In an anti-U.S. thread like this, one can only wonder... where the hell is Ryo-Ohki?? Is he still alive? ... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--juice+Mar 2 2003, 11:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (juice @ Mar 2 2003, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In an anti-U.S. thread like this, one can only wonder... where the hell is Ryo-Ohki?? Is he still alive? ... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, dispite the title(which im starting to regret now), this is not practically anti-US thread. Its more like anti-bush(and his government) thread <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Of course, if you say Bush and his government represents USA, then we could also say that this is anti-USA thread.
Ontopic: Nems link to The Independents site was the one I was looking for, thanks. And I think Drifts argument about banning all kinds of chemicals is valid. Its a little different situation when two countries in war, use chemicals on each other, than it is when you are dealing with something in side you own country. And not to mention that those riots in Baghdad would be probably versus American invaders, not Saddam.
As a side note: I wonder what happened if Saddam would retire to North-Korea like proposed? Bush would be very disapointed for not having his war. Also I wonder what he would come up with to have an excuse to invade and "secure" Iraq dispite Saddam leaving the country.
I am guessing you are too young to remember the last time we were in Iraq. The only rioting that went on was open revolt against the Iraqi government in 17 out of the 18 provinces (you guessed it - not the one containing bagdahd, the only place where the iraq government still had complete control). Like all dictators, Saddam is feared and hated and wished by his own people to be removed. Like most dictators this is very very difficult for these people to do. There were no riots of people attacking americans the last time were there, and I rather doubt there wil be next time. You seem to think that people like living in that environment. It seems like a lot of people in the world could give a crap if the iraqi people are killed or oppressed or whatever as long as no one sends in the army and gives Saddam an excuse to burn the oil wells and cut off 80% of europe's petroleum supply. Which is really what french protest is about, given the massive stake of Total and Elf in the iraqi oil industry.
As for your arguments about banning chemicals, you need to explain better. What you said was basically 'it's ok if a country tear gasses its own people, but not others when they are war'. Either I'm not understanding you, or it's as silly as it sounds.
It's amazing how people need hardcore, ironclad, irrefutable evidence before they are even willing to <i>consider</i> the fact that Saddam has chemical weapons, but then will grasp at the any shred of evidence to level the same charge at the US.
So, if Colin Powell had just released to the UN that he had heard that Saddam had WOMD through 'the news', then presumably, that would be enough for you?
Edit: Yes, I <i>know</i> we have them . . . that's not my point. I'm just always amazed by how some people will let their high standards of proof slip in cases involving the US. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is so very very very very right the correctness of this statement brings tears to my eyes
Also MonsieurEvil, I would like to thank you for adding some balance to what could have been a very one sided discussion.
MonsE. I wasn't talking about the use of CS and other non-lethal gases against civilian targets. I was talking about using them against armed enemy forces i.e soldiers. That is the restriction every nation has to exercise when they go up against forces that potentially have access to actual chemical weapons. No room for misunderstandings there, so no use of any chemical agents.
Of course the use of knock-out agent isn't a crime against humanity like use of VX. Their use being prohibited in the field of war is a precaution. And of course use of tear gas is acceptable against civilian targets like mobs.
in recent months the governemnt of my country has done many things that are and were completely antithethetical to "FREEDOM AND JUSTICE FOR ALL"
these are examples of a disturbing pattern of government behavior to teh world
1) us supreme court rules that an forigen national has "no discernable rights" 2) the us governemnt refuses to sign international courts treaty 3) continued imprisonment of taliban soldiers in cuba in violation of their geneva convention rights 4) direct threats of withdrawl of us aid to un members who vote against the us on iraq the incedent occured immediately before the 1441 vote when my county's delagate asked teh security council to "remember yemen", refrencing teh first iraq war when yemen dared to vote against teh USofA and lost 70m$ in us aid immediately (as far as i know teh country still recives 0$ for us as a result though i may be wrong .. ill check)
yes i know i shouldnt be doing this with the fbi flying surveilence over my housereally they are <a href='http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/8/026019-6968-093.html' target='_blank'>http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/8/0...9-6968-093.html</a> www.fair.org- fairness and accuracy in news reporting www.publicintegrity.org www.fas.org and read assesments of any military around the world
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 3 2003, 12:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 3 2003, 12:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am guessing you are too young to remember the last time we were in Iraq. The only rioting that went on was open revolt against the Iraqi government in 17 out of the 18 provinces (you guessed it - not the one containing bagdahd, the only place where the iraq government still had complete control). Like all dictators, Saddam is feared and hated and wished by his own people to be removed. Like most dictators this is very very difficult for these people to do. There were no riots of people attacking americans the last time were there, and I rather doubt there wil be next time. You seem to think that people like living in that environment. It seems like a lot of people in the world could give a crap if the iraqi people are killed or oppressed or whatever as long as no one sends in the army and gives Saddam an excuse to burn the oil wells and cut off 80% of europe's petroleum supply. Which is really what french protest is about, given the massive stake of Total and Elf in the iraqi oil industry. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have to confess that I was too young to care about such incidents. However, I based my assumption on a fact, that during WW2 for example russians defended their land against germans, EVEN as they were horribly oppressed and executed by their leader.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for your arguments about banning chemicals, you need to explain better. What you said was basically 'it's ok if a country tear gasses its own people, but not others when they are war'. Either I'm not understanding you, or it's as silly as it sounds.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe I explained it badly. I meant, that if for example USA uses some sort of gasses to contain a riot, its a little different thing when you use it against another country. In USA against your OWN population, you make sure that they won't be harmed. When you are gassing your enemies people, you might care less about their condition, and accidentically or no, use a little stronger gas than needed(to make sure that no one will shoot your men). That might cause lives. Also, if you use chemicals(even if not lethal), enemy is going to response. And can you count on your enemy to use such non lethal chemicals aswell? Before you know it, there might be VX pouring from the sky.
