BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 04:33 PM

Doug and Old Guy, it's no surprise that you two are following the party-line by saying that those who oppose the war consider Bush the villain and Saddam the victim. Everything is black and white to the two of you. Nobody here considers Saddam any kind of victim and you know it. Same tired old argument. "If you oppose Bush, you're un-American." Hogwash! You can oppose what Bush wants to do without having any kind of sympathy for the likes of Saddam. Considering the various ramifications and consequences of the mess Bush's bellicose adventurings can get us unto, it's un-American not to oppose him.

In the meantime, to make it easier to check out the website that busbitterfraeSaltcoatsScotland is referring to, here's a LINK. Most enlightening.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 04:45 PM

Don,

I don't have a problem with those that oppose Bush. I just have a problem with those that compare Bush to Hitler or make derogatory comments about him. Even if you disagree he's trying his best- to make the world and the US a safer place.

There is no comparison between Saddam and Bush- none.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 05:04 PM

Of course there's a comparison between Saddam and Bush.

There's a comparison between any two leaders, or any two human beings for that matter. If you couldn't make those kind of comparisons, you couldn't a basis for criticising anybody for anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 05:07 PM

I guess I am making a mistake by accusing all antiwar protestors of being pro Saddam. However I am saying that the antiwar protestors are unwittingly playing into Saddam's hands. They are helping him to defeat the purpose of the last UN resolution.

In addition they are helping to allow the continued oppression of the people living under Saddam's brutal rule.

They are in effect allowing the torture, rapes, decapitations, amputations, acid baths and worse to continue indefinitely.

Think about it. A father is forced to watch helplessly while his children are tortured and his wife raped. Can there be anything worse than that? Put your self in their position. Wouldn't you welcome an attack on the government that does this?

Instead of solidarity with these people I see hatred and slanderous remarks aimed at the one person in the world that gas the guts to try to end this suffering.

I am with this one guy. It is not a party thing, I am not a member of any party, I vote for the person I consider the best leader and I am extra glad I voted for him.

You can call me anything you like and make any accusation you want but I know wrong from right and I know good from bad.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 05:10 PM

McGrath,

You are right. You can compare apples and oranges but don't say an apple is an orange if it isn't.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 05:48 PM

Couldn't agree with you more Richie. It's important to use language carefully, especially when we are communicating just through words.

But Old Guy, as I see it, those who are backing the inspectors to continue their work at this time are the ones who have much better claim to say they are supporting that last UN resolution. And those who are trying to jump start a war before the inspectors have had a chance to complete their task are the ones who are trying to frustrate it.

Saddam is a horrible ruler, and he was a horrible ruler at the time when he was being backed to the hilt by the US and UK governments. All the atrocities Old Guy rightly finds so terrible were happening back then, and nobody seemed to give a damn, except the same kind of peoiple youi find marching agains the war today. Donald Rumsfeld certainly didn't have any qualms about sitting down and arranging to help Saddam get weapons and money and backup for his biological and chemical production facilities.

That doesn't end the argument of course - there's a case for saying that if you have armed a murderer and employed him to carry out murders on your payroll, the least you owe to the world is to try to stop him continuing to kill. In fact, Clinton argued as much when he addressed the Labour Party Conference last autumn.

But people who have that kind of blood on their hands ought to be a bit cautious about laying down the law as to how their protegé ought to be dealt with, when the lives of enormous numbers of innocent people are on the lines. I just don't trust the likes of Donald Rumsfeld - or anyone who employs him for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 08:11 PM

Teribus, you should try reading some of the books that have been published by the Department of Defense's former researchers. Even in what isn't classified, they admit to having developed biological and chemical weapons for tactical and strategic uses, and created battle plans for using them. It is also common knowledge, admitted by the U.S. government, that they supplied Saddam with the chemical munitions he used against Iran.

