Home | Community | Message Board

Mycohaus
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, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineLordMorham
High Lord @Revelstone
Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 47
Loc: Revelstone
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY
    #895946 - 09/20/02 03:19 PM (19 years, 15 hours ago)

Take a look at Iraq's military strength statistics.

I have seen many people claim as a direct result of the sanctions imposed on Iraq since their UNCONDITIONAL surrender back in 91 that a million people have died 1/2 of those being children.

It's all over the web at sites like this http://www.newint.org/issue316/facts.htm

Take a look at what Sadam spends his money on.

http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/mbmeXiraq122898.pdf

unfortunatley latest numbers are from '98.

The Military Balance in the Middle East –Iraq: Part X 12/30/98 Page 32
Copyright Anthony H. Cordesman, all rights reserved.
Force Trends in Iraq - Part One
Category/Weapon 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999

Manpower
Total Active 135,000 242,250 520,000 1,000,000 382,500 429,000
Regular 135,000 242,250 520,000 1,000,000 382,500 429,000
Reserve 250,000 250,000 75,000 850,000 650,000 650,000
Paramilitary 19,800 79,800 4,800 4,800 24,800 55,400

Armyy and Republican Guards
Manpower 120,000 200,000 475,000 955,000 350,000 375,000
Regular Army Manpower 120,000 200,000 475,000 955,000 350,000 375,000
Reserve 250,000 250,000 75,000 - 350,000 450,000

If you can't feed your people how can you support 429k regular and 650k reserves?

I've heard a lot of talk about infrastructure (ie, Water treatment and delivery, electric power generation and delivery, etc.)

Here's some weapons systems data

Take note especially of Air Force Manpower, Air Defense Manpower, SSM Launchers, Light SAM Launchers and AA Guns, there are more but these jumped out at me.

PLEASE tell me how ANY of you can believe that Iraq can build and maintain SSM sites, grow their air defense systems, increase their number of helicopters, AA guns, etc... But they can't get the parts to fix their water supply or the money to feed their children?


Active Main Battle Tanks - - - - - 1,900
Total Main Battle Tanks 1,290 2,750 2,900 5,500 2,700 2,700
AIFV/Recce, Lt. Tanks - 300 1,050 4,434 2,400? 1,600
Active APCs - - - - - 1,800
Total APCs 1,300* 2,200 2,500 6,000 2,000 2,200
Self Propelled Artillery 90 240 440 500+ 230 150
Towed Artillery 700 800 3,000 3,000 1,500 1,800
MRLs - - 350 200+ 250 150
Mortars - - - - 2,700 2,000+
SSM Launchers - - 43 86 12 36?
Light SAM Launchers - - - 400+ 800 800
AA Guns 800 1,200 4,000 4,000 5,500 5,500
Air Force Manpower 12,000 28,000 30,000 30,000 15,000 35,000
Air Defense Manpower - 10,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 17,000
Total Combat Aircraft 247 332 500 689 353 307
Bombers 7 12 15 16 6? 6?
Fighter/Attack 110 195 181 360 130 130
Fighter/Interceptor 130 115 275 275 180 180
Recce/FGA Recce 0 0 5 12 18 8
AEW C4I/BM 0 0 0 2 1? 0
MR/MPA** 0 0 0 0 0 0
OCU/COIN/CCT 0 0 0 0 18 18
Other Combat Trainers 45 45 85 64? 75? 155
Transport Aircraft** 30 56 57 1 34 34
Tanker Aircraft 0 0 47 2 2
Total Helicopters 101 296 304 489 470 500
Armed Helicopters** 30 139 109 159 120 120
Other Helicopters** 71 157 195 330 350 380
Major SAM Launchers - - 270+ 460 260? 340
Light SAM Launchers - - 120+ - 60? 200
AA Guns - - - - - 0


sorry, but I couldn't get it to format well.




--------------------
"Stone and Sea" - Saltheart



Edited by LordMorham (09/20/02 03:25 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblebivalve
Stranger
Registered: 07/22/00
Posts: 3,120
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: LordMorham]
    #896239 - 09/20/02 11:17 PM (19 years, 7 hours ago)

The only possible solution is overthrowing
their government and installing some kind
of puppet regime. That's the only solution
I can see to the problem.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: bivalve]
    #896261 - 09/20/02 11:29 PM (19 years, 6 hours ago)

Sounds good in theory, but in the history of the world this has never worked.


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



The proof is in the pudding.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: LordMorham]
    #896927 - 09/21/02 05:59 AM (19 years, 29 minutes ago)

Why is it so hard to understand that the U.S. has absolutely NO business in Iraq?...None...for every reason you give me that the U.S. should be there, I'll shoot it down...easily, and give you a better reason why they shouldn't be there.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: Rono]
    #897659 - 09/21/02 04:46 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

In reply to:

Why is it so hard to understand that the U.S. has absolutely NO business in Iraq?...None..



Don't you understand:
1) The U.S. is the world's policeman (which is okay when Republicans are in charge, but not when Democrats are in charge)
2) The price of oil will be driven up shaking out more small refiners in the states thereby decreasing competition in domestic markets and solidifying the position of the big oil companies.
3) When the price drops back down the U.S. will (hopefully) have a compliant regime in one of the most oil rich countries in the world.

What do you mean, 'NO business?'


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAlbino_Jesus
Clearly Retarded
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/14/02
Posts: 1,698
Loc: Construction ahead...
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: LordMorham]
    #897668 - 09/21/02 04:51 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

If you can't feed your people how can you support 429k regular and 650k reserves?







my guess is that public  health isn't a priority :wink:


--------------------
The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door.
-Ralph Nader



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineEllis Dee
Archangel
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/30/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: Swami]
    #897916 - 09/21/02 07:15 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

In reply to:

Sounds good in theory, but in the history of the world this has never worked.



You mean like how it didn't work in Japan after WW2????


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: Ellis Dee]
    #898204 - 09/21/02 09:15 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Since when is government supposed to serve the public interest???


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAlbino_Jesus
Clearly Retarded
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/14/02
Posts: 1,698
Loc: Construction ahead...
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: MortMtroN]
    #898215 - 09/21/02 09:24 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

since the concept of democracy was introduced, methinks?


--------------------
The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door.
-Ralph Nader



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLordMorham
High Lord @Revelstone
Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 47
Loc: Revelstone
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: Rono]
    #899258 - 09/22/02 02:38 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)


Rono said -

"Why is it so hard to understand that the U.S. has absolutely NO business in Iraq?...None...for every reason you give me that the U.S. should be there, I'll shoot it down...easily, and give you a better reason why they shouldn't be there. "

What does this have to do with my post?

Did you even read it?




--------------------
"Stone and Sea" - Saltheart



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: LordMorham]
    #899704 - 09/22/02 06:18 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

It has everything to do with your post, why do you suppose that Iraq needs to focus any resources into their military?...instead of putting money into their infrastructure? maybe because they been bombed repeatedly for the last 10 years? Can you blame them for trying to defend themselves against overwhelming odds? What if it was the U.S. getting pummeled...where do you think the majority of the money would go?...the war effort of course...not infrastructure. Bottom line...get the U.S. and their Aliies out of Iraq, it's only the innocent that are suffering...not Saddam or his henchmen.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLordMorham
High Lord @Revelstone
Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 47
Loc: Revelstone
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: Rono]
    #899936 - 09/22/02 08:28 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)


Rono said -

"It has everything to do with your post, why do you suppose that Iraq needs to focus any resources into their military?...instead of putting money into their infrastructure? maybe because they been bombed repeatedly for the last 10 years? Can you blame them for trying to defend themselves against overwhelming odds? What if it was the U.S. getting pummeled...where do you think the majority of the money would go?...the war effort of course...not infrastructure. Bottom line...get the U.S. and their Aliies out of Iraq, it's only the innocent that are suffering...not Saddam or his henchmen."

If you bothered to read the original post you would see a BUILD UP of Iraqi armed forces. Including state of the art SAM sites. This debunks the BS spouted by your ilk that they were unable to procure replacement parts for infrastructure repair because of the sanctions. I've seen posts claiming 1,000,000 dead Iraqi civilians were did these numbers come from? I'm calling you out on this, and on the fact that the sanctions are responsible for ANY increase in Iraqi mortality rates.

The only "bombing" we've done has been in response to threats posed against our people patroling the no-fly zone. Would you have our pilots do nothing and get shot down. We are there to save lifes and to protect S.A. and Kuwait.

