weapons of mass destruction, the threat to the world

[takeo]

1970: Sarin nerve gas used by U.S. forces in a secret raid into Laos called Operation Tailwind. "Upwards of 100'' people perished in the raid, including Laotian civilians. Platoon leader Lt. Robert Van Buskirk estimated up to 20 U.S. military defectors were killed. Adm. Thomas Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed theraid on CNN in 1998.

1971: U.S. ends direct use of herbicides such as Agent Orange; had spread over Indochinese forests, and destroyed at least six percent of South Vietnamese cropland, enough to feed 600,000 people for a year. U.S. intelligence source gives swine-flu virus to anti-Castro Cuban paramilitary group, which lands it on Cuba's southern coast (according to1977 newspaper reports).

1972: Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. Cuba accuses CIA of instilling swine fever virus that leads to death of 500,000 hogs.

1979: Washington Post reports on U.S. program against Cuban agriculture since 1962, including CIA biological warfare component.

[JustPat]

I guess the US has really improved. I don't see one citation during your lifetime.

[takeo]

Alfred, what is such a kind of reply to the above post?

You seem to be very touchy, anyone criticising the us (justified or not, it doesn't seem to be of importance to you) will get loads of (mostly unbased) insults and emotional .

Yep, justpath (or the intelligence system has improved so that information doesn't come trough anymore). Still the us used deplored uranium bombs in Iraq, Kosovo and other places it started a war, and will most likely use limited nuclear bombs in the upcoming new war against Iraq.
Also what i didn't mention was the use of other toxic weapons, who may or may not be biological weapons, but killed a whole eco-system and destroyed the lifes of millions of people in Indochina, together with the massive use of fragmentation bombs, chemical products, which also killed many 100's of 1000's of people. To me those are weapons of mass-destruction as well.

So cynical that the us plans to use WMD in a war that is supposed to limit the spread of WMD around the world. (of course the only possible way to search and destroy them, if there are any) is letting the weapons inspectors doing their work, but that has never been the goal).

[JustPat]

Originally posted by takeo
justpat (or the intelligence system has improved so that information doesn't come trough anymore). Still the us used deplored uranium bombs in Iraq, Kosovo and other places it started a war, and will most likely use limited nuclear bombs in the upcoming new war against Iraq.
Also what i didn't mention was the use of other toxic weapons, who may or may not be biological weapons, but killed a whole eco-system and destroyed the lifes of millions of people in Indochina, together with the massive use of fragmentation bombs, chemical products, which also killed many 100's of 1000's of people. To me those are weapons of mass-destruction as well.

So cynical that the us plans to use WMD in a war that is supposed to limit the spread of WMD around the world. (of course the only possible way to search and destroy them, if there are any) is letting the weapons inspectors doing their work, but that has never been the goal).

You really need to expand your reading beyond the propaganda rags you read ... or stop sucking on that bong.

Our intelligence is extraordinary. Things I have seen scare me, to think we can be so privy to the secrets of others makes me wonder what they know about me.

Our forces in the Gulf used none of the weapons you describe. Move up to the present and make your argument. Some of us continue to grow, others - like you - are anchored to the past and cannot deal with the present.

The weapons inspectors have been doing their work. They are inspectors, not detectives. The weapons, or the evidence of their destruction, was to be freely supplied for inspection. Instead there has been defiance, resistance, and deception. Pull the inspectors and let the generals discover the WMD. We will ensure they are destroyed.

[takeo]

if the inspectors can't find them i'm sure the generals can't either.

defiance, resistance? iraq agreed to all demands of the weapons inspectors. They can search freely in iraq, interview iraqi scientists, 1000's of documents had been given (perhaps not all), surveillance flights can fly over Iraq(even if this wasn't part of the deal reached between the weapons inspectors and iraq), so even if iraq didn't comply fully, one can't say there is defiance and resistance on the iraqi side. in fact no other country ever has been investigated as toroughful as Iraq (and there are some other cadidates who could need some inspection, Iran, Pakistan, north-Korea, Israel, ...)

WMD: yes uranium has been used in the Gulf-war. The number of cancers as a result rose dramatically and traces of uranium have been found on all heavily bombed sides troughout Iraq.

I don't live in the past, you do. Remember it has been 12 years since iraq last invaded kouweit and 14 years since it last used WMD. it also has been a considerable number of years since iraq is no longer a threat.
By referring to the Vietnam-war i wanted to make clear that the us isn't above suspicion. And who is constantly making comparisons with the second world-war, even if this war is totally unrelated and of a completely different nature???

