From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 17:35:08 MST
[Joe Dees 2*] <snip>
[Hermit 2] Refer [url]http://www.rense.com/general3/slant.htm[/url] Iraq has
suggested that the level of theft is some 300,000 barrels a day. At
[url]http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iraq_CIAHits.html[/url] it
suggests a 1990 value of $14 billion a year. Then from
[url]http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html[/url] we see that this is on
a total production by Iraq of around 2.5 million barrels per day. Thus
around 12% of Iraq's production capacity. This is significant in anybody's
language.
[Joe Dees 3] I do not see Saddam looking into the future as far as the
depletion of the fields; such an eventuality would not occur before his
natural-causes demise, at any rate. The oil that Kuwait was pumping would
not have meant that the Iraqi wells would be pumping less. At any rate,
besides the desire for a seaport and hegemony over the Muslim holy lands,
bestowing upon Saddam Hussein (he hoped, I'm sure) the mantle of Arab
leadership by osmosis, the desire for all that other Arabian Peninsula oil,
and the stranglehold such a control would cede him over the global economy,
would have to have been a greater consideration by orders of magnitude than
concern about a 12% that was not missing from what Iraq was at the time
extracting.
[Hermit 3] And if in 1965 (a very tense period), the US had discovered that
Russia had been encouraging Mexican oil companies to drill under Texas and
to supply that oil cheaply to Russian protégés; and if Mexico and Russia had
refused to back down to American demands for this to cease, what would the
newspapers have said? How insignificant would this have been? How long would
it have taken for US troops to invade Mexico? I do think that your argument
above strains credibility.
<snip>
[Joe Dees 3] I do not deny that Kuwait was aware that the squeaky wheel
would get any US military grease that might be forthcoming, and that in a
democratic country it was crucial to sway public opinion to their side. I
also detest the Kuwaiti treatment of women and dissident opinions (as I do
the Saudi treatment of the same), but the mass gassings of Kurds in the
north and the mass electrocutions in the south - by electrifying the Umm
Qasr delta south of Basra during the Iran-Iraq war - when combined with the
invasion itself, and its distal aims (the rest of the Arabian peninsula)
simply meant to me that we had a mad, brutal berserker ruling a behemoth
military that was barrelling like a juggernaut towards the heart of the
global economy, killing, stealing, pillaging, raping and razing as it went,
and it quite simply had to be stopped.
[Hermit 3] I wonder how we should view US and UK involvement in
instantiating the Iran Iraq war, and US supply to Iraq of advanced weaponry
to prosecute that war? Do you not think that many might see the US as "a
mad, brutal berserker ruling a behemoth military that was barreling like a
juggernaut towards the heart of the global economy, killing, stealing,
pillaging, raping and razing as it went, and it quite simply had to be
stopped." Including many Russians and Europeans watching the unilateral
abrogation of the SALT treaty by the US?
<snip>
[Joe Dees 3] I'm quite sure that the not-clean hands of the Kuwaitis were
involved in a lot of these, but they pale by comparison to the many
thousands killed, kidnapped and vanished by the Iraqis. I'm also sure that
many of those that were tried and sentenced did indeed commit the crimes for
which they were charged, and most probably others as well. I'd like to see
true democracy, freedom of expression, civil and human rights
egalitarianism, religious tolerance, and mutual non-aggression in all those
nations.
[Hermit 3] Do you have numbers to support this assertion?
[Hermit 3] So long as these areas remain economically and ecologically
marginal tribal territories, your wish is unlikely to be granted. Knocking
countries developing industrial-military complexii back to ground-zero is
not the way to achieve such aims.
<snip>
[Hermit 2] The rhetoric on both sides was more than a little heated. In
fact, Iraq "annexed" Kuwait (1990-08-08) only after the US had frozen Iraqi
assets (1990-08-02) invoked economic sanctions (1990-08-06) and moved troops
and equipment to Saudi Arabia (82nd Airborne and several fighter squadrons)
(1990-08-07). Even so, in the January meeting in Geneva between James Baker
(US Sec State) and Tariq Aziz (Iraq F.M), Iraq had already accepted
Resolution 660, but believed that the US would attack them whatever they
did, [quote]You know, at that time, until the resignation of Margaret
Thatcher, she was telling everybody that 'we will attack Iraq even if Iraq
withdraws from Kuwait,' you know that. She was asking for the dismantling of
Iraqi armament even if Iraq withdraws from Kuwait, so what does that mean?