That is the reason why all kinds of chemical weapons should be banned, just like nuclear weapons. You really can't draw a clear line between non-lethal and lethal chemicals, and that could easily lead in to use of deadly biological weapons. However, if everything is banned, there can't be mistakes about "whether we should use this or not?", because all chemical/biological weapons would be banned.
Well, I still don't understand. It's sort of like saying 'don't use rubber bullets against a rioting mob, because they will of course respond with real bullets.' What exactly are you supposed to use then, harsh language (barumm-ching)?
I kind of vaguely see what you're saying about the use against opposing armed forces. However, isn't it preferrable to disable a few hundred conscripted scared iraqi's in an outpost with tear gas then to drop clusterbombs on them? Isn't that the more humanitarian thing to do, to capture and defeat your enemies without causing massive casualties? Saying that an enemy' response to teargas is going to be VX nerve agents only makes sense if you accept the argument that shooting the enemy with an rubber bullets will invite reprisals with nuclear weapons.
I've been CS gassed many many times in training in a much more closed environment than a battlefield (they set off about 20 pellets in a room about the size of a toolshed, where you have hardly any air to breath at all, and your only overwhelming instinct is to get away right NOW), and no one is going to die from it, or even be incapacitated for more than 15 minutes. In fact, in 8 years in the Marine Corps we never once trained in deploying CS agents against anything but (waaaiittt for iiitttt), rioting mobs - which we did with some frequency in cuba during my stay there. Restraining agents are just not as useful on the battlefield, because a simple gas mask defeats them (as opposed to something like VX, which will eventually defeat your mask and MOPP gear and kill you horribly). I can sort of see driftwood's worries, but I can tell you from experience that you are never, ever going to confuse people being gassed by CS (snot running down your nose and your eyes blinded by tears) and VX (everyone lying dead drowned by blood in their lungs with massive hemoraging). Not even an idiot reporter could confuse the two.
Now, have we any respectable or verifiable links to this story come up on Reuters, AP, UP, or other less-biased news wires?
Update: I can't find any reference to the story at AP, reuters, yahoo news, cnn, or even NPR (and you know NPR would be all over it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
MonsE. I do realize that being teargased can't be mistaken for VX attack. I've been teargased once while I was serving my six months in the Finnish Army, but that was a child's play when compared to setting off 20 CS pellets in a closed room. It was a few pellets in a "half-team tent". It's not probable that a knock-out agent is mistaken for an actual chemical weapon being used, but there is always the chance of it happening. Especially in the heat of the battle, where reliable information can be hard to come by. Of course, certain situations make this less of an issue. It isn't very probable that US would use chemical weapons other than knock-out gases against Iraq, so the chance of misunderstanding isn't as large as it would be for example, if India and Pakistan were to duke it out.
The question about the disabling knock-out gas or a few clusterbombs is a tricky one. Naturally, it would be the humane thing to do to knock them out without killing them. With no chance of the whole thing backfiring, I would of course rather see the knock-out agent being used. Any chance of US informing about the possible use of non-lethal chemical weapons prior to the actual campaign? It would be giving out possible tactics, but gas strike is something soldiers prepare for anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not probable that a knock-out agent is mistaken for an actual chemical weapon being used, but there is always the chance of it happening. Especially in the heat of the battle, where reliable information can be hard to come by. Of course, certain situations make this less of an issue. It isn't very probable that US would use chemical weapons other than knock-out gases against Iraq, so the chance of misunderstanding isn't as large as it would be for example, if India and Pakistan were to duke it out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An excellent, excellent point, and where I was trying steer things. You are 100% correct that using the weapons has a risk from a pure rumour perspective to cause escallation. It's also a good point that it's unlikely to happen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The question about the disabling knock-out gas or a few clusterbombs is a tricky one. Naturally, it would be the humane thing to do to knock them out without killing them. With no chance of the whole thing backfiring, I would of course rather see the knock-out agent being used. Any chance of US informing about the possible use of non-lethal chemical weapons prior to the actual campaign? It would be giving out possible tactics, but gas strike is something soldiers prepare for anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a good point too. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), chemical agents operate at their worst possible effectiveness in a desert environment. The extreme heat during the day, cold during the night, lack of foliage to cling too, and high changing winds means that you have to deploy MASSIVE quantities of gas in a small area for them to be effective. Basically, you'd need a mass artillery barrage or aerial spray-delivered attack that truly saturated an area. And even then the effectiveness would be very low mere minutes later. So using CS grenades would only work on a really small scale, but luckily VX and other agents won't work on a very large scale either... Based on how the US Armed forces work, there is really no way for Iraq's army to mass enough firepower in one place to get that much chemical ordinance massed together without it being immediately destroyed as it assembled. That's why I get so irritated at talking heads on the news that know nothing about chemical warfare saying that coalition forces would be devastated by iraqi VX. Chemical weapons really don't work well in that area, which is why Saddam has spent 20+ years trying to make nukes instead (yes, 20+ years - remember when the Israelis bombed the Osirak nuclear plant in Bahgdad in 1981?).
I agree on the 2 pellets in a tent <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. Although, I spent a month as an NBC trainer, and I got to the point that I could walk around in the CS chamber without a mask on and get hardly any ill effects. You actually build up an immunity to it.
ps: That nuclear plant? Built by the peace-loving French government. As a matter of fact, the fun-loving axis of evil nations owe all their nukes to current european members of the UN security council, as the Iranian Bushehr plant was built for them by Germany, and the North Korean 5(!!!) reactors were all made by the Soviets, now Russians. Thanks guys!!!
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 3 2003, 05:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 3 2003, 05:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As a matter of fact, the fun-loving axis of evil nations owe all their nukes to current european members of the UN security council, as the Iranian Bushehr plant was built for them by Germany, and the North Korean 5(!!!) reactors were all made by the Soviets, now Russians. Thanks guys!!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your welcome <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Actually, I don't have problem North-Koreans having nuclear weapons. Why should everyone else have them, but not N-Koreans? You must show example to other countries before you can expect them to throw their nukes away.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, I don't have problem North-Koreans having nuclear weapons. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You <i>might</i> want to read up on them a bit, then.