[JustPat]

Originally posted by takeo
if the inspectors can't find them i'm sure the generals can't either.

If you had any idea what you were talking about ... but you don't.

Originally posted by takeo
defiance, resistance? iraq agreed to all demands of the weapons inspectors. They can search freely in iraq, interview iraqi scientists, 1000's of documents had been given (perhaps not all), surveillance flights can fly over Iraq(even if this wasn't part of the deal reached between the weapons inspectors and iraq), so even if iraq didn't comply fully, one can't say there is defiance and resistance on the iraqi side. in fact no other country ever has been investigated as toroughful as Iraq (and there are some other cadidates who could need some inspection, Iran, Pakistan, north-Korea, Israel, ...)

Defiance ... YES
Resistance ... YES
Iraq has complied to demands only when it felt it had no other option. Even in compliance it practices deception and subterfuge. Soon it will be readily apparent how much they were trying to hide. I promise no to say "I told you so."

Originally posted by takeo
WMD: yes uranium has been used in the Gulf-war. The number of cancers as a result rose dramatically and traces of uranium have been found on all heavily bombed sides troughout Iraq.

Facts to document?

Originally posted by takeo I don't live in the past, you do. Remember it has been 12 years since iraq last invaded kouweit and 14 years since it last used WMD. it also has been a considerable number of years since iraq is no longer a threat.

Since you were but a child, let me remind you of the history. Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. After raping and pillaging the country they set it afire. Only the US was willing to take Iraq on, defend the innocents, and build the coalition that liberated and secured Kuwait. France would have negotiated Kuwait out of existence.
Saddam, not the US, used Chemical weapons. We used no nuclear bombs. We sought to limit collateral damage. Perhaps you should talk to those who were taken prisoner and see how well they were treated.

[LionOfLoyalty]

While the US's history is not clear of the use of chemical and biological weapons, all evidence shows that it has stopped such programs. You might say that this only shows that we are not aware of it, however if we're going to go down that road then God knows what else we could claim. Might I refer you to Kosovo, a place whose Muslim population so admires the US that in a case where a US soldier accidentally fired on a Kosovian child while performing maintenence on his weapon, the father not only forgave the soldier publicly but stated that he considers the US saviours, not invaders. Here we see a perfect example of how US intervention can help a region.

[takeo]

Defiance ... YES
Resistance ... YES
Iraq has complied to demands only when it felt it had no other option. Even in compliance it practices deception and subterfuge. Soon it will be readily apparent how much they were trying to hide. I promise no to say "I told you so."

deception and subterfuge?
how and when? what could Iraq have done more?
instead of focusing on the few issues on which iraqi cooperation could have been better, we should also focus on the total liberty inspectors have to go anywhere in Iraq. you'll probably say "it isn't enough", but can you give me one example of a country that would give permission for such a program? Certainly not Israel or the US! the US has an excellent secret service as you said yourself, it could easily inform the inspectors where and when iraq defied the un-resolutions.
Perhaps after the war, which will certainly lead to numerous innocent death people on the iraqi civilian side, the us will need something to polish their image. So they'll "find" some nuclear bombs" or chemical weapons. After all, if you own the place in isn't hard to fake proves...

Facts to document?

ok

http://www.padrigu.gu.se/EDCNews/Reviews/Fisk2000.html
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/ud_main.html

Since you were but a child, let me remind you of the history. Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. After raping and pillaging the country they set it afire. Only the US was willing to take Iraq on, defend the innocents, and build the coalition that liberated and secured Kuwait. France would have negotiated Kuwait out of existence.
Saddam, not the US, used Chemical weapons. We used no nuclear bombs. We sought to limit collateral damage. Perhaps you should talk to those who were taken prisoner and see how well they were treated.

All this is history, my dear friend, as much as the vietnam-war (in which the great "threat" won the war) it is no longer the current situation. To you your own words "you live in the past"...

While the US's history is not clear of the use of chemical and biological weapons, all evidence shows that it has stopped such programs. You might say that this only shows that we are not aware of it, however if we're going to go down that road then God knows what else we could claim. Might I refer you to Kosovo, a place whose Muslim population so admires the US that in a case where a US soldier accidentally fired on a Kosovian child while performing maintenence on his weapon, the father not only forgave the soldier publicly but stated that he considers the US saviours, not invaders. Here we see a perfect example of how US intervention can help a region.

