BS: Where are the WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 12:53 AM

"It is not a crime to have a weapon, it is a crime to use it unlawfully in an act of civil crime or international aggression."

Interesting point of view here Little Hawk, Is this also your view regarding private ownership of guns?

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:39 AM

True, Don. Even if WMDs are discovered, many of you will swear they were planted by the coilition forces. Sad, but true.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:46 AM

In this war, it usually takes roughly about 48 hours until any newsflash is either corroborated by fairly independent journalists or found not to be based on facts. So, it is a waste to post each bit from the ticker as if it was final proof. Be patient and wait.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 07:25 AM

Even if WMDs are discovered, many of you will swear they were planted by the coilition forces. Sad, but true - DougR

Its worse than that. I've always thought it likely the Iraq has chemical weapons, if only because there are precious few examples of any country giving up weapons they have previously owned except for something 'better'. But of course it would be a massive problem for the coilition if no chemical weapons are found - so much so that someone would be willing to fake the evidence: its happened many times in the past. So I am not even sure what evidence would convince me one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 08:26 AM

The mysterious barrels found buried at the Iraqi town of Hindiyah may just be the usual chemical waste dump found in agricultural areas. Our own record of disposing of highly toxic but aged pesticides in this country used to be the subject of headlines in the 1970's and 1980's. I would expect this debate to seesaw back and forth for at least another week. CNN last night was again using the story as evidence of the real thing. And the follow-up story in this morning's newspaper appears inconclusive to me; I'm really not sure if the reports are talking about the same "dump" site.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 01:38 PM

Where are the headlines and protests about Saddam Husseins violations of the Kyoto Accords.
Or is that an honor accorded the US alone.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:20 PM

The protests are against the larger offenders, methinks.

Not to cloud the issue, but in Western society, there's a general tolerance for open dissent (unless you're an Oakland Longshore worker - then just stay out of the crossfire and pray) that isn't as prevalent outside the US and Europe. But in either case, the US is by far the most powerful, the biggest offender - therefore, it makes sense in pretty much every way if (according to the bizzare metaphors thrown around in war coverage) you get the "largest" domino to fall, the rest will follow the precedent.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:58 PM

Don,

Yes, that is my view regarding private ownership of guns.

I might add to that, that NO law will ever make life totally safe, nor will it make all people totally law-abiding. Laws are an attempt to regulate a situation, within certain reasonable limits. There should be certain restrictions on who is allowed to purchase a firearm...

You should have to take and pass a firearms safety course first, and you should be free of various types of criminal records (I won't bother going into specifics...I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself), and you should be over a certain minimum age requirement.

Other than that, I will say of firearms as I did of WMD's: "It is not a crime to have a weapon, it is a crime to use it unlawfully in an act of civil crime or international aggression."

Same principle exactly. I feel the same way about illegal drugs too. Possession (and private use) of the drug should NOT be deemed a crime. Trafficking in illegal substances...and commiting criminal acts under the influence of any drug (legal or illegal) SHOULD be considered a crime, just the same as it is in the absence of the drug.

You may imagine that I am "liberal", but I am just as well aware of liberal hypocrisies as I am of conservative hypocrisies.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 03:14 PM

Latest word on Pepe:

Wal, we cain't find him. A lot of them other Mex's in the neighborhood are makin' demonstrations against our cowboys, but who cares? We got 'em outgunned 500 to one. One thing that yew might ree-member is...Pepe used ta kill Injuns fer us, way back when. Yup, Pepe was a fair to middlin' Injun killer, but he failed ta wipe out thet pesky I-Ran Apache tribe whut lives to thuh East of town. Them I-Ran Apaches just hate ranchers, and have been knowed ta kidnap white women and subject them ta the most hideous things that Ah would be ashamed ta even speak of it. We hired thet Pepe ta put t'gether a Mexican gang, back in the early '80's and go wipe them Apaches off the map. Wal, he give it a try. He kilt numerous of them Red Devils fer us, but in thuh end they done routed his gang and drove 'em back to town! We kinda lost faith in the usefullness of Pepe since then. Specially after he took over the town bakery, without even askin' us! Wal, we kicked his boys outa that bakery REAL good! Kilt so many of 'em thet yew couldn't even see the road fer dead wetbacks.

We figgered Pepe would get back inta line after that, but he didn't! He is the most stubborn cuss Ah hev ever laid eyes on, and thet's fer sure.

