402. Msivorytower - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:11 PM PT
re Message #396
I fail to understand why you resort to these nasty comments when you get impassioned defending your position (one, by the way, that suggests no balance).
403. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:12 PM PT
Surely even Brent Scowcroft, who continues to steadfastly defend his and Bush's decision not to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1990-1, would hastily admit error if they found themselves desirous that Toonces's monotone stopped ringing in their ears.
404. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:13 PM PT
Message #399
Don't mention Albright's Jewish background in front of Toonces. Have you read her anti-Semitic ravings in the Israel/Palestine thread?
405. LadyChaos - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:14 PM PT
pseudo,
I've heard about her rantings. I guess I was being provocative.
406. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:20 PM PT
Msivorytower -
It's because I've just lost all respect for your intelligence and character based on what you've posted here. You make me sick.
407. Msivorytower - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:23 PM PT
Well, I am not too thrilled with your position either. Frankly, you sound like you'd be on the top of the mountain, pointing the way for the Iraqi's to come in an wipe out our own population; all in the misguided notion that they were friendly.
408. Msivorytower - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:25 PM PT
DISCLAIMER
The preceeding example was entirely illusory, I have no idea what the Iraqi's would do if tempted to breach our shores.
409. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:29 PM PT
BTW, re: Message #396 Was not unprevoked. I have previously asked dickless to leave me alone, more than once, so I was repeating myself more forcefully.
410. LadyChaos - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:30 PM PT
Fire water bad. Bring evil spirit.
411. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:33 PM PT
Do everyone a favor and kill yourself, dickless.
412. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:38 PM PT
Just to make sure everyone reading this understands, I'm calling LadyCaos "dickless" because he's a man who cut his dick and balls off and now pretends he's a woman.
413. toonces - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:39 PM PT
That's Chaos. Not anything like a lady, really.
414. LadyChaos - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:40 PM PT
Why don't you do us all a favor and cease being such a self-absorbed looney who has deluded herself into thinking that she understands anything at all about Native American culture and that all white people are bad and everyone else is good despite all evidence to the contrary?
415. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:42 PM PT
She's white.
416. LadyChaos - Jan. 11, 1999 - 7:47 PM PT
PE,
That makes her even more strange. She pretends to be a Native American, which is supposedly a key part of her whole rationale for hating Americans, Jews, etc.
Re: Message #412,
Not that it matters, but the condition of my genitalia is erroneously represented in this post.
417. gravel - Jan. 12, 1999 - 4:52 AM PT
toonces:
Just out of curiosity. Do you think Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law were wise in returning home? Please explain your answer.
418. Wombat - Jan. 12, 1999 - 12:31 PM PT
Sigh:
Everything that is now happening stems from Iraq's violation of international law when they invaded Kuwait. This action was condemmed in the Security Council and the General Assembly. The Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Iraq did not. To enforce the Security Council resolution, an international force was assembled and defeated the Iraqis, driving them from Kuwait. When the Iraqis signed an agreement to end the fighting (cease fire) they agreed to allow inspections and monitoring of their ABC weapons facilities. From the beginning they attempted to elude this agreement. Just because some UN members want to weasel out of the cease fire agreements does not mean the United States has to. One could also argue that any military action at any time against Iraq is legal, given Iraq's continued refusal to abide by the original cease fire agreement.
419. PincherMartin - Jan. 12, 1999 - 2:43 PM PT
Toonces --
Why haven't you replied to Wombat's very lucid Message #418. If international law is truly the concern for you in the Middle East, then you need to address the argument that he makes.
420. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:16 PM PT
Toonces
"...would you call Madeline Albright's news conferences denying that UNSCOM were US spies, saying Iraq must now be bombed because they had run out of excuses, as straight-forward propaganda?"
No. As I said, it is customary to deny espionage activities. Otherwise, it's not espionage.
421. lazygeorge - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:25 PM PT
I was always under the impression that a great deal of diplomatic activity was a cover for intelligence gathering. I always figured the UN was filled with covert intelligence officers using their UN status to collect information for non UN use.
422. MrSocko - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:27 PM PT
Well, now I see Wombat's more considered response to toonces. While agreeing with his conclusion, I would put the case far less politely than he has for bullying Iraq. It's the law of conquest, not the bogus "international law" of the UN, which provides every justification for the bombing.
I do believe that America has handled this situation very badly. It has a declared interest in subduing Iraq, and every (recent) historical justication for acting on it, but until the country actually invades its enemy, I really don't see how it can realise its aims. I mean, really, if UNSCOM can't find the weapons, then how the hell can fighter planes?
423. PincherMartin - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:32 PM PT
Mr Socko (are you a boxer?)--
How does conquest have anything to do with the United States stance towards Iraq? If anything the U.S. has probably exacerbated the situation by not dealing with Saddam more sternly.
