BS: US & British war plans blocked

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.