Considering how critical you are of the US gov't . . . these lunatics make them look like the March of Dimes.
I mean, I think we might actually coax a 'Hell, ya' out of Nem on this one . . .
That's not how it works. That country signed a treaty pledging not to make nuclear weapons, along with many others. Now they have backed out of it. They are also specifically threatening to use them. By they, I mean their wacko cult of power dictatorship. Allowing a crazy rogue nation with no mandate from its people to have nuclear weapons and then talk about how their latest missiles can hit Japan or the US, after they specifically said they would not make weapons, and on that good faith we supplied them with alternative enery sources is bad. Bad bad bad. How would you feel if you were south korea, and your neighboor (who constantly threatens you, sends special forces on raids in your country, drops off assasins via submarine, and utterly wiped out your country 47 years ago) said:
"Yep, we've got nukes. Gonna use them on you too. Just wait, they're almost ready. Then you're going bye bye".
There's no way to un-invent weapons - you can only control their spread. But all non-scumbag countries around the world have been (slowly) decommisioning nuclear weapons for years. The USA, former USSR (and its former republics), South Africa, etc. have all been working for two decades now to dismantle and remove as much of their offensive nukes as they can.
Anyways (to get this back on topic) - has anyone found any reputable reporting on this original topic? AP, Reuters, anyone? If not, I'm going to call ****.
To add something else to the argument regarding other nations having nuclear weapons, I think it's necessary to understand how nuclear defenses work. It's all based on deterrence. We have nuclear weapons so that other nations won't bomb the crap out of us and get nothing in return. Nuclear weapon stockpiling is a balance of "I won't fire mine if you won't fire yours." This works because a nuclear attack is detected before it hits, in time for the nation getting attacked to launch a large nuclear strike of its own.
I don't have a problem with nations reserving rights to their own sovereignty and to the capability of defending themselves. The problem lies in situations where deterrence doesn't work: in situations where nations can say "I don't care if you fire yours, I'm firing mine." These situations exist often in dictatorships, because a single man can be desperate enough and not care enough about his people's lives or his nation's future; he could say, "I'm going out with a bang." There is nothing to stop him. And if you think we have effective in-flight anti-nuclear weapons defenses, you're wrong.
This is the type of non-deterrence situation that exists with Iraq and North Korea. The reason we don't want Iraq to get nuclear weapons is simply because we have no defense against them. We are powerless when the person ordering the nuclear strike doesn't give a damn about the consequences. Of course, the U.S. is lucky enough to currently be out of range of a nuclear attack from Iraq, if they were to possess a nuke. But there's nothing to stop Saddam from using it on other prime targets, like Israel, which is within Iraq's range capabilities.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 4 2003, 12:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 4 2003, 12:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's not how it works. That country signed a treaty pledging not to make nuclear weapons, along with many others. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't USA backing out of the treaty where you weren't supposed to research nuclear-shield-thingies?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are also specifically threatening to use them. By they, I mean their wacko cult of power dictatorship. Allowing a crazy rogue nation with no mandate from its people to have nuclear weapons and then talk about how their latest missiles can hit Japan or the US, after they specifically said they would not make weapons, and on that good faith we supplied them with alternative enery sources is bad. Bad bad bad. How would you feel if you were south korea, and your neighboor (who constantly threatens you, sends special forces on raids in your country, drops off assasins via submarine, and utterly wiped out your country 47 years ago) said:
"Yep, we've got nukes. Gonna use them on you too. Just wait, they're almost ready. Then you're going bye bye". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought they said something about "defencive Nuclear weapons"? Which they wouldn't use unless they would be attacked? Which isn't actually very bad move concidering there is someone pretty aggressive sitting in the white house.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There's no way to un-invent weapons - you can only control their spread. But all non-scumbag countries around the world have been (slowly) decommisioning nuclear weapons for years. The USA, former USSR (and its former republics), South Africa, etc. have all been working for two decades now to dismantle and remove as much of their offensive nukes as they can.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, so THATS why USA is producing new mini-nukes, now I understand!
Wait, I don't <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ontopic: No I haven't seen anything related to these things, except I was pretty sure they said in the news something like "UK is worried of USA moving chemical weapons to Iraq borders". So i think there is a fair chance of that being true. Then about that phone bugging/e-mail reading, well about that I don't know. Maybe I've been watching too much X-Files? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well, here is what I've managed to find on the UN spying thing:
<a href='http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/855579/posts' target='_blank'>Spy Link 1</a> <a href='http://index.hu/politika/kulfold/nsa0303/' target='_blank'>Spy Link 2 (Language?)</a> <a href='http://www.lenta.ru/world/2003/03/03/spelling/' target='_blank'>Spy Link 3 (Russian Characters?)</a> <a href='http://www.mwaw.org/article.php?sid=2053' target='_blank'>Spy Link 4</a> <a href='http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/14303/1.html' target='_blank'>Spy Link 5 (Language?)</a> <a href='http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2003-March/025458.html' target='_blank'>Spy Link 6 (not easy on the eyes)</a> <a href='http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2003/03/03/362969.html' target='_blank'>Spy Link 7 (Language?)</a> <a href='http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/02/1046540068572.html' target='_blank'>Spy Link 8</a> <a href='http://www.islamonline.net/english/News/2003-03/02/article04.shtml' target='_blank'>Spy Link 9</a>
And, here is what I've managed to find on the US CS thing:
<a href='http://www.mwaw.org/article.php?sid=2054&mode=thread&order=0' target='_blank'>CS Link 1</a> <a href='http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=383006' target='_blank'>CS Link 2</a>
Well, this was some of what I was able to turn up with a google search, and while not all of it is in english, all of it has the words UN, Frank Koza, and The Observer in it, and I was hoping that others out there might be able to find something in these articles that I couldn't because I only read english (since I'm a daft bugger at languages). I wasn't able to turn up much on the CS riot gas in Iraq thing, but maybe (and hopefully) someone else who visits these discussions will.