Of course Kosovars adore American soldiers. if the us would bomb israel and force it to withdraw from the occupied territories, i'm sure the palestinians would love the us as well. What do you want to proove with this example?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by takeo deception and subterfuge?
how and when? what could Iraq have done more?
instead of focusing on the few issues on which iraqi cooperation could have been better, we should also focus on the total liberty inspectors have to go anywhere in Iraq. you'll probably say "it isn't enough", but can you give me one example of a country that would give permission for such a program?

You miss the point. It is not the job of the inspectors to discover the WMD and destroy it. They are there to verify that the WMD has been accurately rep[orted and properly destroyed. In order to do that Iraq must openly and honestly report, which they have not. Then they must lead the inspectors to the proof that the WMD has been properly destroyed, which they have not. You would think a university man like yourself could understand the expectations.

Originally posted by takeo Certainly not Israel or the US! the US has an excellent secret service as you said yourself, it could easily inform the inspectors where and when iraq defied the un-resolutions.
Perhaps after the war, which will certainly lead to numerous innocent death people on the iraqi civilian side, the us will need something to polish their image. So they'll "find" some nuclear bombs" or chemical weapons. After all, if you own the place in isn't hard to fake proves...

1. The Secret Service is not in the foreign intelligence business.
2. You have no idea what has been provided. More than you realize has been revealed.
3. Blix was the one who has already verified that Iraq is in full material breach of the resolutions. No other proof is necessary. It is merely a courtesy that we have deferred to the frog prince in not launching already.

I'm looking for proof. You give me ...

Originally posted by takeo
http://www.padrigu.gu.se/EDCNews/Reviews/Fisk2000.html
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/ud_main.html

An editorial by someone who claims to have proof is not proof, especially when those commentators have an ax to grind.

Do you understand what depleted uranium is? So you understand why it is used in munitions? Do you think that Iraq has none of its own?

As I understand it, there is currently investigation underway to determine the effects and impact of depleted uranium munitions. The results are not complete and thus have not been verified. What has been released by the WHO is this:

Direct contact of depleted uranium metal with the skin, even for several weeks, is unlikely to produce radiation-induced erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other short-term effects. Follow-up studies of veterans with embedded fragments in the tissue have shown detectable levels of depleted uranium in the urine, but without apparent health consequences. The radiation dose to military personnel within an armoured vehicle is very unlikely to exceed the average annual external dose from natural background radiation from all sources.

Those trying to make a case for DU contamination have had to use facts that do not exist. (But you are used to that.)

Originally posted by takeo
Of course Kosovars adore American soldiers. if the us would bomb israel and force it to withdraw from the occupied territories, i'm sure the palestinians would love the us as well. What do you want to proove with this example?

Sorry, we do not support the agenda of terrorists, but we would be glad to bomb the Palestinian Authority if you think that will help. Then the Palestinians could actually have a shot at freedom.

[takeo]

You miss the point. It is not the job of the inspectors to discover the WMD and destroy it. They are there to verify that the WMD has been accurately rep[orted and properly destroyed. In order to do that Iraq must openly and honestly report, which they have not. Then they must lead the inspectors to the proof that the WMD has been properly destroyed, which they have not. You would think a university man like yourself could understand the expectations.

The problem is, how can you proove you innocence? The UNSC-resolution emphasised that Iraq must cooperate with the weapons inspections, and Iraq has given 1000's of documents. Most of these had already been handed over to the inspectors in the 90's. It isn't always easy to search for documents of what happened 10 years ago, especially since the us-operation "desert fox" targetted the ministries of defense...
One can't say that iraq didn't cooperate, perhaps it could have given more documents, but in general Iraq complied to all the specific demands of the resolution.
The inspectors have now all means to controll if Iraq still posesses WMD. Since it says it doesn't have any, they will not provide any documents or places prooving where the suspected wMD are. So the inspectors have to confirm and research if the iraqi denials are truthfull or not. The resolution didn't say that iraqi has to proove its innocence, inspectors have to proove they are guilty.

1. The Secret Service is not in the foreign intelligence business.
2. You have no idea what has been provided. More than you realize has been revealed.
3. Blix was the one who has already verified that Iraq is in full material breach of the resolutions. No other proof is necessary. It is merely a courtesy that we have deferred to the frog prince in not launching already.

