Home | Community | Message Board

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4547670 - 08/17/05 05:25 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Huh? That makes about as much sense as beating up a paraplegic to demonstrate to members of the gang that attacked you before that you mean business.

If the Pearl Harbor attack had come in 2004 instead of the '40s, Bush would likely have retaliated against Singapore.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05 Happy 19th Shroomiversary!
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4547979 - 08/17/05 06:21 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Your failure to get the point does not indicate that there is no point.



I get your 'point,' it's just that it is lacking in any semblance of being arrived at by rational thought.

Quote:

It just indicates that YOU are myopic.



Actually, I had laser surgery to correct that condition.

Quote:

Your analogy is nonsensical.



Only if you lack the sense to understand.

Quote:


Perhaps he ordered hits on your leader and friends and made overtures to the self same scum who trashed your house and shot your wife.



Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Are you a neocon automaton? Because that's right out of their robotics programming guide, you know, changing the rationalization in mid discussion when confronted with a good argument. Do you remember this?
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Prosgeopax said:
Quote:

lonestar2004 said:
I am sad for the 58 dead soldiers we lost last month.

and I am sad for the 3000 civilians we lost in one day.



What do 3000 civilians lost (I presume you mean 9/11) have to do with Iraq? These are two separate issues.




And this is where we will never see eye to eye. I think that they are exactly equivalent because there has been a perceived weakness and lack of resolution of the USA which has led each of these scumbags to think we will not act no matter how they fuck with us.


You see that? We went from discussing attacking Iraq as a response to 9/11 to a wholly different rationalization. Amazing!

Quote:

Perhaps there are dots you can't connect because you don't want to...



Please explain, citing FACTS AND SOURCES, what role Iraq played in the events of 9/11 and how many of the alleged hijackers were Iraqi. Because us RATIONAL folks aren't naive enough to buy into the simple minded propaganda. Attacking the country of a third rate dictator of a SECULAR REGIME who's military capabilities were SERIOUSLY DEGRADED from the first Gulf War to send a message because of 9/11 seems like the rationalization of a bunch of chickenhawks looking for a fight that they were 'sure' they could win, not a viable strategy to address Islamic terrorism.

I'm curious, when you are on recess do you beat up weaker kids that you previously beat up as a warning to others you can't find?

Quote:

...and prefer to toe the moonbat party line like all the other Kosmonauts.



What is 'the moonbat party line'? What do Russian astronauts have to do with this? I see that you still have not progressed past epithets when confronted with rational thought.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4548084 - 08/17/05 06:43 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Prosgeopax said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Your failure to get the point does not indicate that there is no point.



I get your 'point,' it's just that it is lacking in any semblance of being arrived at by rational thought.

So, smart guy, tell me what you think my point is

Quote:

It just indicates that YOU are myopic.



Actually, I had laser surgery to correct that condition.

Your myopia goes a good bit deeper than your eyes

Quote:

Your analogy is nonsensical.



Only if you lack the sense to understand.

yeah yeah yeah

Quote:


Perhaps he ordered hits on your leader and friends and made overtures to the self same scum who trashed your house and shot your wife.



Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Are you a neocon automaton? Because that's right out of their robotics programming guide, you know, changing the rationalization in mid discussion when confronted with a good argument.

Yep you sure responded to that relevant point

Do you remember this?
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Prosgeopax said:
Quote:

lonestar2004 said:
I am sad for the 58 dead soldiers we lost last month.

and I am sad for the 3000 civilians we lost in one day.



What do 3000 civilians lost (I presume you mean 9/11) have to do with Iraq? These are two separate issues.




And this is where we will never see eye to eye. I think that they are exactly equivalent because there has been a perceived weakness and lack of resolution of the USA which has led each of these scumbags to think we will not act no matter how they fuck with us.


You see that? We went from discussing attacking Iraq as a response to 9/11 to a wholly different rationalization. Amazing!

Quote:

Perhaps there are dots you can't connect because you don't want to...




