I was reading an article just last week about how American forces have stated they intend to use internationally prohibited chemical weapons in the war in iraq. I think it was maybe quoted in a thread here.
I'll look it up later, unless someone else wants to step up. I have to go now.
Even if they were planning on doing this, then why would they announce it to the world? Especially since the reasoning for going into Iraq involves them having chem/bio weapons and there's all this "OGM! They will use them on us in the war!" talk. Bush would lose even US support if he went that far. I'll believe this when you can show me credible evidence of it.
I was reading an article just last week about how American forces have stated they intend to use internationally prohibited chemical weapons in the war in iraq. I think it was maybe quoted in a thread here.
The "chemical weapons" you're talking about have been mentioned here and are crowd control chemicals like pepper spray and calmative gas.
But if you just say "chemical weapons" it sounds more sinister and that's more fun.
Quote:
What was causing the deaths of those ~4400 civilians and how has dropping bombs on Iraq magically prevented them from continuing to happen?
UN economic sanctions cause those deaths. 500,000 from 1991 to 1995. Over 1 million from 1991 to today. (fact)
A successful war to oust Saddam and disarm Iraq will lift the sanctions. (fact)
I am perplexed by how the anti-war movement has so quickly forgotten how the leftist elite had spent the last 12 years bemoaning and denouncing the UN's method of "starving the people into submission" (Noam Chomsky) to suddenly do an about-face and obstinately ask, "What's the problem!!?"
Why on earth are you perplexed by someone not supporting moving from one extreme to another? You can't be that dense, can you?
One extreme to the other? By what rubric is the current route "extreme"?
It takes less lives than sanctions and will actually come to an end, relatively soon. Whereas sanctions had no clear end and lasted for over 12 years. At this rate 12 years of war would take 192,000 civilian lives. Sanctions took 1.2 million in 12 years.
It's not from "one extreme to the other". It's from one extreme to a much better situation.
The "peace" plan the UN had for Iraq took more civilian lives than the war plan the US has. Not that the anti-war movement actually gives a rat's ass about the people of Iraq.
go to page 60 (72 of the pdf) of Rebuilding America's Defences and note the following scentence:
Quote:
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a poltically useful tool.
Just a word about UN sanctions. I think it's a shortcut to said that UN sanctions killed 500 000 peoples.
Saddam did not comply to the UN resolution after GW1, and thus was economically sanctionned. These sanctions have a negative impact on the Iraqi economy and thus lowored the general level of hygiena and health in these countrie.
The starvation, the bad hygiena and low health are responsible to an estimated death ratio of 500 000 people. These estimation is calculated via, life expectancy, peri-mortality and others such feature. They compare these statistic features with "normal" statistic features (features , that we should find in those type of countrie) and they deduct how many lifes should be have saved, if the Iraq was complied with these normal statistic.
Nobody can say what will be these statistic features with Saddam in power and no sanctions , or with an another leader with sanctions or no sanctions and an another leader. it's like to said what will be the state of US economy if Gore have winned the election.
These 500 000 people is a statistic calculation, who said that comparing to an another similar countrie, Iraq should have 500 000 less deaths. The UN sanctions certainly not help, nor Saddam or the BAATH party, but we cannot give a precise number, because these over rate of death in Iraq have differents roots.
Imagine that US has economical sanctions, i doubt that there will millions of deaths, sure the economy will suffer, but due to a better management of this crisis there will be less deaths.
The problem that most of us have with the jutification for this war is that the logic behind it is murky at best. First it's Saddam has WOMD which have yet to be found. Then it's he has ties to AL Queda which has yet to proved. Then it's he's a terrible tyrant that must be stopped because of the atrocities he does to his own people. But there are many men just like him in the world. In countries that pose much more of an immediate threat to the U S. Are we going to do the same with them all? I'm sure even they realize that's not feasible.
Also we're doing this at a time of economic strife. This war will be fairly expensive at a time we can least afford it. Once again modern war doesn't help the economy. Only certain companies that make items for it.
Also we helped create this monster by supporting him in the 80's when he was the enemy of our enemy.
Ok, so we've gone over this ground before. But, the opposition just doesn't seem to hear ( or want ) to hear it.
You see murky. At best. I'm sure the conservatives can drum up some long and convoluted explaination. But it would just be more of the same in a different form. As far as I'm concerned They have yet to give a reasonable explaination.