The United States established a no-fly zone over southern Iraq in 1991 after the Persian Gulf War to diminish Iraq's ability to threaten Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, and to protect Shiites in the south from attack by President Saddam Hussein's military. It established a no-fly zone over northern Iraq in 1992 to protect Iraqi Kurds

Statistics provided by the U.S. European Command for the northern no-fly zone show that frequent Iraqi missile and anti-aircraft threats against U.S. and British aircraft began in 1999 with 143 incidents, and peaked the next year with 145 unsuccessful attacks. The number declined to 97 in 2001 and stood at 32 by late June of this year.

The number of times U.S. and British jets returned fire has also declined, from 102 in 1999 to 48 in 2000, and 11 in 2001. So far this fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1, coalition aircraft have returned fire 14 times over the southern no-fly zone and eight times over the northern no-fly zone.

It's very simple - if he don't want us to blow up his missile sites he shouldn't target us with them.




--------------------
"Stone and Sea" - Saltheart



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARMY [Re: LordMorham]
    #901429 - 09/23/02 11:43 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

lol...You are really swallowing the anti-Iraq bullshit hook, line and sinker aren't you? Well allow me to enlighten your misguided perception of things...

1) Do you even understand what I was saying in my post? Of course Iraq is going to build up their military...ESPECIALLY SAM sites. If you were getting pummeled from jets for the last 10 years, would it not make sense to you to maybe defend yourself against aircraft?...Anyone using a little logic could figure that out.

2) As for the sanctions...Iraq can't get clean drinking water, NOT because they can't get "parts"...it's because they can't get chlorine to clean the water, THAT'S why they are dying. It's not because they can't get water...it's because they can't get CLEAN water. (Do you know what the number one reason for death in the world is?...No, not cancer...If you guessed no access to clean drinking water, you get a cookie)
3) you're disputing the number of dead Iraqi's?...You sound like a Neo-Nazi saying that the 6 million jews that dies was a hoax..but I will provide you proof anyways. UN sanctions on Iraq lead to deaths of 500,000 children Iraq deaths double under UN sanctions The Sanctions ...Is that enough, or would you like more?

4)
In reply to:

The only "bombing" we've done has been in response to threats posed against our people patroling the no-fly zone. Would you have our pilots do nothing and get shot down. We are there to save lifes and to protect S.A. and Kuwait.


No...I woudn't have your pilots over there in the first place. Do you really believe that Iraq is threat anymore to Kuwait?...and when did they become a threat to Saudi Arabia? What recent agression have they shown to either?...Like I said before, don't believe the hype.

5)
In reply to:

It's very simple - if he don't want us to blow up his missile sites he shouldn't target us with them.


You're right about one thing...it is very simple...If you don't want to be targetted, get out of Iraq...wasn't that easy?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/23/02 03:21 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #901701 - 09/23/02 02:08 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

you're disputing the number of dead Iraqi's?...You sound like a Neo-Nazi saying that the 6 million jews that dies was a hoax..but I will provide you proof anyways. UN sanctions on Iraq lead to deaths of 500,000 children Iraq deaths double under UN sanctions The Sanctions ...Is that enough, or would you like more?

Those numbers are inflated. I dispute them, many other people dispute them, and UNICEF's own reports dispute them. This is a repost of what I posted in another thread :

As UNICEF itself is scrupulously careful to point out in UNICEF: Questions and Answers for the Iraq child mortality surveys - BAGHDAD, 16 August 1999 (UNICEF) Survey Methodology/credibility --

"These surveys were never intended to provide an absolute figure of how many children have died in Iraq as a result of sanctions. Given the difficulty of accurately and specifically attributing the cause of death of a child to sanctions, any such figure that may be derived would certainly be questionable."

UNICEF also said in the same report:

"A dramatic increase in bottle-feeding of infants has occurred in Iraq. Given the contribution of bottle-feeding to higher levels of malnutrition and child mortality, UNICEF is urging the Government to remove breastmilk substitutes from the rations and replace them with additional food for pregnant and lactating women. UNICEF has also called on the Government to promote exclusive breastfeeding of infants as a national policy."

Could you please explain for us the connection between Iraqi women following the worldwide trend of moving towards a more modern (albeit arguably less nutritious) method of child-rearing (bottle-feeding vs. breast-feeding) and the imposition of the United Nations sanctions? Could it be possible that the sanctions have nothing to do with it at all -- that ALL of the increase in infant mortality is instead due to the "dramatic increase in bottle-feeding"? For the record, I personally don't believe it IS entirely due to bottle-feeding, but as UNICEF themselves say, it is difficult to specifically attribute the death of a child to any single cause. Certainly UNICEF feels bottle-feeding is a serious enough factor in the increase in Iraq's infant mortality to emphasize in no uncertain terms their opposition to it.

Here's some more from the report:

"In the autonomous northern region, under-5 mortality rose from 80 deaths per 1000 live births in the period 1984-1989 to 90 deaths per 1000 live births during the years 1989-1994. The under-5 rate fell to 72 deaths per 1000 live births between 1994 and 1999. Infant mortality rates followed a similar pattern."

Now isn't that interesting! In the northern region of Iraq, where Hussein's control is weakest, the latest availale mortality rates are actually 10% lower than they were ten years earlier, before sanctions were imposed.

What is the only possible conclusion we can draw from this? Why, it MUST be that the sanctions are actually SAVING CHILDREN'S LIVES!!!!! *sarcasm*

Seiously, though, what is the most likely explanation for this documented drop? Someone with less belief than I in Hussein's oft-demonstrated concern for his fellow man might say that in the autonomous north the humanitarian supplies are actually making it to those who need it, rather than being hijacked by Hussein's thugs to be resold at a profit through the black market.

Sound bites and carefully selected snippets are worse than useless when it comes to statistical analyses. The METHODOLOGY of the surveys must be considered, and ALL factors looked at, not just the ones which appear to support your personal agenda.

Besides, all of this is moot, because it is all Saddam's fault anyway. Have the sanctions made life more difficult for the Iraqi poor? Yep. Would the sanctions have been imposed if Iraq had not invaded Kuwait? Nope.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #901727 - 09/23/02 02:24 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

So it doesn't really matter what I show as proof then does it?...You are of the opinion that it's all bullshit. LordMorham asked for proof and I provided 3 sites...there is many more, but I suspect that will not make a difference.

Just as a side note Pinky...what is your personal beliefs on the whole Iraq situation? Do you support it?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #901764 - 09/23/02 02:43 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

Iraq can't get clean drinking water, NOT because they can't get "parts"...it's because they can't get chlorine to clean the water...

Sometimes, I just can't help it. I come to this forum, and within five minutes I burst out laughing, earning a dirty look from my girlfriend and her cat. What other reaction can I have to the abysmal ignorance so proudly and defiantly displayed here on a daily basis? I can laugh or I can cry. Neither reaction makes a damn bit of difference, but laughing makes me feel better, so I laugh.

Rono, the turniphead who told you Iraq couldn't "get" chlorine never took a freshman high school chemistry course. The sad thing is not that some moron makes preposterous statements like this, it's that so many people BELIEVE those statements.

Here's the equation:

2 NaCl + 2 H2O ==> Cl2 + H2 + 2 NaOH

Chlorine is manufactured industrially as a by-product in the manufacture of Caustic Soda (often referred to as lye) by the electrolysis of brine. It's simplicity itself -- run an electrical current through salt water, collect the hydrogen and chlorine, collect the lye.

I remember doing this in ninth grade chemistry lab. When you reach the ninth grade, you'll get to do it, too. It's fun!

The simple fact is, anyone with access to salt water and electricity can have as much chlorine as they want.

Just one more example in a seemingly endless stream of examples of the supposed "open-mindedness" often exhibited by frequent posters to this forum. Their minds are so freaking "open" that what little knowledge they have managed to accumulate flees through that opening as soon as any statement, no matter how patently absurd, is uttered by someone critical of US policy.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #901803 - 09/23/02 03:16 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Thank you for the chemistry lesson Pinky, although the fact still remains that they do not have clean drinking water...as a direct result of U.S. bombing, and U.N. sanctions...or do you dispute that as well? I'm also still waiting for your personal views on the proposed U.S. "invasion" of Iraq?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/23/02 03:24 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #901830 - 09/23/02 03:36 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

So it doesn't really matter what I show as proof then does it?...You are of the opinion that it's all bullshit. LordMorham asked for proof and I provided 3 sites...there is many more, but I suspect that will not make a difference.