I highlighted the word equivalent for you. Your laser surgery seems not to have been entirely successful


Please explain, citing FACTS AND SOURCES, what role Iraq played in the events of 9/11 and how many of the alleged hijackers were Iraqi. Because us RATIONAL folks aren't naive enough to buy into the simple minded propaganda. Attacking the country of a third rate dictator of a SECULAR REGIME who's military capabilities were SERIOUSLY DEGRADED from the first Gulf War to send a message because of 9/11 seems like the rationalization of a bunch of chickenhawks looking for a fight that they were 'sure' they could win, not a viable strategy to address Islamic terrorism.

I never made the assertion you are imputing to me that Saddass was involved in 9/11. He was in violation of the terms of his surrender for over a decade. IN LIGHT OF 9/11 WE WILL NO LONGER ACCEPT THIS BEHAVIOUR INDEFINITELY. Get it yet.

I'm curious, when you are on recess do you beat up weaker kids that you previously beat up as a warning to others you can't find?

No I beat them up because it was fun. It was a stand alone pleasure

Quote:

...and prefer to toe the moonbat party line like all the other Kosmonauts.



What is 'the moonbat party line'? What do Russian astronauts have to do with this? I see that you still have not progressed past epithets when confronted with rational thought.




Tell me you have never heard of "moonbats" and don't know what the Daily Kos is


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4548647 - 08/17/05 08:25 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

what does a Chickenhawk have to do with anything????


Chickenhawk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Chickenhawk: formerly the name of two species of hawk known to prey on barnyard fowl - the Red-tailed Hawk and the Cooper's Hawk.

Chickenhawk: Gay slang for a man attracted to, or seeking, much younger men such as twinks.




chickenhawk - (North America & UK) a gay man who has a sexual preference for postpubescent young men (mid-teens to early-20s, generally)

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-sexual-slurs


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: Swami]
    #4630709 - 09/07/05 04:20 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

79% Say Success In Iraq is Important: 48% Say Success is Likely

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Perspectives%20on%20Iraq_August%2029.htm

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Americans say that it is important for "Iraq to become a stable company that rejects terrorism."


Now who could that remaining 21% be...??????


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebeatnicknick
The Innovator
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/05
Posts: 1,074
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: Phred]
    #5923113 - 08/01/06 08:37 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

I look forward to the day that Bush tells the American people that we've killed the world's last terrorist and that everything is safe again.




Do you look forward to that day as eagerly as you look forward to the day the Attorney General tells the American people we've imprisoned America's last rapist?



Phred




That's a bad comparison. There is no oversees war on rapists.


--------------------
I don't think for myself. I think as though I'm explaining my thoughts to someone else. I'm concerned only for those listening.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrenchSocialist
DarwinianLeftist

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 883
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: Phred]
    #5924293 - 08/02/06 02:48 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Read what is actually written in the link you provided.

It doesn't describe weapons, it describes equipment with possible (and I stress "possible") use in military applications.


Note that "biological agents" refer to everything from nutrient media to reference cultures.




What you are talking about is dual-use technology. Dual-use techology is specifically controlled by the government's in most countries due to the fact that they have strong, and obvious military applications which can easily be fulfilled by another product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology

So yeah this technology wasn't completely military in nature, it was dual-use. But that isn't the same as saying it is just technology with just "possible" military applications by a long-shot. There is a reason a specific type of technology is labled dual-use and not another kind that can regularly be imported/exported, and that reason usually involves the fact that the technology is the type to be generally or obviously used for military applications. The distinction between regular and dual-use technology is not made lightly but as a matter of legal process. Namely because a product labled "dual-use" is going to be blocked off during embargos or sanctions. The fact that the UN specifically blocked dual-use, instead of all medical technologies and food products to Iraq is a reason why the UN isn't culpable for the 400,000 Iraqi children who starved to death under these sanctions for example (saddam at any time could have imported a great deal of food/medical products which were not dual-use).

But I digress, like you have said it can go either way-- so lets look specifically at what was sold to Iraq in order to judge this specific case. I will just use example here to illustrate why I think these were no mere civilian commidities but weapons, including but not exclusive to bioweapons.