It means first, that they will not go to United Nations to seek permission
because mainly she and George Bush were talking about Article 51 of the UN
Charter, which entitles them to support an ally, Kuwait, to attack Iraq and
act against Iraq. That was the official position of both the United States
and Britain. Secondly she was saying we must dismantle Iraq from its
military power. How could that be done without destroying Iraq, without a
war? You cannot dismantle the military power of a nation unless there is
some sort of a war. As it happened in Japan, as it happened in Germany in
the Second World War, you just don't do that by diplomatic means.[/quote]
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/aziz/2.html[/url]
[Joe Dees 3] But in fact the coalition forces were supported by the UN. And
OF COURSE we were moving troops into place after the on-the-ground Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait (but before their paper annexation), to forstall their
continuing it into the heart of the arabian peninsula.
[Hermit 3] "Were" is the operative word. We were supported by the UN - until
shortly before the "ground war" when Iraq indicated that it was prepared to
comply with resolutions 660 and 661. At that point the US elected to "go it
alone" and asserted that 660 provided a mandate and applied its veto to
block discussion. The current UN mandates do not support the use of force
against Iraq, and most of the member states have applied to remove the
sanctions - which the US has repeatedly blocked by using its veto. The US is
fully aware that if they were to permit a vote on this today, that all
sanctions would be lifted immediately. Which is why the US does not permit
this. [Reports and publicly available UN records].
[Joe Dees 3] Knowing what was at stake, Saudi Arabia begged, pleaded,
cajoled and implored us to intervene; they rightly saw that their very
existence as an independent country hung in the balance.
[Hermit 3] Saudi Arabia made those pleas after the US had explained that the
war in Kuwait was inevitable and that Saudia Arabia could choose to be a
friend or an enemy and provided US defense estimates of Iraqi force (later
shown to be hopeless exaggerations) and threatened to ground the US supplied
and operated AWACS/C4 aircraft - which would have exposed Saudi Arabia to
potential undetected air attack. Saudi Arabia did not have a lot of choices.
[Reference FAS and US War College Analysis].
<snip>
[Hermit 2] This is easily countered by the fact that in early February, in a
joint United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organization
report, the quantity of potable water was reported as being: [quote]less
than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational water and
sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four
times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the
rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases.[/quote]
Refer also [url]http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html[/url] and
other associated resources including the links and instructions to access US
documents provided at the foot of that page.
[Joe Dees 3] All that they have to do to get their water purified is to
allow UN inspectors to oversee the use of imported chemicals and equipment,
to ensure that it is not diverted for chemical weapons manufacturing
purposes. Saddam would rather have the propaganda and the weapons programs
than a healthy civilian populace, especially since a healthy civilian
populace might constitute more of an internal threat to his military rule.
[Hermit 3] This is simply not true. Iraq and the UN have repeatedly
suggested and submitted such plans, and the US has equally consistently
vetoed them. At least one director of the UN program resigned over exactly
this issue, saying that he could not run an aid program under these
conditions. He is now touring the US and Europe explaining to large
audiences exactly why the US is at fault. I tend to agree with his analysis.
[Sorry, I don't have the link handy. If you insist I can find it again. I
think his name is Bernard somebody]. In addition, these chemicals and
components are not controlled or registered dual-use technology, which makes
the US position extremely tenuous. It is likely that it is an illegal
interference in terms of the UN charter and resolutions applying to Iraq,
but the US has blocked enquiries down this path. [UN records/News reports].
[Joe Dees 3] To intentionally atttack public health utilities is not the
manner in which I would conduct a war; but then again, under such
restrictions, we might have lost Europe in WW II (although in the Iraqi
case, defeat was not a concern so much as the human cost of delay was, in my
opinion).
[Hermit 3] We took six months to build up to the war, refused to accept an
Iraqui withdrawal, and then deliberately targeted their infrastructure in
contravention of International law. This has resulted in over 1 million
deaths and you are saying that the "human cost of delay" was the issue?
Apropos of this, the same tactic was developed and used by the US during WW
II and later wars.
[Hermit 3] Iraq didn't stand a chance. Everybody knew it. Including Iraq.
<snip>
[Joe Dees 3] I urge you to consider the fact that we let the lion's share of
200,000 armored Republican guards out of an encirclement where we could have
pinned them down and killed every last one, rather than attack them as they
were leaving so they would be reluctant to return. We were not so
interested in sparing Iraq casualties as we were interested in leaving them
a viable military for border defence, should Iran have attempted to take
advantage of the situation in the south. However, rather than employ them
for this purpose, Saddam Hussein
proceeded to use those divisions to slaughter minority citizens in both the
north and south of his own country, aided by air power, until we stopped
him from doing so by imposing a no-fly zone and threatening to come to their
aid.