Now, word is thet the Apaches hate us even more than they do Pepe. Since we have got all these cowpokes t'gether in one place, I figure we'll go git them goldurn Apaches next, right after we got Pepe pushin' up daisies, which oughta be any time now...if'n we kin find him.

But first we may take out them Arapahoes up on the Syrian reservation. They been supplyin' Pepe with hot peppers and tacos, and besides, they're just a bunch of heathen Injuns!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:35 PM

"Even if WMDs are discovered, many of you will swear they were planted by the coalition forces. Sad, but true."

So to avoid that suspicion, assuming that it would be unjustified, it makes a lot of sense to get some guys in who are going to be trusted, because they haven't any reason to fake the evidence. That can't be the USA and it can't be the UK.

It is now pretty generally accepted that, on Bloody Sunday, fake evidence was planted to provide "proof" that the people killed had been in possession of guns and nail bombs. Proof that was accepted as Gospel by the now discredited Widgery Report.That kind of thing happens. And it does enormous harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:42 PM

Little Hawk,

I don't assume you are a Liberal. I assume you are just a guy with an opinion that may or may not be the same as mine. Altho' I must say you have remarkably clear thoughts for liberal. :-)

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 10:41 PM

Little Hawk said:

It is not a crime to have a weapon, it is a crime to use it unlawfully in an act of civil crime or international aggression.

Two statements there. I agree with both statements.

BUT!

First, what's at stake here is not just somebody in the abstract having weapons. It is somebody who, after being defeated in an agressive war, AGREED to give up such things, and was obligated both by the applicable UN resolutions and their own agreement, but who has repeatedly waffled, delayed, concealed, denied, and obstructed the UN's attempts to find out whether they in fact have them. Not the same situation as say Israel or the United States or the UK or India or Pakistan or prospectively North Korea. (Actually I've included some countries there which have nuclear arms but don't as far as I know have chemical and biological weapons, but that doesn't really bear on this immediate subject; "WMDs" is the subject.)

Second: The putative possessor here has shown that it not only will not live up to its agreements about such things, as referred to above, but will use such things both on foreigners AND ON ITS OWN CITIZENS.

So while the two statements are true, they don't amount to any kind of an argument that applies.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 11:34 PM

I follow you, Dave, but I don't think those are the real reasons behind the war at all. That's cos I don't trust or believe the US government's spokesmen when they give supposed reasons for their actions, and maybe you do trust and believe them. If so, that is where we differ.

Don - Thanks. :-) I am actually neither a liberal nor a conservative, I'm a radical (for lack of a better word). I believe in freedom, coupled with individual & collective responsibility, and I see both liberals and conservatives attacking those concepts on a regular basis (although they would claim otherwise).

Every society is a tricky dance between freedom and responsibility. Those who can dance harmoniously can achieve a great deal.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: reggie miles
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 12:37 AM

The weapons of mass distraction can easily be flown in by us if we don't find any there. We can plant 'em in some out of the way bunker and call it it a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Tom D.
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 12:51 AM

About that NPR story of late yesterday afternoon....

All other cites appear to be back to the NPR report and I am not aware of any other follow-up. Was this a bogey?

Tom D.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 02:40 AM

Sure, McGrath, invite somebody impartial in to check out the WMDs. How about France, Germany and Russia? I'd imagine you would approve of their neutrality wouldn't you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:34 AM

Why should you think that I would "approve of their neutrality" in the case of France, Germany or Russia, Doug?

In fact I imagine that a German team especially would do a first rate job, and I personally would be likely to trust its findings - but the point is, the purpose of this exercise would be to have inspectors who couldn't be accuse of bias, and I am sure that there are other Americans as well as Doug who would not be ready to accept German inspectors.

Perhaps same would apply to the most obvious solution, which would be to call back into play Hans Blix and company, so far as some people are concerned, but I think most people in most countries would see that as a fair way of proceeding, and it could be done quickly.

If that's not good enough, how about a joint Irish-South African team?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:45 AM

Hans Blix and crew are the only ones I trust McGrath.

Anyway, WMDs aside. The one thing I have been wrestling with is the fact that Saddam is not a nice person and whether or not, although I disagree with this war and am skeptical over motives and costs in terms of hatered from Muslims world wide, that ordinary Iraqis may still get a better life than they did under his regime.