One extreme to the other? By what rubric is the current route "extreme"?
What sane human being doesn't consider war extreme? If you don't mind me saying so, that would go a long way to explaining the general conservative fervor for war.
Just a word about UN sanctions. I think it's a shortcut to said that UN sanctions killed 500 000 peoples.
Powerdoc, even with a typo or two you've explained this very well. I'm not sure why some people talk around the issue though. I think the main problem is that if people were to honestly look at the situation, yet another motive for war would be destabilized.
So although your points are clear and accurate, I'm not sure there's an honest rebuttal.
you might want to note that among the programs are biological cluster bomb and anti-biotic resistant anthrax.
We're talking about things that are in Iraq. Thanks.
Quote:
As for non-lethal gases, tell that to the ~115 people that died in moscow.
Did we do that? Were those the chemicals we used and in the doses we use them?
What the hell does it have to do with the US military?
Quote:
CNN has also reported the use of napalm in Iraq:
And the Pentagon denied it. They destroyed what napalm they had left in 2001.
Quote:
I'm not sure what the legality is on that one, but I'd post some photos if it wasn't against AI rules.
Pictures of napalm attacks in Iraq or napalm attacks over 30 years old?
LOOK. DEAD BABIES!
--
powerdoc:
Quote:
Nobody can say what will be these statistic features with Saddam in power and no sanctions , or with an another leader with sanctions or no sanctions and an another leader. it's like to said what will be the state of US economy if Gore have winned the election.
Well it's not 100% accurate but it's safe to say that's the reason. When you have an otherwise stable environment (Saddam as the iron-first ruler since the 70s.
The rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease is directly attributable to the sanctions.
These aren't numbers I made up, this is from the UN itself and aid and relief agencies.
To put it off as "it didn't help, but..." is disrespectful to the people who suffered under it and only guarantees that the UN will continue to allow the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.
I must resist getting angry with this attitude. It's same one that allowed 800,000 Rwandans to be slaughtered in 1994. That kept the UN silent on Yugoslavia.
--
bunge:
Quote:
What sane human being doesn't consider war extreme?
War can, obviously, be more humane than some "peaceful" solutions.
Re: "It's not the sanctions fault!"
I guess those people jst disappeared and UNICEF is a war-mongering institution.
The rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease is directly attributable to the sanctions.
These aren't numbers I made up, this is from the UN itself and aid and relief agencies.
In all honesty groverat, your link supports oil-for-food more than it condemns it. According to the link the rise in poverty in Iraq is more accurately attributable to the United States, not the sanctions. The sanctions don't kill, the sanctions were probably very accurately created. The United States blocking the sanctions from functioning are attributed to the rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease.
We're talking about things that are in Iraq. Thanks.
sorry I guess I forgot that a) those weapons were not being developed for warfare and b) that we are not conducting warfare in Iraq. Thanks for straightening me out.
Quote:
Did we do that? Were those the chemicals we used and in the doses we use them?
What the hell does it have to do with the US military?
Ohhh....I see. The russian military is incompetent on every level and the US military is infallible. What was I thinking?
What does it have to do with the US military? Those chemicals are not safe, they are known not to be safe and they are proven in action not to be safe. It was discussed at length in the press after the incident in moscow.
I'm so glad I'm getting a lesson in our military capabilities from someone who doesn't even know what a secretary of defence is.
I agree that idiotic punitive sanctions, that seem designed to destabilize the regime by attacking the people, are the cause of deaths. So those deaths could easily have been avoided by lifting the sanctions. They have after all been singularly ineffective so what would we have lost?
And then where is the justification for war? And more importantly where was the the US and UK governments' incredible desire to help the Iraqi people when the sanctions where imposed? I don't remember them lifting a finger, much less risking the lives of their young cannon-fodder, to help the Iraqi people in that instance.
(edit: as bunge points out, your own link contends that the US and UK opposed smarter, less harmful to civilian sanctions, after international outcry about the death toll.)
And people wonder why the surviving relatives of those half-million dead (who where predominately under the age of 5-years-old) aren't lining up to shower the Allied troops with roses?
(Also: In relation to my earlier post about chemical weapons, there was a bit of back-and-forth but no-one picked up on the phrase "internationally prohibited" which is the only thing seperating Saddam's WMD from the US arsenal and applies to the weapons the US has stated it will use.)
I wanted to check for myself. So there are multiple US officers that claim napalm has been used.