Regarding US spying on UN:
The general impression I get is that all of these places site The Observer as their only source, so it seems to me all these places are relying on that the The Observer got it right with their sources - all nameless, faceless individuals - and that the supposed email was not faked. I also found it interesting that the story was leaked supposedly by someone in the US to a media source outside the US, specifically the United Kingdom, the US's strongest ally against Iraq. That people against the war and against the USA, let alone its foreign affairs policies, would gobble this up as fast as possible is little surprise, but I didn't find it on any of the North American news media, other than personal editorial sites. That compels me to draw that there are two reasons for this: information black out in North America (Big Brother - 1984?) or that the story has little credibility here with North American news media. Regardless of wether it is true or not, it is just another bit of blemish on American international image, which US enemies would seem to have the most to gain from. I would seriously have to consider that this is just a bunch of "dis-information" that people wanted to buy into.
Regarding the CS gas with US military:
I didn't find much, so I don't really know how I can draw any conclusions that aren't based on a narrow view with this specific news byte. I try to see as many view points as possible so I get an idea about who has the most egg on their face or who doesn't have a leg left to stand on, if you know what I mean. So, other than the two links I found on that, I did find this older new byte about some CS gas and the US military. Here are two links:
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/21/pentagon.tailwind.report/index.html' target='_blank'>DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS</a> <a href='http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/21/pentagon.tailwind.02/index.html' target='_blank'>No nerve gas used in Operation Tailwind</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--*Dread*+Mar 4 2003, 09:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (*Dread* @ Mar 4 2003, 09:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Isn't USA backing out of the treaty where you weren't supposed to research nuclear-shield-thingies? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, technically, we did not renew a treaty (the ABM treaty with the Russians/Soviets from the 70's). The only reason we have started to spend a ton of money on this silly nuclear defense shield is because it is designed to thwart attacks by small-scale ballistic missile attack. It is not designed to stop a full-scale 10,000 warhead strike by the soviets, but instead the handful of nukes that a China, Korea, etc. could fire at our west coast (note that this is where the shield is being deployed initially).
If these shytebirds in NK weren't pushing the issue of making their 3 nuclear missiles, it would not be necessary and my taxes could be spent on more intelligent projects. The problem is now that we can no longer afford to rely on deterrrence with nukes, becuase you're (like juice said so well) dealing with a real, normal government. You're dealing with insulated dictators who have proven endlessly that in order to preserve their own power they will allow anything (or cause anything) to happen their own people. Kim il Jung from NK let 15 million people starve to death in the last 3 years in his country rather than accept western food aid, to prove a point that he wanted less restrictions on it. Saddam has killed who knows how many people in order to maintain his control of the country, and even now when most of the world tells him that if he simply abdicates and leaves iraq, there will likely be no war, he says 'bring it on - I've got plenty of troops to sacrifice'.
It's entirely naive to apply your own societal rules of protection under law, freedom of speech, and any other civilized behavior when dealing with a country run by a totalitarian dictator.
And for the LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY please stop dragging this off-topic. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Missile shields and such are another topic for discussion. This topic is about bad journalism that was portrayed as fact by the Observer. I would submit that since the BBC, Reuters, and other UK outlets have not picked it up either (to that point on the US outlets), that it has turned out to be a hoax, and the Observer (in true media jerk fashion) will simply stop talking about the story rather than retracting it. Because that's what journalists do.
So I think we can fairly say that Dread owes us all an apology for starting this long series of uncorroberated yellow journalism... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> J/K man, it was an interesting topic, and hopefully you all learned something about how chemical warfare works, rather than relying on the idiots you see on TV.
OK....if we're planning to use CS or Tear gas (basically the same), or pepper spray what is everyone complaining about? If Iraq plans to drag us into an urban warfare situation, we'll do whatever we can to prevent casualties on both ends. We don't want our boys dying, we don't want the Iraqi civilians dying, and no we don't even want the Iraqi <b>military</b> dying - we just want them to stand down...but we will do what we have to do. This isn't vietnam, we are not using Agent Orange.
I tell you this, I'd rather be shelled with CS or Pepper gas canisters than High Explosive rounds, how about you? You can stop those with a simple air filter or gas mask, but you are not going to stop HEAP (High Explosive Anti Personnel) rounds from a 155mm Howitzer.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, I don't have problem North-Koreans having nuclear weapons. Why should everyone else have them, but not N-Koreans? You must show example to other countries before you can expect them to throw their nukes away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because they're commies. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> We would have liked to stop China from getting them, but they coerced the Soviet Union into dishing out the technology.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was pretty sure they said in the news something like "UK is worried of USA moving chemical weapons to Iraq borders". So i think there is a fair chance of that being true.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you ignorant Americans, always with your CNN, believing <i>everything</i> they say! You are sheep! Your media lies to you! Our distractedly overheard, possibly imagined news sources shed the <b>true</b> light on your corruption!
[Edit]: Also, notice how we've moved from: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also I saw in the news something about USA moving chemical weapons(these are not allowed in modern war) to Iraq borders.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->UK is <b>worried</b> of USA moving chemical weapons to Iraq borders<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US media isn't the only outlet out there subject to sensationalism . . . the above is an example of a meaningless headline that <i>sounds</i> important and scary. I'm sure the UK is also worried that we would bring nukes, napalm, or David Hasslehoff to the front. Does that mean there's any shred of evidence that we might, or any purpose to our doing so?
