BS: Where are the WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 04:24 PM

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

As I said, that's the way people justify terrorist bombing campaigns.

Whatever you do has numerous consequences, and the consequences have consequences and so on for ever. Working out the arithmetic to determine whether the good consequences out weigh the bad isn't something that can be done instantaneously; in fact I can't see how whether it can ever be possible to come up with any unambiguous answers about that kind of thing, especially if you try to allow for the other things that might have happened if you had acted differently.

It's all guesswork. And that is when, when arguing with other people of good will who come to different conclusions, it is absurd to lose your temper and throw insults and sneers. Or to respond to insults and sneers in like manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 08:42 PM

Don't follow yur logic Kevin, but never mind.

Gareth.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 11:33 PM

If I follow your somewhat convoluted statement, Kevin, you are saying, taking it to it's logical conclusion, that, since we cannot know all the consequences of any action, we should avoid doing anything at all lest we inadvertantly cause harm.
Is this correct?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 02:27 AM

T'would appear so, troll. Following McGrath's "logic" Saddam would still be in power, and the Iraqi people would still be subjugated by him. Based on the television images projected by the U. S. media, at least, it would be difficult to defend the argument that the invasion of Iraq was anything other than a positive one for the people of Iraq. Or am I wrong?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 06:22 AM

Although people, including me, may question that the removal of Saddam could be better for the people of Iraq, it is very dangerous territory.

Iraq is not alone in abuse of its people. Should the US therefore have "a legal and moral right" to remove any leaders who are not considered to be treating thier subjects "fairly"? How will they be able to justify disposing of Saddam but failing to take action against other despots? Whose standards of morality should we take? Is the US way the only right way?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:08 AM

You're wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 09:22 AM

"..you are saying, taking it to it's logical conclusion, that, since we cannot know all the consequences of any action, we should avoid doing anything at all lest we inadvertantly cause harm."

I didn't say that, and I don't think I said anything beginning to resemble that. Yes, we have to act on the basis of our best guesses. But we have to recognise that that is what they are. This has implications.

The first implication is that, even when we are able to point to a good consequence of some action, that does not in itself prove that it is justified, even on utilitarian grounds, since there are other consequences to be taken into account.

And the second and more immediate implication for us here, is that we should avoid sneering and lashing out at other people whose judgement on these matters differs from our own. And that applies just as much to people who I might agree with as to those with whom I disagree.

And for a quote to match, it seems appropriate for me to use the words of someone with whom I do not exactly see eye to eye, Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken". Applied to all of us, in all circumnstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:06 PM

Hi Mary, sorry thread drift, I thought this might interest you. One of my brother-in-law's life long friend was at a family party. This friend is a world renown soil scientists (for lack of a better or more professional term). The subject of discussion was super fund sites (of which he from time to time advises on), his comment was, it doesen't matter how much money & labor goes into one of these sites it will remain contaimated & there's not a thing anyone can do about it, it there's for good. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:20 PM

Barry-That seems rather contrary to what the EPA has been saying. I just finished a report on a Superfund site in Maine, where contamination was cut down to acceptable levels within a decade of the beginning of cleanup. There are certainly sites which are worse off, but very little short of radioactive waste cannot be cleaned up with a reasonable investment of effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: MMario
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:21 PM

acceptable levels

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:28 PM

Honestly, depends on what the "acceptable levels" are.

If it's "no detectable difference between contaminated site and verified clean site", I'm all for it.

If they're "only a 15% elevated cancer risk" and the like - that's not so "acceptable"

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:33 PM

Thanks, Barry and Wolfgang. I scanned Wolfgang's post and followed some of the links. I didn't know much about depleted uranium before this. I was, however, a little surprised that the WHO and the CDC didn't seem to be as concerned as I am about radiation pollution whether in dirty bombs, terrorist scatterings, power plants, or even a nuclear explosion. Barry, my original concern was ground water contamination, epidemiology of various diseases (not just cancer, but of course MS) and just pollution in general. Maybe Charley will shed some light on geography (rivers and water drainage) and pollution. Forum Lurker, did you read some of the CDC links? What did you think? I wonder if I used too much tunnel vision in the links I chose to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:33 PM

"Acceptable levels" should mean a level that would be accepted acceptable for inside the Oval Office or Ten Downing Street.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:41 PM

I am ALL for that standard. Then again, I also feel that Ol' Spongebush Shrubbypants and Blair should have been out on the field. After all, if it's worth risking anyone's life over, why isn't it worth risking THEIR lives over?