The pentagon denies a lot of things that are true (anybody turn on a news channel in the past couple of days since the war plan articles came out) and it's wartime. The last place you are going to find accurate information is within the official claims from the DoD.
As for non-lethal gases, tell that to the ~115 people that died in moscow.
Um, you can suffocate on water too.... I guess that much be a 'lethal liquid'. You can suffocate on too much of ANY gas. The 'non-lethal' part means that the chemical isn't poisonous once it's in the blood-stream via the lungs.
In all honesty groverat, your link supports oil-for-food more than it condemns it. According to the link the rise in poverty in Iraq is more accurately attributable to the United States, not the sanctions.
To the United States' influence in the formation of UN Security Council policy, yes. How soon you want to forget that it takes 8 yes votes in the Security Council to get things done and the US gets only 1.
Does the US share blame? Yes. Does the US even deserve *more* blame than the other nations that support the murderous sanctions regime? Absolutely.
Quote:
The sanctions don't kill, the sanctions were probably very accurately created.
The sanctions don't kill? You have reading problems. Just because the sanctions are for the large part created by the US does not mean that no one else within the UN shares blame. I would go so far as to say it's the UN bureaucracy that causes this sort of gridlock.
The sanctions DO kill. And every article in that link, even the most critical of the US, disagree with you.
Quote:
The United States blocking the sanctions from functioning are attributed to the rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease.
"Blocking the sanctions from functioning"? What does that mean?
-----------
giant:
Quote:
sorry I guess I forgot that a) those weapons were not being developed for warfare and b) that we are not conducting warfare in Iraq. Thanks for straightening me out.
Perhaps we should scream about the possibility of nuclear war in Iraq then, as well.
Quote:
Ohhh....I see. The russian military is incompetent on every level and the US military is infallible.
Did I say that? (Go back and read)
And beyond that, the way Russia deals with terrorists is far more "kill 'em all" then ours ever has been. I've read accounts from people who were in the threatre. The Russian police forces don't take terrorists alive. If not the gas they were going to go in shooting.
And past that they screwed up the amount and potency. They made a mistake even from their own policy. It's is idiotic to apply that to a theoretical US action.
If I spray enough hairspray up my nose I'll die, we should protest Vidal Sassoon.
Quote:
Those chemicals are not safe, they are known not to be safe and they are proven in action not to be safe.
I suppose we should report the thousands of women across the world with pepper spray in their purses to Tom Ridge as terrorists with chemical weapons.
--
stupider
Quote:
So those deaths could easily have been avoided by lifting the sanctions. They have after all been singularly ineffective so what would we have lost?
Lift the sanctions and Saddam once again has the means to produce WoMD. Which he actively pursued. There is little doubt he would restart his programs if allowed to. No reason to believe he has gone soft.
And, of course, the UN Security Council members who pushed for removal of sanctions stood most to benefit from Saddam reenergizing his oil production and, most importantly, his weapons programs.
No one's hands are clean, that is not a surprise to anyone. You try to act like they wanted to lift sanctions for those poor poor Iraqi people... what a joke.
Perhaps we should scream about the possibility of nuclear war in Iraq then, as well.
Where were you for the past year during the debate over whether tactical nukes could be used?
Quote:
Did I say that? (Go back and read)
And beyond that, the way Russia deals with terrorists is far more "kill 'em all" then ours ever has been. I've read accounts from people who were in the threatre. The Russian police forces don't take terrorists alive. If not the gas they were going to go in shooting.
And past that they screwed up the amount and potency. They made a mistake even from their own policy. It's is idiotic to apply that to a theoretical US action.
If I spray enough hairspray up my nose I'll die, we should protest Vidal Sassoon.
Ohhh....I see. The russian military is incompetent on every level and the US military is infallible. What was I thinking?
I guess nothing is worth doing if there's a possibility that you might screw up, huh? There is risk in everything that you do. You're trying to imply that if these gases are used then civilians will die. That's like saying "Building pong in sub-division" + "children in sub-division" = "children will die by drowning in the pond"
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Yea I think you'll be diggin' out of one when everything is known.
keep it up. Maybe you can make it 'true.'
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I was reading an article just last week about how American forces have stated they intend to use internationally prohibited chemical weapons in the war in iraq. I think it was maybe quoted in a thread here.
I'll look it up later, unless someone else wants to step up. I have to go now.
