Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David M. Payne · 08-11-2003, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
1911 Flu bug?

Never heard of that one. Think you need to add 7 years.

And I may be wrong about this, but I believe the 1918 flu that killed millions came and went on its own mysteriously -------no one knows why. Last I heard scientists wish they had some traces of that bug so could come up with ways to treat/prevent it. ---------if it ever does return.

Right 1918, I probably had 9/11 0n my mind. As for the bug, if I remember correctly they had some samples of it, the article talked about that flu bug specifically. I forget just where they got the samples from though.

David

Armchair dissident · 08-12-2003, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Right 1918, I probably had 9/11 0n my mind. As for the bug, if I remember correctly they had some samples of it, the article talked about that flu bug specifically. I forget just where they got the samples from though.

The BBC has an article which is similar to what you're describing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3031488.stm), and indeed it would appear that flu could be released as an aerosol. But this overlooks two rather important points: [list=1][*] Nobody has ever claimed that Hussein had successfully cultivated, or was attempting to cultivate a flu virus. [*] The claim regarding biological weapons specifically was that Hussein was attempting to create biological weapons, or had already created biological weapons that could be placed into warheads, and that these warheads could reach targets outside of Iraq, and,[*] This method still requires an advanced delivery system.[/list=1]
So, whilst this in an interesting aside (and we could continue ad nauseum about rabies, plague, measels or whatever), it doesn't answer my original objection.

Sojourner553 · 08-12-2003, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion
Exactly:

The questions will arise then, as:

1.) how good the information on WMDs is, given Bush's pattern?

2.) if the information is good for once, was the information known in January 2003 and before, in order to justify the war in February 2003?

Here is what they are talking about. Novak is LAME of course.

Saddam ordered chemical attack, inspector to claim
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...016856,00.html

The Guardian

Quote:

The former UN inspector hired by the Bush administration to find evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction will claim in a report next month that Iraqi forces were ordered to fire chemical shells at invading coalition troops, according to US reports.

But David Kay, who heads the 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group, has admitted he has found no trace of the weapons themselves, and cannot explain why they were never used.
One possibility is that the orders were part of an elaborate bluff, in the hope that they would be intercepted by the US and deter an attack.

According to US officials, all the Iraqi scientists now in custody have insisted that Saddam's arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons was destroyed years before the Iraqi invasion.
The Boston Globe reported that Mr Kay, who was hired by the CIA in June to direct the search, had made the claim in a classified briefing to two Senate committees.

The newspaper quoted officials who had seen a summary of his report as saying that Republican Guard commanders had been ordered to launch chemical-filled shells at troops.
"They have found evidence that an order was given," a senior intelligence official said, adding there was no explanation of why the weapons were not used.

After his congressional briefing, Mr Kay told journalists he was making "solid progress", but said he would not make it public until he completed his work and found "conclusive proof". He is under pressure from the White House to go public as soon as possible and administration officials say he is expected to publish a report within weeks.

...
At the time he was hired by the CIA to direct the hunt for weapons, Mr Kay was working for a hi-tech engineering firm and appearing regularly on television to argue that the Iraqi dictator had a significant arsenal.
Some of his former UN colleagues have said he has a powerful personal incentive to show he was not entirely wrong.

Base Brat · 08-12-2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

But David Kay, who heads the 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group, has admitted he has found no trace of the weapons themselves, and cannot explain why they were never used. One possibility is that the orders were part of an elaborate bluff, in the hope that they would be intercepted by the US and deter an attack.

"He tricked us! That's not fair! It's a WEAPON of MASS DISTRACTION! And WE hold the patent on those."

No wonder they HAD to invade...

Happy Wonderer · 08-12-2003, 08:51 PM

Quote:

After the war he suggested that the weapons had been dumped in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers but no evidence of this was found to back up the allegation.

GENERAL: Saddam, Sir, the Americans are approaching the capital!
SADDAM: Quick get our most lethal mass destruction weapons ready...
GENERAL: Right, sir, we will send those dogs to hell!
SADDAM: and dump them into the river.
GENERAL: But Sir?
SADDAM: It is part of my incredibly complicated plot. Think of how foolish the Americans will feel after they have taken over my country, killed me, taken control of all the oil, and find no WMDs. This will cause them to loose face on national T.V. Bush will bluster, Condi will blush, and the newspapers make a scandal that will last at least a week. I'll have won! Won, I tell you! Hahahahahhahahha....

hw

Ultron · 08-13-2003, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by warrenly
The US, Bush specifically, was claiming Iraq had WMD and Iraq, Saddam's spokespersons, denied having any, weapons inspectors had found none since they went back in last year, doesn't that put the onus on the US to prove they did indeed have them?

No. And I'll tell you why.

a) Iraq lost the war, not us.
b) Iraq agreed to our terms in order to stop the war.
c) We pried admissions from Iraq about their WMD's they had, and discovered more, and they showed us more.
d) They never accounted for all the WMD's THEY SAID THEY HAD.
e) They never accounted for all the WMD's WE FOUND EARLIER.
f) They never accounted for all the WMD's THEY SAID THEY DESTROYED.
g) They broke the peace treaty in 1998.

