mass destruction. All the allegations about sites on the ground identified in Tiny Blair's dossier have been shown to be completely unjustified.

However there are still questions to be asked, and more time is needed to follow these up. I particular, are the estimates of the amount of various weapons materials which were at one time said to be in existence correct, and how is it possible to verify the claims which have been made by the Iraqis that these have been destroyed. (Past claims by the Iraqis about the size of their stocks of weapons and so forth, which could well have been exaggerated by them for propaganda reasons, are for some reason now accepted without question.)

It would all be a lot easier if the USA and the UK actually shared with the inspectors the information they claim to have. Whatever the Iraqis may be doing, it seems pretty clear that the work of the inspectors has been consistently obstructed by our governments. The ultimate act of obstruction of course would be to pull the plug on their work and go to war.

I trust Tony Blair will remember that, whatever George Bush might have been able to fix for himself and the USA in regard to war crimes, he could still be open to charges, if he makes war in defiance of the United Nations Treaty and his international obligations.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 04:59 AM

Any credit for baulking US & UK "War Plans" should in all fairness go to Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, not France or Germany.

One thing I was pleased to hear in Dr. Hans Blix's report to the UNSC was his recognition of the instrumental role played by the current American Administration in getting the inspectors back into Iraq. And yes the inspectors will get the additional time they have said that they require - no point in letting them go back if you are not going to let them do their jobs.

LH is great at drawing parallels with Germany in the 1930's - the one he makes no reference to is the one where if either Britain, France or America had taken the same stance with Germany that the current American Administration has taken with Iraq - Hitler would have been stopped in his tracks in 1936.

From reading some of the posts above, it would appear that many believe that the Ba'ath Regime in Iraq are totally harmless and if left to their own devices all will be well. The potential for disaster posed by countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea does not stem from them attacking the USA, it stems from their willingness to support terrorist groups materially, technically and financially. Now, I suppose many would totally dismiss that as completely outwith the realms of possibility - in the light of the attacks of September 11th, the President of America cannot afford to take that chance, his primary responsibility in taking up office is to ensure the safety of the United States of America and it's people.

The countries described as the "Axis of Evil":

North Korea - Extremely poor due mainly to the paranoid, corrupt, totally inept, self-perpetuating regime in power. They have a track record of signing agreements that state they will do one thing, when in actual fact they fully intend doing the opposite. They will sell anything to anybody so long as it keeps the current rulers in power.

Iran - Formerly the driving force of Islamic fundamentalism and strongly anti-American. They have openly supported Islamic Terrorist groups operating in Palestine, Israel, Lebanon and Syria. Not so much in the forefront now due to massive internal demands for reform. This is mainly due to the fact that Iran is currently the only one of the three countries where dissent and political debate is possible

Iraq - Well documented track record of aggression against both internal ethnic groups and its neighbours. Well known reputation for completely ignoring treaties, agreements and accords. For years they quite openly pursued programmes to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction. Like Iran they openly provide support for terrorist groups. The ruling Ba'ath Party in Iraq is probably the most brutally repressive regime in the area.


Various people post and tell the world and it's dog that any forthcoming conflict is all about oil, quoting Iraq oil reserves as the prize for the victor. Doesn't really add up, Iraq pre-1991 only accounted for one-seventeenth of the worlds oil production and it's absence from the world markets post Desert Storm has hardly been noticed. Afghanistan was about Caspian oil - I'd love to know how. Currently there are four major land pipeline projects in progress, three in Russia (The worlds largest producer of oil, with the greatest reserves) and one in Azerbijan and Turkey. America does not import all that much oil from the middle east, its main foreign supplier of oil is Venezuala. The three Rusian pipelines all have a common terminal point, Murmansk - the main export target is the USA. The Azeri-Turkish pipeline provides an alternative route for Azeri oil exports to their current single outlet through Russia and Georgia (this pipeline runs through Chechnya).

Threads on this, and associated topics, are riddled with theories regarding "Bushes" alterior motives and the machinations of big business - Have those same proponents of those theories examined possible motives for the stance being adopted by France and Russia, particularly with respect to possible regime change in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 01:01 AM

I would think you US aginers would have found some encouragement from the reports made to the Security Council today by the two chief inspectors. They pled for more time, and I suspect they will get it, though I doubt they get what they want. Blix evidently is looking at two years and the head of the Atomic Energy organization wants forever it seems.

Anyone who listened to the reports and still thinks Saddam is not a threat is, in my opinion, just not tuning in.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 11:15 PM

hahhaha Carol. Love the messup!

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 10:17 PM

I ruined the punchline. The reason the father said that was because when the dog heard the fart, he (the dog )let out a loud yelp and ran to hide under the table.

(sigh) It must be getting late.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 10:15 PM

Your 27 Jan 03 - 09:46 PM post, Nicole, made me grin a little (I'm a bit ashamed for finding humor in this because it really shouldn't be funny), because it reminds me of something I saw in a movie once.

There was a family with a very old and feeble servant. They were having tea. The very old servant carried in the tea, all bent over and walking very, very slowly. It looked like she was going to drop the tea at any moment. Then she let out a really big fart.

