Why do so many people feel as though we "bypassed" the U.N. when in fact it was Mr. Bush who took it to them back in November? Do these people forget the UNANIMOUS UN vote on Resolution 1441 which gave us (as in U.S.) the authority to forcibly disarm Iraq, should they be found to be not in compliance?

And as far as our "Top Dog" attitude, you're damn right we are Top Dog! Someone has to be! Would you prefer it to be China? Or how about, maybe North Korea? IRAQ???? Let's put it this way. The rest of the world should be damn grateful that it IS the U.S. that is Top Dog.

Take this forum, for instance...If it wasn't for the U.S. 'inventing' the internet (No...contrary to what some people think, it wasn't Al Gore!!! :) ) we wouldn't be sharing our points of view. Not like this. That's my country, alright. Bringing the freedom of speech to the entire world!

Too many candy-assed other countries feel as though they can run their mouths and bad-mouth the USA and then turn right around and ask us for our help, whenever they get into trouble. The ironic thing is, THEY CAN! And the bad ol' USA is always their to bail them out! Do you really think China, N. Korea, or Iraq would put up with such a thing???


Randy

Hmm...problem is that oil in itself isn't viable solution in long term. There is good solution to this problems and it's called Fussion Energy. (I don't have time or energy to go into technical details and explain why it's so good, so just bear with me for a while)

Problem is that it needs huge financial investment over long period of time. We are talking billions of USD/year in 40 years strech. Also, it will concentrate power facilities into few big ones.

It has some other negative conotations as well:

First of all, politicians that decide to fund this won't get any cred from this in their lifetime (which is bad when we deal with GWB-kind populists). Second, it will render oil-companies "somewhat" obsolete (that, my friend is a huge paradigmatic shift tham many will have hard time swallowing). It will also take away oil profits from middle-east countries (that ironically fund groups like Al Quaida) which will force them into education, R&D and such unpleasent things (a big no-no in fundamental/religious societies) or force them back into third-world countries which they actually were before oil issue arrised.

Unfortunately very few people are idealists. There are far too many (fill in your favorite generalisation here .................................................. .......) for this approach to win in our lifetime. Pity it is.

It will eventually get there as evolution is a b***h but lot's of unnecessary s**t will happend along.

I just hope EU will ditch this oil stuff as soon as possible and pour some money into energy R&D... It will be tough for a while but i think it will pay back in the long term. It's kinda weary/expensive to do oil-controll wars every now and then... stuff is generating CO2 as well.



Yeah...

P.S. If you plan to reply on my posts with "we are best nation in universum and we have god on our side and we do what we please yadda yadda bush is great, let's go to war" please don't.

actually......we as americans have a right to speak what we want at who we want. we've fought for that right since the begining.

i think you need to sit down and look over your own opinion with what's REALLY going on, if you lived in america you may have a different outlook.

Problem is we don't live in a idealist/socialist world. Why propose a solution that has such small chance of success? I agree that we should invest in our future, but that won't solve our problems today. In general, I see a lot of protest to the war, but few offer REAL solutions to the conflict. Hopefully, after the war, there will be room for compromise.

It is easy to say the US should fight terrorism in other ways, but other countries are NOT the US. When your arse is in the crosshairs, your actions tend to be more proactive... When you're hiding in the bushes, your actions tend to be more passive... So, depending on perspective, both actions may be appropriate.


pwd72s said:
Bottom line, and a question for all...do you think allowing Saddam to remain in power will further the causes of peace and of the people of a nation deciding it's course? If you do, you have a legit cause to be against what's happening right now. If not? Well, keep mouthing off, but I choose not to read it.

Are you in a concentration camp where they force you to read our drivel? Members who don't read this thread don't post here and say,"Keep talking, but I'm not going to read it." :rolleyes:

Jurgen

Goran, in case you haven't noticed, right now the U.S. is spending huge bags of cash in an attempt to address the threats of terrorism and world instability. In the end even Sweden will benefit from our actions in Iraq and TBD...

Except for my 911 and the people of the middle-east we all would love to see the deployment of a viable energy replacement to oil. I agree with your sentiment and hope the EU balls up to fund aggressive R&D programs instead of waiting for the U.S. with its deep pockets to again lead the effort.

Also, since you posted this here and given your previous negative comments about the U.S. are you also implying that the U.S. is to blame for the world's dependence on oil? BTW, even more tiresome than these "oil-controll" wars is listening to people complain about the U.S. being a bully because we actually confront threats against the free world instead of pretending they don't exist, or rely on others (UN), to sanction the problem away.

Yeah, but i doubt plonking Saddam will "adress threat of terrorism and worlds instability". That's where our opinions go apart. Sounds more like picking low-hanging fruits to me...

I have my opinion and you have yours. This is discussion forum.