MonSe: I thought you started that project BEFORE NK started their Nuclear Missile production? Ok, don't answer. And im not the only one to blame for dragging this offtopic if you check your own replies <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
All in all, I enjoyed this discussion a lot. I hope I didn't insult anyone and no one took this debate too seriously(just making sure MonSe won't stalk me in the bushes and beat me with a big stick when I take my trashes out) <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sure the UK is also worried that we would bring nukes, napalm, or <b>David Hasslehoff</b> to the front<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe he is specifically prohibited by the Geneva convention. We don't want war crimes, naturally... ^_^
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I thought you started that project BEFORE NK started their Nuclear Missile production? Ok, don't answer. And im not the only one to blame for dragging this offtopic if you check your own replies <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm just as guilty of off-topicity, I admit it. Also, you may be thinking of the Reagan-era 'star wars' program that was researched and later discarded as technologically impractical, for the times.
<!--QuoteBegin--*Dread*+Mar 2 2003, 04:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (*Dread* @ Mar 2 2003, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html' target='_blank'>Observer</a> tells on their web site, that USA is planning on bugging other UN delegates phones and read their e-mails.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer. The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also I saw in the news something about USA moving chemical weapons(these are not allowed in modern war) to Iraq borders.
I don't know what to say <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> If this all is true, USA has clearly no respect for any mutual agreements, laws and other countries, not even for their "allies". I say kick them out of the UN and put G.W Bush charged for his crimes, that is, if this all is true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The memo is credible! If we ignore...
-British Spelling of words like favorite (favourite), recognize (recognise) -Dated in a European format (dd/mm/yy), not American (mm/dd/yy) -Use of a non-exsistant security clearance in the header. -Inconsistent reference to a contact (Koza/Kozu)...
Also, the Observer can hardly be described as 'Fair and Balanced', as they have the strongest Anti-American voice of legitimate British papers.
And thanks for bringing up Europe Monse. I've said that for a while.
WHY THE MIDDLE EAST IS A CESSPOOL AND WHY EUROPE SUCKS, FOR DUMMIES -Europe, AKA Western Civ, took over Middle East, divided it up, and sucked it dry of autonomy. -Islamic doctrine states that if they follow Allah, they'll rule the world. -When Europe finally left the Middle East after WWII, Islamic states realized they were in a crappy position. -Hence, birth of fundamentalism. -America takes over as the leader of Western Civ, Europe feels guilty over its past actions and grows increasingly Anti-Western Civ. -Islamic radicals realize that Western Civ is responsible for their homes being crapholes. -Europe has ignored any responsibility to those it hurt and attacked the heir of Western Civ, The US, rather then the countries of Western Civ that propagated.
And thats why the Middle East hates us and Europe is the mother of all hypocrites.
Oh, and it doesn't help Europe's case that they have totally ignored the debt they owe the US. We saved them from Imperialist Germany, Nazis, Facists, Communism. Without the thousands of Americans who gave their lives for YOUR soverignty, you'd all be part of the Third Reich or the USSR. And after saving your incompetent butts, we expend tremendous resources to keep you afloat. Remeber the Marshall plan? You don't act like it.
Damn son! Brings a tear to my eye. Well said, even if it will cause a massive flamewar and destroy the forums as we know them. I have to agree on your points...
I'm going to lock this one, and if anyone wants to start a new topic of: 'Why the mideast is so effing screwed up' (or 'How colonialist powermongers became hypocrites in 20 short years'), please feel free to do so.
Comments
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, dispite the title(which im starting to regret now), this is not practically anti-US thread. Its more like anti-bush(and his government) thread <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Of course, if you say Bush and his government represents USA, then we could also say that this is anti-USA thread.
Ontopic: Nems link to The Independents site was the one I was looking for, thanks. And I think Drifts argument about banning all kinds of chemicals is valid. Its a little different situation when two countries in war, use chemicals on each other, than it is when you are dealing with something in side you own country. And not to mention that those riots in Baghdad would be probably versus American invaders, not Saddam.
As a side note: I wonder what happened if Saddam would retire to North-Korea like proposed? Bush would be very disapointed for not having his war. Also I wonder what he would come up with to have an excuse to invade and "secure" Iraq dispite Saddam leaving the country.
As for your arguments about banning chemicals, you need to explain better. What you said was basically 'it's ok if a country tear gasses its own people, but not others when they are war'. Either I'm not understanding you, or it's as silly as it sounds.
It's amazing how people need hardcore, ironclad, irrefutable evidence before they are even willing to <i>consider</i> the fact that Saddam has chemical weapons, but then will grasp at the any shred of evidence to level the same charge at the US.
So, if Colin Powell had just released to the UN that he had heard that Saddam had WOMD through 'the news', then presumably, that would be enough for you?
Edit: Yes, I <i>know</i> we have them . . . that's not my point. I'm just always amazed by how some people will let their high standards of proof slip in cases involving the US. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is so very very very very right the correctness of this statement brings tears to my eyes
Also MonsieurEvil, I would like to thank you for adding some balance to what could have been a very one sided discussion.
Of course the use of knock-out agent isn't a crime against humanity like use of VX. Their use being prohibited in the field of war is a precaution. And of course use of tear gas is acceptable against civilian targets like mobs.