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:59 PM

When I said acceptable levels, I meant what the EPA does not consider dangerous in a municipal water supply. I assume, but don't know, that that means no appreciable effects from contaminants.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 05:07 PM

Mary-

Sorry, I'm out of town for a week. Marvin Resnikoff (sp?)is one of my favorite technical resource people for the long-term hazards of low-level nuclear waste.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Another Voice
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 05:25 PM

I doubt any of you have cared for a relative who has been exposed to any of these WMD's. I and my family have. From an eye socket that needed scabbing removed daily to body ulcerations that required gold leaves to control to hospitalization for periods up to 7 years at a stretch, it is not an enviable life. Nuclear fallout is easier to deal with than the persistant chemical agents many countries hang on to. Saddam's willful, exclusive (since WW1) and willing use of these agents and the stockpiles of the precursers he so carefully failed to account for were primary reasons for the action to remove him from power. The failure to meet the requirements of prior UN mandates invoked the automatic return to a state of war without additional UN declarations. The US and GB asked for but did not need any further authorization for the actions undertaken.
Of the four countries to block additional mandates were China(suppliers of the fiber optic nexus for military control), the Russians(suppliers of forbidden shoulder fired antiaircraft missiles), the Germans(busily building heavily reinforced bunkers) and the French (suppliers of 36+ forbidden ground to air missile types). I believe that the US and GB should print all (including any of their own) corporate and government evidence found in Iraq exposing the illegal business ties that helped Saddam continue his regimes repressive ways for so long. Let those with something to hide be called to the dock for their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 08:02 PM

Thanks Charley. I'll soon be leaving town also. But I'll look for writings by Marvin R.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 09:27 PM

Jon:

In a theoretical universe it is possible that the Iraqis would have risen up at a point in their evolution and asserted they would not be bullied or tortured any longer. But in the real world, I would say, not likely in this generation or the next. Maybe changing the regime for them was a misjudgement, and maybe it was actually a good call -- but it was purely a best guess.

Furthermore, there is no particular logic to the notion that taking action in one case means one who acts is obligated to take similar action in all cases, or that not doing so requires explanation or justification. Real people are not school children, and they act according to their best lights when they decide to do so. Complex group decisions are even less likely to be consistent or adhere to random codes of acceptable action. To expect them to be constrained by such standards is, in my opinion, naive. This is not to say there is no such thing as right action, justice, or equity in the world. But these things come about because of individual awareness, individual to individual, not because of some playground Code of Fairness At Recess.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 12:54 AM

Okie dokie, Greggie, you think it was wrong to free the Iraqi people. So please enlighten us. Why was it wrong?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:10 AM

For those of you who have never heard of Mustard Gas and it's horrific effects on the human body, read any good medical history of WWI or talk to someone who had a grandfather who suffered from its effects after that war.
The ONLY country -so far as I have been able to determine- to use Mustard Gas since WWI is Iraq under Saddam Hussein, who used it on the Kurds.
In case there is anyone on the Forum who doesn't know the effects of Mustard Gas, I'll try to describe what it does. Mustard Gas causes huge blisters to form wherever it touches. These are very painful and slow to heal, leaving the victim open to secondary infection. The real pain comes when the stuff gets into the lungs; the same blisters with the pain magnified a hundredfold. If the victim lives, it is with a lifetime of pain and debilitation.
In WWI, Mustard Gas was used against troops in the trenches. Saddam Hussein used it against women and children.
By comparison, Sarin and VX are humane. They at least kill quickly.
Did I mention that Mustard Gas victims are also at increased risk for cancer if they survive the initial attack?
I have seen posts where the poster called this war to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Husseins regiem "immoral".
I can only say that I cannot concieve of a moral code that would allow a monster like Saddam Hussein to remain in power.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:26 AM

Amos, for sure "Real people are not school children". I was trying to get into one country meddling with anothers affiars on grounds of orality - more a case of one country trying to play "headmaster" to continue that type of analogy.

As for "In a theoretical universe". In one, we could perhaps all learn to live in peace and for our common good without incentives such as money. I don't think we will ever see it though and know that even I, who does not lust for power am incapable of carrying out every action I make for unselfish motives - wish I could say otherwise...

We as human beings seem to me to be the wierdest creatures in existance. I think most of us are capable of acts of great kindness but also have a dark side capable of destruction if we don't keep ourselves in check.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 08:59 AM

DougR-

You do know better, "to free the Iraqi people" is not the same as removing or chasing out Saddam and his chief cronies. This next phase of "liberation" is likely to be a long one and its outcome ambiguous. Sometimes I wish you were there to report on what's really happening.

Should we take up a collection, gang?

Cheerily,
Charley Noble, adrift in the Big Apple

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 11:49 AM

To Troll:

"For those of you who have never heard of Mustard Gas and it's horrific effects on the human body, read any good medical history of WWI or talk to someone who had a grandfather who suffered from its effects after that war."

And we can tell our children to read medical histories of the horrific effects on the human body of cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells.