P.S.
About "controll"...yeah, it spells "control" but english is my third language and swedish word has two "l"-s so i got carried away...

Apologies, I was not trying to point out your spelling...I rely on spell check more than I care to admit :)

As many have stated before Saddam is sitting on a large pile of oil cash that can be readily converted into weapons of his choosing. Given his taste for murder and deception I think its prudent that we pick this low hanging fruit now. Apple pie anyone?

Hmm...yes, but there is lot of oil there. Not only Iraq has it. you have to decide what is you are fightign for, WMD or terrorist threat. If answer is WMD then this war is somewhat dubious as Iraq was under sanctions for years and spin-doctors have been working overtime to try to convince John Doe that Saddam is going to make atomic bomb anywhere soon (with mixed results, as evidence points towards that he wasn't going to do anything like that). If answer is "terrorism" then Iraq is wrong pick again as terrorist are funded by oil-money from "friendly" oil nations...

Get my point? No point in this war except pleasing home public, doing something on TV "to kick terrorist ass and kill that evel tyrant". Now twitchy North Korea sitting on the nukes or internationally wide-spread terrorist network funded with oil money, that's some serious stuff...

All this energy could be chanelled towards picking "high-hanging fruit" and wars are costly thing in terms of money, peoples lives and tolerance...

It seems like lot's of people swallowed this "he's going to make A-bomb if we don't stop him" -PR stunt alltoghether and having people in powerfull nation like US believe in cachy stories like this is what worries me. Hello, critical thinking, where are you? all i hear is "if you ain't with us you're against" and "we are great & kick ass" ...

Yeah, even if you are great...before you kick somebody's ass you have to be sure why or all this talk of "moral obligations" goes trough the window and you're nothing else but local bully.

People keep bringing up N. Korea as something the US is supposed to deal with. Hello? Weren't those United Nations cameras that they disabled in their nuclear facility? Maybe the U.N. should get off their fat dumb a$$es and do something about it besides sitting around and waiting for the US to save their butts again.

And further--what are we supposed to do? Invade? North Korea has the delivery systems and warheads to kill millions of people in neighboring countries in minutes. And they're crazy enough to do it.

I agree, but responsibilities like these seem to lately fall on our shoulders - mostly because we're the most powerful country on Earth.

Hmm...nobody answered any of my questions ... :)

Do you believe that Saddam really has and would use WMD (after ten years under sanctions)?

Do you believe that this particular military action will solve terrorist issue and force other arab countries into cutting supply to terrorists?

Do you feel that GWB administration presented clear evidence of Iraqi WDM threat?

Those were questions. It would be interesting to hear answers.

Right now, i just se usual "we are most powerfull nation in the world" chants and no explanation...or is that an explanation? :D

Well, since the US president is a moron, why don't you lobby your leaders and the UN to solve the problem with North Korea? After all, with a country full of idiot citizens led by a sham of a leader how could WE possibly solve the problems with North Korea. France and Germany have nothing better to do. Let them fix Korea.

Sounds like you are a selective friend of the bully. We are lemmings led by a moron leader, but somehow you have enough respect for us to call action against North Korea. Take a side, buddy.

Regards,
Jurgen

Germany… France… Now Sweden??? The unholy hat-trick!!! Northern Europe looked the other way when there was genocide going on in its back yard (Yugoslavia). For that matter, Sweden and France looked the other way when there was genocide going on in their front yard. How many of the 20,000,000 dead in the war in Europe died as a result of Sweden’s material support of Nazi Germany??? Guess if the Swedes can’t make money off it… YOU HAVE NO MORAL CREDIBILITY!!! GET OVER IT!!!

Go back to the sidelines where you belong, the world will be a safer place. I have little doubt that you’ll let us know when you need us.

Do you believe that Saddam really has and would use WMD (after ten years under sanctions)?

Do you believe he won't. Do you have insight into his mind. Why produce WMD if you have no intentions of using them?


Do you believe that this particular military action will solve terrorist issue and force other arab countries into cutting supply to terrorists?

This is not the final strike against terrorism. I don't think anyone in their right mind believes this will solve the terrorist issue. I feel terrorism will always be present, and I really hope we do not have to trade our freedoms for safety.


Do you feel that GWB administration presented clear evidence of Iraqi WDM threat?

The UN did not produce evidence that the threat was not there. I know that's a weak argument, but if you realize that Scuds were recently fired, then the question is really moot now, right?



Right now, i just se usual "we are most powerfull nation in the world" chants and no explanation...or is that an explanation? :D

You trump our president with insults, you call the American citizens lemmings, and you don't expect to hear a boastful response. Please, you are smarter than that.

Jurgen

Really? Well, ok lets go through this again.

1. "Do you believe that Saddam really has and would use WMD?" Yes, and he already used gas against his own people. How about those scud's that just last month he "didn't" have?