done many things that are and were completely antithethetical to "FREEDOM AND JUSTICE FOR ALL"
these are examples of a disturbing pattern of government behavior to teh world
1) us supreme court rules that an forigen national has "no discernable rights"
2) the us governemnt refuses to sign international courts treaty
3) continued imprisonment of taliban soldiers in cuba in violation of their geneva convention rights
4) direct threats of withdrawl of us aid to un members who vote against the us on iraq
the incedent occured immediately before the 1441 vote when my county's delagate
asked teh security council to "remember yemen", refrencing teh first iraq war when
yemen dared to vote against teh USofA and lost 70m$ in us aid immediately
(as far as i know teh country still recives 0$ for us as a result though i may be wrong .. ill check)
yes i know i shouldnt be doing this with the fbi flying surveilence over my housereally they are
<a href='http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/8/026019-6968-093.html' target='_blank'>http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/8/0...9-6968-093.html</a>
www.fair.org- fairness and accuracy in news reporting
www.publicintegrity.org
www.fas.org and read assesments of any military around the world
I have to confess that I was too young to care about such incidents. However, I based my assumption on a fact, that during WW2 for example russians defended their land against germans, EVEN as they were horribly oppressed and executed by their leader.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for your arguments about banning chemicals, you need to explain better. What you said was basically 'it's ok if a country tear gasses its own people, but not others when they are war'. Either I'm not understanding you, or it's as silly as it sounds.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe I explained it badly. I meant, that if for example USA uses some sort of gasses to contain a riot, its a little different thing when you use it against another country. In USA against your OWN population, you make sure that they won't be harmed. When you are gassing your enemies people, you might care less about their condition, and accidentically or no, use a little stronger gas than needed(to make sure that no one will shoot your men). That might cause lives. Also, if you use chemicals(even if not lethal), enemy is going to response. And can you count on your enemy to use such non lethal chemicals aswell? Before you know it, there might be VX pouring from the sky.
That is the reason why all kinds of chemical weapons should be banned, just like nuclear weapons. You really can't draw a clear line between non-lethal and lethal chemicals, and that could easily lead in to use of deadly biological weapons. However, if everything is banned, there can't be mistakes about "whether we should use this or not?", because all chemical/biological weapons would be banned.
I kind of vaguely see what you're saying about the use against opposing armed forces. However, isn't it preferrable to disable a few hundred conscripted scared iraqi's in an outpost with tear gas then to drop clusterbombs on them? Isn't that the more humanitarian thing to do, to capture and defeat your enemies without causing massive casualties? Saying that an enemy' response to teargas is going to be VX nerve agents only makes sense if you accept the argument that shooting the enemy with an rubber bullets will invite reprisals with nuclear weapons.
I've been CS gassed many many times in training in a much more closed environment than a battlefield (they set off about 20 pellets in a room about the size of a toolshed, where you have hardly any air to breath at all, and your only overwhelming instinct is to get away right NOW), and no one is going to die from it, or even be incapacitated for more than 15 minutes. In fact, in 8 years in the Marine Corps we never once trained in deploying CS agents against anything but (waaaiittt for iiitttt), rioting mobs - which we did with some frequency in cuba during my stay there. Restraining agents are just not as useful on the battlefield, because a simple gas mask defeats them (as opposed to something like VX, which will eventually defeat your mask and MOPP gear and kill you horribly). I can sort of see driftwood's worries, but I can tell you from experience that you are never, ever going to confuse people being gassed by CS (snot running down your nose and your eyes blinded by tears) and VX (everyone lying dead drowned by blood in their lungs with massive hemoraging). Not even an idiot reporter could confuse the two.
Now, have we any respectable or verifiable links to this story come up on Reuters, AP, UP, or other less-biased news wires?
The question about the disabling knock-out gas or a few clusterbombs is a tricky one. Naturally, it would be the humane thing to do to knock them out without killing them. With no chance of the whole thing backfiring, I would of course rather see the knock-out agent being used. Any chance of US informing about the possible use of non-lethal chemical weapons prior to the actual campaign? It would be giving out possible tactics, but gas strike is something soldiers prepare for anyway.
An excellent, excellent point, and where I was trying steer things. You are 100% correct that using the weapons has a risk from a pure rumour perspective to cause escallation. It's also a good point that it's unlikely to happen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The question about the disabling knock-out gas or a few clusterbombs is a tricky one. Naturally, it would be the humane thing to do to knock them out without killing them. With no chance of the whole thing backfiring, I would of course rather see the knock-out agent being used. Any chance of US informing about the possible use of non-lethal chemical weapons prior to the actual campaign? It would be giving out possible tactics, but gas strike is something soldiers prepare for anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a good point too. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), chemical agents operate at their worst possible effectiveness in a desert environment. The extreme heat during the day, cold during the night, lack of foliage to cling too, and high changing winds means that you have to deploy MASSIVE quantities of gas in a small area for them to be effective. Basically, you'd need a mass artillery barrage or aerial spray-delivered attack that truly saturated an area. And even then the effectiveness would be very low mere minutes later. So using CS grenades would only work on a really small scale, but luckily VX and other agents won't work on a very large scale either... Based on how the US Armed forces work, there is really no way for Iraq's army to mass enough firepower in one place to get that much chemical ordinance massed together without it being immediately destroyed as it assembled. That's why I get so irritated at talking heads on the news that know nothing about chemical warfare saying that coalition forces would be devastated by iraqi VX. Chemical weapons really don't work well in that area, which is why Saddam has spent 20+ years trying to make nukes instead (yes, 20+ years - remember when the Israelis bombed the Osirak nuclear plant in Bahgdad in 1981?).
I agree on the 2 pellets in a tent <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->. Although, I spent a month as an NBC trainer, and I got to the point that I could walk around in the CS chamber without a mask on and get hardly any ill effects. You actually build up an immunity to it.
ps: That nuclear plant? Built by the peace-loving French government. As a matter of fact, the fun-loving axis of evil nations owe all their nukes to current european members of the UN security council, as the Iranian Bushehr plant was built for them by Germany, and the North Korean 5(!!!) reactors were all made by the Soviets, now Russians. Thanks guys!!!
Your welcome <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Actually, I don't have problem North-Koreans having nuclear weapons. Why should everyone else have them, but not N-Koreans? You must show example to other countries before you can expect them to throw their nukes away.
You <i>might</i> want to read up on them a bit, then.
Considering how critical you are of the US gov't . . . these lunatics make them look like the March of Dimes.
I mean, I think we might actually coax a 'Hell, ya' out of Nem on this one . . .
"Yep, we've got nukes. Gonna use them on you too. Just wait, they're almost ready. Then you're going bye bye".