I'm looking for proof. You give me ...

1) OK, in French this is all the same name.
2) IF evidences had been provided, why doesn't the world and the weapons inspectors know about it??? It would've been the ideal excuse to bomb Iraq
3) no, Blix didn't say so. He said Iraqi cooperation was satisfactory, but could be improved, that's an entirely different statement. By the way only the security council can declare that iraq is in material breach according to the latest un-resolution.

An editorial by someone who claims to have proof is not proof, especially when those commentators have an ax to grind.

yes, but the second link provided sources, investigations by doctors and scientists, etc;

As I understand it, there is currently investigation underway to determine the effects and impact of depleted uranium munitions. The results are not complete and thus have not been verified. What has been released by the WHO is this:

Depleted uranium poses a risk to both personnel and the environment even according to the us army-sites, but only if the body comes into contact with contaminated parts, not by radiation.
according to civil right groups however, who also base themselves on scientific studies, DU also poses a radiation risk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1867138.stm

"A small number of soldiers and civilians might suffer kidney damage from depleted uranium (DU) if substantial amounts are breathed in, or swallowed in contaminated soil and water.


The main concerns are that children can ingest large amounts of soil when they're playing

Prof Brian Spratt
A report by the UK's academy of science, the Royal Society, recommends that soldiers who may have been exposed to DU should be tested for the presence of uranium in their kidneys and in their urine.

Written by some of the country's leading scientists, the report also suggests that DU may contaminate water supplies - putting civilians at risk.

The society's recommendations include annual water sampling in areas of high contamination and more research into the health of veterans who may have been exposed to DU.

Inhaled dust

DU is used in weapons designed to pierce the heaviest armour, such as in tanks. It is a by-product of nuclear fuel development and is slightly radioactive.

Gulf war veteran Brian Tooze was rushed into hospital with suspected meningitis four years after he returned from the conflict.

But instead of the brain disease, doctors found there was evidence of DU in his urine.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that now he suffers from skin cancer, kidney trouble, irritable bowel syndrome, constant headaches, tinnitus and problems with balance.

Testing

"It is impossible to work and I may now have to have my right knee replaced with a false one," he added.

Mr Tooze does not put all his symptoms down to DU exposure - he blames a combination of that and post-traumatic stress disorder, but he has backed calls for proper testing of UK soldiers.

A previous report by the Royal Society, published in May last year, suggested the radioactivity associated with DU might increase the risk of individuals developing lung cancer.

Those most at risk are soldiers who breathe in high levels of DU dust which often occurs when a person is caught close to a DU impact.

On penetrating a tank, the weapon breaks up to form a fine dust that can be inhaled.

The dust can also settle on the ground and cause further danger to the clean-up teams who move into an area to remove the wreckage of war.

Heavy metal

Depleted uranium is also a dangerous chemical that can have other effects on the body.


The Balkans: Wherever Nato has gone to war, the issue has been hotly debated

This latest report by the Royal Society suggests that most soldiers on the battlefield will be exposed to levels of DU that are unlikely to cause heavy metal poisoning.

But those who inhale large enough quantities may experience short-term kidney problems.

Currently there is not enough data to assess the long-term damage. The scientists predict that very high exposure could lead to kidney failure within days.

The UN is recording DU hot spots - areas where DU weapons have been used.

Children at risk

Professor Brian Spratt from Imperial College in London and one of the authors of the Royal Society report said that children could be particularly at risk

"The main concerns are that children can ingest large amounts of soil when they're playing and ingestion of the heavily contaminated soil could give them high levels of uranium in their kidneys which could cause them some kidney damage," he told BBC News Online.

Another problem is water contamination. Local civilian populations could be at risk if DU leaked into water sources. Tests show this has not happened.

But Professor Spratt suggests that water sampling is carried out every year as it could take up to 40 years for the DU to filter into the water.

Recent conflict

If that did happen and dangerous levels of DU were present then drinking water would be unsafe.

DU weapons were used in the Gulf War and in the Balkans. The British Ministry of Defence has confirmed that no DU weapons have been used by UK forces in the conflict in Afghanistan.

It is not yet clear whether the US has used DU weapons.

Professor Spratt is hopeful that screening of veterans will start by the end of the year so more can be learnt about the effects of DU on the body. "





.