I've just read this. That the US has bombed and killed 11 Afghan civilians. Is this to be American Liberation? That after a conflict is over that the US will still be free to drop bombs where ever they think a threat may be and, to kill innocents in the proccess and think that "sorry" is good enough?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:02 AM

I should add that by "ordinary Iraqis", I mean the ones who have not been killed or crippled mentally or physically by this war.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:55 AM

I agree that any non combatant death is one too many and that deaths are lamentable. For many of those Iraqis killed by this war it was oinservice to their country and not necessarily to Saddam. They may have died from a sense of duty and nothing more. Or they had been sold a bill of goods by Saddam and Muslim fakers and died for 100 hundred virgins and a sweet life here after.

But there is one perspective we are forgetting. In the battle of Iwo Jimo 350 US Marines of Easy Co. went up a hill, fighting all the way, raised a flag, and ony 50 lived to board ship after the fight.

The Battle of the Bulge cost 19,000 Casualties.

These two battles were straight up fights. No WMDs were used, just men with guns and tanks. It is because of staggering loses like these that Harry Truman decided to use atomic bombs to put the end to the conflict completely. That is a moralistic debate that can't be won by either side I don't believe. And even now, nearly sixty years later I am chilled by the thought of that war. But from a convential wars stand point and tallied in loss of life, combatant and civilian,   the War in Iraq is comparitivly low. Certainly nowheres near that of Dresden or The Battle of Britain or Gettysburg or Antietam or Fredericksburg.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:22 AM

The U.S. armed forces are still taking their time verifying the chemical nature of what they found buried at an agricultural compound. However, they did report that the containers had labels indicating that the contents were standard agricultural pesticides produced in Jordan. Sure, it's entirely possible that these containers were recycled and filled with something more sinister. I would be happiest if "Hans Blix and company" were brought in soon to do the verification.

There are still the 20 missles that were recently captured that some suspect contain poisonous chemicals, and the two missles that were dug up with chemical symbols labeling their exterior which may yet prove to be the real thing.

Haven't run across any serious follow-up on what was found at the Ansar militants' compound in the North.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:54 AM

Charley, have you seen anything about those 20 missles from any source other than NPR, or people quoting NPR?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:17 AM

True enough, it's good to see happy people. I don't know how that balances against that little boy with his arms blown off and his family wiped out, or busloads of women and children wiped out. Is it only one thousand civilians killed outright?

But remember the argument that illegal violence is justified because it can produce good results, and that the people killed by carrying out bombings are a worthwhile sacrifice, is the argument that is used by terrorists to justify their activities.

And the only argument ever made for this war having any legality at all was that it was necessary because Saddam had stocks of weapons of mass destruction, and there was no other way of getting rid of them other than aborting the inpection process and going immediately to war.

Today I saw a suggestion that, if there are any chemical and bioogucal weapons still around in Iraq, they are likely to be in the hands of people who are even more likely to be ready to pass them over to Al Qaida style people.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:56 AM

Carol- There was a short article in my local newspaper today from Knight Ridder News Service, Doha, Qatar, which mentioned the 20 rockets and the other two rockets with chemical weapon symbols that the marines supposedly dug up, buried in cement outside a school in central Iraq. Maybe you can find it on the internet and post a link.

Got to run!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:59 AM

Thanks Charley. I'll have a look around.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:33 PM

Dear Carol

your post above gives more than sufficient evidence on your attitude.

Your Selective quoting of me is not very clever, and provides certain evidence of your medacity

The actual post !

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth - PM
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM

Please don't acuse me of trusting Bush

And the Bit that Carol omitted in order to support her inaccuracies

But I do trust Blair

I must appologise if you do not understand irony, or plain english, crptic comments are not your forte - But then abuse, such as accusing me of being drunk, is a typical tactic of those whose arguments are lost.

The sceens from Bhagdad are sufficient evidence of the morality and legallity of this war.

Gareth - Yes! - In my name.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:04 PM

What's your point, Gareth? You want to go head to head with me in thread after thread? I'm up to the challenge. Just say the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:05 PM

The other thing I left out of my last post to you was the fact that you failed to answer my question to you in that Tony Blair thread. This, after you accuse me of not answering challenges.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 06:14 PM

Here it is Gareth:

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM

Gareth, have you read the treatise from the group called "Project for a new American Century"?

But no answer from you. I wonder why. Could it be because you "constantly don't answer challenges. You just change the subject"? And what the hell is "medacity"?

I can follow you around and do this kind of bullshit if you want the way you're doing with me, but personally, I think it's a colossal waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:27 PM

Carol - You cant go head to head with a vacumn - You have been caught resorting to personal abuse, and selective misquoting.

Any further irrational abuse will be dealt with apporpriatley.


Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 09:59 PM

Gareth, you started the abuse with this post:

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth - PM
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 05:49 PM

CarolC - You were challenged by myself in other threads to back up your allegations. This you have constantly failed to do. When anyone has pinned you down you change the point.

You are not interested in Peace and Harmony in the Middle East, far more concerned with your single minded and unobjective hatred of G W Bush.

I tried to respond politely in my first two responses to that post, but you continued the abuse in subsequent posts using baseless inuendo. I don't have to resort to using abuse. All I have to do is explore your posting history. From what I've seen so far, there's plenty of material to work with.

The fact is, you painted yourself into a corner with that first abusive post, and you just aren't man enough to own up to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:23 PM

CarolC and Gareth-Could this discussion be carried out through PM's? The apparent squabbling neither edifies the rest of the forum nor helps either of your images.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:23 PM

Carol - You cant go head to head with a vacumn - You have been caught resorting to personal abuse, and selective misquoting.

Any further irrational abuse will be dealt with apporpriatley.


Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:25 PM

Sorry Forum Lurker.

You got it Gareth. The game is afoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:53 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth - PM
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 05:49 PM

CarolC - You were challenged by myself in other threads to back up your allegations. This you have constantly failed to do. When anyone has pinned you down you change the point.

Ok, Gareth. I have looked at all of your posts to all political threads on which I have also posted (and most non-political threads on which we have both posted) since March 13 2002, which is when the first mention of war with Iraq appeared in any threads on which I posted.

There is not one single post by you in which you have challenged me to support anything I've said, or in which you have asked me a question, other than the post in which you said "Please don't acuse me of trusting Bush". I quote that post in its entirety:

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM

Please don't acuse me of trusting Bush.

This thread was not about Bush.

I confide that a selective assasination of Saddam Hussain and his familly would be ideal but hasn't this been tried ???

BTW What is the price on Saddams head ????

Gareth

So your first post aimed at me in this thread is an unmitigated lie. You have been caught in an unmitigated lie which is also a slander and an abuse.

I asked you to provide evidence to back up your lie, and you couldn't be bothered to either back up your assertion, or withdraw it.

Then you made hateful accusations against my motives. I politely told you that you were wrong, and directed you to an accurate description of my feelings, and your response amounted to calling me a liar.

My assumption that you might have been posting while drunk is not unreasonable in light of these posts by you:

Take it from an insurance professional - Don't drink and drive. Full Stop.

Personally, in the UK, I would like to see a mandetory retest after a Drink and Drive Conviction.

Second conviction - Jail.

If I'am driving I don't drink

You may gather I walked home tonoght.

Gareth

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=806922

I also have one Golden Rule - If I'am driving I don't drink - FULL STOP ! Perhaps this might explain why I don't attend folk clubs in the Cardiff Area.

http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=831111


And while you were lying about me, slandering me, and abusing me, you were also doing the very things you were accusing me of doing, ie: not supporting your assertions when challenged.

So you have been caught resorting to lies, slander, abuse, personal attacks, and hypocracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 12:14 AM

Correction: the line "please don't acuse me of trusting Bush was not directed at me. The only post you have ever directed at me (although I don't know for sure since my name isn't in the post) is this one:

Subject: RE: BS: Vive La France
From: Gareth - PM
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:42 PM

Don't call me English !!!!!

Gareth *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 12:22 AM

Good for you Carol C. There are others who also make personal attacks as a reply. Had one who called me all sorts of names because (1 Reason) I mentioned Rwanda, Uganda &, & was told that they're separate countries (duh) . I could've gone on to name more countries but found dealing with this shite not to be worth the wind. I called this person on they're personal attack & I got "sorry it wasn't intentional" crap. There has been a bit of this going on as of late. Treat it with pity, you have no need to fight like this to back yourself up. BTW Carol, IMHO you were also speaking for me, this country's government wouldn't know the truth if they were sleeping with it & they'd most likely choke on if if they tried to speak it. "IMHO" that's a world opinion. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 01:03 AM

Hey Barry! Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 01:47 AM

Another correction: The only post you have ever directed at me in a political thread is the "don't call me English one (maybe) and the "I trust Tony Blair" one.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 04:41 AM

Carol- Should you not see a Doctor ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:21 AM

PMs are a much better way of having a quarrel, as opposed to an argument.

Though far the best thing to do is to write the PM, and then not send it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:37 AM

Not much point in PMs McGrath. He hasn't got anything to say.