But the thing is, you did NOT provide proof. Instead you provided links to sites which hold an interpretation of a UNICEF study that fits your beliefs rather than read the actual UNICEF study. Sadly, that is what almost everyone does, because it is easier to let someone else think for you than to think for yourself.

I suggest you read the ACTUAL REPORT rather than accept someone else's OPINION of the report. When I was reading the report, I was intrigued by UNICEF's vehement opposition to the practice of bottle-feeding infants in third-world environments, so I spent a fair bit of time checking out their stance on it in nations other than Iraq. Lo and behold, there appears to be a definite correlation between infant mortality rates and breast-feeding, at least in emerging nations. UNICEF is actually on to something here. So, by actually READING the damn report, I found a new tidbit of information I would not otherwise have known. I got interested in the broader topic and did some more digging. Many studies have been done besides the UNICEF ones. Studies even in the developed nations show a correlation between increased adult height and muscle mass and breast-feeding, as well as a correlation between higher IQ and breast-feeding. But I digress.

What is relevant in this context is this: if the same phenomenon is occurring in Iraq that has occurred in other countries (and I see no reason to presume otherwise) a VERY significant percentage of recent infant deaths in Iraq probably ARE directly related to bottle-feeding rather than to the sanctions. Can ALL of the increase in infant morality be blamed on bottle-feeding? Of course not. Can ALL of the increase in infant mortality be blamed on the US? Of course not.

Just as a side note Pinky...what is your personal beliefs on the whole Iraq situation? Do you support it?

Here's a review of the facts:

Iraq started a war of conquest.
They lost.
Hussein agreed to certain conditions in order to obtain a cease-fire and avoid capture.
Hussein then refused to abide by ANY of those conditions.
The UN imposed trade sanctions in an attempt to coerce Hussein into fulfilling the deal he agreed on.
Hussein ignored the sanctions. (Why not? He's still getting his three squares a day. He still has enough resources to rebuild his military. Why should he care if some babies are dying? Babies are free and easily replaceable. Weapons are neither.)

So far, no one with even a pretense of objectivity can deny any of the above points. They are not my opinions, they are FACTS. The question is: What to do about it?

The UN is faced with a pretty simple choice:

a) take some firmer action in order to get Hussein to live up to his end of the deal
b)admit that they are toothless pussies who made a huge mistake in not allowing the coalition forces to seize Baghdad in 1991.

I personally couldn't care less which alternative they choose. I have been convinced for over thirty years that the UN is a useless organization, so I predict they will choose option b). But I must admit part of the reason for my indifference is that the next time  Hussein goes postal, it is pretty unlikely that he will decide to lob a SCUD towards the Dominican Republic, where I live.

It was an ENORMOUS mistake not to have finished the job in 1991. It would have been simplicity itself to roll into Baghdad, throw Hussein in the clink, destroy most of his military stuff, then organize and supervise free elections to decide who would replace Hussein. But (surprise, surprise) the UN pussied out.

Does the UN have the RIGHT to force Hussein to abide by the terms of the surrender? Obviously they do. Anyone who believes otherwise is someone I would like to propose a business deal to.

Look, it is exactly analagous to a mugger getting caught, and, since it is his first offence, the court shows leniency. Rather than throwing his ass in jail, they give him probation. As long as he follows the terms and conditions of the probation agreement, he can walk around. By rights, legally and morally he SHOULD be doing time. But if he holds up his end of the deal he doesn't have to.

Unless he violates the terms of his probation. Then there is no defense of "Well OTHER people have done bad stuff too! Why are you picking on ME?" or "Well all my homies have guns, why can't I have one too?" or "You don't really have to throw me in jail. I've learned my lesson, really I have!"

It's pretty cut and dried -- abide by the terms or get tossed in the clink. So what is the difference between Hussein's refusal to abide by the surrender terms and a mugger's refusal to abide by the terms of his probation?

Now I have a question for you. What do YOU think is the best way to compel Hussein to abide by the terms he agreed to?

pinky

     


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #901850 - 09/23/02 03:51 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

Thank you for the chemistry lesson Pinky...

Glad to be of help.

... although the fact still remains that they do not have clean drinking water...as a direct result of U.S. bombing, and U.N. sanctions...or do you dispute that as well?

And the bombing and UN sanctions were a direct result of Hussein launching a war of conquest... or do you dispute that as well?

As for the inability to repair water purification plants in the dozen years since they were damaged, I admit this one has me stymied. Cuba and other Caribbean nations repair on an almost annual basis huge amounts of devastation to infrastructure caused by hurricanes. Why has Hussein been unable to do so yet?

A cynical person would say that Hussein would rather spend 12 billion a year building weapons than 1 billion a year fixing water pumps because he knows that he can claim the deaths of his countrymen are the fault of the US rather than the fault of his own adventurism, and an astonishing number of chuckleheads all over the world will actually believe him.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #901861 - 09/23/02 03:55 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Let me answer your question with another question...what would it take to prevent the U.S. from attacking Iraq again? Iraq letting in weapons inspectors? (Which they already agreed to do) A compliant puppet government of their choosing? (Sort of like how Saddam used to be when he was the U.S.'s buddy)

I suspect that it won't matter what Saddam does or agrees to, the U.S. is going to invade Iraq no matter what...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #901882 - 09/23/02 04:03 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

The fact that the plants aren't repaired yet is inconsequential...the issue is with the fact that they were bombed intentionally in the first place. Which directly opposes the Geneva convention...why is it okay for the U.S. to commit human rights abuses and crimes of war? To use your same mugger analogy...it's akin to if the mugger was beaten by the cops while violating parole, who is worse, the mugger?...or the cops?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/23/02 04:24 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #901890 - 09/23/02 04:08 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

In reply to:

As for the inability to repair water purification plants in the dozen years since they were damaged, I admit this one has me stymied. Cuba and other Caribbean nations repair on an almost annual basis huge amounts of devastation to infrastructure caused by hurricanes. Why has Hussein been unable to do so yet?


Perhaps because Cuba and other Carribean nations haven't had hurricanes everyday for the last 10 years...whereas Iraq has been bombed continuously.
In reply to:

A cynical person would say that Hussein would rather spend 12 billion a year building weapons than 1 billion a year fixing water pumps because he knows that he can claim the deaths of his countrymen are the fault of the US rather than the fault of his own adventurism, and an astonishing number of chuckleheads all over the world will actually believe him.


Is this what you truly believe? or are you just trying to be antagonistic?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #901917 - 09/23/02 04:24 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

Let me answer your question with another question...

No deal. I'm through playing things YOUR way.

Look... I answer ALL your questions. I have never dodged a single one, EVER, no matter what the topic. You, on the other hand, routinely answer only the ones you think you have a comeback to, and ignore the rest.

You asked me for my views, I gave them to you. I then asked you what YOU think should be done, and you start doing the reptilian, topic-changing, POLITICIAN-LIKE dance that I run into so often here from people who can't justify their stance.

Time to put up or shut up, broham. I'll make it as simple as I can for you, and gather them here in one place.

1 -- What do YOU think is the best way to compel Hussein to abide by the terms he agreed to?

a) Make more speeches in the UN
b) Impose even tougher sanctions
c) Depose Hussein by force
d) Other ................................... (fill in blank)


2 -- Were the bombing and UN sanctions a direct result of Hussein launching a war of conquest ?

a) Yes
b) No

3 -- Why has Hussein not yet accomplished a technically simple, relatively inexpensive task such as rebuilding water purification plants, yet he is able to arm, house, feed, and provide water for a standing army of half a million and a reserve of another half million?

a) He can't manufacture the necessary parts and chemicals
b) He chooses not to manufacture the necessary parts and chemicals
c) Other .............................. (fill in blank)

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #901928 - 09/23/02 04:32 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

The fact that the plants aren't repaired yet is inconsequential...

I'll bet the Iraqis drinking ditchwater while they watch columns of troops roll by would disagree with that statement.

...the issue is with the fact that they were bombed intentionally in the first place.

So it's okay to just let them sit in disrepair forever?

Which directly opposes the Geneva convention...

There are numerous documented violations of that same convention by Iraqis. The starting of the war was in the first place a violation.

why is it okay for the U.S. to commit human rights abuses and crimes of war?