Sorry, man. All weapons are horrific.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 12:09 PM

No, Charlie, he really DOESN'T know any better. That's why he's so pathetic. He doesn't know, or care, that I never said any such thing.
Please don't encourage him.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:26 PM

Greg, you said, "you're wrong." Please explain what you meant. I assume that your post was in response to Dougs post "T'would appear so, troll. Following McGrath's "logic" Saddam would still be in power, and the Iraqi people would still be
subjugated by him. Based on the television images projected by the U. S. media, at least, it would be difficult to defend the
argument that the invasion of Iraq was anything other than a positive one for the people of Iraq. Or am I wrong?".
In what way was he wrong in your estimation?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 03:42 PM

OK Troll, I'll respond, somewhat against my better judgement; it should be obvious to you, but:

FIRST: See McGrath's response(s) above.

Then RE:
the invasion of Iraq was anything other than a positive one for the people of Iraq

1. The dead ones, the maimed ones in hospital, the orphans, the ones whose homes/businesses/livliehoods have been destroyed & etc might not agree with this sophomoric interpretation

2. It is WAY too early to tell what the ultimate outcome will be "for the people of Iraq"- positive or negative.

3. Who would be so naive as to base ANYTHING whatsoever solely on the obviously biased, staged, and pre-packaged bogus crap shown on the U.S. TV media?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 07:27 PM

Mmmmm ! Didn't Wilfred Owen have something to say on Mustard Gas ?

Gareth

You would not tell your children that sad old lie,
Dulche et Dulchorum Est, Pro Patria Morie. (SP on the Latin)

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 08:22 PM

Here's a site giving an account of the use of gas by both sides during the Great War - including the numbers killed ot injured. What I hadn't realised was how dispropotiontely many of the victims were Russian:

Casualties From Gas - The Numbers

Country          Casualties                Death
Austria-Hungary 100,000                   3,000
British Empire   188,706                   8,109
France             190,000                   8,000
Germany          200,000                   9,000
Italy                60,000                   4,627
Russia            419,340                56,000
USA               72,807                   1,462
Others            10,000                   1,000

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 01:12 AM

Truly an awesome number of casualties, Kevin. Nasty stuff, gas. Good job they outlawed its use in war.
Thank you for your response, Greg. I can understand why it was against your better judgement.

troll

BTW, you get your news from T.V.?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 01:29 AM

Yes, troll, Greg F. came through with just about what I expected that he would ...nothing.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 01:52 AM

Yeah, Doug, you're wrong. :-) What Greg said, and for the same reasons. The Iraqui people would (maybe) be better off if:

Saddam had never come to power in the first place. (but who can say?)

They would also probably be better off if:

The USA & other countries had not built Saddam up into a big military player to take out Iran, and supplied him with weapons of mass destruction with which to kill Iranians and Kurds.

And if:

The U.N.'s recent desire to avoid war and continue inspections had been honored by the USA and UK.

And so on, and so on...

It's a very complex and very bad situation there, regardless of whether Saddam is there or not. Some people will benefit, most will not. That's the way it usually goes with power politics. A few key players benefit, and millions of ordinary people pay the price. That is what is happening right now.

If you think it is fun, and really great to have your country invaded by foreign troops, your society totally disrupted, your cities bombed, your neighbourhoods looted and burned by various mobs of your countrymen, and so on...

Try it yourself, with you on the receiving end. Then tell me afterward how great it was...if you are still alive.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 07:29 PM

Following LH's argument, should Cabot have not sailed from Bristol ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 07:38 PM

Ask Sitting Bull.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 08:08 PM

Anyway, it's starting to seem pretty likely that the Weapons of Mass Destruction weren't really what it was all about. A pretext rather than a reason.

Does that matter, if some of the results it produced were desirable? Does it matter if some of the other results are not so desirable?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 08:12 PM

The Crow on the Cradle

Bring me a gun and I'll shoot that bird dead
That's what your mammy and pappy once said
Crow on the cradle, oh what should I do
That is a thing that I leave to you
Sang the crow on the cradle

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: mg
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 10:21 PM

Homes and buildings can be rebuilt. The terrible loss of the antiquties can't be replaced, but it sounds like they are going to get at least some back. The lives that are lost can't come back, and some injuries can't be recovered from. Compared to freedom, which hopefully is theirs now, subject to this and that, the loss of a modest number of buildings is nothing. Nothing, nothing. There seems to be no lack of items that could be used to make simple homes out of..sand, earth, rock...there seems to be no shortage of unemployed young people.....once the oil is flowing there will be money for repairs, hopefully all managed by the Iraqi people.   In the meantime, people will do what people have always done..live with friends or relatives, move to the country and live in a tent for a few months, go to a refuge camp. Any of these I would do myself. Let's track this. First they can't handle freedom. Next we think they can't handle money in modest amounts. Now are we thinking they can't make bricks and build some new houses? This is the cradle of civilization folks...with all sorts of educated and technical people. They can make bricks. They can make cement blocks. They probably can supply the world with glass from their sand storms alone. They can and will rebuild.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 11:51 PM

mary garvey-It's not that simple. The theoretical resources to do something and the ability and willingness to coordinate it are completely different things, even before you count in the effects of outside interference. There are hundreds of countries with the same resources as Iraq, many of which have suffered much less from war and tyrannical government, and have yet to raise themselves to par with so-called First World countries. We can hope that Iraq will not stay in that category too long, but it is by no means certain.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:32 AM

