[OT] Cr*ppy Belgium

[Captain Kwok]

If I have to hear the the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction' one more time...

Here is a letter that I read in a recent Toronto Star newpaper opinion page that I thought hit the hammer on the head about those weapons...

Dubious Weapons of Mass Destruction

Feb. 6.

In would appear that there are three classifications of weapons of mass destruction: atomic, biological and gas. According to U.N. inspectors, there appears to be virtually no evidence that Iraq has constructed atomic weapons. As biological weapons go, the one most often mentioned is anthrax. But, unless some truly inspired work has been done with this agent, I have a lot of difficulty including it as a problem.

In his recent U.N. presentation, Colin Powell suggested that anthrax was a particularly deadly thing, that a teaspoonful shut down most of the Senate for a long period of time, and that two people died. While I do have sympathy for the survivors of those lost, two people do not make up a very great mass. What shut down the Senate was paranoia, not anthrax. Study of the history of recent infections suggests that it is extremely hard to develop an effective vector and that, to date, nothing has been developed that allows one to conclude that anthrax has any truly "mass" capability.

In regard to gas of whatever type, an understanding of the history of its deployment during warfare suggests that it is an extremely difficult weapon to use. Its use is complicated by wind patterns, geography and counteractive agents. As we discovered during World War I, it often blew back over the very people deploying it, rendering its use extremely questionable. It is also difficult to deliver any real quantity any real distance. A warhead filled with it might, if precisely aimed, kill a few dozen, or perhaps a few hundred, but again, classifying it as even a distant relative to the H-bomb is highly questionable. While Saddam Hussein may have even a large quantity, he has no effective means of delivery.

Given this discussion, the American rush to war seems even more questionable. I listened to Powell's presentation, hoping to hear a proper military briefing, complete with a description of weapons, weapons capability, weapons quantity and estimates of potential casualties if those weapons were deployed. I heard none of this. What I did hear was sound bite propaganda. And nothing that could not be verified by on-the-ground inspection.

How many people could the Iraqis possibly kill? How many would die if the Iraqis were attacked? Given the weapons available to each side, it seems that the Iraqis are in far more danger than we are.

The major worry seems to be that Saddam might follow a scorched earth policy. If this is truly what American officials believe, how can they still present the case that any really effective weapons of mass potential are still in Saddam's hands?

Hmm.

[primitive]

First of all, a statement.
- I am no friend of Saddam.
- I do belive there are some weapons of mass destruction stashed away.
- I do belive Saddam is doing everything in his power to keep these hidden.
- I do recognize this violates the cease-fire, and US have the mandate to go to war.

Yet I strongly oppose the war.

Why ?
It won't solve any problems, just move them to another location. The third worlds resentment agaist what they perceive as US/Western oppresion and aggression will increase even faster, and new terrorist bases will pop up somewhere else. It's far better to have one weak enemy you know and can control, then to have enemies you don't know.
And Weapens of mass destruction can be made with a chemistry-set in a basement. It's transporting them to the place they will be used that is the problem.

Greybeard:
American troops in Europe was needed (and greatly appreciated) until the fall of the Soviet Union. After that they are just a waste of tax-payers money. I really don't mind, because its not my taxes. But it makes me wonder if the real reason for the war is to justify the huge US defence budget.

Damien and God Emperor:
You are a wise (and well informed) men.

Puke:
There is much wisdom in your post, but I think You give the "people in charge" to much cred if you think they actually understand whats going on.

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by primitive:
It won't solve any problems, just move them to another location. The third worlds resentment agaist what they perceive as US/Western oppresion and aggression will increase even faster, and new terrorist bases will pop up somewhere else. It's far better to have one weak enemy you know and can control, then to have enemies you don't know.

No, the climate of hatred against the US already exists. Removing Saddam doesn't create a new problem somewhere else. Not removing Saddam doesn't prevent hatred against the US.

The world, in general, doesn't get its perspective of Americans from its foreign policy. In fact, according to a very recently released study, most non-Americans got their information about America from Hollywood. Those who knew Americans personally were less likely to hold negative views of the US than those who did not.

Militant Muslims call America the "Great Satan." This isn't because of our foreign policy; it's because of our culture, or at least their perception of it. They see us as a sexually promiscuous, greedy, irreverant, blasphemous people who stand in direct defiance to Islamic law. As such, in their minds, we must be destroyed and made subject to their laws.

How ironic that Hollywood is so strongly for talking about and "understanding" the view of these fanatics, when they would be the first people to go should the fanatics get their way.