[Hermit 3] After refusing to accept a surrender, and after discussions with
a belligerent JCOS Colin Powell, the US President overrode his own CIC,
General Norman Schwarzkopf, who had wanted to allow the Iraqis to withdraw
from Kuwait, but without their equipment (1991-02-21), and ordered the
ground war to begin (1991-02-23) in order to preempt the idea of achieving
the goal by a TKO. [Refer
[url=http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/colin11.html]Behind Colin
Powell's Legend: Dodging Peace[/url] An short but impressive piece of
scholarship and analysis, citing both Powell and Schwarzkopf at length to
tell a quite horrific story of how to force an unwilling enemy into an
unwinable war.
[Hermit 3] I'd like sourcing on the second half. It does not gel with the
analysis I've studied, including those of the War College and FAS.
<snip>
[Joe Dees 3] What Saddam Hussein has done to the Kurds makes what Israel has
done to the Palestinians look like childs' play, and the Kurds have done
much less back; how could you support noninterference in the Kurdish
situation while urging the US to impose a solution in israel and Palestine?
[Hermit 3] Rather than non-interference, I see the Kurds as another group of
people I would like to see offered an opportunity by the same "rebuild
Africa a village at a time" proposal (which also addresses the "real"
problem of the Palestine). 20 million Kurds hated by everyone, with no
wealth, no skills and with no place to go, located in an area with too many
interests, and with a geography which admits of no viable independent
solution, is not something which is going to be addressed in place.
[Hermit 3] Pragmatism again.
<snip>
[Joe Dees 2] Of this I am truly ashamed; we should've continued until an
autonomous Kurdish homeland was established. We turned our backs upon those
whom we had befriended and who were helping us with our common objectives.
Kinda like we did with Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout. I sincerely
hope that we've learned the dire consequences of such behavior now and will
not repeat such travestous debacles in the future.
[Hermit 3] Additional comment. I don't think it would be possible to create
a viable Kurdish homeland in that area even if all the people in the
vicinity could be brought to agree to this. Look at a map. Landlocked
nations surrounded by enemies are not viable countries.
<snip>
[Hermit 2] It has already been repeated in Bosnia, in Chechnya and in
Afghanistan where all three have been effectively handed back to Russian
control.
[Joe Dees 3] I don't think so, except in the case of Chechnya, from whennce
came bombings of Moscow and mass kidmappings/murders by Islamic terrorists
affiliated with Osama Bin Laden; in Bosnia (who handed over several Al
Quaeda to us recently) and Afghanistan, the Russian contingent (and they are
minorities in either case) are apparently behaving themselves well.
[Hermit 3] It is an open secret that Putin was the source behind the Russian
terror. Refer "The FSB Blows Up Russia" co-authored by Yurii Felshtinskii, a
historian and writer who immigrated to the United States in 1978. His
writing partner is former FSB Lieutenant Colonel Aleksander Litvinenko.
Litvinenko, who joined the FSB in 1988, gained notoriety when he called a
news conference in late 1998 to accuse his FSB superiors of ordering the
assassination of oligarch and Kremlin insider Boris Berezovsky. Litvinenko
was arrested, but was later released and managed to flee the country last
year. He was granted political asylum in Britain this May. The "Novaya
gazeta" published 22 pages of this book on 2001-08-29 in which they report
that FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev who was responsible for ordering the
bombings. I have a lot more detail on this available. This got Vladimir
Putin from the FSB to the Kremlin and gave the Russians a second crack at
Chechnya.
[Hermit 3] The FSB might have a new name, but the disinformation techniques
that worked for the KGB work just as well for them today as they worked in
other countries in the 70s and 80s.