424. toonces - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:37 PM PT
PincherMartin -
I'm at work right now, but I will have more time to reply this evening. Even so, I don't know what I can say that isn't obvious. His argument is essentially that Iraq must obey international law, but the US need not.
425. PincherMartin - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:38 PM PT
His argument is that the U.S. has the legal right to force Iraq to obey what it agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
426. toonces - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:42 PM PT
PincherMartin -
Iraq didn't agree to be infiltrated by US spies working to assassinate their president and overthrow their government.
427. toonces - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:42 PM PT
What they agreed to was arms inspections.
428. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:43 PM PT
Toonces is experiencing one of her lunar hallucinations, struck with the belief that the United States has been violating international law in the Gulf. On the contrary, everything the United States has ever done with respect to Iraq since August 1990 is perfectly legal.
429. toonces - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:46 PM PT
pseudoerasmus -
When I was a little kid, I was taught the Soviet Union was bad because their leaders preached "propaganda," which was also called "brain washing." What do you consider propaganda, if Albright's statements were not?
430. lazygeorge - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:47 PM PT
Any competent arms inspection on the ground in Iraq would produce a target list that the US could use.
431. toonces - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:49 PM PT
PE,
I don't think using the UN for US espionage is going to turn out to be legal, unless the US can simply make all international laws to suit itself.
432. lazygeorge - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:50 PM PT
toonces,
Do you believe that, "gentleman do not read each others mail?" Propaganda is not brainwashing.
433. PincherMartin - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:51 PM PT
Their noncompliance with the arms inspections preceded any knowledge they had of espionage (although I am sure they suspected it from the beginning). Also, the information on the U.S. assassination attempts on Saddam is vague and frankly not very convincing. Some U.S. officials have 'unofficially' stated they hoped that Saddam would die, or be hit by one of the cruise missiles they sent, or be assassinated by someone in Iraq -- these unofficial statements prove nothing except the weakness of the current U.S. policy towards Iraq (that it is based more on hopes than realistic ideas).
434. PincherMartin - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:53 PM PT
My Message #433 is addressed to Toonces Message #426
435. BobaFett - Jan. 12, 1999 - 3:57 PM PT
Killing Republican Guards with cruise missiles is apparently okay with Toonces. (It's okay with me, too, by the way.)
SPYING on Iraq, on the other hand, is contrary to "international law."
Uh huh.
436. MrSocko - Jan. 12, 1999 - 4:24 PM PT
Message #423, Martin:
I'm a creation of P.J. Wodehouse, an author much beloved of pseudoerasmus and marjoribanks.
As far as the rest of your message goes, I don't think we disagree on much.
437. MrSocko - Jan. 12, 1999 - 4:26 PM PT
Erm, make that P.G. Wodehouse ... I have O'Rourke on the brain right now.
438. Wombat - Jan. 12, 1999 - 5:47 PM PT
Sorry, Boba: According to Toonces, the Iraqis who died in the strikes were victims of political murder.
439. Wombat - Jan. 12, 1999 - 6:07 PM PT
Iraqi arms inspections would go nowhere without the participation of US intelligence operatives. Unless you want to have Iraqi ABC facilities monitored the way the IAEA monitored their "peaceful" nuclear production capacity in the 1970s and 80s. And you wonder why the Iraqis don't want the Americans to participate....
440. PincherMartin - Jan. 12, 1999 - 7:04 PM PT
Wombat makes a good point in Message #439. Something that I referred to in my Message #376.
441. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 12, 1999 - 7:55 PM PT
"I think we should move to take Saddam out, and take our chances with both whoever succeeds him and Iran."
I agree 100%. I think Bush and Scowcroft in 1990-1 really deluded themselves into thinking they were Realpolitikers on the scale of Palmerston and Castlereagh. All they did was exaggerate the importance of Saddam Hussein in keeping Iraq as an effective counterweight to other regional powers.
(This is a repetition of what I once said in the International thread.) In my opinion, removing Saddam Hussein would moderate Iraqi behaviour without destroying any balance of power in the region.
The particularly audacious brand of ambition Saddam Hussein has always displayed (e.g. attacking Iran to seize its southern oil fields, annexing Kuwait for its oil fields) probably isn't what motivates his potential replacements. For Saddam Hussein amplifies the power-political ambitions 'normal' for and 'intrinsic' to a country like Iraq. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that his successors would be peaceable do-gooders who would bring stability to the region, but Iraq would cease, IMO, from becoming a perpetually volatile threat. In other words, Iraq w/o S.H. would likely be something like Syria -- a run-of-the-mill opportunistic nation whose cautious ruthlessness bears vigilance, but not active containment.
442. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 12, 1999 - 7:56 PM PT
So removing Saddam even without removing the regime apparatus he created would still contribute to stabilising the region.
443. PincherMartin - Jan. 12, 1999 - 8:13 PM PT
And this stability would ease the suffering of the Iraqi people, remove the necessity for the United States to have large deployments in the region, and ease the strained relations that this crisis is causing with Russia. In other words, it would do a lot of the things that Toonces wants done in the region, but doesn't have the first clue how to do.
444. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 12, 1999 - 8:23 PM PT
Now, had Bush and Scowcroft been as geopolitically savvy as they thought themselves (and as amoral as such savvy required), then they would made U.S. forces take Baghdad, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and then help his successors crush the various Kurdish and Shiite rebellions in order to prevent the fragmentation of Iraq. Help his successors crush Kurdish and Shiite rebellions, you say??? Sure, why not? We effectively did that by allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power, so what's the difference?
445. Raskolnikov - Jan. 12, 1999 - 8:27 PM PT
At the time, I thought refraining from marching on Baghdad was a good idea, since it spared us any responsibility for stabilizing any new regime that we installed in what was certain to be a hostile environment. Given the headache that Hussein has been since, I am slowly changing my mind.
446. PincherMartin - Jan. 12, 1999 - 8:33 PM PT
PseudoErasmus --
There was no need for the United States to micromanage an overthrow. Simply overthrowing Saddam and allowing his successor to take over what was left of his military would have been suffienct. Iran would not have moved to annex the south while we were still sending troops home ( a period of some months) while the Kurds are unimpressively militarily and without allies. Saddam's successor would have had them both under control in short order.
I believe in a realistic policy, but the U.S. to lead effectively does need to be concerned about its image. To closely associate itself with suppressing the Kurds and the Shiites is bad PR and completely unnecessary.
447. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 12, 1999 - 8:39 PM PT
Well, you shouldn't do it openly.
448. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 12, 1999 - 8:59 PM PT
Toonces- the continued existence of Sadam Hussein's regime is a matter of allied grace. This is a leader that has used nerve gas on women and children for no more reason than they were Kurds whose ambitions for self determination threatend him.e He also used mustard gas and nerve gas against his neighbors in Iran, in a war that he instigated. He invaded Kuwait for naked ambtion and conquest. He wasted thousands of lives, civilians in his country and Kuwait, and his own countrymen in the pointless war against the allies. He attacked yet another nation, Israel, a non-beligerent as a cynical ploy to break the allied coalition.
The result, Arabs, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi's,Europeans and North Americans resoundingly defeated him militarily. Their error was to cease military action before his forces were eliminated in detail. Some of the reasons for this are mistaken realpolitik by Bush and Co. and the concern for further civilian casualties.
The Iraqi regime agreed to destroy all of their weapons of mass destruction, and the means to produce them, as well as inspections. They have repeatedly obstructed the process at nearly every turn. They have done so even though it meant that they could not obtain medicine or food the people they are responsible for, their countrymen and women. So long as the regime didn't starve, who cares for the masses, right.
Spare us the spy business. Every nation spies and denies, this has gone on since the days of the ancients.
Finally, is it clear that the UN actually did the spying or did we spy on the UN?
449. cartman69 - Jan. 12, 1999 - 10:33 PM PT
Jones Message #448:
"[Saddam Hussein] is a leader that has used nerve gas on women and children for no more reason than they were Kurds whose ambitions for self determination threatened him. He also used mustard gas and nerve gas against his neighbors in Iran, in a war that he instigated. He invaded Kuwait for naked ambtion and conquest."
Substitute "conventional weapons" for "nerve gas", and "Cyprus" for "Kuwait", and you could be talking about our great and good friends in Turkey. Like I said before, wrt US foreign policy, human rights are an aspiration of convenience. We've *bankrolled* people just like, maybe worse than, Saddam (in terms of oppressing his own populace).
And while it is unrealistic to be surprised that we had spies on the UNSCOM inspection team (who didn't see *that* coming up the road a long time ago?), it is equally unrealistic to expect any cooperation from Saddam if we've basically been caught spying on him. Not that he was especially cooperative in the first place, but there's no way now.
No matter. Like our bombing of a medicine factory in Sudan and a bunch of Afghani caves, this latest episode seems destined to end by merely disappearing from our purview, with no follow-up, no declared strategy, and not much of tangible value accomplished.
450. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 12, 1999 - 10:44 PM PT
I think that there is a quantum difference between gassing civilians and civil strife with conventional weapons.
451. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 12, 1999 - 10:46 PM PT
I defy you to name one regime that has used nerve gas against a civilian population that we supported during the gassing.
452. cartman69 - Jan. 12, 1999 - 10:48 PM PT
Jones:
What difference does it make if nerve gas is used, or anvils are dropped on their heads? Dead is dead.
453. toonces - Jan. 12, 1999 - 10:51 PM PT
Jonesatlaw -
Re: Message #448
Given the complete lack of verasity of the US government and its free press, I am not in any position to discuss atrocities committed by any country.
454. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 12, 1999 - 10:56 PM PT
There is the matter of international law. One is strictly interdicted and one is par for the course. I realize that this may appear inconsistant, but it is a matter of degrees, and is nonetheless the state of things.
455. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 12, 1999 - 10:58 PM PT
Toonces- re 458 I'd like you to stand by that.
456. toonces - Jan. 12, 1999 - 11:01 PM PT
Jonesatlaw -
I've been told by reliable sources, several times now, that "international law" does not actually exist. It's a just word used by the US and its operatives in the UN to fool and control idiots who care about fairness.
457. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 12, 1999 - 11:15 PM PT
Toonces- I understand your passion for those persons who are most harmed by the Iraq crisis, and admire it. I see you being full of passion for what you see as right and have to respect that. But, there is something to be said for international law. Although it is less certain and consistent in the areas of international conflict, it is very real in civil matters, and affairs of commerce. The problem is that it rarely is applied to individuals or cliques that ruthlessly violate human rights for their own ends.
Is there some measure of duplicity on the part of the US and allies wrt to Iraq? Yes.
Have we spied on them? I hope so, and hope we continue to do so.
Have our policies imposed hardship or harm on Iraqi people in our efforts to get at Saddam Hussein? Yes.
Should we cease to try to get at Saddam becuase he holds his populace hostage? No. We cannot prevent every negative consequence to every person on the planet as the result of the actions of their leaders, without becomming the world dictator that you decry. I doubt that we have such power, even if we would attempt it.
458. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 12, 1999 - 11:19 PM PT
I anticipate that Cartman will point out again, correctly, that our interests in the region are far more connected with oil than human rights. I agree, but why not start our efforts towards human rights here?
459. toonces - Jan. 12, 1999 - 11:21 PM PT
Jonesatlaw -
First explain to me why my government lied to me and the world about the effects of bombing Iraq with depleted uranium weapons, then I will tell you why I should believe any of this.
460. cartman69 - Jan. 12, 1999 - 11:21 PM PT
Jones:
The US is not a strict observer of international law, either, nor is it exactly a trend-setter when it comes to getting rid of chemical & biological weapons. We have consistently refused to ratify the treaty to ban these damned things, precisely because we don't want anyone else inspecting our sites.
Look, I'm not trying to imply that Saddam is being unfairly maligned, or that he is anything less than a vicious thug. But his problem is that he is not OUR vicious thug, not that he murders his own people with a variety of unacceptable weapons. Couching this action in the guise of humanitarian concerns is downright hilarious, in an ironic, Strangelove-ian sort of way.
Saddam is a very convenient demon, and should suffice until we need to cobble together yet another semblance of long-term foreign policy (provided Clinton can find the time to extricate himself from whichever big-haired blow queen he's on this week).
461. lazygeorge - Jan. 13, 1999 - 5:20 AM PT
toonces,
Depleted uranium ammunition and its risks were never a secret. I knew about it in the late 70s and I had no contact with the ammunition or weapons that used it. I am unaware of any bombs that contain depleted uranium. Can you give the model numbers of the bombs you claim contain depleted uranium? How did the US lie about depleted uranium ammunition?
462. gravel - Jan. 13, 1999 - 6:12 AM PT
toonces:
Come on, you're a straight-from-the-hip shooter. I'm asking you again to answer my question from yesterday. (And I know you don't miss a trick.)
Forget questions of spies; disregard people who want to deluge you with facts about international laws and treaties; don't bother to find printed matter in the media (because it'll be useless to all but historians [who have no real interest in the majority of people involved in these situations]). Tell me about the real Iraqi.
There's a female in Iraq with a job similar to yours. I want to know how she feels about Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law having returned home. Does she feel that was the wise decision? (Would she have done it?) Yes or No? What's her reasoning?
463. toonces - Jan. 13, 1999 - 9:29 AM PT
gravel -
Re: Message #462
I'm honored that you respect my opinion enough to ask.
I don't understand Iraqi culture. From what I have seen, they appear to be comfortable level of open brutality than would be considered outrageous in my home town. I don't have any idea what motivated Saddam's sons-in-law to return home.
More directly to your point:
I'm not a citizen of Iraq. I did not vote for Saddam Hussein. I am not responsible for what his government does.
I am a citizen of the United States. I did vote for Bill Clinton. I am responsible for what his government does.
464. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 13, 1999 - 10:19 AM PT
Toonces- I am holding you to your previous
post:
"453. toonces - Jan. 12, 1999 - 10:51 PM PT
Jonesatlaw -
Re: Message #448
Given the complete lack of verasity of the US government and its free press, I am not in any position to discuss atrocities committed by any country."
You may have just discovered DU rounds this year, but as lazygeorge points out, they're hardly news. Apply some of your famous skepticism to positions that you viscerially favor as well as those you don't.
465. toonces - Jan. 13, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
Jonesatlaw -
Re: Message #464
Near the beginning of this thread, I posted a few links on the subject of DU weapons. To answer you question, I would start with that information and follow up with keywords, titles, names, dates and links taken from it. But at the moment, I would rather spend any time I have here learning to read and write on some other subject.