Now sure, maybe they DID destroy the WMD's as discovered in c, d, e and f. But by kicking us out of Iraq we weren't able to track down what they did. Really we should have done this in 1998. IMRO. I have criticized both Clinton and Bush on this actually, here and on other forums.

Quote:

Originally posted by warrenly
Well, the US is in there, and still none have been find, who was right, Saddam or Bush? Right now, it's looking like Saddam.

Bush, Clinton, Daschle, Kerry, Gephardt, Blix, UN inspectors were all right. Iraq had WMD's. That's beyond dispute. But something happened between 1998 and now with them that we're not able to find out now.

Would you trust Saddam to get rid of WMD's unsupervised? Serious question.

Quote:

Originally posted by warrenly
Didn't UN weapons inspectors supervised the location and destruction of missiles and WMD made illegal by UN mandate from 1991-1998?

Yes but they were not all discovered, or destroyed, by the time Iraq kicked us out in 1998, so we couldn't verify what happened to them from that point onward.

Quote:

Originally posted by warrenly
Warren in Oklahoma, still waiting...

Sorry I just saw this. I guess this slipped off the front page.

Ultron · 08-13-2003, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion
More water went under the bridge since Clinton.

Doesn't matter. The vast majority of Dems and Reps on the hill agreed with much of the world, UN inspectors, etc that Iraq had WMD's and they all weren't accounted for. Is a murderer innocent just because he hides the murder weapon, or destroys it after he manages to get the investigation stopped? No.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion
Specifically, U.N. told C.I.A. that the claim for a Hussein link to Niger in the nuclear, was wrong.
C.I.A. told Bush.

Sure, but the British still maintained, and maintain yet today, Iraq still tried getting Uranium from Africa.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion
Bush lied, and pretended he was quoting U.K., but in fact when quoting U.K. he was endorsing the claim, which is lying.

Bush didn't lie, he made a case based on information that hasn't turned to be false, just not yet proven true. At worse we are looking at mistakes, not deception. For the Democrats had access to all the same intelligence, and came to the same conclusion the UN inspectors did.

There is a greater chance of a worldwide conspiracy than those claims being lies.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion
Same about the al-Qaeda link.
After Powell's speech in U.N. in February, U.N. and the Germans denied the link.

That doesn't mean Colin Powell lied, however.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion
Now, Bush improvises 'liberation' of Iraq because of lack of WMDs that he initially claimed to know about, and he tries to deliver this 'liberation' with a straight face.

Sure he claimed to know where they were at, and was wrong. Either that or they were moved after he said that, before the war started.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion
"Well I agree with the rest of the world that Saddam had WMD's..." would lead incorrectly to Hussein still having WMDs in 2003:

.) in 2003, Bush said he knows WMDs in Iraq, warred Iraq and found nothing;

.) U.N. said they don't know of WMDs in Iraq, and they want to inspect for them, not to war.

Well he didn't say it alone. The UN, our intelligence all corroborated the intelligence obtained after years of inspections and intelligence from defectors, admissions from Iraq, and discoveries through the years.

Now realize that Iraq then cut all ties with us before all the WMD's were destroyed. (even worse, we let them!)

Now keep in mind we had that condition for 4 years before we did anything about it.

Ultron · 08-13-2003, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HeatherD
If I recall, from the anthrax incidents here in the US, you have to have some decent technology to make the anthrax a viable weapon. I think it requires a good lab setup to create finely micronized anthrax to deliver it*. Just taking some anthrax spores and mailing them out isn't going to do much damage.

*I'm a little vague on the specifics but that was the general idea.

I totally understand, I am just saying that once you have it, it's sinfully easy to distribute it.

Ultron · 08-13-2003, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer
Er, how does killing 9 people count as "mass destruction?"

I never said that. You did. Thanks for the straw man.

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer
Let's see, clever Saddam could have mailed letters to everybody in Tel Aviv. I get it! No wonder we can't find the chem/bio warheads...

Or he could have just hidden it. Oh, but he's so trustworthy. He'd never do that!

I wonder why he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Shai Hulud · 08-13-2003, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Or he could have just hidden it. Oh, but he's so trustworthy. He'd never do that! I wonder why he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps it's because certain people in the Bush administration have been advocating war with Iraq to secure the oil for years.
Suddenly they want the same thing, but for different reasons (WMD).
Perhaps it's because the UN inspectors said that he apparently destroyed everything, and Iraq was cooperating.
Perhaps it's because the US has been in Iraq for months and hasn't found a damn thing.
Perhaps it's because it's been proven that the US lied about at least one piece of evidence (Niger), and probably a lot more.
Perhaps it's because, even when they were the last thing that could hold off the invading troops, he didn't use them.
Perhaps it's because the US didn't even bother to secure sites that were know to contain dangerous radioactive materials untill weeks after the major combat operations were over, but they did manage to secure all oil fields (although it wasn't about oil!).
Perhaps it's because the US changed the reason for the war so many times everyone's lot count.

Take you pick.

Shai-Hulud

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.