[Hermit 3] I wrote about Bosnia previously, and it is in the archives. Now
from my earlier post today:
[quote]
[Hermit 2] Let me remind you of what we have accomplished, I was going to
write, "what we have not accomplished", but recognized that things have
changed. Perhaps worth starting with Abdul Haq's advice to the US before his
death that bombing of Afghanistan was unnecessary and a grave mistake. He
believed that Taliban control could be broken, where needed, by financing
tribal uprisings - the standard form of Afghan warfare - without foreign
intervention. Otherwise, he warned, the Northern Alliance would take over
and bring in the Russians. He pleaded with Washington for restraint, but to
no avail. Haq was captured by Taliban during a bungled CIA operation and
hanged. But Haq was right. While the US bombed 160,000 plus Afghans into
refugee camps, killed some 2,000 civilians, far fewer Taliban and almost no
Al Q'aida members, and then hunted for bin Laden, the Bush Administration
was apparently too preoccupied to notice that its new best friend, Russia,
had broken its agreement to wait for formation of a pro-US, pro-Pakistani
regime, and seized half of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance, armed and
funded by Russia, directed by the Afghan Communist Party, and under the
overall command of the Chief of the Russian General Staff, Marshall Viktor
Kvashnin, deputy KGB director Viktor Komogorov, and a cadre of Russian
advisors, seized Kabul and all of northern Afghanistan, likely with the aid
of troops from Uzbekistan and/or Iran, just as he outfoxed the Americans in
1999 in a similar coup de main in Kosovo. No wonder they were dancing in the
streets! I was tempted to laugh myself. The much ballyhooed Afghan "unity"
conference in Germany produced a sham "coalition" government run by the
Northern Alliance. The 87-year old deposed Afghan King, Zahir Shah, widely
blamed for allowing the communists to infiltrate Afghanistan in the 1970's,
was invited back as a figurehead monarch. The very next day, feuding broke
among Alliance members. Old communist stalwart Rashid Dostam, who had just
finished massacring hundreds of Taliban prisoners with American and British
help, threatened war if his Uzbeks did not get more spoils. The Alliance's
figurehead president, Prof. Rabbani, a respected Islamic scholar, was shoved
aside by young communists. One of CIA's Pushtun "assets", Hamid Karzai, who
represents no one but himself, was named prime minister. There was no other
real Pushtun representation, though they comprise half the population. Of
thirty cabinet seats, two thirds went to Northern Alliance Tajiks, notably
the power ministries: defense, interior, and foreign affairs. Two women were
added for window dressing to please the west.
[Hermit 2] In short, we now have a communist-dominated regime, ruled by a
king, whose strings are pulled by Moscow and with 40% of the country
unrepresented. Quite a bizarre creation. Especially when we consider that
this was only possible courtesy of current American ineptitude and
ignorance. IMO it will take quite a while for the full fruits of this
exercise to become visible. Right now, it is visibly a severe political
defeat for American ambitions to use Afghanistan as a gateway to Central
Asian oil and gas, and while the "evil" Taliban is gone, the Communists are
in power in Kabul, the south of Afghanistan is in chaos, Pakistan is
isolated and unloved by all, Washington has spent $10 billion to date (and a
lot more to come if we keep our word) - and Mssrs Vladimir Putin and Ariel
Sharon are happily killing their own "terrorists". How much of this helps to
fight "evil", prevent further attacks on the US, avenge 911, or indeed to
achieve any other stated US aim is yet to be explained.
[/quote]
[Hermit 3] Same tactics, same cast. Only the set changed slightly - and the
audience. Seems that it is not just US Presidents who are gullible...
[Hermit 2] A slippery slope argument from you? The fact that this decision
results directly in the death of hundreds of thousands of children does not
bother you at all? You agree with the immortal words of Madeleine Albright
when she told CBS in 1996 that containing Iraq was worth the death of
500,000 Iraqi children?
[url]http://home.att.net/~drew.hamre/docAlb.htm[/url]
[Joe Dees 3] It might sound heartless and cruel,but we are facing a
heartless and cruel adversary; better theirs than mine, and they are
actively seeking to reify the second alternative.
[Hermit 3] If they are reciprocating, it is difficult to blame them. But I
think the "if" is important. And my opinion on terrorists is well known.
Stop them if they pose a threat. Detain them if they don't. If they survive
that (and you should attempt to ensure it), put them on trial. Do this under
the full klieglights of the world, and let them be judged by the
International community. Do the same with our own terrorists. Including
those in high-office. That way we stand a chance of eventually replacing
hate with law rather than simply escalating violence.
[Hermit 3] Where we can't stop or identify terrorists, we have to make a
deal with them to remove the threat. Don't kill people's children and then
try to make a deal with them, the probability the deal will be successful is
slim and the probability that they will harm you and they can high. Not
sensible. Iraq already has over a million dead to mourn, at American hands.
[Joe Dees 3] If Saddam Hussein truly cared about those kids for anything
except as dead propaganda tools, all he'd have to do would be to abandon WMD
programs and allow international monitors of the uses to which he put water
purification equipment and chemicals.
[Hermit 3] He says that he has no such programs and he has offered to
(although legally he cannot be forced to) show that the water systems are
safe. The US has persisted in using their veto to prevent Iraq from
obtaining the water needed to stop the deaths. By your logic, the US does
not care about these kids except as tools to interfere in Iraq's internal
affairs. That sounds far worse than Saddam Hussein to me.