Oldguy, in answer to your scenario, yes. There is something worse: watching the people who claim to be liberating you drop bombs on your home, killing your wife and children, then shoot you because you were drafted. I would welcome an attack only if it were constrained to those actually responsible for atrocities. Also, I'd like to know where you're getting some of this information. It sounds a lot the the "incubator babies" story that was circulated during Gulf War I.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 09:01 PM

if gw bush & rumsfeld &tony b. liar & their chums go off by themselves to wage war in iraq- could we b killing 2 birds with 1 stone?

they could join the politicians spin militia- a pals brigade like in the good old days.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 12:59 AM

Well, if the UK & US go to war together, the Canadian soldiers had better cultivate their "staying the fuck out of the way" skills. Their history so far in wars led by those two powers compares with the red-shirted guys in the Star Trek episodes.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 11:17 AM

Forum Lurker:

"Teribus, you should try reading some of the books that have been published by the Department of Defense's former researchers. Even in what isn't classified, they admit to having developed biological and chemical weapons for tactical and strategic uses, and created battle plans for using them. It is also common knowledge, admitted by the U.S. government, that they supplied Saddam with the chemical munitions he used against Iran."

When? - I believe that might have been true a long, long time ago. They would analyse and research the effectiveness of such weapons and look at tactical and strategic applications of them, in order to develope counter-measures - they did Tactical Nuclear weapons. The US and UK have NO chemical, bacteriological, biological weapons.

MGOH:

"Saddam is a horrible ruler, and he was a horrible ruler at the time when he was being backed to the hilt by the US and UK governments. All the atrocities Old Guy rightly finds so terrible were happening back then, and nobody seemed to give a damn, except the same kind of peoiple youi find marching agains the war today. Donald Rumsfeld certainly didn't have any qualms about sitting down and arranging to help Saddam get weapons and money and backup for his biological and chemical production facilities."

He was also backed to the hilt by the Russians, Chinese, French and Germans. If memory serves me correctly I cannot remember any anti-Saddam marches during the eighties. The assistance given by the US during the Iran-Iraq war in relation to CB weapons was intended for use in programmes to improve Iraq's capacity to withstand attack by such weapons and to improve passive counter-measures should any of Iraq's own production facilities and weapons storage areas were hit (Saddam's CB weapons capabilities were supplied by others).

In all the articles supplied as providing proof that the US supplied Iraq with CB weapons, not one actually states that. As I have said earlier in this thread - the UK has not had any such weapons capability since the mid-1960's, but we did develope extremely effective passive counter-measures to enable our troops to withstand such attacks.

The focus on all the threads related to this subject and many more is anti-Bush, pure and simple, without any regard for objective analysis in relation to world events. To his most vociferous detractors - you have an election coming up in 2004. Personally I believe he is doing a good job, a necessary job, for the benefit of all - with the exception of terrorist groups thinking of going international, and Saddam Hussein.

Last night the national leaders of the countries comprising the EU agreed that inspections should continue on the premise that the inspections were not open-ended - i.e. there is a time limit. Again personally I think the UN should give Saddam a clear deadline for full and verified compliance, after which he must be left in no doubt that military action will follow immediately. That action would be taken with two clearly defined objectives - firstly, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power combined with the abolition of the Ba'ath Party and its apparatus of terror - secondly, the total disarmament of Iraq.

The same thing happened to Germany at the end of WW II - the results I believe proved to be beneficial.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 12:51 PM

That was good news coming out of the EU meeting, Teribus, but the unfortunate thing is they refused to set a deadline for the end of inspections.

Some on this forum are under the impression that the inspections are working. It seems to me that all that is happening is the Iraquis have been successful in hoodwinking the inspectors.

Would someone who thinks the inspections are working please explain to me how they are working?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 12:57 PM

Would someone who thinks the inspections are working please explain to me how they are working?

Hans Blix's briefing to the security council

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 01:40 PM

I don't know about England, but America has created and tested chemical weapons for use, not only passive defense. Further, they have provided far less evidence than Saddam that any such weapons were destroyed. If we don't believe him, why do you assume the best of such noteworthies as Reagan?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 01:49 PM

Well, he wouldn't have remembered either way, would he? Even when he was President.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 06:46 PM

"The US and UK have NO chemical, bacteriological, biological weapons."

Then tell me, what's in all those canisters stored in bunkers outside of Umatilla, Oregon?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 07:02 PM

Teribus, have a look at these:—

Umatilla, Or.
Other places.
More of Same

And this took me about five minutes of googling through cyberspace. Now, tell me again about how the US doesn't have any chemical/biological weapons. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 07:07 PM

Teribus, have a look at these:—

Umatilla, Or.
Other places.
More of Same

This took me about five minutes of googling through cyberspace, and these are only three of the hundreds of pages I found. Now, tell me again about how the US doesn't have any chemical/biological weapons. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 07:49 PM

When Dr Blix is finished in Iraq, the Security Council really should send him across the Atlantic. I can't imagine who could possibly want to veto a resolution insructing him to do that.