That's quite a vacuume you're in there, Gareth. You've got no balls, no spine, no brains, and no honor. Barry is right. You're more to be pitied than censured.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:42 AM

"The screens from Baghdad are sufficient evidence of the morality and legality of this war."

So far as the legality is concerned I can't see what relevance they can possibly have.

It is of course tempting often enough to say "Bugger the legality, the morality is what matters". However it is worth remembering that this is the basis on which terrorist organisations justify themselves. It's a very dodgy road to go down, and God know where it is likely to take those who follow it. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Once again, the allegations that Saddam's regime had held on to Weapons of Mass Destruction, and was lying when he said they had been destroyed, was the entire basis for claiming that the war was legal. Tony Blair repeatedly said this, even when presenting regime change as a desirable side effect he hoped to see from the war.

Perhaps credible evidence will emerge that these weapons do in fact still exist, in spite of the fact that so far they have not been used. I am certain that if they do exist they will be used. The suggestion (made for example by Government Minister Mike O'Brien on BBC Question Time last night)that Saddam could have been deterred from using them because of the legal consequences of such use, in terms of war crimes, strikes me as totally absurd.

In itself, the end of Saddam (touch wood) is, of course, a good thing. However it is still far too soon to know whether this good thing will outweigh all the other consequences of the war, such as the thousands of devastated and destroyed lives, the incalculable dangers for the future regionally and globally.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 05:58 AM

Kevin - Far better to do good by misintention than to produce evil by good intention.

With regard to the malice originating from CarolC I do not wish it delated, but preserved as an example of the original point, and trust that with this example Mudcatters will treat all future postings from that source with the objectivity that is demonstrated.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 06:53 AM

To deal with the thread question, wherever the truth of the alleged WMDs, it would be hard to argue that this war was anything other than one between grotesquely unequal forces. Legitimate homicide, one might say, except that it wasn't even legal. With hindsight the whole idea that he poseed any threat to the US and UK is laughable - as most of us had the foresight to see and say beforehand.

CarolC, I'm sure to have had a spat or two with you (I can't remember the details/subjects, but I seem to have got into spats with most mudcatters over the years), so I think I'm a fairly objective bystander, and I think you're winning this one hands down. Don't be bullied into going offline with it!

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 07:08 AM

The sceens from Bhagdad are sufficient evidence of the morality and legallity of this war. (Gareth)

I don't agree with that. Everybody could know before the war what a type of dictator Saddam was. So scenes of genuine joy like that were to be expected. That's why I do not see that anyone who had reasons before the war to be against it should change now her position.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 09:03 AM

Ah, yes...

"The sceens from Bhagdad are sufficient evidence of the morality and legallity of this war."

Uh, huh. The same scenes greeted the Nazis as their troops marched through the cities of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Ukraine in 1941. Thousands and thousands of cheering, flower-throwing civilians, delighted to be "liberated".

So...that is sufficient evidence of the morality and legality of Hitler's war on Russia, right, Gareth?

Ha! Ha! Ha! The people who are opposed to "liberation" do not cheer loudly (which makes them less noticeable)...and America is almost universally hated and despised in the 3rd World, as is the UK, at this point. Saddam is a temporary problem for those people. Imperialism is a longstanding problem they have faced before (when the British invaded and took Baghdad and the surrounding area), and can no doubt expect to face again...and again...and again.

The Romans used to be greeted in a similar fashion when they did their victory parades through conquered towns too, but the people who watched the legions tramp by were just waiting for the day when they could return the favour...in spades.

They hated Imperial Rome.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 09:24 AM

Charley Noble said, "The low-level radiation in the environment will unfortunately continue to be a threat for thousands of years. " That's what I've been trying to document and remember for some time now. Can you give some more references? Years ago I taught a class in radiochemistry and saw a similar quote in essays presented as pro and con for nuclear power plants. Perhaps it can be documented and explained more starting with some of those sources? To me this fact overrides all the discussions about various chemical and biological weapons (that can only wipe out a generation).

An aside - I don't put much stock in the various company names or the language of instructions found with "stuff." I noticed one of the pictures on my news showed the chemical barrels with the name, Rhone-Poulenc, printed on them. Even though this is a French company, subsidized by the French government, (I know, I used to work for the incompetent __________) this fact alone is totally irrelevant to any discussions about how they got there.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 10:03 AM

WHO fact sheet for depleted uranium

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 03:54 PM

The British didn't "Invade" they Helped the Arabs kick out the the Turks. Of course they did break promises through minor official's like Lawrence and turned liberation into occupation.