[Joe Dees 3] His hands are the bloody ones; we are just unwilling to give
him the wherewithal to trade their blood (which he could indeed not spill if
he wished to spend the gigapetrobucks for their benefit) for our own, a
chance he would jump at like a frog on speed.
[Hermit 3] What you have stated very conclusively is that our hands are
bloody and that children are dying because of our choices (rather theirs
than ours). The question is how to fix the problem. Ten years, and three
presidents have shown that American policies are futile, and all that you
are suggesting is more of the same. Which undoubtedly lessens the chance for
any rational conclusion. Time to question your premises.
<snip>
[Hermit 3] I am not going to add China to this discussion - that will be
really messy as they are also involved (heavily) in ME intervention and
meddling. But it did serve to make the point that the US is as motivated by
money and power as Russia. Which is all that I was saying.
[Joe Dees 3] Their use of chemical weapons in the extinction of entire
villages does not appear to be token or inefficacious to me, nor does their
undoubtable willingness to supply them to third parties for importation and
use here. And some of the equipment could be modified to produce and
concentrate much more lethal biological agents. And are you maintaining
that all starving people in Iraq suffer from dysentery?
[Hermit 3] I have discussed the fact that chemical weapons have a low PoK in
my previous post - and even when deployed against the unprotected Kurds,
they were deployed with cluster munitions - and the vast majority of the
kills were made by the bomblet payloads
[Hermit 3] I remind you that the attacks on the Kurds were made in a war
situation (with Iran) when Iraq apparently believed that they had made cause
with Iran. I find this not unbelievable (but still inexcusable). Just as I
found US hits on Korean "sympathizer villages" unacceptable - and the same
for SADF hits on suspected Namibian "sympathizers". Civilians are not
legitimate targets no matter how you kill them. Napalm, cluster bombs or
gas. They all have the same intended and unacceptable end result.
[Hermit 3] I would appreciate it if you did not attempt to pervert my words.
I did not say "all starving people in Iraq suffer from dysentery?" However
the fact that there is some food, and that the UN reports that most PMs
reflect dehydration consequent on massive infection suggests that most
deaths are being caused by contaminated water. I have previously provided US
sourced information on the disease profiles indicates that most mortalities
caused by starvation are consequent on a range of deliberately generated
disease, and that the deliberation was done by the US not Saddam Hussein.
Can you say Q.E.D.?
<snip>
[Joe Dees 3] That's enough money to IMPORT enough clean drinking water for
the populace.
[Hermit 3] My water bill, in one of the wettest regions of the US, and where
the water is cheaply sourced from a well, runs at $45 per month. As the
water is, in my opinion unsuited for consumption, I run an expensive reverse
osmosis and metal filtration system to post-process it. In South Africa,
where the water was better, but scarcer, water ran me about $20 per month.
If my memory of exchange rates is right, I paid a lot more than that
everywhere else in Africa. So your assertion does not sound true to me.
Would you like to attempt to support it?
<snip>
[Hermit 2] This assumes the money is for internal use, it is not. Internal
money can be created at the cost of inflation (being done) and generating
debt (already done). It is required for external supplies. And US, World
Bank and Jane’s Defense Weekly figures on Middle East arms acquisition show
that any claim that significant diversion of funds is being made for arms
acquisition is fallacious.
[Joe Dees 3] It's being done not to buy arms, but to develop the internal
capacity to make them.
[Hermit 3] But the factories that used to manufacture arms are now at one
with the sands of the desert. Are you forgetting that in a month of non-stop
bombing, the US carpet bombed Iraq's production facilities with more
ordinance than they delivered on wartime Germany and Japan combined. US
defense figures reflect that no industries are functioning effectively - and
arms industries are no exception. Jane's reflects that arms production has
ceased. Where are they buying this production capability, and where are they
putting it - and having it, what are they going to do with it? Launch a
flotilla to attack New York? Their only conceivable use for arms is for
defense. They don't have the technical capability to achieve air
superiority, so any adventurism, even against their inept neighbors, will
lead to their destruction.
<snip>
[Hermit 2] No, I don't tell lies. I don’t need to. You are missing the
points explained above – and more. In mid 1990 Iraq imported more than 70%
of its basic needs (UN data).
[Joe Dees 3] This is because they were already on a military footing,
preparing to seize Kuwait and beyond, and indeed had been on such a footing
since the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980. The ability to redirect
effort and resources towards the production of civilian goods was there, but
Saddam Hussein was, and is, not interested in such options. Nor do I think
he ever will be.