I will go specifically into the biological cultures here as you have yourself specifically made note of them via "Note that "biological agents" refer to everything from nutrient media to reference cultures." Sounds really harmless when you describe in such a vague and general way, but lets keep in mind that we are talking about
"anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and Clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene."

Biological cultures which were obviously intended for use in helping Iraq's biological weapons program. You can't honestly sell a fascist dictator samples of anthrax and pathogens which cause "gas gangrene" and not expect them to make biological weapons.


--------------------


"Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #5925147 - 08/02/06 11:45 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

From the link you so thoughtfully provided --

Quote:

In the early 1970s, Saddam Hussein ordered the creation of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.[2] Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction programs were assisted by a wide variety of firms and governments in the 1970s and 1980s. [3][4][5][6][7] As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi Chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of Mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manfacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that assisted Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading.[8]

France built Iraq’s Nuclear Osirak reactor in the late 1970s. Israel claimed that Iraq was getting close to building nuclear weapons, and so bombed it in 1981. Later, a French company built a turnkey factory which helped make nuclear fuel. France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. Strains of dual use biological material also helped advance Iraq’s biological warfare program. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French.

Italy gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapon program. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. Between 1979 and 1982 Italy gave depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium. Swiss companies aided in Iraq’s nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines, electrical discharge machines, and equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade. Brazil secretly aided the Iraqi nuclear weapon program by supplying natural uranium dioxide between 1981 and 1982 without notifying the IAEA. About 100 tons of Mustard gas also came from Brazil.

The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department.} Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program and bioweapons. Through the non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. government under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and Clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[9]

The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.[10] The government secretly gave the arms company Matrix Churchill permission to supply parts for the Iraqi supergun, precipitating the Arms-to-Iraq affair when it became known.
Many other countries contributed as well; since Iraq's nuclear program in the early 1980s was officially viewed internationally as for power production, not weapons, there were no UN prohibitions against it. An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales. Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq. The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare. Portugal provided yellowcake between 1980 and 1982. Niger provided yellowcake in 1981.[11]





Your link confirms what I (and others) had already pointed out in numerous past threads on this topic -- the contribution of materials by the United States is a drop in the bucket compared to what other nations were providing. Some computers (which can be and are used for just about anything) and some biological cultures, some of which were used for vaccine development. Of the agents listed -- anthrax, West Nile virus, botulinis, Brucella melitensis, and Clostridium perfringens -- none are even remotely exotic (except perhaps at that time West Nile virus) and none of them even the least bit difficult to obtain. Hell, anthrax and brucella are available from any veterinary college in the world, while botulinis and clostridium are as common as dirt. Botulism is a major cause of food poisoning and is dead simple to culture. And no, gas gangrene is not suitable as a biological weapon since it is not contagious and can develop only in wounds. Clostridium perfringens is an anaerobic bacterium.

So what's the scorecard? Of all the countries listed in the article you linked, the US has the lowest -- by far -- contribution to Iraq of items which could be designated "dual-use".

Compare this to countries such as Brazil, which the article states gave Iraq not just precursors to mustard gas, but actual mustard gas itself -- 100 tons of it.

And of course Germany and France, who to all intents and purposes provided entire factories for nuke and chemical production. Remind me again the position of France and Germany in the UNSC debates discussing the resumption of hostilities in Iraq? Why, as I recall, they were against it. Probably just a coincidence.





Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrenchSocialist
DarwinianLeftist

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 883
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: Phred]
    #5926172 - 08/02/06 05:35 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Collection and the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. government under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and Clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[9]




So the US did sell weapons to Iraq that were used in Saddam's research program to make WMDs. Whether you think we gave them more or less support then other countries is besides the point--two wrongs don't make a right.

And furthermore lets keep in mind who we were selling to exactly: the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:

Quote:

Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" [Document 55]. The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked.") [Document 44]




http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Selling dual-use equipment essentially to the Iraqi Army is a clear indication that these items were intended for military use.


--------------------


"Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin


Edited by FrenchSocialist (08/02/06 05:47 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #5926321 - 08/02/06 06:21 PM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

So the US did sell weapons to Iraq that were used in Saddam's research program to make WMDs.