It'd be the best way of sorting out who is right in this. And a good way to show that there aren't any double standards in operation over such matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 10:40 PM

GUEST Forum Lurker

I don't read books by the department of defense. I would not know how to get them if I wanted to read them. Have you read any or are you quoting what others said is in the books.

My information was taken form various news casts by various networks. My main printed source of news is Time magazine.

Unless there is a big sinister plot to twist the minds of the American public I would say one balances the other. I see a lot of antiwar protesters on the news casts so they are getting equal time. I could get Al Jazzera TV on the dish if I wanted to pay extra but I don't speak or read Arabic so it would not do me any good.

I would have a hard time pinpointing exactly who said what when but I know it was said and shown. I think we all know these atrocities are going on but it is too uncomfortable for some of us to think about.

If they were going on when we were backing Saddam it was wrong. Does that mean we should not do anything now? People point to a thing like slavery as if that means we should never do anything to try to correct anything again. There was a civil war and people died. Was the war worth it? Were the slaves liberated?

Some people died in Bosnia. Was the end result worth it? Should the fact that people died in Bosnia keep us from fighting in Serbia and Kosovo?

A hoax pops up sometimes like the incubator story in Kuwait but eventually they are exposed.

Nobody believed what was happening in the concentration camps in Germany until the war was won. Then the evidence was so horrific that people were ashamed they had not acted sooner.

The most horrible person you could imagine is embodied in Saddam Hussein. His favorite movie is the godfather. His male role model is Stalin. Executing a son in law, no problem for him

Did I tell you the one about the cab driver that escaped to northern Iraq? His daughter had been tortured in the prison for children in Baghdad. Her legs were crooked from the torture and she walks with great difficulty. The cab driver had to transport a dead baby in a coffin on top of his cab. Saddam has been storing up all of the dead babies and keeps them in a cooler for parades and as props incase a war begins. The dead babies can be placed around the residential areas and filmed as victims of the American attack. He said the stench was horrible because of the decomposed condition of the corpses.

I know this sounds over the edge but I believe it to be true. I saw the information, I considered all sides of the story and I came to my own independent conclusion. I did not attend some sort of rally where people are shouting and chanting and telling me this stuff.

I do not have any hidden agenda or sinister plan to twist minds. I do not work for any government or anybody for that matter. In fact I pay money to the government.

Sure there are chemical and maybe some bio weapons here in the US. I don't think they are earmarked for the citizens of Baghdad or anybody anywhere.

McGrath of Harlow:

Hans Blix has traveled here many times recently. What is he supposed to do here? If he wants to see some chemical weapons here I am sure he could find them real easy. He would not have a staff of thousands trying to keep him from finding them. It is the intentions of the possessor of a weapon that is the crux of the matter.

He could probably find some in Russia, Red China and maybe the UK but that does not worry me. What worries me is the WMDs that are in the hands of ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein and possibly the followers of UBL.

If the US gave them to Saddam, it was a mistake. We should try to correct that mistake.

To all of the others trying to villianize America and say that conditions in Iraq are acceptable I say; If this place is so evil why are people risking their lives to come here while people are risking their lives to escape from Iraq?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 03:14 AM

Thank you, now I will leave you all in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 03:37 AM

Thanks for the links Don,

From the third link posted:

"The mission of Dugway is to test U.S. and Allied biological & chemical defense systems; perform Nuclear Biological Chemical survivable testing of defense material; provide support to chemical and biological weapons conventions; and Operate and maintain an installation to support test mission."

From the Second the map lists sites as either places where Chemical Activity takes place or as Chemical depots - that does not mean that these sites are being used to store the stuff for offensive purposes.

The Umatilla site mentioned in your first link has incinerators and is mentioned in the second as a site for storage and disposal.

The UK used the MOD site at Portendown for its chemical and bacteriological research - they had CB agents there - no weapons.