466. darkviolet - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:21 PM PT
Message #464
U.S. REFITS NUCLEAR BOMB TO DESTROY ENEMY BUNKERS
467. darkviolet - Jan. 14, 1999 - 6:28 PM PT
GBU-28 "Bunker-buster" bomb
468. darkviolet - Jan. 14, 1999 - 9:25 PM PT
lazygeorge -
Re: Message #461
The two links above reliably establish that Bill Clinton and company did knowingly drop nuclear bombs on the citizens of Iraq in December of last year. There is quite a bit of information to support that fact on the internet, because depleted uranium weapons are implicated in Gulf War Syndrome. American veterans' groups are voicing their outrage at have been exposed to it.
469. darkviolet - Jan. 14, 1999 - 9:36 PM PT
lazygeorge -
You really can look this stuff up for yourself, you know.
US DEPLOYS NEW EARTH-PENETRATING NUCLEAR BOMB
470. PincherMartin - Jan. 14, 1999 - 9:38 PM PT
Darkviolet --
I think that you would like Toonces.
471. darkviolet - Jan. 14, 1999 - 9:42 PM PT
"There is a tradition of covering up the use of radioactive weapons. The public did not find out about the use of U-238 'depleted uranium' weapons until after the Gulf War. Their use was discovered because of 'friendly fire' incidents, when allied tanks mistakenly fired U-238 projectiles at other allied tanks. Presently, the US military is monitoring the radioactive breakdown of depleted uranium shrapnel lodged inside the bodies of US troops. Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. There is now a fivefold increase of cancers in Iraq. Depleted uranium weaponry have been condemned as weapons of mass destruction by the United Nations Sub-Commission for the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. (SC 1997-36).
The US has not ruled out the possibility of using the new earth penetrating B61-11 bomb that can be attached to a B2 bomber or is light enough to be carried on F16 aircraft. Recent history has shown that previously unheard-of weapon systems have been used, and in the confusion and immediacy of warfare, circumstances lead to uncontrolled excalation and accidents. "
472. darkviolet - Jan. 14, 1999 - 9:47 PM PT
"...the B-2A was designated as the carrier of the Air Force's newest nuclear weapon, the B61-11 earth-penetrating "bunker-buster". Each plane can carry up to 16 bombs internally..."
473. darkviolet - Jan. 14, 1999 - 9:58 PM PT
Re: Message #371
By the way, it looks like Kofi Annan is going to be scapegoated for this. Check the tone of the story in this week's Newsweek.
474. darkviolet - Jan. 14, 1999 - 10:24 PM PT
In case you were wondering, here are some of the heavily populated Baghdad neighborhoods targeted by US nuclear weapons:
Radioactive Baghdad
475. darkviolet - Jan. 14, 1999 - 10:27 PM PT
It really makes you wonder what the hell Bill Clinton and his friends were thinking, doesn't it? I wonder how much it is going to cost to try to clean this up.
476. darkviolet - Jan. 14, 1999 - 10:59 PM PT
Sweet dreams, everyone!
477. cartman69 - Jan. 14, 1999 - 11:03 PM PT
Good links, darkviolet. And good point about what Clinton must have been thinking. Obviously not long-range planning here.
But hey, he did set 'em back a year. That'll show 'em.
478. lazygeorge - Jan. 15, 1999 - 5:39 AM PT
darkviolet,
Earth penetrating nuclear warheads existed for the US Army Pershing II missile in the 80's. They were intended for use against Warsaw Pact underground command centers. It was public knowledge if a junior enlisted cannon cocker knew about it. No nuclear earth penetrating warheads have been used in Iraq.
I stand corrected about the depleted uranium penetrator in a bunker busting bomb with a nuclear warhead, but they have never been used in Iraq.
Your link to the conventional buinker busting bomb did not mention depleted uranium, stabiloy or U238. Yes, I about this bomb during the Gulf War
You have never heard of Tall Boy, a conventional 22,000 pound anti steel reinforced concrete bomb that was used by the Royal Air Force agaainst German U boat pens in WWII?
In my opinion adding a depleted uranium penetrator to a below ground nuclear detonation does not make it a more significant public health threat than a normal air or ground burst nuclear detonation with out any depleted uranium.
I disagree that any of this is part of some secret conspiracy to make the Iraqi people suffer or to uneccessarly endanger the lives of US military personnel. I do not see how you claim that this is part of some lie or disinformation from the US Government.
In my opinion, developing plans or weapons against contingencies is not evidence of intent to use them. I can give you a long list of weapons that were produced that were never used in combat. I know we had war plans to use against the British Empire in the 30's.
479. RyckNelson - Jan. 15, 1999 - 5:49 AM PT
Hey, if you want public health issues raised wrt radiation, look to South Minneapolis. In the forties the great father in Washingtion DC spewed a couple of clouds of radiation over our fair suburb to see if people would get sick.