[Hermit 3] This is not what the UN says. They think that Iraq expanded their
industrial base as a part of a deliberate drive to Westernize. Clearly they
are not now capable of producing sufficient food to feed themselves even
given that almost all of their energy is of necessity now devoted to that
function. Sad. Forty hours a week in a factory and the children at school,
exchanged for 80 hours a week of sustenance farming by the whole family -
and they still can't make ends meet. It illustrates the value of modern
civilization in a very explicit, though hardly attractive demonstration.
[Joe Dees 3] I do not see these as essential; although I like mine, toilet
paper is not something that is even preferred in much of europe, where they
have bidets; it is an artifact of american culture. Few people will die
without aspirin, and those that need it badly could get it from a relative
of the willow tree. Anyone can ferment disinfectant, if they can resist
drinking it.
[Hermit 3] When there is no toilet paper and no running water, then contact
disease (especially cholera) sweeps through communities (or why it is one of
the first deliveries to a refugee camp - even in Africa).
[Hermit 3] Aspirin is not just an analgesic, but acts to reduce fever by
blocking prostaglandin production. When you have no other medication that
alone can be a lifesaver. Especially in children (NB there are better and
safer fever reduction agents, as complications can occur when the fever is
viral rather than bacterial or traumatic), but fever can kill. While
salicylic acid is easily extracted from various plants, it irritates the
stomach and the mouth and can trigger uncontrollable bleeding in ulcerated
patients. Aspirin is much safer as it is not acid. The transformation is
usually performed by converting salicylic acid and acetic anhydride into
acetylsalicylic acid and free acetic acid (which is removed). The process is
time consuming and requires sulfuric acid (another prohibited chemical) and
good thermal control.
[Hermit 3] Alcohol is no good as a disinfectant for water as by the time it
is potent enough to kill bacteria, it is also poisonous to humans. While it
could, I suppose be used and then removed by fractional distillation, I'm
not sure how much alcohol they have, and am sure that it would be simpler
just to boil the water. Unfortunately that takes heat. And heat requires
power. Which is something else which is scarce in Iraq.
[Hermit 3] Of course, if they really wanted Chlorine for making poison gas,
they could produce it from rock-salt - which they have in abundance. But the
process is inefficient and is definitely not a good way to chlorinate
industrial quantities of water. Still, it would suffice to produce more than
enough to produce viable quantities of poison gas. Heck, they could almost
certainly produce chlorine in sufficient quantities for weapons use more
cheaply using plastic packaging materials - including the packaging used for
food supplies. I know I could. So even from a purely practical perspective
the reasoning is nonsense. Then too, almost anything is dangerous when
misapplied. Take aspirin. The production of trinitrophenol from aspirin and
a few other common household substances is trivial (kitchen chemistry but
with some rather poisonous gas production), and as the end result is a
remarkable plastique (think C-4) producing a flame velocity of around 7000
m.s^-1 it makes a good demolition explosive (think shaped charges) and mixed
with a retarder makes a good propellant as well. In addition, it can be
trivially converted into various primary explosives (think detonator),
including accidentally, so I don't suggest experiments unless you really
know what you are doing (and, given current paranoia, probably not even
then). So by this reasoning, even aspirin [i]should[/i] by your reasoning,
be classed as a hazardous precursor chemical and not allowed to be
distributed. Fortunately chemists are seldom terrorists and the politicians
haven't realized this yet, so you can still buy all the needed goods at your
local Walmart if you know what to call it in order not to excite attention
(i.e. you can't ask for the happy home bomb maker’s kit). But I guarantee
that any chemically literate person could come up with a dozen ways to
produce rather nasty substances from one perspective or another in almost
any environment.
<snip>
[Joe Dees 3] They cannot buy the chemicals because of the pictures of that
devastated Kurdish village that were globally seen by populations and world
leaders. Is your solution to give them the chemicals and accept the deaths
of those they kill with the misused ones as collateral damage?
[Hermit 3] That required air delivery and most of the kills were caused by
cluster sub-munitions. They cannot deliver by air as they have a shortage of
functional aircraft (and pilots), and any other mechanism requires either a
very high risk to the personnel delivering such packages or an enclosed area
(not common). I have shown that they could produce chlorine in other ways in
sufficient quantity for weapons production, but not for water purification.
In any case, if they used this method to kill Kurds they would be stupid.