In late 60's and early 70's it was expected that Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries would sign up to the convention banning the use of such weapons - they didn't. UK had already given that undertaking and had destroyed whatever weapons it had. The US said they would stop weapons development, but would retain stockpiles until such time as they decayed or required controlled disposal.

Nothing you have shown me convinces me that the US or UK has any offensive weapons capability in terms of CB weapons. The weaponry of both countries and their strategic and tactical planning has no use for such unreliable weapons, used offensively they hinder more than help - NATO worked that out about forty years ago. For the US to suddenly revert to their use would be as much of a retrograde step as to issue their infantrymen with muzzleloading muskets.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:47 AM

There are a lot of books out by DOD researchers, detailing our Cold War weapons programs. I found a half dozen in my school library. I've read some of them, and they've told me that we still keep a fair stockpile around. Teribus, I note that you don't deny that the U.S. has massive stores of nuclear weaponry. If we're so horribly worried about the potential that Saddam might be trying to build nukes, why shouldn't we be worried about an aggressive, militant country with thousands of nuclear weapons, and the delivery systems to land them anywhere in the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:05 PM

Forum Lurker,

We have lived with thousands of nuclear warheads and first, second and third strike delivery systems that could deliver those warheads anywhere in the world for the best part of fifty years.

If you are trying to infer that the US is "an aggressive, militant country" then the description based on their track record just does not hold water. The US has been involved in a number of conflict situations since the end of World War II - not once has it resorted to the use of nuclear weapons.

Saddam Hussein on the other hand has used what WMD he possessed in the past - if he had had nuclear weapons I have no doubt in my mind that he would have used them.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:11 PM

Forum Lurker: I assume the "aggressive" country you refer to is the United States. If so, get real.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:27 PM

Teribus, what do you think George W. Bush would insist on doing if UN inspectors were to find similar facilities in Iraq?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Oldguy
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:30 PM

Teribus:

What country supplies the most aid to the Palestinians?
What country has done the most to try to get the two sides to make a peace agreement?

I might be mistaken but I understand that the Palestinians were kicked out of Lebanon because they were trouble makers. They went to Jordan and were kicked out of Jordan for being trouble makers.

I do not agree with Israel 100% and I don't like the amount of aid that they receive. I think they will have to give up the settlements in Palestinian territory before there can be peace.

I don't think the settlements shold not have been built in the first place.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:38 AM

Yes

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:58 AM

Teribus: "The US has been involved in a number of conflict situations since the end of World War II - not once has it resorted to the use of nuclear weapons."

I love that - we've got loads of nuclear weapons and we have never used them (since the last time we used them - which is the only time anybody has EVER used them)...

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:45 PM

Here is a link to an article in today's Guardian by an anti-Saddam Iraqi exile - very strongly against this war, and very sceptical indeed about it actually being in the interests of his compatriots back home.

"Having failed to convince the British people that war is justified, Tony Blair is now invoking the suffering of the Iraqi people to justify bombing them...The present Iraqi regime's repressive practices have long been known, and its worst excesses took place 12 years ago, under the gaze of General Colin Powell's troops; 15 years ago, when Saddam was an Anglo-American ally; and almost 30 years ago, when Henry Kissinger cynically used Kurdish nationalism to further US power in the region at the expense of both Kurdish and Iraqi democratic aspirations....The regime in Iraq is not invincible, but the objective of the US is to have regime change without the people of Iraq".

My point about calling in Blix to check up on the US was that there seems to be some disagreement expressed on the thread as to whether the US has stocks of chemical and biological warfare munitions. Who better to sort out the true facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:55 PM

Well let's see how successful he is in Iraq first McGrath. So far he doesn't seem to be accomplishing much. Why? Because the Iraqis are not fully cooperating!

Inspections are a waste of time and money in Iraq.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:21 PM

Doug:

Let me ask you a simple question>

Let's say that you and you're neighbor get into an argument. Well, that probably wasn't a good idea because your neighbor has a house full of guns. But it happened and now you're neighbor has been going around telling anyone who will listen that he is going to whack you. Right? Ya' with me so far?

Now you have a couple of old .22 rifles and half a box of ammunition in the closet. No this isn't multiple choice so pay attention to the next part.

Okay, so you wake up one morning and your neighbor now ahs a few of his buddies in yer front yard and he yells at you, "Throw out the, twp .22's ya got, Doug, or me a couple of my buddies are gonna whack you!"