Now that's SICK!
Back to Iraq, I've noticed a couple of you commenting to my assertions in the international thread. I'm getting carried away in there so I'm taking it here.
Kuwait is a waste of land mass and should be taken back by Iraq.
The U.S.A. were hired soldiers of fortune in 1991 and nothing more. We had no national nor regional security needs nor concerns in the Middle East. We needed to spend our surplus munitions and to create a vaccum of need for resupply by using these munitions. Our policy, cynically taken by myself was probably influenced by defence contracto PAC's. It's a drawn out policy fiasco to stay on Iraqs neck. The whole thing should be trashed, rethought and redeployed.
480. Msivorytower - Jan. 15, 1999 - 6:40 AM PT
"Kuwait is a waste of land mass and should be taken back by Iraq."
I wonder if I said the same thing about Malaysia (a country you seem to think we should all care about) if you would be so agreeable.
What exactly causes you to say such an arrogant thing?
481. Msivorytower - Jan. 15, 1999 - 6:46 AM PT
Nelson
I just read your comments about Kuwait over in the International thread. They no more justify your comment than the one above. Given that ALL the arab states were deliberately created, your comments about Kuwait are particularly fascile.
I say get rid of Malaysia, turn it over to Japan, who would do a better job of running the ragged little island than the current regime.
482. marjoribanks - Jan. 15, 1999 - 7:25 AM PT
Ryck,
Here are some idle suspicions I have (some based in real fact.)
1) The USA trumped up the entire Gulf War scenario to (a) massively increase its military presence in the region, (b) gain a real grip over the unpredictable situation in Saudi Arabia (c) maintain a convenient bogeyman and whipping boy in the region (Iraq) (d) make sure that oil sells at a ludicrously low price to the benefit of no one but the USA.
2) The US actually has no interest in getting rid of Saddam Hussein. If they wanted to (particularly with Israeli help) they could. He's much more useful alive and in power.
3) Much of the current policy is aimed at making sure that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are crippled by debt, and specifically crippled by debts owed to the USA.
4) The maintenance of sanctions is cynical foreign policy at its worst. Everyone knows that it has zero effect on the Iraqi regime, all it does is further hammer Iraqi development back, back to the damn Stone Age in fact.
5) The Defence establishment in the USA will be bummed, truly bummed, when Saddam dies. They won't have that convenient whipping boy to whip up frenzies about in case of domestic (or occasionally international) political crises.
6) The UN has been a joke in this entire procedure, and in fact is little more than a joke in general now that the Security Council has become little more than an American stooge. It lacks credibility, independence, power, everything.
483. marjoribanks - Jan. 15, 1999 - 7:30 AM PT
7) The American media and public opinion is frightfully ignorant and jingoistic over this whole matter. It has reached disgusting levels. Albright and her little boy Rubin are slime, empty-minded hawks. I'm truly ashamed that I voted for (and believed in) the Democrats thinking they'd run a better foreign policy than that scumbag Bush, (perhaps they have, marginally) and I'm frankly down on the entire country, the media, the gullible public and especially the "leaders" responsible for this mess. Both parties have been almost equally bad as far as I'm concerned. I'll still vote Democrat, but with no illusions next time.
8) The world is aghast at this entire scenario. Read a good British paper and see how much respect America gets for this asinine policy, let alone a French paper or an Indian one. In fact, Blair himself has been hammered, repeatedly and lastingly, merely for allowing his arm to get twisted by the Americans (like the sap had a choice.)
9) Bah humbug. Hmph. And every other derisive noise I can make.
484. marjoribanks - Jan. 15, 1999 - 7:37 AM PT
Okay, so the last three aren't exactly "suspicions."
485. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 15, 1999 - 7:53 AM PT
RyckNelson and Marzipranks are full of shit, full of inane street-corner cynicism. But at the moment I have time only to address Marzipranks's 1-d in Message #482:
"(d) make sure that oil sells at a ludicrously low price to the benefit of no one but the USA."
What rot. First of all, the whole world is benefitting from the low price of oil (although it is possible to argue that some conservation efforts are being shot to hell, in particular the United States). Moreover, the principal VICTIM of the oil price shocks of the 1970s were the POOR countries of the world. Oil-less Third World countries in the 1950s and 1960s as a whole had been growing if not spectacularly then respectably. Yet in the 1970s and 1980s, that growth came to a screeching halt, in some cases retrogression set in, particularly in Africa. And the quadrupling of the price of oil in 1973-4 and the tripling in 1979 are important causes of this reversal. Suddenly, countries like Tanzania and Pakistan began having balance of payments crises! Well, no wonder: they still had to import all that oil without having any new imports to pay for it! Developed countries could handle these shocks, but most developing countries could not.
Also, it is now a truism of international economics that the oil shocks of the 1970s, and the petrodollars that poured from them, were an important cause of the Third World Debt crisis of the 1980s.