Incorrect. Are you incapable of reading your own links? The US sold computers. Computers are not weapons. And the US sold cultures of commonly available bacteria. Commonly available bacteria are not weapons.

As for your pious "two wrongs don't make a right" bullshit, compare what was actually sold by the other countries mentioned to what was sold by the US. Not even close to the same thing.

Quote:

And furthermore lets keep in mind who we were selling to exactly: the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:




Are you incapable of reading your own links? What part of "In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" " is unclear to you? Are you saying Bell sold helicopters configured for military use to Iraq? Link, please.

What part of "In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters," are you having difficulty comprehending?

Anyway, what's this new interest in trucks and helicopters? Are you now trying to claim that trucks and helicopters are WMDs?





Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrenchSocialist
DarwinianLeftist

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 883
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: Phred]
    #5927498 - 08/03/06 12:17 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

The US sold computers. Computers are not weapons. And the US sold cultures of commonly available bacteria. Commonly available bacteria are not weapons.




1- We sold more to Iraq then computers. We sold military vehicles. We sold viruses. We sold this to the Iraq Ministry of Defense. And the computer equipment we did sell was dual-use. This is an open and shut case.

2- You say these biological samples are both commonly available and not weapons but where's your proof? These devices were not only possibly used to make biological weapons, they were used in helping Saddam make biological weapons according to the wiki article I presented (with the key section written in bold in my previous post).

3- The part where you talk about US military vehicles being sold to Iraq:

Phred: "What part of "In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" " is unclear to you?"

Is taken out of context. The whole quote is:

Quote:

Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" [Document 55]. The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked.") [Document 44]




In other words there were repeated attempts by Saddam to further militarize what dual-use devices were sold to him before the US sold the same kinds of devices to Iraq, the State Department knew about this, and the State Department didn't care because that is what was intended.


In any event, you seem to be missing the point. The point is, even if the US sold less weaponry to Saddam then other nations- so what? The fact is we can hardly complain years later about Saddam having WMDs after we sold him anthrax that was used in his biological weapons program. And the fact is dual-use technology is hardly just technology with a mere possibility for military use like you say it is. Like I said, these devices are specifically chosen as a matter of legal process after several considerations. If you want to continue exaggerating how broad the standards are for labeling a device as dual-use, that's fine, but you could at least be polite enough to forward some evidence with your bold claim.


--------------------


"Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin


Edited by FrenchSocialist (08/03/06 12:44 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
Re: Bush: "We can win, no we can't, yes we can" [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #5927801 - 08/03/06 04:22 AM (17 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

1- We sold more to Iraq then computers. We sold military vehicles.




Source, please. US companies sold non-military helicopters -- helicopters the company refused to militarize for Iraq, according to the link you provided -- and US companies sold trucks. Would you care to explain to the audience how selling trucks is bad? What is the difference between a truck and a "militarized" truck, anyway? The color of the paint?

Quote:

We sold viruses. We sold this to the Iraq Ministry of Defense.




Would you please provide us a link from a credible source showing the viruses were sold to the Iraq Ministry of Defense?

Quote:

And the computer equipment we did sell was dual-use.




Computers are multi-use, not dual use. A computer will do whatever you program it to. If you want to provide a link from a credible source showing US companies sold Iraq computer programs designed to .... oh, I don't know... control milling machines used to shape plutonium or uranium slugs for use in fission bombs, you might have a case.

Quote:

This is an open and shut case.




An open and shut case of your reading into data what isn't there.

Quote:

2- You say these biological samples are both commonly available and not weapons but where's your proof?




My knowledge of what one can get from veterinary colleges. An acquaintance of mine is a veterinarian specializing in livestock care. Anthrax and brucella are not particularly rare afflictions of livestock. Anywhere there are enough sheep a livestock vet will come across cases of anthrax. Anywhere there are enough cows you will run across brucella. As for clostridium and botulinus, neither are uncommon in soil samples. There are cases of botulism poisoning somewhere in the world every week -- possibly every day if you look hard enough. None of these organisms (with the exception of West Nile virus) are considered rare. They are common as dirt. I'll tell you what is considered rare -- smallpox. What is your take on the outbreak of smallpox in Iraq mentioned in the article you linked?