[takeo]

"Dan Fahey of the Military Toxicity Project, a civilian watchdog group investigating the environmental and health impacts of the use and dismantling of US weapons, studied material obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and announced in March 1998 that, "About 400 thousand soldiers may have been exposed to depleted uranium."

The US Defense Department (Pentagon) attacked this estimate, claiming that his figures were utterly groundless. About eight months later, under pressure from the National Gulf War Resource Center (NGWRC) (head office: Washington, DC) created by Gulf War veterans, their families and allies, the Pentagon published a map of the areas in which DU shells were used. At that point, they admitted that about 436 thousand ground soldiers had entered areas where DU munitions were used in Kuwait and Iraq.

The hazards of DU were known before the Gulf War.

A military report in 1974 evaluating the medical and environmental effects of depleted uranium noted, "In combat situations involving the widespread use of DU munitions, the potential for inhalation, ingestion, or implantation of DU compounds may be locally significant."

Another report issued in July 1990 by the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a company under contract to the military, identified the hazards even more clearly. Because depleted uranium is "a low-level alpha radiation emitter" it could be "linked to cancer when exposures are internal." It further warned, "Aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant, with potential radiological and toxicological effects."

Thus, the Pentagon knew the dangers of DU well in advance, yet did nothing to inform or educate its soldiers about that danger and took no protective measures.

No Protective Equipment: These US soldiers are preparing to ship home US tanks destroyed by friendly DU fire. Here they are taking no measures whatsoever to protect themselves from radioactive contamination. All undoubtedly inhaled or ingested DU particles. (Courtesy of Douglas Rokke, taken May 1991, in Saudi Arabia)


Investigation: These US soldiers are investigating radioactive contamination and potential protective measures after firing DU shells at this Iraqi tank brought to the US as a "spoil of war." They are wearing protective clothing and masks to prevent contamination. (Courtesy of Douglas Rokke, taken June 1995, at the nuclear test site in Nevada)

In 1993, a report compiled by the General Accounting Office (GAO) stated, "The Army was not adequately prepared to deal with depleted uranium contamination." The reason given would be hard to defend to those who became casualties of this decision. "Army officials believe that DU protective methods can be ignored during battle and other life-threatening situations because DU-related health risks are greatly outweighed by the risks of combat."

http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/ura...al/index3.html

Sorry, we do not support the agenda of terrorists, but we would be glad to bomb the Palestinian Authority if you think that will help. Then the Palestinians could actually have a shot at freedom.

Hey, but you supported the agenda of terrorists in Kosovo(who had, to the contrary to the palestinians, no legal claim to fight the serbians by the way), so why not in Palestine? double standard perhaps???

[Mediocrates]

A big fat, SO?

So what if DU is hazardous? Seriously, so what? Lots of weapons are hazardous - what about the 10 million mines in Afghanistan or the millions of mines in Bosnia? Maybe DU really is hazardous. So is the single largest industrial chemical accident in the history of the earth, caused by Saddam. Fact is, an epidemiologist's head would explode trying to RCA illnesses in Iraq. Chemcals, biowar agents, gas, DU, poverty, bad water, rocket fuel, oil, etc.

It's a toxic paradise. Pick whichever materials you like.

[takeo]

so what if DU as hazardous? perhaps you do not feel concerned since you live safely in the US, but iraqi civilians DO care about DU.

The cancer is the most widespread in regions that have been bombed the most, in the south.

Iraq is indeed a toxic paradise, especially since the Gulfwar, when the us bombed nuclear and biological weapons factories(not really the most healthy way to dismantle them.... ) the US plans will only increase this phenomenon, and reduce all the efforts being taken by the iraqi government and international organisations to improve the Iraqi health-situation.

It reminds me of the us bombing a "chemical weapons" factory in Sudan, it turned out to be the only medicines-factory in Sudan, a country that badly needs every cheap medicine it can produce or get...

[Mediocrates]

Selective ranting.

Saddam unleashed the biggest oil spill in history
Saddam set fire to the oil wells of Kuwait
Saddam stored and used chemical weapons
Saddam stored biological weapons
Saddam used dual use insecticide processing on a vast scale


Are you getting it yet? DU? Spit in the ocean.

[Mediocrates]

so what if DU as hazardous? perhaps you do not feel concerned since you live safely in the US, but iraqi civilians DO care about DU.



I grew up near a Superfund site and have the medical records to show for it.