Iraq was already doing far better than most Arab countries...way back before they were encouraged by the West to launch that war on Iran in the 80's. I have known people who travelled there prior to that, and remarked on Iraq's accomplishments in modernization. Where the Iraquis went horribly wrong (under Saddam) was in embarking on an expansionist military policy. They were heavily assisted in that by the most expasionist military aggressor in recent history, the USA (or is that Israel?). And that was their key mistake.

It has led to a series of disasters, this invasion by the "coalition of the willing-to-be-bribed and the dragged kicking and screaming" being the latest, and the absolute worst.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: mg
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 01:55 AM

I think they have the ability and willingness to rebuild homes. For heavens sakes. Give them some credit. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 08:42 AM

Little Hawk-I agree that without Saddam and the wars they've gone through, they'd be pretty well off. It doesn't mean they'll be able to fully recover that easily.

mary garvey-yes, if the money doesn't get misappropriated by the companies setting oil prices, or the organization handling the revenue, or the people buying construction materials (even baked-earth huts still need the high-powered heater), and the homes aren't wrecked during guerilla fighting, etc. There are a lot of things that can go wrong in even such a simple process.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 01:07 PM

Recovery will probably be very difficult. The Iraquis are a gifted people, but they're in a lousy spot right now, and have been for a long time. There is also likely to be some sporadic warfare for a while yet, I think, whether by Iraquis against the occupying forces or Iraquis against each other. Afghanistan is in a similar limbo, for much the same reasons.

Pray that Syria is not next in line for "liberation".

Vietnam, by the way, was being "liberated" for decades by foreigners. First the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and then the Americans (plus a paltry few Australians, I think). Oh, it just did wonders for the place...

I understand that Bush is sending Christian missionaries to Iraq. If so, that is an act of idiocy that may surpass anything heretofore done by his administration, and will probably result in some dead missionaries. They must believe they are fulfilling the Book of Revelations or something.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Cluin
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 01:23 PM

That last one can't be true, can it, LH? White man's burden, eh?
Jeez, how far exactly can they get their heads up their asses?


"Just a little further... I can almost reach my appendix..."

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:01 PM

While not at all for the war or for our increasingly blatantly obvious profiteering motives, I've not been able to find any "real" source on the supposed missionaries. Most of what I see is either obvious scare-propaganda, or stories like the one in the Sacramento Bee, questioning the motives and methods of some of the groups tagged for aid and support.

I personally think it should be a qualifier used for ANY support group. After all, there are several overtly religous groups - groups with evangelical background, even - whom have declared they're more or less "leaving the religion at home" so to speak. To me, those are the groups acting in the true "Christian" spirit... to aid those in need, regardless of faith or belief - and to act from love for humanity, not the hope of a conversion.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:16 PM

Of course they'll rebuild for themselves, if people don't get in the way and steal the resources that could help them do it. Getting clean water and so forth is where outside help is more likely to be important, because you can't put that off more than a few days.

The suggestion that by and large the way to get Iraq back together is for them to provide the money, and for American companies to provide the expertise (for a comfortable profit) is fundamentally rubbish.

This threads seems somehow to have drifted into the field of concern of this thread, for some reason - BS: suggestions on rebuilding Iraq.

Still no sign of the weapons which were supposed to be the whole justification for this war. But I note that we keep on being promised by the politicians that they definitely will be found. Who can doubt that they will indeed be found?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:19 PM

They'll be "found" to have been moved to Syria... then Iran... then Libya... then heck, who knows? Canada? France? California? Ol' Shrubbie really isn't well loved out here, even now... I'm willing to bet that there's TONS of good ol' WMDs buried up in the hills, or stored in those mysterious "Naval Weapons Stations". I'm willing to bet they'd even find some REALLY nasty stuff buried up in Livermore...

They're an effective bugaboo to keep the population distracted.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 06:11 PM

well, ok, i feel stupid, what does WMD stand for?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 06:13 PM

o wait, ya, i forgot about thoes....are we still saposta be pretending that there over there?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 06:16 PM

they were probbly in the muesums.....

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 06:19 PM

And for those who have a desire for information, here is a link to Tony Blair's statement to Parliment today ( a link rather than a cut and paste. Click 'Ere

Gareth