It's not. When have I ever maintained that? That doesn't change the fact that Iraq's water supply would be intact if Hussein had not initiated a war of conquest.

To use your same mugger analogy...it's akin to if the mugger was beaten by the cops while violating parole, who is worse, the mugger?...or the cops?

Not at all. It is more accurate to ask "If the mugger was beaten by the cops WHILE BEING ARRESTED, who is worse?" And the answer is the same... if the mugger had not mugged someone in the first place, he wouldn't have been beaten.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #901932 - 09/23/02 04:34 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Okay fine...I will answer all of 'em...then in return you can answer mine. (bear in mind your questions are hardly objective)

1 d) get the fuck out of Iraq...he is not a threat anymore. He screwed up once and learned his lesson...do you really think he would try again?

2 a) Yes, they were.

3 c) As I've said before...if your country was in a perpetual state of war, what would YOU do? It only makes sense to focus on his military...and how can he manufacture anything to purify the water if his plants are constantly being bombed, because they are suspected chemical weapons plants?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: Phred]
    #901936 - 09/23/02 04:37 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #901947 - 09/23/02 04:43 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

In reply to:

That doesn't change the fact that Iraq's water supply would be intact if Hussein had not initiated a war of conquest.



I agree Iraq should not have invaded Kuwait (corrected), I have never contested that. But for the U.S. to play holier than thou, while they intentionaly target civilian populations (Against the geneva convention) by attacking the water supply is just plain wrong. No matter how you decide to rationalize it.

In reply to:

Not at all. It is more accurate to ask "If the mugger was beaten by the cops WHILE BEING ARRESTED, who is worse?" And the answer is the same... if the mugger had not mugged someone in the first place, he wouldn't have been beaten.


So to paraphrase.. it's okay for the cops to break the law, because the mugger did?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/23/02 05:12 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: ]
    #901952 - 09/23/02 04:45 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Marrowind...perhaps you would like to step up to bat instead of shouting from the stands?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #901957 - 09/23/02 04:49 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

Perhaps because Cuba and other Carribean nations haven't had hurricanes everyday for the last 10 years...whereas Iraq has been bombed continuously.

Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying that the US has bombed water purification plants AFTER the surrender agreement was signed? Source please.

Are you saying that if Hussein were to repair these plants the US would bomb them again? I guess we'll never know, since he clearly has no intention of rebuilding the plants anyway.

Is this what you truly believe? or are you just trying to be antagonistic?

Do I believe that Hussein is deliberately letting the situation of his people deteriorate for the sake of propaganda impact? That is a plausible claim, but not easy to prove one way or the other. You're the one who keeps telling me Saddam is "shrewd". Does that sound like something a shrewd operator might try?

Let me put it this way -- I think it is more plausible than the claim that the US government deliberately let the September 11 attacks take place for the sake of propaganda impact.

His MOTIVATIONS for leaving the plants unrepaired aside, what I KNOW (rather than what I think) is that if Hussein had spend a fraction of the money he spends on armaments on rebuilding his water purification plants instead, this would have been a non-issue for the last ten years. Anyone who says Iraq doesn't have the capacity to rebuild them is full of shit.

But, as I have said before, it is a moot point. If he had never embarked on a war of conquest, he wouldn't have had to rebuild them at all.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: Rono]
    #901965 - 09/23/02 04:52 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: ]
    #901994 - 09/23/02 05:12 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Although I'm glad you see nothing wrong with targetting civilians, I still have an issue with it. All the rationalizing in the world does nothing to change the fact that the U.S. is killing innocents...Let me put this into perspective...how many died as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?...200 people tops (and that is a generous estimate) Now how many have died as a result of the war on Iraq?...how many of those were civilians?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/23/02 05:20 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #902005 - 09/23/02 05:20 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono provides some answers to the following questions:

1 -- What do YOU think is the best way to compel Hussein to abide by the terms he agreed to?
a) Make more speeches in the UN
b) Impose even tougher sanctions
c) Depose Hussein by force

Rono's choice:
d) get the fuck out of Iraq...he is not a threat anymore. He screwed up once and learned his lesson...do you really think he would try again?

Translation: It is not necessary to to compel him to abide by the terms of the surrender. (Gee, I'll bet our hypothetical mugger would jump at a deal like that.)

3 -- Why has Hussein not yet accomplished a technically simple, relatively inexpensive task such as rebuilding water purification plants, yet he is able to arm, house, feed, and provide water for a standing army of half a million and a reserve of another half million?
a) He can't manufacture the necessary parts and chemicals
b) He chooses not to manufacture the necessary parts and chemicals

Rono's choice:
c) As I've said before...if your country was in a perpetual state of war, what would YOU do? It only makes sense to focus on his military...and how can he manufacture anything to purify the water if his plants are constantly being bombed, because they are suspected chemical weapons plants?

Translation: he chooses not to manufacture the necessary parts and chemicals, because his view is that the war never stopped. Further, he claims the US might bomb the water plants again once they are repaired, even though the US has not bombed them in the eleven years since the surrender was signed.

Thanks for the answers, sir. They were instructive.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #902012 - 09/23/02 05:23 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

In reply to:

Translation: It is not necessary to to compel him to abide by the terms of the surrender. (Gee, I'll bet our hypothetical mugger would jump at a deal like that.)


Iraq has said they will let weapons inspectors in...what more do you want?

In reply to:

Translation: he chooses not to manufacture the necessary parts and chemicals, because his view is that the war never stopped. Further, he claims the US might bomb the water plants again once they are repaired, even though the US has not bombed them in the eleven years since the surrender was signed.


But apparently it was perfectly fine for the U.S. to bomb them in the first place...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/23/02 05:29 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #902038 - 09/23/02 05:35 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono asks:

Let me answer your question with another question...what would it take to prevent the U.S. from attacking Iraq again? Iraq letting in weapons inspectors?

In my opinion Iraq would have to abide by ALL of the terms of the surrender agreement. Bush in his recent speech listed at least half a dozen violations of the agreement that had nothing whatsoever to do with weapons inspectors. Every one of those violations has been discussed before by the UN, even back when Clinton was president.... hell even back when George the First was still president.

The sad fact is, if Iraq had complied with the "biggies" from the get go, a lot of the "lesser" violations would probably have been let slide.

I suspect that it won't matter what Saddam does or agrees to, the U.S. is going to invade Iraq no matter what...

Here we disagree. If Hussein scrupulously meets all the conditions of the surrender agreement, Bush won't have a leg to stand on. And even *I* (no Bush fan, for sure) can't see him being boneheaded enough to push for military action under those conditions.

Having said that, IF the unlikely scenario of Hussein actually fulfilling his obligations ever comes to pass, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a year or two down the road an assassination attempt against Hussein succeeded, and information subsequently comes to light that the assassins had ties to the CIA or the Mossad.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #902048 - 09/23/02 05:42 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

In reply to:

Having said that, IF the unlikely scenario of Hussein actually fulfilling his obligations ever comes to pass, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a year or two down the road an assassination attempt against Hussein succeeded, and information subsequently comes to light that the assassins had ties to the CIA or the Mossad.


Thank you for your opinion, now I have to ask you why you think the U.S. would assassinate Hussein even after he (hypothetically) met their conditions? What would be their reasoning? Would it be fair to say that control of the regions oil would be enough reason? (bear in mind this is all just opinion of a hypothetical situation)


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #902067 - 09/23/02 05:56 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

how many died as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?...200 people tops

How many people died in Hitler's invasion of Austria and Czechoslovakia? 200 people tops.

Now how many have died as a result of the war on Iraq?...how many of those were civilians?

Now how many died as the result of the war on Nazi Germany? ... how many of those were civilians?

Rono, you have an uncanny knack for asking the wrong questions. You never ask questions like:

"How many people would have died if Hussein, faced with the overwhelming superiority of the coalition forces, had surrendered rather than choosing to fight it out?"

Why don't you acknowledge reality for just once in your life? The facts are that Hussein INITIATED a war of conquest, he CONTINUED his occupation of the conquered territory (in the face of threats, sanctions, and armed response), he ordered his troops to fight to the last man, he destroyed every oil field he possibly could while he retreated, he signed a surrender agreement in order to save his own worthless hide, then immediately proceeded to ignore ever condition he agreed to, meanwhile spending every nickel he could scrounge on re-armament.