The father said, "Whenever Mrs. (can't remember her name) breaks wind, we beat the dog."

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: NicoleC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 09:46 PM

Wasn't that article written about the time Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq to divert attention away from his personal life? The ongoing lie from that, of course, is that Saddam "kicked out" the inspectors -- when actually Clinton withdrew them right before the bombing.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 09:13 PM

Carol, the Big Lie machine in 1998 in all likelihood was pumping out a entirely different lie than the one we are currently being told. It's a machine that doesn't stop.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 09:04 PM

I found this part of the article in your link, Don, particularly interesting in light of the comparisons that are being made between Saddam and Hitler...

Whenever Hitler was about to launch a new war of aggression, he would accuse his opponents of atrocities that never happened. These lies would be repeated over and over again by official spokesmen and the press. The Nazi government would then launch a pre-planned attack. This Hitler technique is called the "Big Lie."

U.S. war-makers used this same technique as part of preparations for the 1991 war against Iraq. And seven years later, the "Big Lie" machine is going full speed once again.

Thas article was written in 1998. Clearly they were planning this war long before 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 05:43 PM

Ain't facts a bitch ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 05:27 PM

Exactly, Nicole. Here's the scoop on that, in case anybody missed it---> Twing!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 05:17 PM

Actually, Claymore, I thought the treaty that was negoitiated between the US and NK during the Clinton administration was signed in 1994, but I may be confusing that with a treaty that was igned where NK agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for help with other technologies and oil form the US so that NK could produce electricty for its people. As has been reported recently, the US started reniging on its end of the agreement under the current administration and in the "Axis of Evil" speech sent out a clear message that NK was on the list of nations to get "whacked".

What I can't understand is when the president of the world's only super power stands u8p before the entire world and pretty much tells the ent9ire world that you are on the "to-be-whacked" list that this same president gets real angry when he finds these countries scurrying around trying to find ways to defend themselves? Hmmmmmm?
It's kinda like a guy has a big gun and wants to mug you but he knows you have a small gun so he demands that you give him your small gun? Like I said, hmmmmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 04:36 PM

A little reality, folks...

1. North Korea has been upgrading it's nuclear capability for the past three years, right after Clinton signed the non-proliferation treaty with them. They just got caught at it several weeks ago. Bushes "Axis of Evil" speech has absolutely nothing to do with it, (ain't facts a bitch). It was at that point that they sought to use an explaination that would work with the ignorant twits in the world, (and apparently they were right) (ain't facts a bitch).

2. France has never been a dependable member of NATO, since De Gaulles "Force de Frappe" (sp? with no apology to the frogs). France is one of the very few nations trading with the North Koreans, and has sent them much of the outside help in constructing nuclear facilities, as they did with the Iraqis. Which is why the term "French moral stance" on any issue except Champagne is by definition, oxymoron.

3. And of course we know the German stance on mass killings...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 04:31 PM

Dont think we should do like Viet Nam, if we are going, lets go all the way all at once, and end it.

Was it two million killed in Vietnam? Ninety percent of them or more civilians.

How many would "going all the way" have meant?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: NicoleC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 04:18 PM

You mean like the incubator baby story, Don?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 04:10 PM

Sorcha, this is not casting aspersions on your brother; he's undoubtedly just passing on what he's been told. But I'm an old fart and I remember a lot of the stories that were going around about all the gratuitious horrors and atrocities the Japanese and the Germans were doing during World War II. People told them with almost pathological relish and glee, only to be further embellished by the next person to tell them. Later, most of these stories were established as untrue. It has an awfully familiar tone. This sort of thing comes under the heading of "unofficial propaganda," the whole point of which is to add fuel to the kind of hatred people who are hell-bent on going to war like to see stirred up. Granted, Saddam and his spawn are about the nastiest pieces of work one is about to find, but without a bit of verification, I'm kinda skeptical of stories like this.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: diesel
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 03:49 PM

I reckon there is no difference between a conspiracy and doing buisness. Either side of the same coin. Except Buisness is the end where paper and records are kept, procedures and rights of redress exist. Conspiracy is getting the exact same ends without the hassle - just the nod and wink - and plausible deniability.

rgds

Diesel

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Sorcha
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 03:27 PM

I really don't know what to think, just got this from my brother, career Army, Mech. Cavalry:

I know you dont agree, but where would we be if we kept ignoring
Hitler? Maybe we should just walk away and let him invade Kosovo, Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Iran, etc, but in the long run the "bad news dont get
better with age"! Kathy's(brother's wife) brother was stationed there and has told us
things the locals know of that the world doesnt. Euday, son of Saddam,
raped the newly wed wife of one of his Army Captains and then threw her off
the balcony to land dead at the husbands feet. Eudays brother cruises the
streets grabbing girls he wants to rape, one of which he raped then smeared
with dog food and threw (alive) into a pen of dogs he had starved so he
could watch them eat her! These people CANT fight back, they have no means.
I believe there are many, many, people who would rise up against him if they
had a champion. CNN isnt interested in those people, even if they werent
afraid to be interviewed. If we could assasinate him it would be better
than a war, but since he knows his life aint worth a shit, he hides. Dont
think we should do like Viet Nam, if we are going, lets go all the way all
at once, and end it. Oh, well......