Hmmmmmm?

How is this any different that what is going on? No, one doesn't have to over comlicate it with pages and pages of details. This is the game, right now.

I'mm not saying that Saddam has a couple old .22's and half a box of ammunition and fir the life of them, after a $20 PR campaign, Bush and Co. can't either. But if he does, don't you think he'd be a candidate of the year for the *Stupmo Awards* if he threw em' out the window?

Yeah, I'd really like yours or anyone else response to this question.

And keep in mind that they are still accepting applications for the *Stupmo Awards.*

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:24 PM

I call the U.S. an aggressive country because, in the last two years, it has launched one war which was intended to and succeeded in demolishing the government of the country attacked, and is threatening to begin another. As to the potential use of nuclear weapons, Bush explicitly did NOT rule outh their use against Hussein, even if Iraq used only conventional weaponry. If a smaller nation did that, we'd call them a rogue state.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: 53
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:21 PM

of course they should

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:21 PM

Here it is, Kevin.

Storage facilities for chemical/biological weapons HERE. Where the anthrax that hit the post offices awhile back quite probably came from HERE, not Saddam or Osama. More of same href=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/dugway.htm>HERE.
Those who keep saying that the US does not have chemical/biological weapons stockpiled need to have a piece of Plexiglas installed in their abdomens so they can see where they are going.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:30 PM

Sorry. Goofed the third link. HERE.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 02:21 AM

No one. I repeat, no one, has explained why they think inspections are working. McGrath uses the testimony of Blix to support his claim. That does't hold water. Blix didn't say the inspections were working he just asked for more time. Nicole C. says she thinks they are working, but hasn't supplied any evidence to support her claim. Anybody else?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 03:23 AM

Apart from 53 and Doug R who else are warmongers?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 05:33 AM

Don asked me the following question:

"Teribus, what do you think George W. Bush would insist on doing if UN inspectors were to find similar facilities in Iraq?

Don Firth"

If UN inspectors were to find similar facilities in Iraq? - If they were exactly the same in condition, purpose and intent - George W. Bush and the rest of the world (particularly Saddam's closest neighbours) would be extremely relieved and would do nothing.

Absolutely everything you have posted relating to the US having an operational CB warfare capability actually proves the reverse when you read the content - That has been my contention from the onset of this dialogue:

"The United States stockpile of unitary lethal chemical warfare munitions consists of various rockets, projectiles, mines, and bulk items containing blister agents (mustard H, HD, HT) and nerve agents (VX, GB). About 60% of this stockpile is in bulk storage containers; 40% is stored in munitions, many of which are now obsolete. The stockpile is stored at eight sites throughout the Continental US (Edgewood Chemical Activity, MD; Anniston Chemical Activity, AL; Blue Grass Chemical Activity, KY; Newport Chemical Depot, IN; Pine Bluff Chemical Activity, AR; Pueblo Chemical Depot, CO; Deseret Chemical Activity, UT; and Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR) and at one site outside of the Continental US on Johnston Atoll."

As it says above in the text 60% bulk (i.e. not weaponised, hence cannot be used offensively), 40% in munitions much of which is obsolete. That I have cross-checked and found that out of the lists of munitions stored at the sites listed the only munitions that could possibly be used, provided the gun systems are compatible (which I would doubt) are the 155mm shells. The inventory dated in 1997 shows that no CB land mines remain, M55 Rockets (obsolete), 105mm shells (obsolete) - the hardware that was supposed to have fired this stuff disappeared from the US Army shortly after the end of the Vietnam war. The CB stocks on Johnstone Island had been totally destroyed by the time of the 1997 report - Audited, verified fact.

"In 1985, the Congress passed Public Law 99-145 directing the Army to destroy the US stockpile of obsolete chemical agents and munitions. Recognizing that the stockpile program did not include all chemical warfare materiel requiring disposal, the Congress directed the Army in 1992 to plan for the disposal of materiel not included in the stockpile. This materiel, some of which dates back as far as World War I, consists of binary chemical weapons, miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel, recovered chemical weapons, former production facilities, and buried chemical warfare materiel. In 1992, the Army established the Nonstockpile Chemical Materiel Program to dispose of the materiel."