But now he is no longer a threat and he has learned his lesson. Uh-huh.

pinky 


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #902073 - 09/23/02 06:00 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

If you want to compare that way...It would be easier to compare George W Bush to Hitler than it would be to compare Saddam.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: Rono]
    #902090 - 09/23/02 06:06 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: ]
    #902104 - 09/23/02 06:11 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

I have never taken the "Easy" way out...and I'm sure that even the people I debate with regularily would agree with that. And what exactly were the "trivial" facts you speak of?

(P.S. I can't speak on behalf of Pinky, but I don't think you are interpretting correctly)


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #902113 - 09/23/02 06:15 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono asks:

Thank you for your opinion, now I have to ask you why you think the U.S. would assassinate Hussein even after he (hypothetically) met their conditions?

I didn't say I think they will for sure. I'm neutral on the issue. I said I wouldn't be SURPRISED to hear it, because the man has been known to aid terrorists in the past, and will do so again. Some of those terrorists will target the US.

Would it be fair to say that control of the regions oil would be enough reason?

Nope. The US doesn't need Iraqi oil. When you get right down to it, the US doesn't need middle-east oil at all. Depending which source you choose and which year is in question, the US imports between 9 and 12% of its oil from the Persian Gulf.

What none of the oil-conspiracy enthusiasts here ever bother to point out is that the US has had no difficulty obtaining every drop of oil it requires since the Gulf War ended. Note that none of that oil came from Iraq.

And, once the Caspian oil producers get their pipeline built (NOT through Afghanistan, note) there will be even MORE alternatives to Iraqi oil.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #902119 - 09/23/02 06:19 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

In my opinion, the point isn't that the U.S. only needs the oil...the point is that the rest of the world does as well...and whoever controls the oil..controls the world. (Yes, I realize that is a simple view....but that's the jist of it)


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: Rono]
    #902125 - 09/23/02 06:22 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: ]
    #902128 - 09/23/02 06:23 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Fair enough...but why has no-one answered the question as to why they were bombed in the first place? I agree that the U.S. needed to get Iraq out of Kuwait...but who is suffering from the intentional bombing of water treatment plants?..Saddam or his Military?...obviously not...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/23/02 06:26 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: Rono]
    #902170 - 09/23/02 06:54 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: ]
    #902214 - 09/23/02 07:08 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

However "effective" that may seem to you...it is still against what was put forth by the Geneva convention. Might as well poison their food supply while we're at it....


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #902335 - 09/23/02 07:55 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

...the point isn't that the U.S. only needs the oil... the point is that the rest of the world does as well...

There is no shortage of oil. The entire production of Iraq (the country with the second highest production after Saudi Arabia) has been taken off the market for over a decade, yet every country in the world has been able to continue increasing their annual consumption of oil with no difficulty whatsoever. That's what the whole Kyoto thingy is all about, remember?

... and whoever controls the oil..controls the world.

Yeah, right. That's why Venezuela and Abu Dabi and Kuwait can get other nations to do whatever they want. *sarcasm*

Rono, I have to admire your ability to not let facts influence your convictions. Let's review your claims so far for this thread alone:

* Iraq can't get chlorine -- disproven by the laws of chemistry

* Sanctions kill 500,000 children -- disputed by UNICEF's own report

* Iraq can't fix water treatment plants because the US keeps bombing them -- disproven by the fact that the US hasn't bombed any since the surrender agreement was signed

* Hussein has learned his lesson, and is no longer a threat -- disputed by every ex-member of Iraq's weapons development team and virtually every member of the international UN inspection team except Scott Ritter

* The US "is killing innocents" (note use of present tense) -- unsubstantiated

* Hussein's only violation of the surrender agreement is his refusal to let weapons inspectors have total access -- disproven by the many documented cases of violations unrelated to weapons inspections

* George W Bush is more similar to Hitler than Saddam Hussein is -- refuted by the fact that Bush has neither instituted genocide (vs Saddam's attempts to eliminate the Kurds and Hitler's attempts to eliminate the Jews) nor has he initiated a war of conquest (vs Saddam's conquest of Kuwait and Hitler's conquest of Europe).

Reading your posts is more entertaining than watching an aquarium full of sea monkeys, but not by much. I tire of shooting fish in a barrel.

Later, dude.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #904187 - 09/24/02 11:42 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Pinky, your ability to twist the facts is interesting...

First things first...I never said that there was a shortage of oil..ever. But oil production is at it's peak right now...everyone seems to think this except you. Oil is at it's peak (Pay special attention to the graphs) Once again, you only scratch the surface with your argument without digging deeper.

Sanctions kill 500,000 children -- disputed by UNICEF's own report "disputed"?...yet many other sources say it is so...including the U.N...but if Unicef says they aren't sure then I guess it never happened. My mistake.

Hussein has learned his lesson, and is no longer a threat -- disputed by every ex-member of Iraq's weapons development team and virtually every member of the international UN inspection team except Scott Ritter
Oh please...do YOU have any sources of this? Scott Ritter's comments are easy to find, yet I can't find ONE backing your claims. "Virtually every member"...uh huh.

The US "is killing innocents" (note use of present tense) -- unsubstantiated What would you call the bombing of a wedding?...Nevermind, those wedding guests had it coming to them. (I won't even bring up the bombing of Canadian soldiers...oops...too late) (yes I know this was in Afghanistan...but it's foreshadow to what's about to happen in Iraq. More civilians getting slaughtered needlessly)

* Hussein's only violation of the surrender agreement is his refusal to let weapons inspectors have total access -- disproven by the many documented cases of violations unrelated to weapons inspections Where have I said that was his only infraction??? You are making up arguments as you go along...I brought up the weapons inspectors issue, because that seems to be the one that everyone is worried about...and he agreed to let them in, so what's the problem?

George W Bush is more similar to Hitler than Saddam Hussein is -- refuted by the fact that Bush has neither instituted genocide (vs Saddam's attempts to eliminate the Kurds and Hitler's attempts to eliminate the Jews) nor has he initiated a war of conquest (vs Saddam's conquest of Kuwait and Hitler's conquest of Europe). I gotta admit..This one made me chuckle. When saddam was "eliminating" the kurds...who do you think was backing him at the time? the U.S. when the kurds were allegedly gassed, who didn't find ANY evidence of such an act?...the U.S. When Saddam suddenly turned "rogue"..who was the country the brought up the gassing of kurds, despite they didn't have any "evidence"..the U.S. Which country recently tried to implement the "TIPS" program?which would have essentially turned the U.S. into a VERY Nazi like state...the U.S. Although the U.S. has not been as open about their war of conquest...it's more of a financial war of conquest..they have been taking control of the middle east. I will not say that Saddam Hussein is a saint..or even a good man for that matter, but don't pretend that Bush is either. Pinky even you said that if Iraq met all the conditions of the U.S., you wouldn't be surprised to find out he was killed my the CIA or the Mossad...does this sound like the actions of a reasonable country?

As you were...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/24/02 11:50 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #904553 - 09/24/02 02:58 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

Pinky, your ability to twist the facts is interesting...

And your ability to ignore them is amusing.

First things first...I never said that there was a shortage of oil..ever.

You don't obtain power by "controlling" one or even several sources of supply of a commodity that is readily available from many other sources. You said that oil is power and whoever controls oil controls the world, implying in this context that whoever controls IRAQ's oilfields controls the world. I pointed out that if Iraq never exported another drop of oil for a long long time to come, it would make no difference because dozens of other oil-producing countries would happily take up the slack.

Ii}But oil production is at it's peak right now...everyone seems to think this except you.

No one seems to think this except you and the guy at that site you linked. If you had actually READ his article rather than just looking at the title you would see that even HE doesn't say there is a SHORTAGE of oil. You haven't been around long enough to know this, but we have heard this lament before -- in the Seventies, in the Eighties, in the Nineties. Yet checking only the KNOWN oil reserve estimates every 5 years from 1960 to present shows an ever-increasing number. Can this go on forever? Nope. But today and for at least a couple of decades (AT LEAST... and probably longer) every nation on the planet can meet its projected needs for oil with no difficulty. SHOULD they consume as much oil? Nope. But the point is, they CAN.

disputed by UNICEF's own report "disputed"?...yet many other sources say it is so...including the U.N...but if Unicef says they aren't sure then I guess it never happened. My mistake.

I suggest you READ the report. It is on the UN website. For just once, accept the possibility -- no, wait, "accept is the wrong word; discover it for yourself -- that a credible report from a credible source might actually disprove one of your pet theories and READ the freakin' report. I dare you.