[couslee]

now they are getting us back. oh, the US is too good for our military alliance? guess what? we dont need to play with you either. thats what they're telling us. and they have every right to.
and
both sides are picking members like schook kids getting ready for a ballgame.
and
Reminds me of when i turned 12 and went to high school. ( 12yr old HS student?)
anThen i punched one of them so hard in the face, a tooth flew out of his mouth. Case closed.

I certainly hope they have a better reason than the childish reason of "they told us no thanks" for failing to provide defensive measures for Turkey. If 12 yr old HS students are running the country, then perhaps whay they need is a good punch in the mouth. That is one sorry excuse to block NATO.

If I need $500, and 8 people say here is $100. Should the three people I say "no thanks, the need is met" too get offended because I didn't take "THEIR" $100? And in their anger go take it out on a third person who is in need?

I certainly hope that is not the situation. If it is..... They need to (expletive) grow up.

Besides, Iraq has already threatened many times to attack Turkey, and anyone else who aids the USA during wartime events. The threat is real, the lack of Turkish defensive aid is stupid.

And the excuse that it might be seen as a sign that talks have failed is just as lame. Perhaps everyone should wait until Saddam attacks them before making a move, because it might not be "politically correct". Iraq is a neighboring country to Turkey. It's easy to point a nay finger when your several nations away from the threat.

[Baron Munchausen]

Hmm, hmm... such a menu of issues to comment on!

First of all, I think that the current European opposition to US policy on Iraq has more to do with the method than the content. If GWB had gone to the UN first, and with an attitude of really expecting to have to negotiate, there would be far fewer pissed off people in the world today. Instead the 'US Administration' simply announced that it was time for regime change in Iraq. As if this is a matter that can be determined in a cabinet meeting of the US government. Only after a lot of protest, domestic and international, was the case even taken to the UN Security Council, where it should have been started.

There are of course a certain number of countries that simply hate the US and resist anything the US wants, and they would oppose us anyway. They are no doubt in a state of glee over the way we have alienated most of our traditional allies in this debacle. Their work is much easier now.

That said, there is more than a little fault to be found with US foreign policy of late. Yes, Iraq has defied the UN mandates coming from the Gulf War for years, but that does not change the fact that it is the UN which must respond, not the US. The UN should have been primed and ready to get tough on Iraq, too. All it needed was some leadership which the US could have provided. But the many unilateral actions of the Bush administration prior to the emergence of this issue has soured the atmosphere and encouraged the other major players at the UN to think of ways to cut the US down a notch rather than how to advance international 'law and order'.

The behavior of the US Govt. on the domestic front seems to be just about the same as it is internationally. Gather all authority to itself. There is a push on to paper-over the entire constitution and create a police state with 'emergency powers' that have no defined limits and no defined times or conditions for their end. If you liked the 'USA Patriot Act' just wait for Patriot Act II which is rumored to be in the works.

[ February 12, 2003, 04:59: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Greybeard]

My comment about taking all US troops out of Europe was intended to be said somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, it doesn't quite read that way. Sorry.

I am tired of our leaders thinking that the US ought to be the world's policeman. Our economy is in the tank due to overspending, the world's economy is responding to fundamentals that exist even though the experts say we're in a new era, and all of us will probably be able to tell our grandchildren about living through the depression...Greybeard

BTW, the government of the US is a democratic republic, and NOT a democracy. Don't feel bad though, even our Representatives and Senators don't seem to know the difference.

[Puke]

well, i probably shouldnt start talking about my ideas on politics. regarding the situation in Mesopotamia though, yes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. we gave them to them to use against the Iranians to defend against their "human wave" attacks, a trick that they probably learned from the Russians. or maybe its just a timeless oldie.

Regarding justification for war, no we dont need any more. But no one gives a **** about Iraq, its weapons, or its human rights abuses. Just like no one cares about the human rights abuses in the Congo, or anywhere else. People care about money, oil, and power. now dont get me wrong, i like those things. our economy runs on money, and we get alot of that from oil. sure, a utopian paradise could do very well with alternate fuel systems, but we dont live in one of those. so its time to get used to it. the people in power like oil, and use it to get more money and power. sometime, it might dry up. but right now, its worth spending alot of money and lives to control. thats just the way it goes.

no one fought in south east asia for good an right, we did it for rubber, and money, and power. Im tired of all the global policeman make-believe. the people of all the other countries in the world think we are a bunch of dicks. their governments support us because they have to, not because their people want them to. if we are going to start this globalization / imperialist / hegemony stuff, lets stop kidding arround and just do it. no one is falling for the propaganda anyway.

lets slap some "Standard Oil" logos on the tails of our fighter jets, and get this over with.