486. msivorytower - Jan. 15, 1999 - 7:55 AM PT
Marj
I remember twenty years ago, a poli sci prof of mine said that the Middle East was a quagmire, and would be the major cause of world instability (and a thorn in the US's side) in the years ahead.
He made such an argument based on the rabble and petty bickering in the Middle East (its internal instabilities in the face of power hungry fools) and on the failure of the US to take the region more seriously, and to so overwhelmingly support Israel at all costs.
Given the world situation today, I think he was prophetic.
487. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 15, 1999 - 7:56 AM PT
And the increase in raw materials cost represented by the oil shocks were in many developing countries fatal to their efforts at economic development.
Moreover, the corruption & venality bred by the oil business permanently crippled the political economy of countries like Venezuela and Nigeria. Their peoples would have much better off if the price of oil hadn't ever risen in the 1970s.
488. marjoribanks - Jan. 15, 1999 - 8:06 AM PT
Pseuder,
Try not to be a complete ass. I have grave objections to your own ivorytower cynicism, to wit : "Their peoples would have much better off if the price of oil hadn't ever risen in the 1970s."
My 1(d) is a little vague. I mean, no oil producing country benefits at all from the ludicrously low price of oil. I have a legitimate suspicion that the price is kept artificially low to (a) restrict the power and wealth of oil producing countries and (b) benefit the USA which is the worlds most profilgate consumer of oil.
Furthermore, you make sweeping claims that are really nothing more than empty predictions wrt to the oil crunch of the 70's and the current low prices. Yes, third world countries were hammered during this period, but their dependence on petroleum imports continued unabated because prices then came down. If they had had to deal with sustained higher prices it is entirely possible that they would have weaned themselves from the outright dependent state that they still find themselves in and seriously developed alternate energy sources thus benefitting themselves and the rest of us.
489. msivorytower - Jan. 15, 1999 - 8:12 AM PT
Marj
Really, this is inane of you.
The US cannot control supply. The price of oil might be influenced slightly (and temporarily), but some military action, but really, it cannot be done so over the longer run, as the members of OPEC found to their great dismay.
Btw, speaking of trying to affect world oil prices, the burning of over 900 oil wells in Kuwait by Iraq as it left the country should have had an enormous impact on oil prices by your reckoning.
490. msivorytower - Jan. 15, 1999 - 8:13 AM PT
but some military action
should be
by some military action....
491. marjoribanks - Jan. 15, 1999 - 8:19 AM PT
Oil prices are unbelievably low right now, to the point where the profit margin per barrel is infinitessably small. This makes no sense, especially for oil producers. I want to know why OPEC hasn't been able to maintain sane profit margins, and why the OPEC countries haven't been able to make their cartel work. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that simple economics can explain the failure of OPEC.
It's all a plot, I tell ya.
492. msivorytower - Jan. 15, 1999 - 8:24 AM PT
The OPEC countries haven't been able to make collusion work (price setting) because it's always more profitable for one country to ignore the limits set. I believe PE explained this quite clearly somewhere before (the free rider problem).
And given their inablility to get along with one another (their inability to put their differences aside for the larger goal of higher profits), this has added to the potential for any collusion to stick to the point of affecting world supply.
Not only that, but I believe other world reserves have increased their share of the oil market, lessening the dependence of many countries on Middle Eastern oil in particular (due to the collusive efforts of these countries in the 70's).
493. marjoribanks - Jan. 15, 1999 - 8:28 AM PT
Yes, yes, I know all of that. And I listened closely to the Pseuder explication of the free rider problem and its effect on OPEC, it makes a certain amount of good sense.
494. msivorytower - Jan. 15, 1999 - 8:29 AM PT
I meant to say
And given their inability to get along with one another... this has added to the potential for failure......
Btw, I'm not at all sure my very last statement is accurate, but I seem to recall reading that world oil reserves outside of the Middle East have been producing MORE oil in the post-OPEC years (particularly in the 90's), as technology has lowered the cost of exploration and recovery.
495. lazygeorge - Jan. 15, 1999 - 8:39 AM PT
RyckNelson,
"We needed to spend our surplus munitions and to create a vacuum of need for resupply by using these munitions."
If this was the case it would have been smarter to use our nuclear, chemical and biological weapons on Iraq rather than rebuild, destroy or de-militarize the obsolete weapons. It would have been cheaper to give the conventional munitions to third world nations. It is my understanding the US Army is still using powder increments manufactured in the 60s. We must not have created much of a munition's vacuum.
Is everyone who is paid to do something a "mercenary" to you?
I agree it was a policy fiasco.
496. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 15, 1999 - 10:17 AM PT
marjoribanks (Message #488)
"I have grave objections to your own ivorytower cynicism..."
Cynicism? Ivory tower? THE REALITY of the oil shocks of the 1970s is that MILLIONS of people in the Third World died, never reached their full physical & mental potential, went hungry and/or languished in economic underdvelopment because of OPEC actions.