...yet many other sources say it is so...

And many other sources say Elvis is still alive. Still other sources say humans are anally probed by aliens on a regular basis.

...including the U.N...but if Unicef says they aren't sure then I guess it never happened.

As for the many other souces "including the U.N.", all of them extrapolated (despite warnings from the authors of the report that it was incorrect to do so) their own figures from the UNICEF report I referenced. And you ARE aware that UNICEF is a UN organization, aren't you?

Oh please...do YOU have any sources of this?

As you so often whine, I am not ALWAYS going to spoonfeed you. Go to the UN website yourself and read some of the reports the UN inspection teams filed. There have been other recent posts in this forum that have said the same thing. Bush said so in his speech, and not a single country (except Iraq, of course) disputed him. Summarized reports of the inspections teams were widely reported in the international media in the mid-Nineties. The theme, time and time again, was that Iraq was doing everything possible to limit access, and to make it impossible for the inspectors to fulfill their mandate. Several (not all of them American... some were French and at least one was Dutch if I recall correctly) quit in disgust long before 1998, not because they believed there was nothing to find but because they stated publicly and repeatedly that without the necessary access there was literally no point in their being there. Did you sleep through all this publicity or do you just have a selective memory?

Scott Ritter's comments are easy to find....

And it is just as easy to find his earlier comments, when he was as strong in his protests as all the others. But he then had a rather abrupt and somewhat startling conversion. It has been said that his change in stance coincided with a sudden increase in his net worth.

Note that the ones who really KNOW the true state of affairs, the defectors involved in Hussein's weapons program, unanimously declare that Hussein IS rebuilding his stocks of WMD.

yes I know this was in Afghanistan...

Try to stick to the topic. This thread is not discussing Afghanistan or Argentina or Antarctica. It is discussing Iraq. Your claim clearly implies that the US IS killing innocents in Iraq. This is unsubstantiated.

Where have I said that was his only infraction???

When you so smugly proclaimed "Iraq has said they will let weapons inspectors in...what more do you want?" The implication is that if Saddam SAYS they will let inspectors enter the country again, that's all he has to do. What more do I want, Rono? I want him to abide by EVERY condition he agreed to when he signed the surrender agreement. Guess what -- so does your beloved UN.

...and he agreed to let them in, so what's the problem?

He has already demonstrated that this is pretty much ALL he will do -- let them in. He then makes it impossible for them to do their job. THAT'S the problem.

When saddam was "eliminating" the kurds...who do you think was backing him at the time?

You have an outstanding ability to dodge what is relevant. The point is not who knew or didn't know he was killing them, nor who believed or didn't believe he was killing them, the point is HE KILLED THEM. Note that when reports of Hitler's "final solution" began to surface, there was worldwide disbelief that lasted for a VERY long time -- to the present day, in fact, for many individuals. As for "who was BACKING him", are you claiming that the US directed Hussein to kill Kurds?

But all of the above is irrelevant anyway, because it was not GEORGE W. BUSH who was in power at the time Hussein was killing the Kurds (except the ones he is killing today, of course), and your comparison was between George W. Bush and Hitler and Saddam Hussein, NOT between the US and Hitler. You deliberately specified George W. Bush, remember?

Which country recently tried to implement the "TIPS" program?which would have essentially turned the U.S. into a VERY Nazi like state...the U.S.

Says you. You obviously haven't the faintest conception of what kind of oppression was rampant in Nazi Germany. This blatant inflation, this equating of a VOLUNTARY informant program to the wholesale oppression, kidnapping, torture, and murder (not to mention the attempted elimination of an entire ethnic group) that was daily reality in Nazi Germany is so ridiculous it would be laughable if the subject matter weren't so serious. Don't you realize that such asinine comparisons undermine any slight credibility you might have? How can anyone take you seriously? "...essentially turned the U.S. into a VERY Nazi like state" my ass.

Although the U.S. has not been as open about their war of conquest...it's more of a financial war of conquest..

Again, this conflation of two unrelated concepts. There is an enormous difference between buying the products of a country on the open market at a price which is agreed upon by both parties and invading a country with tanks; killing, raping, torturing, looting, and destroying as you go. The two are not even REMOTELY comparable.

...they have been taking control of the middle east.

Apart from Israel, (whom the US quite obviously has no control over whatsoever... see the current situation with Sharon's alleged excesses) name a single middle eastern country the US has "taken control" of. Just one. Any one will do. Hell, the freakin' Saudis won't even let the US use their country as a staging area, and the US SAVED THEIR FREAKIN' ASSES in 1991!

I will not say that Saddam Hussein is a saint..or even a good man for that matter, but don't pretend that Bush is either.

In my opinion, Bush is an idiot. But he is nowhere even CLOSE to Hitler. Not even on the same page. Anyone who honestly believes he is Hitlerian is braindead.

Pinky even you said that if Iraq met all the conditions of the U.S., you wouldn't be surprised to find out he was killed my the CIA or the Mossad...does this sound like the actions of a reasonable country?

To anyone who thinks about it for more than a minute or so, rather than devastate entire nations by waging "conventional warfare" (read "acceptable to the UN rules and regulations"), clearly it is much more reasonable to assassinate the asshole who is the problem. Saves a hell of a lot of "collateral casualties", doesn't it? There are some people who deserve to be assassinated. Hussein is one. Hitler was another. The world would have been saved immeasurable grief if one of the many assassination attempts directed at Adolf Hitler had succeeded. Do you dispute this?

Hussein deserves death for what he has done already, even if he does nothing for the rest of his life other than kiss babies and munch halvah.

As a final note, you claim there were "maybe 200 people" killed during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and you call that a "generous estimate". I will leave that claim untouched, though it is the lowest number I have seen so far. What about how many were kidnapped, tortured, killed, and dumped in mass graves during the Iraqi OCCUPATION of Kuwait? Much different story. Much higher numbers. But of course you would not have bothered to research this, since it doesn't fit your agenda of reflexively ranting against anything and everything the Great Satan does.

"Open-minded" my ass.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #904693 - 09/24/02 03:35 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Pinky...I can not get over your undeniable talent for putting words in my mouth and taking statements out of context.

In reply to:

You said that oil is power and whoever controls oil controls the world, implying in this context that whoever controls IRAQ's oilfields controls the world.


Did I specify only IRAQ's oil?...no, I didn't.

In reply to:

No one seems to think this except you and the guy at that site you linked. If you had actually READ his article rather than just looking at the title you would see that even HE doesn't say there is a SHORTAGE of oil.


AGAIN...PLEASE STATE WHERE I (or anyone for that matter) SAID THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF OIL???

In reply to:

As you so often whine, I am not ALWAYS going to spoonfeed you


Then perhaps you would be so kind as to "spoonfeed" me this info or tell me where to look? Because for some reason I can't find anything to support your statement.
In reply to:

It has been said that his change in stance coincided with a sudden increase in his net worth


It's only fair if you make me post my sources contantly, that I ask to see yours...am I wrong for thinking this?

In reply to:

To anyone who thinks about it for more than a minute or so, rather than devastate entire nations by waging "conventional warfare" (read "acceptable to the UN rules and regulations"), clearly it is much more reasonable to assassinate the asshole who is the problem. Saves a hell of a lot of "collateral casualties", doesn't it?


That could be taken in more than one way...

In reply to:

As a final note, you claim there were "maybe 200 people" killed during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and you call that a "generous estimate". I will leave that claim untouched, though it is the lowest number I have seen so far. What about how many were kidnapped, tortured, killed, and dumped in mass graves during the Iraqi OCCUPATION of Kuwait?


What about the stories of mass graves in Afghanistan?...

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth to make your argument seem stronger, and I rarely ask for a source unless I can't find one...

P.S. as for the Bush / Hitler comaprison?....Bush's similarity to Hitler is his disdain for all norms of international law and relations, and his insistence on using war for the sole purpose of obtaining the selfish goals of his gang of thugs at the expense of the destruction of understandings and laws between nations that have taken hundreds of years to create.




--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (09/24/02 03:40 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #905229 - 09/24/02 07:01 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

Did I specify only IRAQ's oil?...no, I didn't.

AGAIN...PLEASE STATE WHERE I (or anyone for that matter) SAID THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF OIL???