Even if they were planning on doing this, then why would they announce it to the world? Especially since the reasoning for going into Iraq involves them having chem/bio weapons and there's all this "OGM! They will use them on us in the war!" talk. Bush would lose even US support if he went that far. I'll believe this when you can show me credible evidence of it.
I was reading an article just last week about how American forces have stated they intend to use internationally prohibited chemical weapons in the war in iraq. I think it was maybe quoted in a thread here.
The "chemical weapons" you're talking about have been mentioned here and are crowd control chemicals like pepper spray and calmative gas.
But if you just say "chemical weapons" it sounds more sinister and that's more fun.
What was causing the deaths of those ~4400 civilians and how has dropping bombs on Iraq magically prevented them from continuing to happen?
UN economic sanctions cause those deaths. 500,000 from 1991 to 1995. Over 1 million from 1991 to today. (fact)
A successful war to oust Saddam and disarm Iraq will lift the sanctions. (fact)
I am perplexed by how the anti-war movement has so quickly forgotten how the leftist elite had spent the last 12 years bemoaning and denouncing the UN's method of "starving the people into submission" (Noam Chomsky) to suddenly do an about-face and obstinately ask, "What's the problem!!?"
Response to this:
*crickets chirping*
Originally posted by groverat
Response to this:
*crickets chirping*
Those aren't crickets chirping, that's the sound of your own fingers in your ears. Why don't you go have a cup of coffee, it might wake you up.
Why on earth are you perplexed by someone not supporting moving from one extreme to another? You can't be that dense, can you?
Originally posted by bunge
Why on earth are you perplexed by someone not supporting moving from one extreme to another? You can't be that dense, can you?
One extreme to the other? By what rubric is the current route "extreme"?
It takes less lives than sanctions and will actually come to an end, relatively soon. Whereas sanctions had no clear end and lasted for over 12 years. At this rate 12 years of war would take 192,000 civilian lives. Sanctions took 1.2 million in 12 years.
It's not from "one extreme to the other". It's from one extreme to a much better situation.
The "peace" plan the UN had for Iraq took more civilian lives than the war plan the US has. Not that the anti-war movement actually gives a rat's ass about the people of Iraq.
Originally posted by groverat
The "chemical weapons" you're talking about have been mentioned here and are crowd control chemicals like pepper spray and calmative gas.
But if you just say "chemical weapons" it sounds more sinister and that's more fun.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...821306,00.html
you might want to note that among the programs are biological cluster bomb and anti-biotic resistant anthrax.
As for non-lethal gases, tell that to the ~115 people that died in moscow.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf
go to page 60 (72 of the pdf) of Rebuilding America's Defences and note the following scentence:
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a poltically useful tool.
CNN has also reported the use of napalm in Iraq:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CNN303A.html
I'm not sure what the legality is on that one, but I'd post some photos if it wasn't against AI rules.
Saddam did not comply to the UN resolution after GW1, and thus was economically sanctionned. These sanctions have a negative impact on the Iraqi economy and thus lowored the general level of hygiena and health in these countrie.
The starvation, the bad hygiena and low health are responsible to an estimated death ratio of 500 000 people. These estimation is calculated via, life expectancy, peri-mortality and others such feature. They compare these statistic features with "normal" statistic features (features , that we should find in those type of countrie) and they deduct how many lifes should be have saved, if the Iraq was complied with these normal statistic.
Nobody can say what will be these statistic features with Saddam in power and no sanctions , or with an another leader with sanctions or no sanctions and an another leader. it's like to said what will be the state of US economy if Gore have winned the election.
These 500 000 people is a statistic calculation, who said that comparing to an another similar countrie, Iraq should have 500 000 less deaths. The UN sanctions certainly not help, nor Saddam or the BAATH party, but we cannot give a precise number, because these over rate of death in Iraq have differents roots.
Imagine that US has economical sanctions, i doubt that there will millions of deaths, sure the economy will suffer, but due to a better management of this crisis there will be less deaths.
Also we're doing this at a time of economic strife. This war will be fairly expensive at a time we can least afford it. Once again modern war doesn't help the economy. Only certain companies that make items for it.
Also we helped create this monster by supporting him in the 80's when he was the enemy of our enemy.
Ok, so we've gone over this ground before. But, the opposition just doesn't seem to hear ( or want ) to hear it.