"I mean, no oil producing country benefits at all from the ludicrously low price of oil."
No kidding. But BILLIONS of poor people do.
"I have a legitimate suspicion that the price is kept artificially low to (a) restrict the power and wealth of oil producing countries and (b) benefit the USA which is the worlds most profilgate consumer of oil."
(1) Your "suspicion" is nothing more than irrational, bazaar cynicism and gossip. The U.S. has no ability to keep the price of oil "artificially low". The current price of oil is low simply because the oil-producing countries are overproducing in order to compensate for falling prices -- which is thus a vicious cycle.
(2) What power the oil-producing countries could possibly wield in international affairs is restricted to influencing the price of oil. Otherwise, they never had much power.
(3) I really have no problem with (b), since it has so much incidental benefits (which could be cancelled out by the compromise of conservation efforts).
"Furthermore, you make sweeping claims that are really nothing more than empty predictions wrt to the oil crunch of the 70's and the current low prices."
I made no predictions WHATSOEVER in Message #485 and #487. I made assertions historical in character.
"Yes, third world countries were hammered during this period, but their dependence on petroleum imports continued unabated because prices then came down. If they had had to deal with sustained higher prices it is entirely possible that t
497. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 15, 1999 - 10:22 AM PT
marjoribanks (Message #488)
[continued]
"Yes, third world countries were hammered during this period, but their dependence on petroleum imports continued unabated because prices then came down. If they had had to deal with sustained higher prices it is entirely possible that they would have weaned themselves from the outright dependent state that they still find themselves in and seriously developed alternate energy sources thus benefitting themselves and the rest of us."
This is gibberish vulgarly exploiting a grain of truth.
(4) The fact remains that the oil shocks contributed to derailing the economic development efforts of many developing countries during the 1970s. Unlike South Korea, they simply could not adjust. Moreover, the political instability engendered by the economic shocks often prevented the original economic development agenda from getting back on track once the price of oil fell again in the 1980s. West Africa is an excellent example of this.
(5) Most developing countries arrange their economic development around industrial processes which in the developed world would be considered fuel-inefficient. And they cannot easily afford to "wean themselves" from the outright dependence on petroleum, because adequate substitutes for petroleum-based industrial processes are difficult to find or non-existent. Why do you think developing countries are reluctant to agree to multilateral global warming measures, while developed countries are more willing? Because the latter can afford them relatively easily and the former cannot. I mean, SOMEONE has to make the plastics, the resins, the steel, etc.
498. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 15, 1999 - 10:23 AM PT
RyckNelson (Message #479)
"Kuwait is a waste of land mass and should be taken back by Iraq."
And I say that Indonesia should have taken Malaysia in the Konfrontation of the 1960s.
"The U.S.A. were hired soldiers of fortune in 1991 and nothing more. We had no national nor regional security needs nor concerns in the Middle East."
Nonsense. The prevention of a significant chunk (25% to 35%) of the world's proven oil supply from being controlled by an unstable expansionist power like Iraq is a vital international security interest.
Message #482
"The US actually has no interest in getting rid of Saddam Hussein. If they wanted to (particularly with Israeli help) they could. He's much more useful alive and in power."
In the usual fashion of bazaar wisdom, this credits the United States with much more power than it actually has. The only time Saddam Hussein could have been "gotten rid of" was in 1991.
"Much of the current policy is aimed at making sure that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are crippled by debt, and specifically crippled by debts owed to the USA."
More rot. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do have heavy foreign debts, but not to the United States -- rather to multinational banks!
"The maintenance of sanctions is cynical foreign policy at its worst."
I agree that sanctions have little effect on the regime, but to call the sanctions policy "cynical" is a little unworldly (or worldly in the bazaar sense). The sanctions policy continues because of inertia and the desire not to lose face.
"The Defence establishment in the USA will be bummed, truly bummed, when Saddam dies. They won't have that convenient whipping boy to whip up frenzies about in case of domestic (or occasionally international) political crises."
More street-corner vulgarisms. I really can't believe such words are emanating from
499. marjoribanks - Jan. 15, 1999 - 10:24 AM PT
Pseuder,
I will attend to your comments in some time, after I return from lunch. Hope they're meaty.
500. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 15, 1999 - 10:24 AM PT
"The Defence establishment in the USA will be bummed, truly bummed, when Saddam dies. They won't have that convenient whipping boy to whip up frenzies about in case of domestic (or occasionally international) political crises."
More street-corner vulgarisms. I really can't believe such words are emanating from the mouth of an allegedly educated person. What domestic crises has the U.S. defence establishment wanted to deflect attention from?
If you are talking about some "wag the dog" scenario, perhaps you should realise that Clinton has been under investigation for most of his administration. Every month, there has been some major episode in the saga of Starr & Clinton. Therefore, the statistical likelihood that some crisis overseas might coincide with an episode in the domestic melodrama has been quite, quite high.