Sigh. Let's review, shall we? Here is how we got started on the "oil as a motive for assassinating Hussein" supposition:

[Rono - "Thank you for your opinion, now I have to ask you why you think the U.S. would assassinate Hussein even after he (hypothetically) met their conditions? What would be their reasoning? Would it be fair to say that control of the regions oil would be enough reason?"

I responded no, it would not be reason enough, because the US has no NEED to control "the region's oil" -- it has no difficulty obtaining all the oil it requires. I didn't even bother to point out to you that controlling Iraq's oil is a very far cry from controlling "the region's" oil. The region in question consists of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and half a dozen other oil-producing countries. I let you slide on that one.

Rono's response: "In my opinion, the point isn't that the U.S. only needs the oil...the point is that the rest of the world does as well...and whoever controls the oil..controls the world. (Yes, I realize that is a simple view....but that's the jist of it)"

Now, what other implication of this statement be but that the US government believes that by assassinating Hussein, it will gain control of Iraq's oil, thereby somehow gaining power over the rest of the world? Note that this discussion is not about MONOPOLIZING the entire supply of the world's oil, or even about monopolizing "the region's" oil, it is SPECIFICALLY (by your own initial statement) about somehow seizing IRAQ'S oil through the tactic of assassinating Saddam Hussein. Anyway, my reply was:

"There is no shortage of oil. The entire production of Iraq (the country with the second highest production after Saudi Arabia) has been taken off the market for over a decade, yet every country in the world has been able to continue increasing their annual consumption of oil with no difficulty whatsoever."

In other words, even if the US annexed Iraq, and reopened the oil fields, there is no incentive for "the rest of the world" to buy their oil from the new US/Iraq 51st state rather than to continue to buy their oil from the same suppliers they have been since 1991. How can one increase one's "control" over someone else by being just one of many suppliers of a readily obtained commodity?

Rono's response: "First things first...I never said that there was a shortage of oil..ever."

My response -- "You don't obtain power by "controlling" one or even several sources of supply of a commodity that is readily available from many other sources. You said that oil is power and whoever controls oil controls the world, implying in this context that whoever controls IRAQ's oilfields controls the world. I pointed out that if Iraq never exported another drop of oil for a long long time to come, it would make no difference because dozens of other oil-producing countries would happily take up the slack."

Rono's response: "Did I specify only IRAQ's oil?...no, I didn't."

Look -- you asked me if gaining control over Iraq's oil was sufficient motive for the assassination of Hussein. I said no it wasn't, and patiently explained in detail precisely WHY it wasn't, that there were other more plausible motives. I realize that to you, every bad thing in the world that happens is somehow, in some way, connected to oil, but the majority of the world does not share your monomania.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #905236 - 09/24/02 07:04 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

That seemed like an awfully long post to show that I never said there was an oil shortage...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #905238 - 09/24/02 07:04 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

In reply to:

Oh please...do YOU have any sources of this? Scott Ritter's comments are easy to find, yet I can't find ONE backing your claims. "Virtually every member"...uh huh.




Here you go....
BAGHDAD'S OLD TRICKS

Iraq's Faux Capitulation
A former weapons inspector explains why Saddam is still a menace.

BY RICHARD O. SPERTZEL
Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

When Iraq announced last week that it would allow inspectors to return without conditions, many diplomats and the press jumped with glee. At last, Iraq, responding to pressure, had a miraculous change of heart. China, Russia, France and many Arab nations quickly asserted that no new Security Council resolution would be necessary. All studiously ignored the statement's fine print, which was reinforced in the lengthy, more formal notification to the United Nations later in the week.

Iraq stipulated that inspectors had to respect the country's dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also stipulated that the U.N. had to apply the rules governing elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to Israel as well. If that wasn't enough condition-setting, Saddam Hussein then came back to add that all conditions previously negotiated with the U.N. had to apply, notably the hamstringing agreement by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that called for prior notification and accompaniment of inspectors by diplomats to "sensitive" sites. This is progress?

Given 24 hours notification, any country could hide even "smoking gun" evidence of a biological weapons program. Such inspections are designed for failure.





From its inception in the 1970s, Iraq's biological weapons program included both military and terrorist applications, the latter part of which were not actively pursued by United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors. The biological weapons program, founded and funded by Iraq's intelligence service with some limited technical input from the Ministry of Defense, has remained under the intelligence agency's control since 1987.
The existence of the biological weapons program was categorically denied and actively concealed from UNSCOM until July 1995. And the pattern of denial and concealment continued right through the termination of inspections by Iraq in December 1998. Fraudulent statements, false and forged documents, misrepresentation of the roles of people and facilities, and other acts of deception were the norm. The extent and objectives of Iraq's biological weapons program have never been disclosed.

Iraq's multiple so-called "Full, Final, and Complete Declarations" that it had disclosed everything about its prohibited biological weapons program have never been accurate or complete. Nothing appears to have changed Iraq's willingness to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. Nor does it appear, in spite of the lip service given to getting inspectors back into Iraq, that there has been any significant change in the support that an inspection regime might expect from U.N. Security Council members. The existing resolutions also existed in 1997 and 1998 and failed to get Iraq's full cooperation, in part thanks to Russia's and France's support for whatever Iraq wanted.

Even while UNSCOM inspectors were still operating, Iraq was constantly trying to restrict our activities, curb our access and require notification of inspections, even to monitored sites. What, in Iraq's latest pronouncement regarding the return of inspectors, makes countries such as France and Russia believe that there is no need for a stronger resolution with discrete dates for Iraq to accomplish a true disarmament and specific action for failure to comply?

None of this should reflect negatively on the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, the successor to UNSCOM. Its success or failure depends too much on uncontrollable elements. What will be the conditions under which the inspectors return? Iraq wants to retain all the obstacles that it had wrangled out of the U.N. through the series of "crises" that it had instigated during UNSCOM's tenure--a clear obstacle to success.

What support will the inspection regime have, given Iraq's recalcitrance and what appears to be a lack of strong, unanimous support in the Security Council? Will Iraq truly cooperate and reveal or destroy all its biological weapons activity? Will it, on readmitting inspectors, behave differently this time? Based on the findings of broad panels of international experts including representatives of all Security Council members, a first indication of cooperation could be a significant further verifiable disclosure by Iraq in all weapons of mass destruction areas. Iraq's continued denial of possession of any weapons of mass destruction may be semantic hairsplitting: no weapons, but what about programs to produce them?





It will take a shift in the attitude of the Iraqi ruling regime before any elimination of weapons of mass destruction programs will be possible. The current charade being carried out on the U.N. stage by Iraq and its surrogates reflects no desire for true disarmament but only steps to lifting sanctions. How this change in attitude comes about may tell much about the U.N.'s effectiveness and its future relevance.
Should Iraq be allowed to retain its biological weapons (and other weapons of mass destruction programs) it will remain a menace not only to its neighbors, but to the world at large because of the concomitant instability it would create in the region. The Gulf states would need to judge all their actions in light of the Iraqi threat. Saddam's regime is unpredictable. It is already openly supplying support to Palestinian suicide bombers. Iraq might try using weapons of mass destruction against Israel, with who knows what repercussions.

The world's press in recent weeks has cited the opposition of most nations in the Middle East and Europe to any action against Iraq. It is claimed that Iraq is weaker than it was a decade ago, and does not pose any immediate and significant threat. But this does not seem to address the terrorist threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. One would think that after Sept. 11, a more realistic appraisal of Iraq's capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction as terrorist weapons would be forthcoming. Iraq's biological weapons program from its inception included a terrorist component. Such terrorism applications would undoubtedly evolve to meet changing situations and can be expected to be retained even after the development of its nuclear capability.





The threat that Iraq's biological weapons program poses as a bioterrorist weapon to any of its perceived enemies is enormous. While much attention is focused on bioterrorism against people, the economic devastation that could be wreaked on agriculture could be far greater in the long term. For the U.S. at home and abroad, the greatest danger from Iraq's weapons development remains the potential for its use in terrorism, whether by Iraq directly or through support to terrorist organizations.
How certain are we that the weapons-grade anthrax spores contained in the letters sent to various U.S. addresses last October were not "Made in Baghdad"? Should Iraq be involved with using its biological weapons expertise in bioterrorist activities, it may be impossible to find a "smoking gun." Biological weapons agents are unlikely to have a signature that will definitively pinpoint a laboratory or a country as the origin. As long as Iraq does not change its attitude, as long as it continues trying to acquire and retaining weapons of mass destruction, its support for terrorism is a major threat to the world. Too bad that the diplomats are unable or unwilling to recognize this danger.