There's no way to un-invent weapons - you can only control their spread. But all non-scumbag countries around the world have been (slowly) decommisioning nuclear weapons for years. The USA, former USSR (and its former republics), South Africa, etc. have all been working for two decades now to dismantle and remove as much of their offensive nukes as they can.
I don't have a problem with nations reserving rights to their own sovereignty and to the capability of defending themselves. The problem lies in situations where deterrence doesn't work: in situations where nations can say "I don't care if you fire yours, I'm firing mine." These situations exist often in dictatorships, because a single man can be desperate enough and not care enough about his people's lives or his nation's future; he could say, "I'm going out with a bang." There is nothing to stop him. And if you think we have effective in-flight anti-nuclear weapons defenses, you're wrong.
This is the type of non-deterrence situation that exists with Iraq and North Korea. The reason we don't want Iraq to get nuclear weapons is simply because we have no defense against them. We are powerless when the person ordering the nuclear strike doesn't give a damn about the consequences. Of course, the U.S. is lucky enough to currently be out of range of a nuclear attack from Iraq, if they were to possess a nuke. But there's nothing to stop Saddam from using it on other prime targets, like Israel, which is within Iraq's range capabilities.
Isn't USA backing out of the treaty where you weren't supposed to research nuclear-shield-thingies?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are also specifically threatening to use them. By they, I mean their wacko cult of power dictatorship. Allowing a crazy rogue nation with no mandate from its people to have nuclear weapons and then talk about how their latest missiles can hit Japan or the US, after they specifically said they would not make weapons, and on that good faith we supplied them with alternative enery sources is bad. Bad bad bad. How would you feel if you were south korea, and your neighboor (who constantly threatens you, sends special forces on raids in your country, drops off assasins via submarine, and utterly wiped out your country 47 years ago) said:
"Yep, we've got nukes. Gonna use them on you too. Just wait, they're almost ready. Then you're going bye bye". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought they said something about "defencive Nuclear weapons"? Which they wouldn't use unless they would be attacked? Which isn't actually very bad move concidering there is someone pretty aggressive sitting in the white house.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There's no way to un-invent weapons - you can only control their spread. But all non-scumbag countries around the world have been (slowly) decommisioning nuclear weapons for years. The USA, former USSR (and its former republics), South Africa, etc. have all been working for two decades now to dismantle and remove as much of their offensive nukes as they can.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, so THATS why USA is producing new mini-nukes, now I understand!
Wait, I don't <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ontopic:
No I haven't seen anything related to these things, except I was pretty sure they said in the news something like "UK is worried of USA moving chemical weapons to Iraq borders". So i think there is a fair chance of that being true. Then about that phone bugging/e-mail reading, well about that I don't know. Maybe I've been watching too much X-Files? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/855579/posts' target='_blank'>Spy Link 1</a>
<a href='http://index.hu/politika/kulfold/nsa0303/' target='_blank'>Spy Link 2 (Language?)</a>
<a href='http://www.lenta.ru/world/2003/03/03/spelling/' target='_blank'>Spy Link 3 (Russian Characters?)</a>
<a href='http://www.mwaw.org/article.php?sid=2053' target='_blank'>Spy Link 4</a>
<a href='http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/14303/1.html' target='_blank'>Spy Link 5 (Language?)</a>
<a href='http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2003-March/025458.html' target='_blank'>Spy Link 6 (not easy on the eyes)</a>
<a href='http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2003/03/03/362969.html' target='_blank'>Spy Link 7 (Language?)</a>
<a href='http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/02/1046540068572.html' target='_blank'>Spy Link 8</a>
<a href='http://www.islamonline.net/english/News/2003-03/02/article04.shtml' target='_blank'>Spy Link 9</a>
And, here is what I've managed to find on the US CS thing:
<a href='http://www.mwaw.org/article.php?sid=2054&mode=thread&order=0' target='_blank'>CS Link 1</a>
<a href='http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=383006' target='_blank'>CS Link 2</a>
Well, this was some of what I was able to turn up with a google search, and while not all of it is in english, all of it has the words UN, Frank Koza, and The Observer in it, and I was hoping that others out there might be able to find something in these articles that I couldn't because I only read english (since I'm a daft bugger at languages). I wasn't able to turn up much on the CS riot gas in Iraq thing, but maybe (and hopefully) someone else who visits these discussions will.
Regarding US spying on UN:
The general impression I get is that all of these places site The Observer as their only source, so it seems to me all these places are relying on that the The Observer got it right with their sources - all nameless, faceless individuals - and that the supposed email was not faked. I also found it interesting that the story was leaked supposedly by someone in the US to a media source outside the US, specifically the United Kingdom, the US's strongest ally against Iraq. That people against the war and against the USA, let alone its foreign affairs policies, would gobble this up as fast as possible is little surprise, but I didn't find it on any of the North American news media, other than personal editorial sites. That compels me to draw that there are two reasons for this: information black out in North America (Big Brother - 1984?) or that the story has little credibility here with North American news media. Regardless of wether it is true or not, it is just another bit of blemish on American international image, which US enemies would seem to have the most to gain from. I would seriously have to consider that this is just a bunch of "dis-information" that people wanted to buy into.
Regarding the CS gas with US military:
I didn't find much, so I don't really know how I can draw any conclusions that aren't based on a narrow view with this specific news byte. I try to see as many view points as possible so I get an idea about who has the most egg on their face or who doesn't have a leg left to stand on, if you know what I mean. So, other than the two links I found on that, I did find this older new byte about some CS gas and the US military. Here are two links:
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/21/pentagon.tailwind.report/index.html' target='_blank'>DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS</a>
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/21/pentagon.tailwind.02/index.html' target='_blank'>No nerve gas used in Operation Tailwind</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, technically, we did not renew a treaty (the ABM treaty with the Russians/Soviets from the 70's). The only reason we have started to spend a ton of money on this silly nuclear defense shield is because it is designed to thwart attacks by small-scale ballistic missile attack. It is not designed to stop a full-scale 10,000 warhead strike by the soviets, but instead the handful of nukes that a China, Korea, etc. could fire at our west coast (note that this is where the shield is being deployed initially).