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 08:53 PM

There will only ever be one Little Hawk, diesel (in this lifetime, anyway), but maybe you'll make a wonderful contribution in your own particular style.

P.S. Can anyone tell me this... what's the difference between a "conspiracy" and "doing business"? I must confess, I'm beginning to get a bit confused about that.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: diesel
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 08:28 PM

K.I.S.

Keeping it simple !

works for me ...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 07:34 PM

Geeze, diesel, I'm glad you can't! That's all we need around here. Another L.H.! *BG*

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: diesel
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 07:23 PM

CarolC asks or wonders if paranoia is setting in ?? No - it's not CarolC, but that doesn't say there is no reason not to be afraid. Will staged attacks happen - especially against countries whose minds need twisting to get behind the war - I suppose we could ask the French - they've had an oil tanker attacked off the African coast last year, or another one sank recently off the bay of Biscay - both French and Spanish coasts got a bit of that one.
As conspiracies go - one wonders just WHO setup the 9/11 attack. And if it was Ossama-Bin-Laden - then why not put the Iraqi resources against him... unless it's convenient to forget that it was ordinary jet airliners that were used as weapons of mass destruction !

A lot of people do not support a war without reason - so if Bush/Blair have the proof or reason - why not publish, or at this stage would anybody believe them....in case it was 'manufactured'

Little hawk - I wish I could write as you do -

Rgds to all - Diesel

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 07:01 PM

Good point, Swan. We don't seem to have statesmen any more, or if there are some, they ain't talkin'.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Roughyed
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 06:19 PM

There are three groups of people telling us it's a good idea to attack Iraq. They are saying 'Trust us we're spies', 'Trust us we're journalists' and 'Trust us we're politicians'. Yeah, right.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 03:24 PM

Why on earth should we "have faith" in our governments?

It might well be that for various reasons we might like our governments rather better than some others, even when we don't particularly like them.

But "having faith" isn't about whether we like them or think they are less evil than their opponents, it surely means we believe that they can be relied on to tell us the truth when telling us a lie would be more convenient. We don't need to know much history to be aware that our politicians are in fact pretty liable to twist the truth when it suits them. Think Clinton, for example, just as an indication this isn't a party political point.

Possibly Powell, not being quite a politician all the way through, may even believe what Doug quoted him as saying there. I don't think you'd get very good odds on it actually working out like that from any sensible bookie.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 03:04 PM

After having killed a couple hundred thousand Iraqis first. You're a real dreamer, Doug.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 02:56 PM

It never ceases to amaze me that sane folks here on the mudcat have more faith in a regime such as that in North Korea, or Saddam, than they have in their own govenment. Kendall, they don't have to have a reason! North Korea might do it because they can. And the type explosive they would lob across the pond would not be the same type ineffective firecrackers the Japanese used in WW2.

Ebbie: this whole Iraq thing is NOT about oil. It's about a monster who wants nuclear weapons to play with. The U. S., through Secretary of State Colin Powell has already made it plain to the world that when Saddam is deposed and the allies are in control of the Iraqi oil, the profits will be used for humanitarian efforts in Iraq. God knows after Saddam, and a war, they are going to need help.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 01:15 PM

GUEST,sorefingers, all of the things you are saying about Saddam can also be said about the many totalitarian dictators that the US props up when it is deemed expedient to do so. Why don't we stop propping up homicidal maniacs altogether? (Remember, Saddam was our ally when he was killing Iranians for us.) Maybe then, people in other countries will be a lot less interested in killing innocent Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 12:48 PM

Why do you approach this question with no even one reference to the many bombings of US interests and murders of innocent US citizens over the past 20 something years?, not to mention the 9-11 attacks which forced the USA to respond.

Even if Bush lost the election some other person would be in the WH now and have to deal with this.

Saddam is a homicidal maniac, not merely foreigners but even his OWN FAMILY. The man is unsafe even for his own countrymen. Put it this way in London he would be target practice for the Police sniper unit.

The man also happens to have control of an army, what is left of it, and he is full of threats.

It is not that he should be defeated, disarmed and see the firing squad that executes him - hopefully Iraqis, but that it should be done asap and to hell with the UN if it stands in the way.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 12:09 PM

Sorry McGrath. I meand the government of Britain, not the British people.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 12:04 PM

No way is "Britain" gung-ho for war. Last opinion poll I saw had 68% thinking that it wouldn't be justified, and that's not counting the don't knows.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 09:13 AM

Oops. That last Jack the Sailor post was from me.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 09:11 AM

Look at which countries are the most gung-ho about war with Iraq, Ebbie. The US, Israel, and Britain. The governments of the US and Israel have an expansionist agenda in the Middle East. They want to dominate the region. Iraq is just a stepping stone. I'm not sure about Britain's motives. Maybe they're just hungry for a piece of the pie.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 02:29 AM

Washington Post/ January 24, 2003
Thomas W. Lippman Editorial

4th PPG
Even a perfunctory acquaintance with the realities of the global oil market would indicate that the "oil war" theory does not stand up to analysis. As an imagined rationale it doesn't square with the facts; and in the unlikely event that it actually does factor into the administration's thinking, it is a specious argument that cannot justify sending American forces into combat.

Last PPG
As the U.S. military buildup around Iraq's perimeter accelerates, the Bush administration is obliged to make a persuasive case for war. It should also make clear what its motives are not.

Lippman makes a good case for his view. I'd like to hear other Mudcatters' views on it.

Question: If it's not oil Bush is so gung ho about going to war for, what is it? I don't believe for a moment that he's pursuing it in the interests of foreseeable national security- if it were he'd be going after NK. Vengefulness? Cowboy posturing? Just full of himself? 'Now, daddy, you'll be able to sleep nights'-ness?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 03 - 08:18 PM

...I'd predict an apparent attack on some American forces or vessel, or possibly an assassination attempt, for example on an arms inspector, to be taken as an indication of non-cooperation. ...Jan 24th.

'Knife-wielding man threatened UN inspectors'Jan 25th.

Interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: kendall
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 08:29 PM

North Korea launch a nuke at Los Angles? What the hell for?
Remember when the Japanese lobbed a few shells on California, the balloon bombs, the invasion of the Alutian Islands? it didn't amount to a cane hole in a cow turd. We have the means to make a parking lot out of Iraq or N. Korea. Can either Saddam or Kim be whacky enough to launch a serious attack on us? I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 06:15 PM

"...the leaders of Russia and China had some connection with reality, and had seen the devastating effects that war had on their country. The present leadership of North Korea has not."

In the insane context of international politics there is nothing in the least irrational about what North Korea has done in this crisis. (As for "the devastating effects that war had on their country," that just a very strange thing to say in the light of the history of Korea.)

If Saddam Hussein really had nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction at his disposal there is no doubt that he would make sure that everyone knew that, and there would be no question of Iraq being attacked.

The only question now seems to be, what pretext will be used to initiate the war. I'd predict an apparent attack on some American forces or vessel, or possibly an assassination attempt for example on an arms inspector, to be taken as an indication of non-cooperation. But it might merely be a judgement announced in Washington and London that in their view (even in the view of nobody else) the Iraqis have failed to comply with the requirements laid down in the last UN resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 05:59 PM

re: 'axis of evil' the term was oddly enough coined by Bush's
Canadian speech writer David Frum, (son of the broadcaster Barbara Frum) he was asked to write a speech justifying a war.
Initially he used the term axis of hatred (which later got changed to evil) and since an axis has to have more than one point in order to be an axis it was decided to add Iran. N. Korea was added later for good measure.
Not only was Europe surprised by this term so was much of Congress.
- the irony, is that while Iraq is threatened with war if it doesnt
fess up on its production of wmd's North Korea is told that the US has no intentions of invading it EVen as it thumbs its nose at the rest of the world by kicking out the inspectors and vowing to make its own missiles. (which no doubts leaves some in the US state dept.
regretting the axis of evil speech).

-I agree with Jack the Sailor,
with respect to the old argument of deterrence that some others make,-
deterrence really works only if there are two major nuclear superpowers and if you know who nuked you. (what if a US city suddenly gets hit with a nuclear bomb - who are you going to attack?
if you dont know whos responsible.) (everyone? the russians for good measure, or maybe just the middle east.)
its extremely destabilizing for the rest of the world to have too many
'rogue'nuclear states.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 04:17 PM

Wow, Little Hawk! You're really cookin' today!

I was born ten years before the U. S. got into World War II, and I remember the war pretty vividly, from being a juvenile news-junkie, and particularly from the visual images in Life Magazine, which was sort of the Forties' equivalent of television film coverage. So as a student, I had a lot of interest in the things that led up to the war. William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was high on my read-and-re-read list, along with several other history books. Ever since Bush pulled his socks up after 9/11 (the best thing that could have happened to him, considering the way he wound up in office), I have been very aware of the ominous parallels between Germany in the Thirties and the Bush's actions in the two-thousand-and-oughts. You've outlined my concerns pretty clearly.

God help us all!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 02:47 PM

That depends, Jack. Major wars occur when aggressive empires expand onto other people's turf or strategic interests in a way that is finally unacceptable. Japan's expansion into China and Indochina led finally to a great war between the Japanese Empire and an America/Britain/Holland/China alliance. The Japanese simply had gone too far.

Looking at it the other way, FDR's moves to cut off Japanese access to oil and steel in 1941 became finally unacceptable to Japan...which caused Japan to attack in December '41. America had gone too far, from the Japanese point of view.

Hitler's moves into the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland became finally unacceptable to western Europe, which led to a British and French declaration of war on Germany, much to Hitler's surprise. He had absolutely no wish to fight England, in particular.

America and Britain are presently moving to take over vital strategic areas all over the world, mostly connected to oil. Their first stroke was in Afghanistan, aimed at the Caspian oil fields, and the opium crop in Afghanistan. Their next stroke is aimed at the 2nd biggest oil deposits in the world, underneath Iraq. There is also an attempt underway to destabilize and take over Venezuela (which sits atop the world's 5th largest oil reserves) from within, and topple a democratically elected government that, oddly enough, is supported by the poor people, and opposed by the middle class and the wealthy (imagine that! how very odd!).

This is all being done basically as an Anglo-American effort, and it treads directly upon the strategic interests of Russia, China, France, Germany, the rest of Europe and Asia, and most of the world's smaller nations and their people.

Everyone was afraid to fight Hitler in 1939, because they figured he was far better armed and better prepared (and in the air and psychologically, he was)...but...they had finally had enough.

I am suggesting that a time will come when too many strategic interests are threatened, and Russia, China, and many others will have finally had enough. It can happen. And it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone fires off all their nukes either. Wars can happen by measured stages and on isolated battlefields here and there.

The US economy is a one-armed tiger, and a very sick one at this point. Take a look in the stores. Where are the world's goods made now? They are made in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. The USA is tops in just one thing...high tech weaponry. China has the capability to match that expertise in, I'd say, 3 to 5 years if they devoted all resources they could toward that end. If they feel they must, then they will.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 11:59 PM

Bush is not evil, there is no great conspiracy, only Great Stupidity. Bush had nothing to gain by putting North Korea in his Axis of Evil speech. It didn't take an "A" student to realize it would destabilize East Asia. Unfortunately Shrub was a "C" student. He doesn't listen to his advisors who aren't oil execs.

The title of this thread has no basis in reality, Germany, France, China and Russia have all said, "Give the inspectors more time." and "Show us proof" this is far from "blocking".

The chemical and biological weapons are just an excuse, but if the Americans and British actually find them, post invasion, all will be forgiven. The US is the only significant military power right now. The end of the Cold War has made the U.N. security council obsolete. Its only useful purpose was to prevent WWIII. Be thankful that Bush is polite enough to consult others at all. The US has the military power to do what it pleases. There are no "allies" to stick up for this "Poland". There are only US voters and they'll have to wait 2 years to have their say.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 10:48 PM

It is the habit of out-of-control aggressors with great war plans to accuse someone else of their very own sins...thus rhetoric such as "the Axis of Evil" gets bandied about by Mr Bush. In recent history, only the Nazis had this much gall. The true Axis of Evil is located in Washington and London, and its special shock battalions (who will be sacrificed as soon as they are no longer needed by the Axis) are, I think, based in Israel...professional high-tech holy warriors and zealouts, prepared to do whatever severe policing and quick, deadly military strikes are required on their disorganized and rather pathetic neighbours on all sides, the Muslims in the Middle East.

To imagine that Saddam Hussein is capable of any real threat to the USA is as irrational as it was to imagine in 1939 that Poland was a real threat to Germany and East Prussia. And yet, Hitler was able to convince a majorityu of Germans that that was the case. He also made sure to arrange a phony "incident" of an attack on a German radio station just before the Panzers poured across Poland's borders, using Eastern European prisoners who were dressed in Polish uniforms and shot.

The situation is much the same now, only it's even more bizarre. The US government has repeatedly announced its deliberate intention to attack a small nation...a nation which it has already devastated once...a nation which would not have a chance against American weaponry...a nation which cannot fly airplanes in over half of its own airspace, but must submit to daily overflights and bombings by foreign aircraft of Britain and America...a nation which has been deliberately starved for over ten years by Britain and America...a nation which is accused of doing something "wrong" when it fires a missile at a foreign airplane in defense of its own airspace.

Since the USA is unable to prove much of anything except that Saddam Hussein doesn't like or trust America (I wonder why??!), they say that he must be prevented from developing into a threat in some unforseeable future. Amazing! Who, when under continuous threat and open attack from outside, does not have the absolute right to arm himself with weapons of any sort, including weapons of "mass destruction" and defend himself? Who?

How would the USA feel if 2/3 of its airspace were denied to its own airplanes, and if it were bombed on a daily basis by a foreign alliance, and if a foreign power was openly planning to attack it next with a fullscale invasion (having labelled it as a "rogue nation" to justify the action). How would the USA feel if foreign governments made statements to the effect that "one bullet" (aimed at their head of state) could "solve the problem"?

Where does America get the gall to think that it is "good" and other nations are "evil", when it is America that is openly planning to launch a preemptive strike on a country with 1/50th of America's military strength?

This is collosal gall. It is collosal hubris and arrogance. Or it's desperation... I wonder if the American economy is already so fatally crippled by the last 40 years of shipping civilian jobs overseas that this war is seen as the only way to keep the American people from noticing that their own ship of state is sinking under them?

If there is another terrorist attack, it will not be arranged by Mr Hussein...most certainly not! It will be arranged by the people who want this war, and must maintain some public support stateside in order to launch it.

Remember Osama Bin-What's-his-name? What a joke! They must think that people have an amazingly short attention span out there, the way the "bad guys" have their five or ten minutes of fame before the next excuse, the next "face", is trotted out for the North American press to obsess upon!

Afghanistan was America's "adventure in Spain" (see Germany's role in the Spanish Civil War...late 30's). Iraq, if the war goes ahead, will be America's "adventure in Poland". When Hitler attacked Poland in 1939 he had no conception that Britain and France would declare war on Germany over it. He thought they would merely grumble, and then swallow it as an accomplished fact. He was wrong.

Bush may also be wrong about his adventure in Iraq, and America and Britain may find themselves sliding into a growing regional and finally a global catastrophe.

When major powers are so arrogant that they think they can openly plan the invasion and conquest of small countries anywhere and anytime they wish, just because they find it convenient, then those major powers sooner or later make themselves...international pariahs. And they force many other people finally to fight them.

The loyalty of conventional Americans to this so-called "War on Terrorism" is quite understandable to any student of German history between 1933 and 1945. Consider Adolf Galland (one of the great German fighter aces of WWII). He was a brave and intelligent man of very good character, as has been noted by both his fellow servicemen and the Allied pilots he flew against. He had grown up in Germany, was a military career officer, and had full faith in the German system and the German government and the Nazi high command. He never doubted that Germany's wars were justified, given the virulent propaganda he was daily exposed to. He loyally served that Nazi command from Spain in 1937 through the final collapse and surrender in 1945, and shot down scores of Allied aircraft. His belief in his government was not shaken until late on, when the war was irretrievably lost, and the growing madness or incompetence of his own top commanders (Hitler and Goering) was becoming painfully evident. By then, it was too late.

He was caught up in the grand illusion of country, flag, loyalty, and duty. So were millions of other Germans like him. And most of them were not stupid people by any means.

So it doesn't surprise me in the least that many Americans fall for this incredible line of BS that is spouted daily by the Bush administration. Nope. What will surprise me is if a majority of Americans see through it. Pretty well everyone else in the World has already seen through it (including the British population)...pretty well everyone except the Israelis. They are so convinced of their own historical "victimhood" at this point (while horrendously victimizing others) that I don't think anything will suffice to turn them from the disastrous course they have embarked upon. They are willing warriors for America, no matter what America does.

It was that very sense of "victimhood" that gave Hitler the rage to tap on in the German population in the 20's and 30's which allowed him to build first a party, then a government, then the World's greatest (at the time) military machine, and finally...utter catastrophe.

Do not be deluded by the fact that some of the people Bush points his finger at are dictators. Hitler fought against some dictators too, and it was just a case of the pot calling the kettle black, when the pot was itself blacker than midnight.

It's September 1939, folks. The Stukas are warming up on the runways, the Heinkels have their bombs ready and loaded, the Panzer divisions are poised on the indefensible borders, the Kriegsmarine is assembling off the coastal waters, the professional trained killers and the innocent young warriors of the World's greatest military power have been despatched to their initial launch zones. The rest of the World is expected to grimace, hold their noses, and stand aside while the big blitzkrieg does whatever the hell it pleases and smashes one more small country. And after that? Iran?

The only question is, will the rest of the World stand aside? Or will they stand up and say NO! Or will they fight? And if not now, when?

I regret to say that my country, Canada, will inevitably be drawn in by geographical factors to tacitly or actively support the new blitzkrieg, just as Finland was when it Allied itself with Germany in World War II, and will find itself allied with the great Anglo-American blitzkrieg machine, the New World Order, regardless of what its people say. We are a captive population. I kid you not. And no one has been able to figure out what to do about it, because our political system is presently unwilling to reflect the actual will of its people...just like Mr Blair's government is. That's why I say: we are a captive population. No democracy here...just the pretence of it. Just the memory of what once was.

The opposition to Mr Bush's planned war is tremendous in this country, but our government doesn't speak for its people.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 09:01 PM

Well, I find it intersting that the US response to France and Germany resisting Bush's madmanish thirst for war is to unveil their latest PR slogan as Paul Wuff-wuffowitz tonight took it out for a spin on national TV. Now, it's not Saddam's Weapon's of Mass Destrution but Saddam's Weapons of Mass *Terrorism*. What a juvenile joke. I am totaly embarassed by just how low this adminstarion will go to sell a war. Next thing ya know, they'll be hiring folks from TV wrestling or Roller Derby to handle the PR work...

Give me a break.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 08:52 PM

In the case of Bush no ! In the case of Blair yes !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,jaze
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 08:49 PM

What I don't understand is don't other countries have the right to have weapons to protect themselves just as we do? I find it arrogant that we can have every and any kind of weapon of mass destruction known to man but don't think others should?? The illusion that we are a noble country is fading fast. Considering current circumstances if I were any other country in the world right now, I would not feel safe with the US having so many weapons of mass destruction,and a war-mongering leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 08:15 PM

When have the French Government, of any persusion, been concerned with justice, moral standards, or the like. It is only my personal view, but I suspect any political stance against war in the Middle East is more concerned with enabling the French to sell replacement weapons post war than any moral scrupples.

A little of the old "pot calling the kettle sooty", eh Gareth?. You think the US and Britain are motivated by moral scrupples rather than money? Surely you jest.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:49 PM

North Korea not familiar with war? Hmmm. It's hard to avoid that huge US Army stationed over the border in South Korea, or their still weak post-war economy. Or the land mines that continue to kill people. I'd say NK has a far better perception of the realities of war than the US does.

I can't imagine NK being suicidal enough to lob an unprovoked nuclear weapon at the US, but they might do so if they were attacked. Using nuclear weapons as a deterrent against attack has been around for 50-some odd years now... and obviously it works for a smaller, poorer country to prevent attack by a superior military force.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Gareth
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:29 PM

Kevin - I despair, the leaders of Russia and China had some connection with reality, and had seen the devastating effects that war had on thier country. The present leadership of North Korea has not. That is something to factor into decision making.

When have the French Government, of any persusion, been concerned with justice, moral standards, or the like. It is only my personal view, but I suspect any political stance against war in the Middle East is more concerned with enabling the French to sell replacement weapons post war than any moral scrupples. As we have seen time and time again in Palestine and elsewhere.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:13 PM

Why would North Korea want to bomb Los Angeles? The Russians never did, nor the Chinese, and they had a lot more bombs and far more effective ways of delivering them.

I suppose if America were to start an all out attack on Korea something might happen, but in spite of all that talk about "axis of evil" I can't quite see that happening.

An odd term axis - it implies two countries which are allied with each other, and at odds with everyone else. Can't see how it applies to three countries, two of which are desperately hostile to each other, and the third which has nothing at all in common with either of the others.

If you are looking for "two countries which are allied with each other, and at odds with everyone else" it strikes me that the USA and the UK are the best candidates for the term. I suppose Bush could try talking about an "axis of good" but I somehow think it wouldn't catch on.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:13 PM

DougR, the people who are hallucinating may be the ones who believe that North Korea or Iraq or any other country would not hesitate to hit a nuclear-capable country. Of course they would hesitate. It is what the entire cold war was predicated upon.

Any small country that sends a nuclear weapon against the US KNOWS that it would be hit back, promptly, decisively, and with less bomb slop-over damage on surrounding countries than itself is capable of. So only a madman who knows his power grip is irretrievably loosened would hit first, in order to take down everyone else with him. North Korea has not been suspected of such nefarious plans.

I've got to say- As closely as Hussein has been monitored the last five years, harassed by air in an enemy-set no fly zone, and all our intelligence gathering by satellite, I don't see how he would go about developing and amassing nuclear weaponry. Unless he has found a way to do without the distinctive nuclear reactors?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 06:48 PM

Which is exactly what Saddam is trying to do!

Iraq and North Korea are completely different situations. It makes sense to me to attempt to settle the N. Korea problem BECAUSE they have the bomb. Iraq should be settled by whatever means become necessary because the DON'T have the bomb yet.

And you are right, Nicole. It is not unlikely at all that North Korea could hit our west coast with a nuke. And anyone who believes that the leader of either country would hesitate to do it is, in my opinion, hallucinating.

Were North Korea to do so, you naysayers would be the first to pile on the president because he didn't attack N. Korea (oops. got carried away there for a second) ...you naysayers would be piling on Bush because he didn't call a high level conference to discuss it before they fired the missle.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 06:35 PM

Yep, Jed. Iraq didn't managed to shoot down a US plane or destroy a US tank during the last Gulf War, and their military is substantially weaker now.

On the other hand, it seems very probable that North Korea could hit the left coast of the US -- probably not very accurately, but LA is an awfully big target. Even if not, they could do us some serious damage. After being included in "axis of evil" speeches for months, is it any wonder North Korea felt threatened? You have to give the man some credit for seeing through Bush's bullying rhetoric to the heart of the matter -- the US isn't going to "pre-emptively attack" a nation that can blacken our eye. Bad for elections.

Meanwhile, now everyone else knows it to. Lesson learned: in order to prevent an attack by the US, arm yourself to the teeth, preferably with nuclear weapons. Ouch.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Jed.
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 06:26 PM

Iraq is an easy target compared to N. Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Sunny Day
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 03:23 PM

Funny you should mention North Korea DougR. This isn't about Clinton vs. Bush, and in fact has absolutely nothing to do with Clinton vs Bush or Democrats vs Republicans. You are also conveniently either ignoring or discounting the fact that the Clinton administration the North Koreans much closer to compliance and signing the non-proliferation treaties than either the Reagan or Bush I administration ever did.

What about North Korea, then? Why diplomacy there, but not in Iraq? Especially considering how much more volatile the region surrounding Iraq is, than the area surrounding Korea?

We KNOW North Korea has nuclear weapons, and is threatening to sell the technology to other countries right now. Why is a diplomatic solution good for one, but not the other, especially when the military thread from Iraq has been successfully contained for over a decade? Why the double standard?

Americans aren't stupid. One of the main reasons Americans are now questioning the Bush administration's march to war, is the double standard the Bush administration is applying to Korea and Iraq. Diplomacy for solving one crisis (where oil and Bush I's legacy aren't an issue), and war for the other.

If Bush goes against American opinion and goes to war against Iraq unilaterally, or in opposition to the UN, NATO, and other allies, I don't think you will see the usual "rally round the president in times of war" popularity the Bush administration is arrogantly expecting as a given. So, is it worth dividing the American people, the long standing allies of the US, the United Nations Security Council, and NATO, just to appease these madmen? Just when would you say it is time for Bush to pull back from the brink? Under what circumstances would you withhold support from the president for going to war against Iraq?

Or are you just another of the Bush lifers, who will support him unthinkingly and unblinkingly, no matter what he does?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 03:20 PM

What threat is North Korea to anyone (except the North Koreans)? Perhaps they've got a "nuclear deterrent" - why is that a big deal to countries which walked that tightrope for forty years?

At present there appears to be no convincing evidence whatsoever that Iraq has these weapons. All we have is assertions that, since the inspectors haven't found them, that just shows how well they must be concealed, and proves that the Iraqis are obstructing the inspectors.

Somebody appears to be planning to obstruct the inspectors all right.

But please noone go saying that "Britain" is proposing to go to war. Every poll shows that a sizeable majority are opposed to doing so. And the same goes for America it appears, so far as any go-it-alone war is concerned. The trouble is that the people don't control the Government. That is one thing our countries have in common with Iraq.

Hell, in England it isn't even necessary to have a vote in Parliament to start a war.

I imagine there will be some Gulf of Tonkin type incident to get the war under way.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 03:18 PM

Thanks GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:49 PM

Kat: "we'll see a better, safer day." Allowing Saddam to keep his biological, chemical weapons, and allowing him more time to build his nuclear bomb will make us more safe huh? Sure, let's make the same mistake with Saddam that Clinton did with North Korea. They are no threat now, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Sunny Day
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:48 PM

Yes, the above cite is the story I mentioned. I read about it in the Miami Herald & heard it on the TV news (can't remember which station though).

Here is a link to the Miami Herald story:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/5009677.htm

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:42 PM

UPI is reporting it here:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030123-011647-3434r

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:36 PM

Do you have a link to any information about that one, GUEST,SD?

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Sunny Day
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:24 PM

CarolC, the current (and somewhat delayed, shall we say?) search of the Palm Springs home of a Saudi family "with possible links to the Sept 11th terrorists" comes to mind...

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:23 PM

Well, danged, hope Junior don't stick 'em on his "Axis of Evil" list when he goes to the U.N. next week.

Man, talk about a ratings dive. Whew. That would do it for the poor boy.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:20 PM

The shrub's approval rating continues to spiral downward.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:15 PM

I'll admit to having a degree of what may be irrational paranoia when it comes to this sort of thing. But when I see things calming down in this way, I feel myself bracing for some sort of manufactured "terrorist" attack designed specifically to convince us of the need for an attack on Iraq. I hope it's just irrational paranoia I'm feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Sunny Day
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:14 PM

Well, I wouldn't say forgiveness. I'd say that the Bush/Blair War Project will simply yell bombs away, and not concern themselves with who will line up behind them after the smoke clears. Right now, most of the new eastern European NATO members are backing the Bush/Blair War Project, not the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese leading the charge in the opposite direction.

What will be interesting is to see how countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia line up when the bombing begins. Which I think it will, no matter what anyone does. The Man Behind the Curtain won't be stopped, no matter who opposes the Great and Powerful Imperial Oz, that much is clear.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:10 PM

Definitely good news, but then again NATO has alwyas been split to some degree. Someone once quipped that NATO stood for Not Able To Organize.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:09 PM

If we get past the State of the Union address January 28th without an active war announcement embedded in it, maybe it will mean that Bush and his cohorts have been forced to slow down their headlong rush to war. I'm just afraid that he has already decided that it is easier to achieve forgiveness than to obtain permission.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Sunny Day
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 01:43 PM

The slowing down of the march to war is astoundingly good news. What concerns me (hence the mention of it) is the fact that the arrogance of Blair/Bush is resulting is what may be a split in NATO and the UN Security Council over the US & British insistence that they have a sovereign right to unilaterally wage war, unprovoked, upon a third nation.

Those are some serious divisions along predictably divisive lines (ie the British and Americans against everyone else) in NATO and the UN Security Council. Both those bodies were formed to prevent just this sort of chest beating unilateralist imperialism by these two particularly powerful empires.

Not to mention the historic meaning it has for British and American meddling over trying to control the oil rich resources of the Middle East for the better part of the last century.

Subject: RE: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 01:07 PM

I heard this as GOOD news, today. I was esp. heartened to hear some of our own Congresspeople finally speaking out for more time for the weapons inspectors and also in favour of no-war, esp. without the UN. I believe the tide is turning and we will see a better, safer day. We must continue speaking out.

Subject: BS: US & British war plans blocked
From: GUEST,Sunny Day
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 12:57 PM

This week, NATO members France & Germany, along with several other western European members, effectively blocked NATO from participating in the US & British war against Iraq. Today, China and Russia announced they will join France & Germany to block consensus on proceeding to war against Iraq in the UN Security Council.

It also appears that both the US and Britain are arrogantly hardening their resolve to find a few token "partners" to go along with their war plans, which could of course lead to a very dangerous split within NATO and the Security Council. Sad isn't it, that the two Anglo dominant empires are willing to take the world, especially Europe, to the brink like this?