2. "Do you believe that this particular military action will solve terrorist issue and force other arab countries into cutting supply to them?" Yes in the long run it will. Sure terrorists might go into action over this but they are simply doing what they were already planning to do. Look at the big picture Goran. As long as the U.S. supports Israel terrorism against the U.S. will continue. From the reports coming out of Iraq the citizens are happy to see us.

3. "Do you believe that GWB administration presented clear evidence of Iraqi WDM threat?" No. But then I don't expect them to share confidential information with me either. This is where you trust your government to make the right decision...like we have done with every administration. As I have stated, Iraq cannot directly hit our country, but they can hit their neighbors and they have the money to get what they want. Combine this with a terroist shared hatred for the U.S. and I see reasonable cause to go in now.

Hey GORAN THE MORAN!
I'll answer number 1. for you.. enjoy it... you Fasist Liberal!!

Iraq's biological weapons program embraced a comprehensive range of agents and munitions. Agents under Iraq's biological weapons program included lethal agents, e.g. anthrax, botulinum toxin and ricin, and incapacitating agents, e.g. aflatoxin, mycotoxins, haemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus and rotavirus. The scope of biological warfare agents worked on by Iraq encompassed both anti-personnel and anti-plant weapons. The program covered a whole variety of biological weapons delivery means, from tactical weapons (e.g. 122 mm rockets and artillery shells), to strategic weapons (e.g. aerial bombs and Al Hussein warheads filled with anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin) and "economic" weapons, e.g. wheat cover smut. Given the Iraqi claim that only five years had elapsed since its declared inception in 1985, the achievements of Iraq's biological weapons program were remarkable.

The achievements included the production and actual weaponization of large quantities of bacterial agents and aflatoxin and research on a variety of other biological weapons agents. A special dedicated facility, Al Hakam, for biological weapons research and development as well as large- scale production was under construction, with most essential elements completed at the time of the Gulf war and production and storage capabilities operational. A number of other facilities and establishments in Iraq provided active support for the biological weapons program. The program appears to have a degree of balance suggesting a high level of management and planning that envisioned the inclusion of all aspects of a biological weapons program, from research to weaponization. It is also reasonable to assume that, given that biological weapons were considered as strategic weapons and were actually deployed, detailed thought must have been given to the doctrine of operational use for these weapons of mass destruction.

It appears that, until August 1990, the biological weapons program had been developing at a steady pace, continuing to expand and diversify. In August 1990, a "crash" program was launched and the imperatives of production and weaponization took over.

Iraq stated that, in 1974, the Government had adopted a policy to acquire biological weapons. In 1975, a research and development biological weapons program was established under the Al Hazen Ibn Al Haytham Institute at a site located in Al Salman. The work was poorly directed. Coupled with a lack of appropriate facilities and equipment, it was said the Institute achieved little and it closed in 1978.

The failure of the Al Hazen Institute was claimed to be a severe setback for the program and the following years are alleged to be devoid of any biological weapons-related activity as Iraq decided to concentrate on developing chemical agents and their delivery systems at al-Muthanna. With the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War, in the early 1980s, the biological weapons programme was revived. The appointment of Dr Rihab Taha in 1985, to head a small biological weapons research team at al-Muthanna, helped to develop the programme. In the early period of the Iran/Iraq war (perhaps in 1982 or 1983), a prominent Iraqi microbiologist wrote a report expressing his concerns on scientific developments relating to biological warfare agents and suggesting that research in this subject be commenced in Iraq. It is still uncertain whether this report was followed up, but in 1985 the Muthanna State Establishment, Iraq's main facility for chemical weapons research and development, production and weaponization, recommended the commencement of a biological weapons program. In May or June 1985, Muthanna sought and obtained endorsement from the Ministry of Defence for this program. It was anticipated that the biological weapons research would be productionoriented and thus, in addition to laboratory-scale equipment, a pilot plant in the form of one 150-litre fermenter was purchased by Muthanna. Throughout 1985, personnel were recruited by Muthanna and by the end of the year, a staff of 10 was working on biological weapons research.

Jorge

continued For GORAN THE MORAN

Initial work at Muthanna was said to focus on literature studies, until April 1986, when bacterial strains were received from overseas. Research then concentrated on the characterization of Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) and Clostridium botulinum (botulinum toxin) to establish pathogenicity, growth and sporulation conditions, and their storage parameters. (Anthrax is an acute bacterial disease of animals and humans that can be incurred by ingestion or inhalation of the bacterial spores or through skin lesions. It produces an infection resulting in death in days to weeks after exposure. Botulinum toxin produces an acute muscular paralysis resulting in death of animals or humans.) As claimed by Iraq, there was no production of agents and the imported fermenters at Muthanna were not used. However, Muthanna was still looking ahead to biological warfare agent production and wrote a report to the Ministry of Defence recommending that the former single-cell protein plant at Taji be taken over by Muthanna for the production of botulinum toxin. The Ministry of Defence agreed but, in early 1987, before the plan could be implemented, the proposal went into abeyance for a short time owing to administrative reasons.

In May 1987, the biological weapons program was transferred from Muthanna to Al Salman. The reason for this was said to be that the biological work interfered with the (presumably higher-priority) chemical weapons program at Muthanna. At Al Salman, the biological weapons group administratively came under the Forensic Research Department of the Technical Research Centre (TRC) of the Military Industrialization Corporation. After a slow beginning, it appeared that the biological weapons program flourished at Al Salman. Equipment, including the fermenters, was transferred from Muthanna, new equipment was acquired, and new staff joined the biological weapons group to bring the workforce up to about 18. The research at Al Salman shifted to issues related more to the application of the agents as biological weapons. The effects on larger animals, including sheep, donkeys, monkeys and dogs, were studied within the laboratory and inhalation chamber, as well as in the field. Initial weapons field trials were conducted in early 1988. Studies of scale-up production were initiated on botulinum toxin and anthrax.

The earlier proposal for the acquisition of a biological weapons production site was revived and the former single-cell protein plant at Taji was taken over by TRC in mid-1987. The plant was said to be in a run-down condition and it was not until early in 1988 that it was made operational. With a workforce of eight people, and using one 450-litre fermenter, production of botulinum toxin commenced in February or March 1988 and continued until September/October of that year. Production of botulinum toxin also was carried out at Al Salman in flasks or laboratory fermenters.

Initial production fermentation studies with anthrax at Al Salman used 7- and 14-litre laboratory-scale fermenters at the end of 1988. From the beginning of 1989, the 150-litre fermenter transferred from Muthanna was used to produce Bacillus subtilis, a simulant for anthrax as a biological warfare agent. After five or six runs of producing subtilis, anthrax production began at Al Salman around March 1989. About 15 or 16 production runs were performed, producing up to 1,500 litres of anthrax, which was concentrated to 150 litres. Additional production with the laboratory fermenters was also accomplished.

Towards the end of 1987, a report on the success of biological weapons work by TRC was submitted to MIC. This resulted in a decision to enter the full-scale production phase for a biological weapons program.

In March 1988, a new site for biological weapons production was selected at a location now known as Al Hakam. The project was given the designator "324". The design philosophy for the Al Hakam plant was taken from the chemical weapons research and production facility at Muthanna: the buildings were to be well separated, research areas were segregated from production areas and the architectural features of Muthanna buildings copied where appropriate. The plan for the new facility at Al Hakam envisaged research and development, production and storage of biological warfare agents, but not munitions filling. Construction of the production buildings at the northern end of the Al Hakam site was largely complete by September 1988 after which work commenced on erection of the laboratory buildings.

In 1988, a search for production equipment for the biological weapons program was conducted in Iraq. Two 1,850-litre and seven 1,480-litre fermenters from the Veterinary Research Laboratories were transferred to Al Hakam in November 1988. The 450-litre fermenter line at Taji, which was at the time used in the production of botulinum toxin, was also earmarked for transfer to Al Hakam and was relocated there in October 1988. From mid-1988, large fermenters were also sought from abroad, but after Iraq completed a contract for a 5,000-litre fermenter, an export licence was not granted.

At Al Hakam, production of botulinum toxin for weapons purposes began in April 1989 and anthrax in May 1989. Initially much of the fermentation capacity for anthrax was used for the production of anthrax simulant for weapons field trials. Production of anthrax itself, it is claimed, began in earnest in 1990. In total, about 6,000 litres of concentrated botulinum toxin and 8,425 litres of anthrax were produced at Al Hakam during 1990.

From the early period of the biological weapons program at Al Salman, there was interest in other potential biological warfare agents beyond anthrax and botulinum toxin. It became the policy to expand the biological weapons program into these other fields. Thus, from the design phase of Al Hakam as a biological weapons research, production and storage facility, there were plans for such diversification, including facilities to work on viruses and laboratory space for genetic engineering studies.

In April 1988, in addition to anthrax and botulinum toxin, a new agent, Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene), was added to the bacterial research work at Al Salman. (Clostridium perfringens produces a condition known as gas gangrene, so named because of the production of gaseous rotting of flesh, common in war casualties requiring amputation of limbs.) In August 1989, work on perfringens was transferred from Al Salman to Al Hakam.

In May 1988, studies were said to be initiated at Al Salman on aflatoxin. (Aflatoxin is a toxin commonly associated with fungal-contaminated food grains and is known for its induction of liver cancers. It is generally considered to be non-lethal in humans but of serious medical concern because of its carcinogenic activity.) Later research was also done on trichothecene mycotoxins such as T-2 and DAS. (Tricothecene mycotoxins produce nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and skin irritation and, unlike most microbial toxins, can be absorbed through the skin.) Research was conducted into the toxic effects of aflatoxins as biological warfare agents and their effect when combined with other chemicals. Aflatoxin was produced by the growth of the fungus aspergillus in 5-litre flasks at Al Salman.

In 1989, it was decided to move aflatoxin production for biological weapons purposes to a facility at Fudaliyah. The facility was used for aflatoxin production in flasks from April/May 1990 to December 1990. A total of about 1,850 litres of toxin in solution was declared as having been produced at Fudaliyah.

Another fungal agent examined by Iraq for its biological weapons potential was wheat cover smut. (Wheat cover smut produces a black growth on wheat and other cereal grains; contaminated grain cannot be used as foodstuff.) After small production at Al Salman, larger-scale production was carried out near Mosul in 1987 and 1988 and considerable quantities of contaminated grain were harvested. The idea was said not to have been further developed; however, it was only sometime in 1990 that the contaminated grain was destroyed by burning at the Fudaliyah site.

Jorge

More for the same IDIOT

Another toxin worked for weapons application was ricin. (Ricin is a protein toxin derived from castor bean plants that is highly lethal to humans and animals. When inhaled, ricin produces a severe diffuse breakdown of lung tissue resulting in a haemorrhagic pneumonia and death.) It appears that work started in 1988 at Al Salman. The first samples of ricin were supplied from the Sammarra drug factory and after some initial toxicological tests in conjunction with Muthanna, the quantity required for a weapons test was determined. Ten litres of concentrated ricin were prepared. A weapons trial was conducted with the assistance of Muthanna using artillery shells. The test was considered to be a failure. The project was said to have been abandoned after this.

Work on virus for biological weapons purposes started at Al Salman in July 1990. Shortly thereafter, a decision was taken to acquire the Foot and Mouth Disease facility at Daura and it was taken over for biological weapons purposes, in addition to the continued production of vaccines. It was decided that the Daura plant within the biological weapons program would include facilities for bacteriology, virology and genetic engineering. Three viral agents for the biological weapons program were obtained from within Iraq: haemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus, a rotavirus and camel pox virus. (Haemorrhagic conjunctivitis is an acute disease that causes extreme pain and temporary blindness. Rotavirus causes acute diarrhoea that could lead to dehydration and death. Camel pox causes fever and skin rash in camels; infection of humans is rare.) It was stated that very little work had been done on these viruses and none had been produced in quantity.

Early in 1988, efforts began in the weaponization of biological warfare agents and some of the senior scientists involved in the biological weapons program at TRC were sent to Iraq's munitions factories to familiarize themselves with this aspect. At about the same time, TRC first discussed with the Muthanna State Establishment weaponization of biological warfare agents and it was agreed that, because of Muthanna's experience in the weaponization of chemical agents, the Establishment would also provide the necessary assistance for the selection of weapons types for warfare agents and the conduct of field trials.

The first field trials of biological weapons were said to have been conducted in March 1988 at Muthanna's weapons test range, Muhammadiyat. Two tests were done on the same day, one using the anthrax simulant, Bacillus subtilis, and the other using botulinum toxin. The munitions chosen for the tests were aerial bombs positioned on adjacent stands. The effects were observed on test animals (for botulinum toxin) or on Petri dishes (for subtilis). The first tests of both agents were considered failures. The agents in both cases did not spread far enough. Later in March, the second field trial with the same weapons systems was said to have been conducted and it was considered successful.

No further weapons field trials were claimed to have been carried out for the next 18 months. In November 1989, further weaponization trials for anthrax (again using subtilis), botulinum toxin and aflatoxin were conducted, this time using 122 mm rockets, again at Muhammadiyat. These tests were also considered a success. Live firings of filled 122 mm rockets with the same agents were carried out in May 1990. Trials of R400 aerial bombs with Bacillus subtilis were first conducted in mid-August 1990. Final R400 trials using subtilis, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin followed in late August 1990.

After 2 August 1990, the date of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq's biological weapons program was drastically intensified: the emphasis was shifted to production and later to weaponization of produced biological warfare agents. The foot and mouth disease plant at Daura was converted to biological weapons production. The six vaccine fermenters with ancillary equipment at the plant were used for production of botulinum toxin from November 1990 until 15 January 1991, by which time about 5,400 litres of concentrated toxin had been produced. It was decided that there was an additional requirement for anthrax production and the fermenters at Al Hakam that had been previously used for the production of botulinum toxin there were modified to meet the requirements for increased anthrax production. Production of perfringens for biological weapons purposes also began at Al Hakam in August 1990 using the 150-litre fermenter which had been relocated from Al Salman. A total of 340 litres of concentrated perfringens was produced.

In December 1990, a program was initiated to develop an additional delivery means, a biological weapons spray tank based on a modified aircraft drop tank. The concept was that tanks would be fitted either to a piloted fighter or to a remotely piloted aircraft to spray up to 2,000 litres of anthrax over a target. The field trials for both the spray tank and the remotely piloted vehicle were conducted in January 1991. The test was considered a failure and no further effort towards further development was said to have been made. Nevertheless, three additional drop tanks were modified and stored, ready for use. They are said to have been destroyed in July 1991. The prototype spray tank used for trials was claimed to have been destroyed during the Gulf war bombing.

Weaponization of biological warfare agents began on a large scale in December 1990 at Muthanna. As declared, the R400 bombs were selected as the appropriate munition for aerial delivery and 100 were filled with botulinum toxin, 50 with anthrax and 16 with aflatoxin. In addition, 25 Al Hussein warheads, which had been produced in a special production run since August 1990, were filled with botulinum toxin (13), anthrax (10) and aflatoxin (2). These weapons were then deployed in early January 1991 at four locations, where they remained throughout the war.

In summary, Iraq declared the production of at least 19,000 litres of concentrated botulinum toxin (nearly 10,000 litres were filled into munitions), 8,500 litres of concentrated anthrax (some 6,500 litres were filled into munitions) and 2,200 litres of concentrated aflatoxin (1,580 litres were filled into munitions).

Iraq declared that it had decided to destroy biological munitions and the remaining biological warfare bulk agent after the Gulf war. An order for destruction was claimed to have been given orally, and no Iraqi representative seems to be able to recall an exact date for the order or the dates of destruction operations. The order was said to have been given some time in May or June 1991. All filled biological bombs were relocated to one airfield and deactivation chemicals added to agent fill. The bombs were then explosively destroyed and burnt, and the remains buried. A similar disposal technique was used for the missile warheads at a separate site. In late August 1995, Iraq showed to an UNSCOM team a location which it claimed to be a warhead destruction site. However, later on, Iraq changed its story and was unable to identify with any degree of certainty the exact location of warheads destruction operations.

Of the bacterial bulk agent stored at Al Hakam, Iraq stated that a similar deactivation procedure had been adopted. The detoxified liquid was emptied into the facility's septic tank and eventually dumped at the site. About 8,000 litres of concentrated botulinum toxin, over 2,000 litres of concentrated anthrax, 340 litres of concentrated perfringens and an unspecified quantity of aflatoxin, according to Iraq's declaration, were destroyed at Al Hakam.

By the time of the Gulf War Iraq was producing very large quantities of chemical and biological agents. From a series of Iraqi declarations to the UN during the 1990s, Iraq had by 1991 produced at least 19,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 8,500 litres of anthrax, 2,200 litres of aflatoxin and were working on a number of other agents.

Jorge

I can answer.. the rest.. But I'm not sure if would do any good..
you have to be intellegent enough to understand what your reading..

Jorge (Targa Dude)

Has? . . .. Yes -Obviously! Use? (again) - I hope not.

"solved' is a false option. Terrorist of some degree will always exist. The question is; will these actions minimize terrorism. - Yes.

Saddam has provided this evidence.

Reading between the line of your questions (Goran), you're saying the world is being fearful of American, British forces & Ausi Forces. Also, the World (other than the mid-east) saw Saddam as a short reaching nasty threat.(non-threat to Sweden for example).
Let me just say; Germany & Japan are examples of the aftermath of American & British invasion, and rebuilding. Is the world still PO'd about that?

We are the most powerful nation and the world has expectations on us to perform as one. If we percieve a threat to the U.S. or her allies then we have a responsibility to act upon it...regardless if you acknowledge the same threat or not. If we left the fate of the U.S. (and thus the free world as we know it) up to the UN we might as well take military strategy lessons from France.

Hehe... intellectuals have taken out heavy artillery ;)

Thanx all (well, most of you) for a interesting discussion and think about those three questions. I personaly believe that itäs unwise to go into war with less than three firm "yes" on those questions...on the other hand i'm sidelined moronic fasist (hey, am I allowed to do one of those "you aren't spelling right" things as well?) liberal...

Take care.

/Moronic Liberal has left the building

Like My Mom.. has always..said.. " IF ITS TOO HOT IN THE KITCHEN
GET OUT!" Looks like your cooked..
I really did want to answer your questions 2. and 3. but I guess you can't handle the truth..
Just like a true liberal it's when the truth comes out you run and hide.
Jorge (Targa Dude)

I hereby nominate France, Germany, and Sweden as the new "Axis of Spineless Surrender-Monkeys"

You guys seen CNN since about 10AM PST? It looks like "Shock and Awe" is well underway in Baghdad.

I just can't really fault France and Germany exclusively for not being with us. There are so many factors involving their trade with Iraq, and their population, which (at least in Paris as I've seen) has a lot of Arab people.

What I can fault is their adamant attitude against the U.S. France, in particular, has as little ground to stand on in re. to the U.S. campaign as we "might" for going through with the campaign. They have yet to bring up a tangible reason for us not to do what we're doing. Again, I wonder why: is it because of France's economic interlinking with Iraq? Is it because of its fear of terrorism?

It's complete tit for tat on their end. Nothing substantial.

Island911 has a good point: this war will not end terrorism. To end it is almost impossible, because so much of what terrorism evolves from is an ideological mindset; i.e. religion, culture, longstanding economics where dollar-for-dollar disparity has been literally bred into generation after generation, etc.

Just a sidenote: I'm no saint on this board, but TargaDude - man - ease up on BeepBeep (Goran). As does he, you also make good arguments which are better put without calling anyone "moron."

The problem here is, 1. This is a serious subject, I will not take it lightly. 2. Me as an American will defend My country in anyway I can even if comes down to a war of words. 3. When Foriegners that don't even live here criticize my country and My Leader which I support, It is my duty as an American to defend them both. I will not appologize for this. I do know my facts and I will recite them if and when I feel it's appropriate. MORON is a term that I use for persons that I believe are anti american, Liberals, Leftwing Facists, and persons that don't know their facts.

I'm really a nice guy.. Just don't put my Country or my president down.

Jorge (Targa Dude):cool:

Liberals & Warfare
 

Wait a minute - wasn't the architect of our entrance into World War II a Liberal? I think the guy even CREATED the Welfare State and Big Government - his name was Franklin something?

And didn't some other guy from Missouri start us along the road to the Cold War? And didn't that Churchill guy introduce welfare to England with his buddy Llyod George while he was a Liberal?

Hmm, it's possible that those were good ideas then - ideas that kept Communism at bay and strengthened Constitutional Government here in America. Ideas that helped to heal the flaws of capitalism as it was then practiced. Evolution of a Society towards perfection - or at least a better life for one's children - The American Dream.

If these ideas are less than useful now - well - to try and legislate for the distant future is not what we're supposed to be doing. We're supposed to legislate as well as we can for OUR times, and then let the next generation discover and fix the errors we've made.

And what about the opposition in those times? Weren't those opposed to our fighting Hitler in the years before WWII Conservative Republicans & college students?

Wasn't Pat Buchanan the most representative of this wing of the Republicans just 10 years ago after the fall of the Soviets? Didn't he think that we could retreat to a Fortress America?

Yes, Liberals can be loony (Like Republican Teddy Roosevelt, I actually PREFER Yosemite without condos on El Capitan).

But the REAL reality is that Americans need to study history a bit more, and try to hide from its lessons a little bit less. That much is common to both parties.

The current vicious divide between Liberals and Conservatives is a four decades old fight between the Baby Boomers - almost none of whom on either side decided to fight in SE Asia.

I for one can't wait until that generation of politicians passes on to retirement. The whole country, IMHO, will be better off. They've never gotten over the battles of their formative years, and thus can't see the situation as clearly as those who went before and those who will come after them.

From what I've heard on TV, the French were trading in weapons with Iraq as little as three months ago. If that is true, it's appalling. After the Gulf War, I don't see much good reason to sell weapons to Saddam. I don't think any country has been totally clean, but the French should know better.

Jurgen

You did not hear correctly, Jurgen. Three months ago, spare parts for french helicopters and Mirage were smugled into Iraq by a company based in Saudi Arabia. The french government had nothing to do with it. I am getting tired of the permanent french bashing while Russia, China, Germany have also voiced similar positions (just to name a few).

Aurel

That is why I said "If that is true, it is appalling." I did not hear it over widespread news agencies, so I did not know if it was true. Now I know it was wrong, and I will not spread that rumor again.

There is no love between the French and Americans. Why try to hide it? :)

[arrogant american persona]Personally, I feel the US needs to stop trying to please everyone. Then China, Asia, and Europe would realize how badly they need us.[/arrogant american persona]

Jurgen

I beleive the americans hate the french just because they are jealous: they do not know how to cook correctly, have a crapy culture, no class, no castles, no history, wine with plastic caps, fat wives and the dumbest president on earth. It is a terrible complex of inferiority that brut military force or billions of dollars can do nothing about.

Now, flame on, people http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat5.gif

Aurel http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat3.gif

Brilliant, Aurel . . you've cracked the code. . .solved the american enigma. :rolleyes:

We *do* covet those snails. mmmm, chewy snot in garlic.
We *are* nervous that the popular french culture will displace the omnipresent english/american culture.
We too want your class system, so we to can holding people down for no reason.
Yes; our DisneyWorld castles are lacking those fly infestations that make your french castles "all the buzzz."
And clearly we want to trade our short proud history for frances doormat history.
We hide our heads in shame that our state-side wine production so dwarfs the french, that the cork production can't keep up.

Of course we also want follow the french marriage model of wives so hidious that every man has an excuss to find a dumb young mistress.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


So Aurel, what prompted your flame here? Did you figure Americans needed to be taken down a notch?

I was just researching evidence of an american sense of humor. This is a vital asset in times of war. Your reply was rather encouraging, Dr. Island. We are on the right pathhttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat6.gif

Aurel

A note on France's motivations:

From:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_france_rebuilding_iraq_2

Tom

And your point is ? The french did not bomb anyone to get these contracts. Halliburton has already been awarded $489M to rebuild Iraq oil fields

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm

This also tells a lot about america`s motivations...

Aurel

The same article mentions:

"Cheney divested himself of all interest in Halliburton, the largest U.S. oilfield services company, after the 2000 election"

Regardless, there are many motivations for this war, not just oil contracts. Talking about oil contracts, the France/Iraq deals (against U.N. resolutions that France supported) indirectly supply Saddam with money that would have funded the weapons that would be dropped on others. I guess as long as France is off the target list then that's alright?

An attempt at a little humor Aurel? Since you live in the U.S. I'll take your word on that it was totally tongue/cheek. I've been to France many times and lived in Europe for a year in the 80's and I can say that your comments are pretty close to the real setiment there. The sad thing about France is that they are universally unliked even by their neighbors. Our host Wayne commented about his less than pleasant visit to France and I have to say he has a point. After 5 trips to Paris I will no longer subject myself to the hassles that come with visiting that city. In Paris and most larger French cities the people are agressively rude and obnoxious, the celebrated food is below typical American standards (unless you want to drop $200+ on dinner, its plain flat out filthy as are the personal hygiene habits of its populous, and the street population (homeless and/or beggers) rule the public transport systems.

France has some real strengths however. The Normandy coast, Chomonix, Bordeaux and Cote-Du-Rhones are real jewels. Regardless of what you hear about wine, for super premium wine (first growth Bordeaux and Burgundy) California wineries still play second fiddle to the best France has to offer. However everyday wine ($30/bottle or less) California is king. The food in France is expensive and inferior to what you can find in the U.S. Sure we have some real ketchup lovers here but predominantly Americans eat better (quality and ...unfortunately quantity) than the typical French person.

I guess the comment that most offends me is the "crappy culture" comment. The U.S. represents a "melting pot" of the best the world has to offer. Positive cultural habits get picked up and integrated into society, less attractive ones fall to the wayside.

That it seems France's motivations on the UN Security Council have little to do with the interests of security, and everything to do with the interests of France.
Did you even read that article? It does not say Halliburton was awarded $489M. It says President Bush asked Congress for $489.3 million to cover the cost of repairing damage to Iraq's oil facilities. It also says the Halliburton is working on a "cost plus" basis, so they will only get paid for expenses plus a few small percentage fee ( 2-5%, according to this article)

And before you say something stupid about how the only reason they got the contract is because Vice President Cheney used to work there, that too is nonsense. They got the contract because they had extensive experience from the last time Sadam and his homies caused trouble, and they were the only company that could do the job on short notice.

The way things look at the moment, they might get nothing. So far only seven wells have been set fire, and a crew from Kuwait has already extinguished one. Depending on how much Saddam wants to buttf**k his people on his way down, that may be all there is.

As to the inferiority of American culture to that of France, I truly hope that our troops swing by Paris on the way home for some R&R. I imagine it would be refreshing for the french women to sleep with a winner for a change that doesn't call her Frauline. As a bonus, maybe they will leave behind some soap and deoderant, and the subversive idea that hairy pits on a woman are not sexy.

Tom

Great idea stud man. Why don't you be a big hero, go to an army disposal store and get yourself a used US army uniform (HEY - the Iraqi's did it so it can't be that hard). Then fly over there all dressed up and fresh from victory looking and try your luck in a bar somewhere in France?

Here's another idea: If pictures of your 20 year old Porsche don't impress them, tell them you are Michael Moore! He's american after all.

Hey dude, just ribbing you man. So seriously, when was the last time you f*cked a french bird anyway? Have you ever been within 100 yards of one of thier supposedly hairy armpits?

Wowzers! Does that mean when I have a craving for some good 'ol merkun' cuisine, I can cruze by a drive thru and order a Californian chardonnay, merlot, cabernet sauvignon or chablis instead of a watery coke to wash down my quarter pounder with?

Oh, hang on a minute, them's all Frenchy words - better start renaming your wine lists.