You see murky. At best. I'm sure the conservatives can drum up some long and convoluted explaination. But it would just be more of the same in a different form. As far as I'm concerned They have yet to give a reasonable explaination.
Originally posted by groverat
One extreme to the other? By what rubric is the current route "extreme"?
What sane human being doesn't consider war extreme? If you don't mind me saying so, that would go a long way to explaining the general conservative fervor for war.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Just a word about UN sanctions. I think it's a shortcut to said that UN sanctions killed 500 000 peoples.
Powerdoc, even with a typo or two you've explained this very well. I'm not sure why some people talk around the issue though. I think the main problem is that if people were to honestly look at the situation, yet another motive for war would be destabilized.
So although your points are clear and accurate, I'm not sure there's an honest rebuttal.
you might want to note that among the programs are biological cluster bomb and anti-biotic resistant anthrax.
We're talking about things that are in Iraq. Thanks.
As for non-lethal gases, tell that to the ~115 people that died in moscow.
Did we do that? Were those the chemicals we used and in the doses we use them?
What the hell does it have to do with the US military?
CNN has also reported the use of napalm in Iraq:
And the Pentagon denied it. They destroyed what napalm they had left in 2001.
I'm not sure what the legality is on that one, but I'd post some photos if it wasn't against AI rules.
Pictures of napalm attacks in Iraq or napalm attacks over 30 years old?
LOOK. DEAD BABIES!
--
powerdoc:
Nobody can say what will be these statistic features with Saddam in power and no sanctions , or with an another leader with sanctions or no sanctions and an another leader. it's like to said what will be the state of US economy if Gore have winned the election.
Well it's not 100% accurate but it's safe to say that's the reason. When you have an otherwise stable environment (Saddam as the iron-first ruler since the 70s.
The rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease is directly attributable to the sanctions.
These aren't numbers I made up, this is from the UN itself and aid and relief agencies.
To put it off as "it didn't help, but..." is disrespectful to the people who suffered under it and only guarantees that the UN will continue to allow the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.
I must resist getting angry with this attitude. It's same one that allowed 800,000 Rwandans to be slaughtered in 1994. That kept the UN silent on Yugoslavia.
--
bunge:
What sane human being doesn't consider war extreme?
War can, obviously, be more humane than some "peaceful" solutions.
Re: "It's not the sanctions fault!"
I guess those people jst disappeared and UNICEF is a war-mongering institution.
Originally posted by groverat
The rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease is directly attributable to the sanctions.
These aren't numbers I made up, this is from the UN itself and aid and relief agencies.
In all honesty groverat, your link supports oil-for-food more than it condemns it. According to the link the rise in poverty in Iraq is more accurately attributable to the United States, not the sanctions. The sanctions don't kill, the sanctions were probably very accurately created. The United States blocking the sanctions from functioning are attributed to the rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease.
That's not me speaking, that's your link.
Originally posted by groverat
giant:
We're talking about things that are in Iraq. Thanks.
sorry I guess I forgot that a) those weapons were not being developed for warfare and b) that we are not conducting warfare in Iraq. Thanks for straightening me out.
Did we do that? Were those the chemicals we used and in the doses we use them?
What the hell does it have to do with the US military?
Ohhh....I see. The russian military is incompetent on every level and the US military is infallible. What was I thinking?
What does it have to do with the US military? Those chemicals are not safe, they are known not to be safe and they are proven in action not to be safe. It was discussed at length in the press after the incident in moscow.
I'm so glad I'm getting a lesson in our military capabilities from someone who doesn't even know what a secretary of defence is.
And then where is the justification for war? And more importantly where was the the US and UK governments' incredible desire to help the Iraqi people when the sanctions where imposed? I don't remember them lifting a finger, much less risking the lives of their young cannon-fodder, to help the Iraqi people in that instance.
(edit: as bunge points out, your own link contends that the US and UK opposed smarter, less harmful to civilian sanctions, after international outcry about the death toll.)
And people wonder why the surviving relatives of those half-million dead (who where predominately under the age of 5-years-old) aren't lining up to shower the Allied troops with roses?
(Also: In relation to my earlier post about chemical weapons, there was a bit of back-and-forth but no-one picked up on the phrase "internationally prohibited" which is the only thing seperating Saddam's WMD from the US arsenal and applies to the weapons the US has stated it will use.)
Originally posted by groverat
And the Pentagon denied it. They destroyed what napalm they had left in 2001.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...354475977.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...749944836.html
I wanted to check for myself. So there are multiple US officers that claim napalm has been used.
The pentagon denies a lot of things that are true (anybody turn on a news channel in the past couple of days since the war plan articles came out) and it's wartime. The last place you are going to find accurate information is within the official claims from the DoD.
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/pp_che...apacitants.pdf
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/pp_biodefense.pdf
Note also that all anthrax was claimed to have been destroyed in the 70s.
As for non-lethal gases, tell that to the ~115 people that died in moscow.
Um, you can suffocate on water too.... I guess that much be a 'lethal liquid'. You can suffocate on too much of ANY gas. The 'non-lethal' part means that the chemical isn't poisonous once it's in the blood-stream via the lungs.
In all honesty groverat, your link supports oil-for-food more than it condemns it. According to the link the rise in poverty in Iraq is more accurately attributable to the United States, not the sanctions.
To the United States' influence in the formation of UN Security Council policy, yes. How soon you want to forget that it takes 8 yes votes in the Security Council to get things done and the US gets only 1.
Does the US share blame? Yes. Does the US even deserve *more* blame than the other nations that support the murderous sanctions regime? Absolutely.
The sanctions don't kill, the sanctions were probably very accurately created.
The sanctions don't kill? You have reading problems. Just because the sanctions are for the large part created by the US does not mean that no one else within the UN shares blame. I would go so far as to say it's the UN bureaucracy that causes this sort of gridlock.
The sanctions DO kill. And every article in that link, even the most critical of the US, disagree with you.
The United States blocking the sanctions from functioning are attributed to the rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease.
"Blocking the sanctions from functioning"? What does that mean?
-----------
giant:
sorry I guess I forgot that a) those weapons were not being developed for warfare and b) that we are not conducting warfare in Iraq. Thanks for straightening me out.
Perhaps we should scream about the possibility of nuclear war in Iraq then, as well.
Ohhh....I see. The russian military is incompetent on every level and the US military is infallible.
Did I say that? (Go back and read)
And beyond that, the way Russia deals with terrorists is far more "kill 'em all" then ours ever has been. I've read accounts from people who were in the threatre. The Russian police forces don't take terrorists alive. If not the gas they were going to go in shooting.
And past that they screwed up the amount and potency. They made a mistake even from their own policy. It's is idiotic to apply that to a theoretical US action.
If I spray enough hairspray up my nose I'll die, we should protest Vidal Sassoon.
Those chemicals are not safe, they are known not to be safe and they are proven in action not to be safe.
I suppose we should report the thousands of women across the world with pepper spray in their purses to Tom Ridge as terrorists with chemical weapons.
--
stupider
So those deaths could easily have been avoided by lifting the sanctions. They have after all been singularly ineffective so what would we have lost?
Lift the sanctions and Saddam once again has the means to produce WoMD. Which he actively pursued. There is little doubt he would restart his programs if allowed to. No reason to believe he has gone soft.
And, of course, the UN Security Council members who pushed for removal of sanctions stood most to benefit from Saddam reenergizing his oil production and, most importantly, his weapons programs.
No one's hands are clean, that is not a surprise to anyone. You try to act like they wanted to lift sanctions for those poor poor Iraqi people... what a joke.
Originally posted by groverat
Perhaps we should scream about the possibility of nuclear war in Iraq then, as well.
Where were you for the past year during the debate over whether tactical nukes could be used?
Did I say that? (Go back and read)
And beyond that, the way Russia deals with terrorists is far more "kill 'em all" then ours ever has been. I've read accounts from people who were in the threatre. The Russian police forces don't take terrorists alive. If not the gas they were going to go in shooting.
And past that they screwed up the amount and potency. They made a mistake even from their own policy. It's is idiotic to apply that to a theoretical US action.
If I spray enough hairspray up my nose I'll die, we should protest Vidal Sassoon.
from my post above (note the one above that, too)
here's a little FYI groverat:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/pp_che...apacitants.pdf
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/pp_biodefense.pdf
Note also that all anthrax was claimed to have been destroyed in the 70s.
Ohhh....I see. The russian military is incompetent on every level and the US military is infallible. What was I thinking?
I guess nothing is worth doing if there's a possibility that you might screw up, huh? There is risk in everything that you do. You're trying to imply that if these gases are used then civilians will die. That's like saying "Building pong in sub-division" + "children in sub-division" = "children will die by drowning in the pond"