Quote:

In other words there were repeated attempts by Saddam to further militarize what dual-use devices were sold to him before the US sold the same kinds of devices to Iraq, the State Department knew about this, and the State Department didn't care because that is what was intended.




What do you mean by "before the US sold the same kinds of devices to Iraq"? US companies sold Iraq non-military helicopters and non-military heavy trucks. The company which sold Iraq the non-military helicopters refused to assist in militarizing those helicopters, and the companies which sold Iraq the heavy trucks were apparently not even asked to assist Iraq in militarizing those heavy trucks, South Korea was asked. By the way, just what is involved in "militarizing" a heavy truck other than painting it a different color?

Besides, you will note all these purchases of trucks and helicopters took place in the early Eighties. What reason would a US company have in 1982 for not selling trucks and helicopters to Iraq? Or to Afghanistan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Turkey, for that matter?

And of course, helicopters and trucks are not WMDs.

Quote:

In any event, you seem to be missing the point. The point is, even if the US sold less weaponry to Saddam then other nations- so what? The fact is we can hardly complain years later about Saddam having WMDs after we sold him anthrax that was used in his biological weapons program.




It is you who miss the point. It was the conditional ceasefire agreement signed by Iraq in 1991 which required verification of the proof of destruction of Iraq's chemical and bio weaponry. That ceasefire didn't exist in 1982. Or in 1983 or in 1984.

Quote:

And the fact is dual-use technology is hardly just technology with a mere possibility for military use like you say it is.




Sorry, but when it comes to computers, helicopters, and biological cultures, yes it is. How many countries in the world have anthrax cultures somewhere? Almost all of them do. How many have trucks? How many have computers? Hell, clothes can as easily be considered "dual-use" as trucks -- what are uniforms if not clothes? What about canteens? Backpacks? Boots? Are these things not also "dual use"? What about cameras? Radios?

You smugly trot out a VERY short list of stuff sold to Iraq by the US (compared to every other country mentioned in the link you provide) as if it is something for which the US should be condemned. If a truly objective observer were to look at that list, I guarantee you the US would be the last country he'd focus on.

Quote:

Like I said, these devices are specifically chosen as a matter of legal process after several considerations.




What the hell does that mean? Iraq needed computers. The US made the best computers in the world. Nothing to consider -- buy a US computer. Same with trucks and helicopters. Same with pathogens -- it is no secret the reference tissue collection at CDC is the standard by which all others are meaured. Anthrax and brucella are common afflictions of livestock, botulism food poisoning is a worldwide phenomenon, gas gangrene is a problem every hospital in the world has to deal with occasionally. If the US were to refuse to provide -- in the early Eighties, remember -- assistance to a Middle Eastern country in dealing with these common health problems, can you imagine the cries of condemnation? Typical NYT headline would be -- "US to Arab countries -- your diseases not our problem."




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* "Bush Knew........An American Requiem" (Flash animation)
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
LearyfanS 6,315 96 09/12/03 07:02 PM
by afoaf
* Bush haters examined.
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,733 22 09/22/03 09:51 PM
by silversoul7
* Bush torturing almost 1,000,000 Americans
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Swami 7,112 77 12/18/03 10:29 AM
by medicinebag
* Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Marriage, no gays
( 1 2 3 all )
daussaulit 5,901 41 01/23/04 12:21 PM
by Azmodeus
* What if the next Bush is worse?
( 1 2 all )
MushyMay 1,163 22 02/14/03 05:07 AM
by angryshroom
* G.W. Bush
( 1 2 all )
Yarry 3,218 25 02/02/04 06:37 AM
by Phred
* Corzine speaks on the Bush tax cuts. luvdemshrooms 597 3 10/30/03 02:00 PM
by Phred
* Why would someone like George W. Bush
( 1 2 3 4 all )
LearyfanS 4,026 65 04/29/03 04:24 PM
by GreenGuys420

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,442 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 12 queries.