If these shytebirds in NK weren't pushing the issue of making their 3 nuclear missiles, it would not be necessary and my taxes could be spent on more intelligent projects. The problem is now that we can no longer afford to rely on deterrrence with nukes, becuase you're (like juice said so well) dealing with a real, normal government. You're dealing with insulated dictators who have proven endlessly that in order to preserve their own power they will allow anything (or cause anything) to happen their own people. Kim il Jung from NK let 15 million people starve to death in the last 3 years in his country rather than accept western food aid, to prove a point that he wanted less restrictions on it. Saddam has killed who knows how many people in order to maintain his control of the country, and even now when most of the world tells him that if he simply abdicates and leaves iraq, there will likely be no war, he says 'bring it on - I've got plenty of troops to sacrifice'.
It's entirely naive to apply your own societal rules of protection under law, freedom of speech, and any other civilized behavior when dealing with a country run by a totalitarian dictator.
And for the LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY please stop dragging this off-topic. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Missile shields and such are another topic for discussion. This topic is about bad journalism that was portrayed as fact by the Observer. I would submit that since the BBC, Reuters, and other UK outlets have not picked it up either (to that point on the US outlets), that it has turned out to be a hoax, and the Observer (in true media jerk fashion) will simply stop talking about the story rather than retracting it. Because that's what journalists do.
So I think we can fairly say that Dread owes us all an apology for starting this long series of uncorroberated yellow journalism... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> J/K man, it was an interesting topic, and hopefully you all learned something about how chemical warfare works, rather than relying on the idiots you see on TV.
I tell you this, I'd rather be shelled with CS or Pepper gas canisters than High Explosive rounds, how about you? You can stop those with a simple air filter or gas mask, but you are not going to stop HEAP (High Explosive Anti Personnel) rounds from a 155mm Howitzer.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, I don't have problem North-Koreans having nuclear weapons. Why should everyone else have them, but not N-Koreans? You must show example to other countries before you can expect them to throw their nukes away. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because they're commies. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> We would have liked to stop China from getting them, but they coerced the Soviet Union into dishing out the technology.
And you ignorant Americans, always with your CNN, believing <i>everything</i> they say! You are sheep! Your media lies to you! Our distractedly overheard, possibly imagined news sources shed the <b>true</b> light on your corruption!
[Edit]: Also, notice how we've moved from:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also I saw in the news something about USA moving chemical weapons(these are not allowed in modern war) to Iraq borders.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->UK is <b>worried</b> of USA moving chemical weapons to Iraq borders<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US media isn't the only outlet out there subject to sensationalism . . . the above is an example of a meaningless headline that <i>sounds</i> important and scary. I'm sure the UK is also worried that we would bring nukes, napalm, or David Hasslehoff to the front. Does that mean there's any shred of evidence that we might, or any purpose to our doing so?
I thought you started that project BEFORE NK started their Nuclear Missile production? Ok, don't answer. And im not the only one to blame for dragging this offtopic if you check your own replies <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
All in all, I enjoyed this discussion a lot. I hope I didn't insult anyone and no one took this debate too seriously(just making sure MonSe won't stalk me in the bushes and beat me with a big stick when I take my trashes out) <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I believe he is specifically prohibited by the Geneva convention. We don't want war crimes, naturally... ^_^
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I thought you started that project BEFORE NK started their Nuclear Missile production? Ok, don't answer. And im not the only one to blame for dragging this offtopic if you check your own replies
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm just as guilty of off-topicity, I admit it. Also, you may be thinking of the Reagan-era 'star wars' program that was researched and later discarded as technologically impractical, for the times.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.
The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also I saw in the news something about USA moving chemical weapons(these are not allowed in modern war) to Iraq borders.
I don't know what to say <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> If this all is true, USA has clearly no respect for any mutual agreements, laws and other countries, not even for their "allies". I say kick them out of the UN and put G.W Bush charged for his crimes, that is, if this all is true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The memo is credible! If we ignore...
-British Spelling of words like favorite (favourite), recognize (recognise)
-Dated in a European format (dd/mm/yy), not American (mm/dd/yy)
-Use of a non-exsistant security clearance in the header.
-Inconsistent reference to a contact (Koza/Kozu)...
Also, the Observer can hardly be described as 'Fair and Balanced', as they have the strongest Anti-American voice of legitimate British papers.
And thanks for bringing up Europe Monse. I've said that for a while.
WHY THE MIDDLE EAST IS A CESSPOOL AND WHY EUROPE SUCKS, FOR DUMMIES
-Europe, AKA Western Civ, took over Middle East, divided it up, and sucked it dry of autonomy.
-Islamic doctrine states that if they follow Allah, they'll rule the world.
-When Europe finally left the Middle East after WWII, Islamic states realized they were in a crappy position.
-Hence, birth of fundamentalism.
-America takes over as the leader of Western Civ, Europe feels guilty over its past actions and grows increasingly Anti-Western Civ.
-Islamic radicals realize that Western Civ is responsible for their homes being crapholes.
-Europe has ignored any responsibility to those it hurt and attacked the heir of Western Civ, The US, rather then the countries of Western Civ that propagated.
And thats why the Middle East hates us and Europe is the mother of all hypocrites.
Oh, and it doesn't help Europe's case that they have totally ignored the debt they owe the US. We saved them from Imperialist Germany, Nazis, Facists, Communism. Without the thousands of Americans who gave their lives for YOUR soverignty, you'd all be part of the Third Reich or the USSR. And after saving your incompetent butts, we expend tremendous resources to keep you afloat. Remeber the Marshall plan? You don't act like it.
I'm going to lock this one, and if anyone wants to start a new topic of: 'Why the mideast is so effing screwed up' (or 'How colonialist powermongers became hypocrites in 20 short years'), please feel free to do so.