Mr. Spertzel was the United Nations' chief biological weapons inspector in Iraq from 1994 to 1998.
__________________________________
and the link.....
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002327


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Rono]
    #905242 - 09/24/02 07:05 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Rono writes:

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to "spoonfeed" me this info or tell me where to look? Because for some reason I can't find anything to support your statement.

You DO know how to work a search engine, don't you? I just typed "weapons Iraq UN reports" into google and these were just some of what I found on the first page alone:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/9803/weapon.search/game/ this is a timeline of the UN weapons inspection program from its inception till 1997. It's a good general overview. Not a lot of detail, but a good starting point.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraq-wmd.cfm this is a more detailed and specific chronology of events in Iraq's weapons development post 1991

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/index.html#UNSCOM%20Reports%20and%20other%20documents - here is a list of publicized UN reports re the inspections programs. Even though they are worded in the typical bland diplomat-speak of most UN documents, the frustration of the authors of the reports is obvious.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/iaea.htm a history of the obstructions and outright lies told to the IAEA inspectors

There's tons more, but why should I list them? You won't read them anyway. They report the findings of the people who actually attempted to carry out the inspections, and the statements of IRAQI PARTICIPANTS in Iraq's ongoing post-1991 weapons development programs, but quite obviously those people are lying. *sarcasm* Note that the head of the UNSCOM team wasn't American, but Swedish.

It's only fair if you make me post my sources contantly, that I ask to see yours...am I wrong for thinking this?

I honestly can't remember where I saw this allegation. I do know it was in more than one place, possibly even on one of the conspiracy websites I keep getting directed to by contributors to this forum. I'm not going to bother doing a search for it right now because I am not personally convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ritter is now in the pay of Iraq. Do I think it possible he is? Certainly! Let's face it, there are many people in the world who would do far worse than declare Hussein has no WMD capability if they were given a few million bucks. Do I think it likely? What I personally believe is irrelevant. Maybe it can be proven he was bribed, maybe it can't. The point is, there is no more reason to believe the allegations that Ritter was bribed to change his tune than there is to believe the allegations that the US administration deliberately allowed the attacks of September 11, 2001 to take place.

What about the stories of mass graves in Afghanistan?...

Are you even remotely capable of staying on topic? This discussion is about IRAQ. You have aired your views of Afghanistan in previous threads, and doubtless you will do so again. If you want to wander all over the map have the courtesy to open a separate thread. Open one on Viet Nam while you're at it, if you want me to post things more in line with your worldview.

Bush's similarity to Hitler is his disdain for all norms of international law and relations, and his insistence on using war for the sole purpose of obtaining the selfish goals of his gang of thugs at the expense of the destruction of understandings and laws between nations that have taken hundreds of years to create.

Saddam Hussein's similarity to Hitler is his disdain for all norms of international law and relations, and his insistence on using war for the sole purpose of obtaining the selfish goals of his gang of thugs at the expense of the destruction of understandings and laws between nations that have taken hundreds of years to create.

I leave it to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves which of those statements is more accurate.

pinky


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


Edited by pinksharkmark (09/24/02 07:07 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 10 days, 5 hours
Re: We are starving but we can field a 1mm MAN ARM [Re: Phred]
    #905273 - 09/24/02 07:24 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

1) Richard Butler, UNSCOM director

(a) In late 1997, UNSCOM Director Richard Butler announced that ?significant progress? had been made in reducing Iraq?s chemical weapons capabilities. He reported UNSCOM had successfully tracked 817 of 819 Soviet-supplied long-range missiles. (cited in Zunes 8-20-2002)

(b) In 1991, Iraq was forced into an unprecedented disarmament process and its military might was greatly reduced. UNSCOM Chief Richard Butler said in July 1998, ?if Iraqi disarmament were a five-lap race, we would be three quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap.? (cited in Epic)

(2) Scott Ritter, a former UN chief weapons inspector

(a) Ex-weapons inspector and former marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter wrote in the Guardian on October 19, 2001 ?Under the most stringent on-site inspection regime in the history of arms control, Iraq's biological weapons programmes were dismantled, destroyed or rendered harmless during the course of hundreds of no-notice inspections. The major biological weapons production facility -- al Hakum, which was responsible for producing Iraq's anthrax -- was blown up by high explosive charges and all its equipment destroyed. Other biological facilities met the same fate if it was found that they had, at any time, been used for research and development of biological weapons...No evidence of anthrax or any other biological agent was discovered.? (cited in Everest 2001)

(b) In a speech to an attentive audience at the Suffolk Law School building in downtown Boston, former UN chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, explained in detail how he and his colleagues had cross-referenced weapons-making materials found in Iraq with sales records from other countries to ensure that at least 90% of Iraq?s weapons had been destroyed or dismantled. He stated that he believes that a good portion of the remaining 10% was destroyed during the Gulf War, leaving only a small fraction unaccounted for. He also said that he had seen no credible evidence to substantiate the Bush?s administration?s claims and scoffed at its assertion that officials had ?secret? evidence ? ?If the administration had such secret evidence, we'd be at war in Iraq right now. We wouldn't be talking about it. It would be a fait accompli.? (cited in Pitt 7-24-2002; Ritter explained this again in a July op?ed piece ? Ritter 7-30-2002)

(c) Ex-weapons inspector and former marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter (3/9/00) wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed, ??from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has in fact been disarmed... The chemical, biological, nuclear and long-range ballistic missile programs that were a real threat in 1991 had, by 1998, been destroyed or rendered harmless.? (cited from Epic n.d., Stop the war against Iraq.org n.d.)

(d) In an op-ed piece published in the July 20 edition of the Boston Globe, Ritter wrote: ?While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.? (Ritter 7-20-2002)

(3) Committee under the UN Security Council

(a) In 1999, a committee under the UN Security Council concluded that Iraq?s primary biological weapons facility ?had been destroyed and rendered harmless.? (cited in Pilger 4-5-2002)

(b) Ex-weapons inspector and former marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter argued in the Christian Science Monitor that the hawks? main informant, Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, was untrustworthy. The UN had stopped using him as an informant ?once the tenuous nature of his sources and his dubious motivations became clear.? Ritter explained: ?I spent more than six years investigating the organizations the defector claimed to work for, and although elements of his story ring true, the details used to embellish his tale on weapons of mass destruction are impossible to pin down or, in some cases, just plain wrong.? (Ritter 1-28-2002; see also Fisk 2-17-2002; Ritter 3-13-2002)

(4) International Atomic Energy agency

(a) In January of 2002, the International Atomic Energy agency sent inspectors into Iraq and found no evidence of nuclear weapons. (Wanniski 2-20-2002; Pilger 4-5-2002)

Unnamed military officials.

01. MSNBC reported on August 27 2002, ?Military officials have told NBC News that there is no evidence that Iraq has produced or obtained any nuclear fuel, clashing with the Bush administration?s official statements that Saddam Hussein is close to developing a nuclear weapon.? (Miklaszewski 8-27-2002)

Scott Ritter, a former UN chief weapons inspector.
?The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays that would have been detected by now if they existed. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this.? (cited in Pitt 7-24-2002)

Outgoing Defense Secretary, William Cohen...
He informed incoming President George Bush in January: ?Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors.? (Halliday and von Sponneck 11-29-2001)






--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Oil Fields Have Been Secured pattern 420 3 04/04/03 08:25 PM
by RadioActiveSlug
* Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist wingnutx 1,027 2 01/29/14 06:52 AM
by theindianrepublic
* Israeli anti RPG system blocked by US army downforpot 2,866 16 09/10/06 03:06 PM
by downforpot
* 500,000 iraqi children dead because of US sanctions. Albright: "The Price Is Worth It"...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
exclusive58 8,817 79 11/09/05 07:42 AM
by GazzBut
* Death by sanctions. Baby_Hitler 770 15 05/12/04 08:45 PM
by kaiowas
* Bush signs Sudan sanctions bill st0nedphucker 730 0 12/24/04 11:59 AM
by st0nedphucker
* High-Ranking Army Officer - Missile Hit Pentagon
( 1 2 3 all )
usefulidiot 4,557 50 08/29/05 06:55 PM
by Los_Pepes
* U.S. Army Launches Bids for Iraq Energy Work wingnutx 623 7 09/14/03 10:22 AM
by yogaflame

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,863 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.046 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.