The sites you continually keep referring to are for the disposal of CB Agents and weapons - that is all and supports what I have contended from the outset.

"In 1993, the United States signed the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. In October 1996, the 65th nation ratified the convention making the treaty effective on April 29, 1997. Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002."

So, backed up by material that you, yourself have provided me with, I will say once more that:

"The armed forces of the US and UK have no operational, offensive, Chemical, Biological or Bacteriological weapons or weapons systems"

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 08:03 AM

Hmmmmm? Didn't think you'd answer the question, Doug...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 08:20 AM

"Blix didn't say the inspections were working, he just asked for more time."

As I read him, and most people seem to read him - leaving aside the White House and Downing Street - what he was saying was that the signs were that they were working, but that they need more time to be sure that they are working and to complete the job.

And the distinct inpression, especially so far as the White House is concerned, is that they don't actually want the inpection process to work and for Saddam to be disarmed of any WMDs he has without a war, because that would deprive them of the justification for a war.

As the saying goes "They've shot our fox."

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:15 PM

What question Bobert?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:25 PM

Teribus.

I know of what I speak when I say your are 100% wrong about operational "devices"

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/ductapeer.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:55 PM

Then prove it Donuel - Prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:09 PM

There's a Hole in your Argument,
Dear Teribus, Dear Teribus,
There's a Hole in your Argument,
Dear Teribus, a Hole.

Then Prove it, Dear Donuel,
Dear Donuel, Dear Donuel,
Then Prove it, Dear Donuel,
Dear Donuel - Prove it...

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:20 PM

LOL!!!

BZ - MGOH

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:22 PM

Teribus, there is an old story about a company that had two divisions. One division made armor plate and the other division made armor piercing shells. Whenever the division that made armor plate felt they had something that was impenetrable, soon after it would be returned to them with a hole in it. So they would go to work to improve it. When they had another new improvement, soon after they would be presented with yet another test sample with a hole in it. So they would go back to the old drawing board, and. . . .

Across the company's proving ground, whenever the armor piercing shell division felt they had something that would punch through anything, they would soon be presented with a piece of armor plate with, maybe a dent, but no hole in it. So they would go to work to make it even more armor piercing. And then, of course. . . .

That's what's going on here. How can you test your defensive measures without having the offensive weapon they're supposed to defend against with which to test them? And, of course, how can you tell how effective an offensive weapon is unless you can try it against possible defensive measures? Thus, we leap-frog toward perfection (!)

For decades, Dugway in particular has been a secret testing area for exotic weapons, and it still is. Yes, the United States does have chemical/biological weapons. But of course, all our weapons are strictly defense.

(Oh! But what was that Bush was saying about pre-emption?)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:33 PM

The difference is that a defense against new, improved AP rounds is effectice against all kinds of ammunition. Developing nerve agents so you can develop defenses against them doesn't protect at all from any research that someone else is doing on a different category of nerve agents. Also, you don't need stockpiles nearly the size of ours for research alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:43 PM

Don,

Your story holds good for conventional weapons - it does not hold good for CB weapons or for the process of developing counter-measures, which against CB weapons are passive - design and durability of suits and respirators for use by personell, filtration systems and gas tight integrity for vehicles, 'Citadel' tests for ships and structures.

Not once in my time in the service did I ever come across any US or NATO reference to the use of CB weapons by US or NATO. Not once did I ever see any CB munitions. Soviet Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries had them - take a look at the organisation of their armed forces required to support that capability - and all for a weapon that was considered to be extremely unreliable and unpredictable in effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:48 PM

They existed then, and still exist now. Plans were made for their use, both tactically and strategically. If you doubt it, look for books about chemical and biological weapons in your local library. You should find something that makes reference to development and testing. For policy, I don't have that many sources, but try the book "The Third World War," written by a former NATO general. Somewhere in there, you will find predictions, by a policy-maker for NATO, that chemical munitions would be used by NATO in a large-scale war.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 02:08 PM

I have read the book you refer to. "The Third World War" written by General Sir John Hackett, published by Macmillan in 1985. It was published in two versions as the original was originally manuscript was written when the Shah was in power in Iran. The second or modified version reflected the realities imposed by the Sha's downfall.

It has been some time since I read it, but I cannot recall any resort, on the part of NATO to use CB weapons. When I get the chance I will go back and check.