They could use “legitimate” methods to solve the “problem” - like
starvation, imprisonment, disease and judicial executions – like the Turks.
And the people of Iraq are not renowned for stupidity (except perhaps in
underestimating the American habit of turning on their erstwhile allies).
<snip>
[Hermit 2] But this was not true prior to 1991 when Iraq was the fastest
growing regional economy. And it is not caused by him according to every UN
program that has reported on the situation there. I wonder why you
[i]believe[/i] otherwise? Can you provide me with a source?
[Joe Dees 3] I believe otherwise because I know about all the money going in
there,
[Hermit 3] Quantify, accessible source please.
[Joe Dees 3] and I know that if it weren't being misspent, that he'd lose
his WMD programs,
[Hermit 3] Source? The UN says they don't exist. The US says they do. There
seems to be a conflict. What [i]evidence[/i] do you have as to which to
believe? Bearing in mind the difficulty of proving a negative, I assume that
you have access to material proving the ongoing existence of these programs,
evidence that I have not seen pass through either Jane's or FAS.
[Joe Dees 3] a pampered and therefore loyal military,
[Hermit 3] I very much doubt that the military are pampered. During the Gulf
war, many of the soldiers were malnourished. Are you suggesting that after a
decade of starvation diet, that they are better off than they were in the
early 1990s, when you claimed that "because they were already on a military
footing, preparing to seize Kuwait and beyond" a little earlier? Surely
their soldiers should have been in better condition back then, prior to
sanctions and preparing to seize Kuwait and all that?
[Joe Dees 3] and the horror stories he loves to regale swayable people like
you with.
[Hermit 3] First slippery slope, now ad hominem? Don't like losing? My
conclusions have been formed as a result of a long process of reviewing
American and UN source materials, carefully distinguishing between assertion
and proven issues and classing all material as open to question. This is
very contrary to the impression you are creating of simply accepting media
related assertions. I am systematically making the material I have located
available, so that others can decide for themselves. As an unnecessary
aside, I am not generally considered swayable. Hell, even you should know
that this can't be true, or you would presumably not be having such
difficulty making a case.
[Joe Dees 3] I have nothing against providing the Iraqi people with the
ability to make or import everything they need, so long as such provisions
are not abused by a certain dictator who has and most certainly would abuse
them, to our pain and dismay.
[Hermit 3] I don't see this at all. I have shown (Congressional Committee
evidence) that the US provided Iraq with weaponized biowarfare precursors
and that the decision to do so was approved by State and Defense - Iraq
didn't lie about that at all. The US, Britain, French and Germans provided
them with nuclear and chemical expertise and plants until the very outbreak
of hostilities and the process was reviewed. Iraq didn't lie about that
either. Iraq lost hundreds of thousands of people in the Gulf War. America
lost 147 in combat and a few hundred more in casualties in a war, which I
have shown (the memoirs of Powell and Schwarzkopf, statements by Bush and
State) they appear to have been determined to force on Iraq. Since then Iraq
has lost over a million people and the US has lost none, but believes
(Albright) that this cost (which the US is not paying) is worthwhile. The US
economy boomed due to accelerated Gulf War spending and increased consumer
confidence (Federal Reserve). The UN thinks that Iraq will have to spend $
70 billion to recover just their basic infrastructure. The sanctions have
cost Iraq at least 150 billion in forex (DOE and CIA estimates). In terms of
pain, it looks to me that Iraq is doing all the feeling. Asserted US dismay
(and belief that it is “worthwhile”) is cheap when they are not doing the
paying.
<snip>
[Hermit 2] Iraq believes, possibly with reason, that this won't make a
difference. The example of Iran shows that they may be correct. The UN does
not believe that Iraq can deliver WMDs. The US possesses WMDs and has the
ability to deliver them. Are you advocating that the US abandon its WMD
programs?
[Joe Dees 3] We don't plan to do what Hussein has tried to do.
[Hermit 3] Iraq could not do to anyone what the US has done to Iraq. Period.
Thus this statement is demonstrably untrue.
[Joe Dees 3] And the US is indeed reducing their arsenals of nuclear
weapons, curtailing their chemical weapons programs, and ended their
biological weapons program (perhaps prematurely, since we need to keep
biological defence current), we are doing these things as fast as we can
persuade other major powers with these capabilities to verifiably accompany
us.
