Weapons of Mass Destruction

[p_p_man]

I only took the time to c/p this one for you, pp.


http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/news/local/5461399.htm

Thanks...

All our lot seem to do is to sit in Iraqi cafes in London, moan about the cost of living and get interviewed on TV to say they support the war...

ppman

 

[sensational204]

Gunner, but what makes the Iraqi situation any less of a "regional" issue than North Korea? Saddam had shown no propensity for hostility toward anyone except for people in his region, or people who threatened his regime.

And how much more serious could the North Korea situation get before action is warranted? They already have at least 2 nuclear weapons, and within months they mayl have the capability to build more. They also have a much higher propensity to sell those weapons to malcontents than Iraq was, in that they need the money desperately and Iraq had nothing to gain by doing so.

 

[8ball]

Thanks...

All our lot seem to do is to sit in Iraqi cafes in London, moan about the cost of living and get interviewed on TV to say they support the war...

ppman

Your welcome.

It wasn't much, there is more out there and like Alvin said, it's been on the major networks.

 

[Linedrive]

Gunner, but what makes the Iraqi situation any less of a "regional" issue than North Korea? Saddam had shown no propensity for hostility toward anyone except for people in his region, or people who threatened his regime.

And how much more serious could the North Korea situation get before action is warranted? They already have at least 2 nuclear weapons, and within months they mayl have the capability to build more. They also have a much higher propensity to sell those weapons to malcontents than Iraq was, in that they need the money desperately and Iraq had nothing to gain by doing so.

Both of them are regional issues, North Korea is trying to turn the situation in Asia into a US-North Korea issue and it is not. There are too many other countries that have a stake in dealing with a militant North Korea, particularly South Korea and Japan.

The US could not take any military action right now if they wanted to, aside from bombing Pyongyong which would likely result in a massive invasion of South Korea and potential missle launches against Japan. The UN has discussed sanctions against them (We've been down this road before), but Kim Jong has indicated such an action would be a declaration of war.

In short, I don't know what the best way to go about handling this situation with North Korea is. They have a past history of rattling the cage to get some attention, and many believe that is what they are doing now. Is the world ready to accept a nuclear armed North Korea...? I don't know.

 

[patient1]

That's why there is no long term plan for occupation, only as long as it takes to establish security and begin help with the rebuilding of the country. What is so bad about the Iraqi people being able to decide who they really want for leadership...?

If they freely elect a Shiite Ayatolah, I'll accept it, in the name of democracy.

Somehow , I don't think it would fit with the Rumsfeld/ Wolfowitc/Pearle vision of the Middle east.

 

[crysede]

Hello, crysede...

I really don't think that the US would dare to use chemical weapons against the Iraqi's, that would be complete and total political suicide. Also for the reasons that the more well spoken and reasoned Gunner put forth...

I would disagree completely with you on your assertion that the US population would support an attack with chemical weapons. If the military were to use them, I believe there would be a massive reprisals against the Administration. I think this even if they were used against us first. Now, fewer people might be as upset, but, the majority would still be raising holy hell. The US has to take the high road for the sake of world opinion in Iraq. If we attempted to use chemical or bio weapons, the risk to the civilian population would be too great. Hell, we haven't even used the MOAB, that I know of anyway.

Hi

I think that a sufficiently angered American public could be brought on side for chemical strikes against Iraq, so long as the chemicals used did not result in any horrific visuals (blister agents would definitely be ruled out). I suspect that the majority of people do not view incapacitants as being real chemical weapons, and would not feel the sort of aversion to their use you describe.

The US military has already been actively lobbying for the military use of some common chemical agents because they would "save lives," despite the fact that this use would be in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention:

By Paul Elias, Associated Press (story ran in the Boston Globe on 3/3/2003)

SAN FRANCISCO - Army Major General David Grange is proud to have ordered his troops to use tear gas on hostile Serb crowds in Bosnia six years ago.

''We didn't kill anyone,'' said Grange, who is retired. ''It saved lives.'' His only complaint was that red tape prevented him from using tear gas more often.

The Pentagon is drafting guidelines under which US solders may use riot-control agents such as tear gas and pepper spray in Iraq to control prisoners and separate enemy soldiers from civilians, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last month.

However, soldiers who use ''nonlethal agents'' in combat outside their own countries are violating the very chemical weapons treaties the United States accuses Saddam Hussein of flouting. ''We are doing our best to live within the straitjacket that has been imposed on us on this subject,'' Rumsfeld said. ''We are trying to find ways that nonlethal agents could be used within the law.''

While countries may use nonlethal chemicals domestically for law enforcement and crowd control, the Chemical Weapons Convention that took force in 1997 and was ratified by 149 countries including The United States, specifies: ''Each state party undertakes not to use riot-control agents as a method of warfare.''

That provision was contested during the 15 years it took to craft the treaty. It arose as an objection to the United States' reliance on tear gas to flush out Viet Cong fighters and kill them during the Vietnam War. But the convention does allow riot-control agents to be used for ''law enforcement.'' Whether ''law enforcement'' extends beyond a nation's borders is a matter of debate. The issue will be discussed in April when the treaty comes up for international review in The Hague.

Weapons-control activists cite several reasons for banning nonlethal chemical weapons in war. They argue that the agents can kill when used in war environments. They could also put militaries on a slippery slope to using deadlier chemicals. Irritants such as tear gas and pepper spray are tame in comparison to other agents under development. The US military also has explored using mind-altering drugs such as opiates, along with genetically engineered microorganisms that can destroy objects such as runways, vehicles, and buildings.

 

[8ball]

Ok, when thinking of chemical weapons, I was thinking of nerve/blistering agents. Non-lethal, I haven't even thought about, honestly. I guess part of that is due to everyday exposure to the use of these, ie. tv, hollywood.
Following that, I really don't think of using non-lethal as a problem. In that article, he states that an arguement against this, is that in combat situations, they could kill, but, he doesn't say how. I am curious as to how, that might change my mind on use of non-lethal.

Of course, any use is already considered against the law and precludes my opinion on the matter.

 

[crysede]

I don't know what evidence the anti-chemical weapons groups were relying on. My guess would be that their claims might have something to do with the fact that long term stress has a significant impact on human physiology (making it much easier for agents to cross the blood-brain barrier, altering immune response, etc). On the other hand, they might have been talking about the fact that these chemical agents would be being used for the purpose of killing people (as with the use of tear gas in Vietnam).

At any rate, I think Saddam has some justification for wanting protective gear

 

[8ball]

At any rate, I think Saddam has some justification for wanting protective gear

Granted. The bigger question is, and the debate is, who would be using them on who, I think. Also, is it really just a propaganda ploy, or is it a means to slow down and scare the Coallition Forces. I still hold to the thought that the US and Coallition are so concerned about world opinion and the scrutiny of every move they make, that they are going to try and be as open and above board as possible.

 

[Prince Romeo]

Granted. The bigger question is, and the debate is, who would be using them on who, I think. Also, is it really just a propaganda ploy, or is it a means to slow down and scare the Coallition Forces. I still hold to the thought that the US and Coallition are so concerned about world opinion and the scrutiny of every move they make, that they are going to try and be as open and above board as possible.

The opinion part is the tricky bit. If the rest of the Arab nation took the view that Saddam was being picked on by the bullying American aggressor, then I wonder what difference that would make.

I also wonder what other UN nations that support the effort, particularly Great Britain, hope to gain from the effort. I wonder if is just because we (the US), plan on giving billions of dollars away to those who help us. I suppose each country has their own reasons.

 

[patient1]

Suppose we just pushed burning bales of marijuana out of airplanes over Bagdahd, then walked in with cases of Pop-tarts & disarmed them peacefully?

 

[miles]

Hey that's strange? Or is it. We were talking about that in the pub the other day:
ppman

Why is that the funniest thing I've read all week?

 

[crysede]

Suppose we just pushed burning bales of marijuana out of airplanes over Bagdahd, then walked in with cases of Pop-tarts & disarmed them peacefully?

As long as you made sure you dropped them 'accidentally', I suppose that wouldn't violate the Chemical Weapons Convention (although intentionally feeding them Pop-Tarts might )

 

[Skandalon]

Anthrax

Three weeks ago Iraqi officials showed inspectors a site where anthrax containers were destroyed after the 1991 conflict. They were planning to test the soil of this landfill to see if any genetic material can be recovered when time ran out. But anthrx is clumsy to spread and only can effect a local, exposed population.

The real pathogen to fear is smallpox, especially if it has been genetically modified. It spreads faster, older vacinated folks are no longer immune, and people are reacting violently to the new vaccine. We have a few liters of the pathogen to make the serum (which has been sitting since 1978 or so), but the old USSR germ warfare program had tens of thousands of liter of the stuff. Not all has been accounted for. Even "uncooked," smallpox killed 1,000,000,000 people between 1870 and 1970. I fear that more than anthrax (despite the fact I am one of the 1 out 100,000 people that actually have had cow pox).

 

[crazybbwgirl]

Suppose we just pushed burning bales of marijuana out of airplanes over Bagdahd, then walked in with cases of Pop-tarts & disarmed them peacefully?

You're NOT giving MY pot and poptarts away to the Iraqi's. I've been quiet enough about this stupid war. War sucks and we've opened a can of worms we will be dealing with for decades to come. I should at least get my pot and poptarts to help me deal with it!

 

[patient1]

You're NOT giving MY pot and poptarts away to the Iraqi's. I've been quiet enough about this stupid war. War sucks and we've opened a can of worms we will be dealing with for decades to come. I should at least get my pot and poptarts to help me deal with it!

You're right! We should use that strategy as crowd control in our cities, & save shipping costs. .

1st protester- "Dude! We're in the street & I can't remember why!"

2nd protester- " I don't care, man."

 

[alicinwonderland]

they could be hidden anywhere

 

[Guest]

i made a mistake the other day in this thread, i thought my prof said the UN inspectors seized anthrax from iraq...they didn't seize it, they're still looking (i'm a bit ADHD and sometimes "miss" parts of lectures as i tune in and out, lol)

anyway, here's a link about what's missing

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html