[Hermit 3] Are you deaf to what the rest of the world has said about the
unilateral abrogation of SALT or don't you care? Same question goes for
landmines. While the number of missiles has decreased (largely due to the
reduction in the number of boomers and completely ineffective fixed silos)
in the last 15 years, the number of warheads has actually increased (due to
increased deployment of MIRVs) (Jane’s and FAS). Reductions tend to be cost
cutting driven (Senate Reports, FAS and Jane’s). The weaponized bio and
chemical materials are largely still stockpiled due to the hazards of
disposal (EPA and DoD). As the recent stories coming out in Congress about
the very iffy goings on in various biowarfare labs reflects, research in
Biowarfare has continued under the guise of preventive measures. The fact
that the US has limited inspections (Senate record and US Law) and has
unilaterally abrogated the world's major strategic arms limitation agreement
(CIS and European analysis and comment, Jane’s and FAS) and failed to ratify
any others (same) is hardly conducive persuading others to accept our bona
fides.
[Joe Dees 3] If you are going to type a moral equivalence between the
aggrandizing territorial ambitions of that bloodthirsty madman
[Hermit 3] Your assertion. Found it. Saddam Hussein complained about his
neighbor (Kuwait) stealing from his country and selling what they stole to
their friends (US oil companies). His neighbor’s friends (UK and US) told
him to fuck himself. He asked if he could deal with it himself. He was told
that nobody cared if he did. He did so. The US went stratospheric, made like
playground bullies (while claiming the moral high-ground) and forced him to
go home bleeding. Again, I see Bush as being the bloodthirsty madman - not
Saddam Hussein. [Refer
[url=http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/colin11.html]Behind Colin
Powell's Legend: Dodging Peace[/url]. I see Saddam as a small time tribal
leader, with little grasp of International matters, an aggressive
disposition and a poor line in rhetoric. Not unlike President Bush II but
without the religious motivations.
[Joe Dees 3] and the requested military assistance agaist despots and
aggressors and the humanitarian aid that the US has endeavored to provide to
many countries without even a thought of holding on to their territory,
[Hermit 3] I'd like to think that this were true and am (evidently) prepared
to spend a great deal of effort on the matter. Yet everywhere I look, the
more I look, the less of what you claim to be the case is apparent to me. My
conclusion is tending towards the impression that the US seeks a very
submissive obedience to her every whim, irrespective of the rationality (or
lack of it), and will act completely without hesitation or compunction if
this is not offered. That she is completely unmindful of issues of
sovereignty or International law, like any bully, riding roughshod over the
interests or legitimate concerns of others. That her interests are
completely defined by her cupidity and easily driven ill-educated public
opinion. That she is gullible and tyrannical at the same time - a very
volatile combination. That she will force her opinion on any other country,
by fair means or foul. As foul is generally cheaper, foul seems to be
preferred option. That her political system was designed well, but that it
was not sufficiently protected from rogues, knaves and selfish fools to be
self-correcting in the face of the massive deliberate abuse inflicted upon
her by those most nearly responsible for implementing the mechanisms of her
political systems. That if any positive change is to occur, it will likely
be via a memetically driven grass-roots movement, as the formal media and
the political machines are so incestuously coupled and interdependent that
change will not come from mainstream sources; and besides, that her media is
so trivialized and the populace itself very largely so poorly educated that
her populace is unable to form an independent opinion, and are not only
unable to address weighty issues, but completely fail to grasp their
responsibility to ensure that the system operates effectively.
[Joe Dees 3] then we truly have nothing whatsoever to discuss, because
obviously we are not just speaking from differing perspectives, but from
different planets.
[Hermit 3] Only you can decide that. I haven't given up on you yet :-/ I
think that I am doing exactly what the US constitution was designed to
encourage.
[Hermit 3] Imagining that analysis and constructive criticism constitutes an
attack is, in my opinion, exactly what the US constitution was most intended
to avoid. After all, of what value is protected free speech if nobody dare
say “we are making a mistake”, “our leaders cannot be trusted” or even “we
are acting wrongly.” I would suggest that in stating that if we disagree
then discussion is futile, you are also saying that the system is
irrevocably broken. Having met many Americans (including the majority of
"ordinary people" as well as scientists, military and political leaders) who
appear to think otherwise, I am far from reaching that conclusion. Having
made the US my home, I hope that I may help to make some difference in my
perspective of the above by working through the system to persuade others
that the current regime is not the best way to interact with the world. As
you can no doubt imagine, this discussion is taking huge quantities of time
that I would rather spend on creating suggestions for the future rather than
investigating the mistakes of the past, so if you wish to drop the
discussion, let me know and I will accept that (but you would need to drop
your assertions about the superiority of the US and the evils of Islam
(rather than all semitic religions) or be prepared to take up this
discussion again).
Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT