Iraq has chemical/biological weapons

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Some of the pictures released by Powell:

 

 

 

 

Modified vehicle: According to Powell, trucks with mobile bio-chem wepaons labs.

 

[Boba Rhett]

Wow, the guys who study these things have good eyes.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

OK fine I'll stop using the "no proof" arguement.

 

But it still doesn't mean they have an intention to use them.

Also USA has such weapons too, so therefore u must declare war on urselves.

[Zygomaticus]

But it still doesn't mean they have an intention to use them.

 

Has he told you that? He's been branded, "mad man" "crazy maniac" and other such things that would suggest he would do crazy things to have his way.

 

What if we continue to think he won't use it and one day his hatred of the USA gives through and he does use it and many people die? How will anyone justify not taking action earlier, and think of how much regret there will be.

[Link Antilles]

True, we don't know if they have intention to use them, but we don't want to wait and see. Iraq is liable to do anything because it is a rogue nation with a madman leading it. I think we need to take 'em out. Now!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I'm not sure if we should go to war.

 

For:

 

- If we launch a strike now, we'll take him out before he develops even more weapons ..or more powerful ones like the atomic bomb.

 

- Taking him out would destroy the dictatorship regime in Iraq.

 

- If he plans to invade the Middle East, let's stop him before he does.

 

- I don't think he develops all that for self-defense. If he really just wanted to defend himself, he would have spent money on defensive weapons and equipment, such as tanks, troops, short-range missiles, and such to fight inside Iraq with. However, his troops are under-equipped and his military is backwards.

 

Against:

 

- Thousands would die.

 

- Reparations costs would be in the $30 Billions, for the first three years alone.

 

- When we invade, he most certainly will strike with missiles. Right now he has the capability of striking at Egypt, Russia, Israel, and Turkey. Loss of life in these neutral countries that he currently hold hostage will be severe.

 

- North Korea has stated that he will strike back on the people attacking Iraq. Thus, we'd have to fight both Iraq and North Korea (who would probably take the battle to China and South Korea).

 

- We still don't know he's going to use the weapons. He may have them just for the scare factor.

 

Am I for, or againt? I'm undecided. I'm just glad I'm not a politician .

[Artoo]

But it still doesn't mean they have an intention to use them.

 

Oh I see you haven't heard of Saddam's latest military actions. *points ot Bush is a moron thread*

 

Saddam issued an order today giving his commanders permission to fire chemical weapons. Remember those chemical weapons he doesn't have? Well he just gave his commanders permission to use them. So I think he intends for them to be fired.

 

And saying the US should wage war on themselves for having chemical weapons is so ignorant of the facts I can not begin to correct you right now. I'll let someone else do it.

[Zygomaticus]

Dagobahn Eagle, your points for the "against" section are all valid, but those figures might/will only increase 5-10-20 fold if we ignore him and "mind out own business."

[Jatt13]

Also USA has such weapons too, so therefore u must declare war on urselves.

 

ok, so the us has them. our government doesn't use them against it's own people, or fire them at other countries w/o reason. we are not lying about the fact that we have them. ok, i'm to frustrated right now over the stupidity of that statement to further debunk you pathetic atempt at an argument. i'm going to stop now b/c i'm about to start flaming.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

And saying the US should wage war on themselves for having chemical weapons is so ignorant of the facts I can not begin to correct you right now. I'll let someone else do it

 

The USA is different.

 

1. They don't fire them without reason (back in the early cold war, MacArthur wanted to nuclear bomb China, and was fired by Truman).

 

2. The USA had a reason to build up a nuke arsenal: The Soviets did, after some Mahattan defector sold the bomb plans to them. Oh, and they had World War 2 to win. Of course, Saddam might be building up an arsenal just to save the world from the evil nation that will set off World War 3....

 

3. The USA are disarming. Eurasian inspectors have confirmed that (sounds strange, doesn't it, inspectors in the USA;)).

[Breton]

Originally posted by Artoo

And saying the US should wage war on themselves for having chemical weapons is so ignorant of the facts I can not begin to correct you right now.

 

Or perhaps it's because you can't?

 

If another country would be acting like US does now, they would have been attacked by Bush long ago. I mean, they have chemical weapons, they have nuclear weapons, they have used both nuclear and chemical weapons in war before, and they are planning to attack a country who hasn't done anything to get war.

 

ok, i'm to frustrated right now over the stupidity of that statement to further debunk you pathetic atempt at an argument.

 

Hmmmm. Easy now...

 

But as I asked before, can you answer it?

 

1. They don't fire them without reason

 

*cough*Hiroshima&Nagasaki*cough*

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Or perhaps it's because you can't?

 

If another country would be acting like US does now, they would have been attacked by Bush long ago. I mean, they have chemical weapons, they have nuclear weapons, they have used both nuclear and chemical weapons in war before, and they are planning to attack a country who hasn't done anything to get war.

 

"Acting like the USA"? Do you mean having nukes? Russia does, and they haven't been invaded yet. Neither has France or Britain. Heck, read my previous post! And then, some history books!

 

About "some other country acting like..." If the USA had been acting like Iraq (firing Scuds at Canada and Mexico during the Bay of Pigs invasion, for example ), you would be mighty pissed, right?

If Bush shot whoever opposed him (like Saddam does),

you'd want him dead.

If Bush lied to the UN (like Saddam does), you'd hate him.

And if Bush, on top of all this, refused to hold elections, boy, you'd freaking have nuked the USA!!

All those actions described have been carried out by a single leader -Saddam. It's not as if the person who did it is long gone.

 

*cough*Hiroshima&Nagasaki*cough*

 

Umm.. World War 2 was going on then, wasn't it? And read my previous post (on MacArthur and China), Qui-Gon. They don't fire them unless they have no other choice.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

"Acting like the USA"? Do you mean having nukes? Russia does, and they haven't been invaded yet. Neither has France or Britain. Heck, read my previous post! And then, some history books!

 

About "some other country acting like..." If the USA had been acting like Iraq (firing Scuds at Canada and Mexico during the Bay of Pigs invasion, for example ), you would be mighty pissed, right?

If Bush shot whoever opposed him (like Saddam does),

you'd want him dead.

If Bush lied to the UN (like Saddam does), you'd hate him.

And if Bush, on top of all this, refused to hold elections, boy, you'd freaking have nuked the USA!!

All those actions described have been carried out by a single leader -Saddam. It's not as if the person who did it is long gone.

 

Firstly, calm down a bit. Secondly, I would just like to say that it is Bush, not Saddam, who is wanting war.

 

Umm.. World War 2 was going on then, wasn't it? And read my previous post (on MacArthur and China), Qui-Gon. They don't fire them unless they have no other choice.

 

Sure...

 

Can I just ask you a question? Why did they have to fire the nukes straight into the middle of two highly populated civillian towns?

 

BTW, World War 2 was already finished at the time.

[Zygomaticus]

War ends when the other side surrenders.

 

And no, it's not safe to assume that a country is going to surrender just because their allies surrendered.

 

Can I just ask you a question? Why did they have to fire the nukes straight into the middle of two highly populated civillian towns?

 

I guess the answer to that would be the same as why the Japanese came out of the blue and attacked Pearl Harbor, harbor of a relatively neutral nation in the War.

 

Besides that, it might have also been deep set hatred, anger, and a moment of revenge lust, that you and I cannot feel sitting here in our air-conditioned computer-equipped rooms.

[Boba Rhett]

The Germans had surrendered but the Japanese were still waging war. The war was most definitely not over. Like krkode said, war ends when the other side surrenders. Why would they have surrendered if we bombed unpopulated areas? They didn't even surrender after we bombed them once.

[Artoo]

Mmmkay I have collected lots of info on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you are greatly wrong if you think the atomic bombs were in bad use.

 

The japanese were not about to surrender, they were teaching their women and children to fight with poles and guns in case of invasion. They had volunteers for a kamikaze motorcade 12,000 strong. They were prpared to fight the war on their island with their civilians. If the U.S. had been pushed to invade Japan like it would've been without the bombs there would have been another million casualties within the first week. The first week. As it is the casualties were 100x less. And they never flly surrendered. They only agreed to cease offensive action. They would never fully surrender. Don't say that the U.S. used "Fat man" and "Little boy" for terroristic strikes. That is peversion of a wartime effort.

 

And Bush doesn't want war. Saddam is the one bulding the weapons, Bush is the one wanting to disarm the weapons. Who wants the war? It sound to me like Saddam if he's the one spitting out the weapons illegally.

 

Oh and why did they have to drop the nukes into populated towns? Because the japanese would not have listened otherwise. The military was ready to let them bomb Tokyo. Surrender was not an option for them. If you will look and see they did not readily surrender, even after 2 of their islands were bombed. They were telling their people to hide and that they would be able to beat back any invasion the perverted west could offer. They thought they were invincible because of several medieval engagements in which nature had intervened to give them victory.They truly thought they had gods on their side. Emporer Hirohito finally... finally made a public announcement to his people. This was unheard of. No one had heard hte emporer, he was a god himself. He had to tell them this is the voice of the emporer. He encouraged them to submit to the americans for now, but not to give up all hope. This allowed the US to get the japanese to sign a treaty to "hault their offensive." The japanese were highly commited andwould not have "haulted their offensive" otherwise. Surrender was total dishonor, and several high commanders executed themselves.

 

Maybe if you payed attention in History you could learn these kind of things. *humph*

[Crazy_dog no.3]

I will quate from a source I have found which I can [try] to post later.

 

On 17th June 1925, still reeling from a senseless war that had decimated a generation, most of the Earth's most powerful countries decided they no longer wanted to live in a world of madmen. They signed the Generva protocol, outlawing chemical and biological warfare.

The two most conspicous abstentions were the ever-independent United Sates and Imperial Japan. Japan, in fact, was so impressed by the fact that chemical and biological warfare was considered dangerous enough to ban that it immediately stepped up it's research.

The guiding force behind the Japanese effort was a young doctor named Shiro Ishii. Ishii had graduated from the Department Of Medicine at Kyoto Univercity in 1920 and gone striaght to the Japanese Imperial Army. In the late 1920's he was sent to Europe and the United Statesfor two years to study the state of Western biological research. Soon after his return, Japan invaded and conquered Manchuria. Ishii and his team team finally had a literal theatre of operations.

Ishii did all that and more. In 1936 Emperor Hirohito's seal was affixed to a document that established Ichii's Manchuria-based Epedemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kuantung Army (changed to Unit 731 in 1941). The name was a masterpiece of hubris. In fact, the extremely well funded 'department' specialised in epidemic-cuasing toxins like aanthrax, cholera, tetanus, botulism, meningitis, tubercolulosis and bubonic plague. A constant supply of test victims was provided ccourtesy of the occupying Japanese Army. At first they were mostly Chinese and Russians, but once WW2 started they were joined by specimens labelled American, British and Australian. But the staff at unit 731 had thier own special name for the men, women and children they vivistected, almost invariably without anaesthetic. They were called marutus: logs.The horrors of Unit 731 were unimaginable. Apart from the physical torture suffered by the captives before they were killed, there were thousands of cases of emotional and mental cruelty. In one case, a Japanese doctor vivisected an unanaesthetised pregant woman whom he himself had impregnated.

one Unit 731 staffer recentely tried to justify his actions:"Of course there were experiments on children. But probably thier fathers were spies"

The extreme de-humanisation existed outside the army as well. Civilian Japanese doctors would regularly practise surgery techniques on healthy POWs. In one case, 8 American servicemen were killed in one day on the operating tables at the anatomy department of Kyushu Univercity. They were finally taken apart bit by bit: first a lung, then a bit of liver, then a bit of brain, until they finally died.

Ishii's primary interest was not surgery but large-scale biological warfare. He was developing and testing deseases on his

marutus with the goal of delivering a fatal dose to the enemy whilst learning to treat it on his own men. Throughout the war, Ishii had disease-infected animals (usually fleas) dropped on Chinese towns, were there were several outbreaks of bubonic plague as well

His plans extended to the United States. In December 1944, 200 baloon bombs were sent using prevailing air currents from Japan to the Western United states, killing seven people in Montana and Oregon. It is likely these baloons were testing the route for bacterial bombs.

As the war was drawing to a close, Ishii had one last bit of insanty up his sleeve. Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night send plague-laden suicidal bombers to San Diego, were the plague would be released and the entire Western seaboard would be infected. The date of the attack was due for 22 September 1945.

 

'Course, that's only half the story. I'll post the rest along with the source later on.

 

It's all true.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Firstly, calm down a bit. Secondly, I would just like to say that it is Bush, not Saddam, who is wanting war.

 

Ever heard of analogies? Seem every time I'm right, and use (perfectly valid) analogies to prove my point, the ones who don't understand them are always the ones who 1. Have weak points, and 2. Are debating against me. Not to say you deliberately misunderand, but I'm starting to wonder here....

 

Back on topic: Why is the USA using nukes an argument against war in Iraq? Even if it was wrong to use them, Truman is dead by now. The person who did it is long gone.

 

And again:

If the U.S. had been pushed to invade Japan like it would've been without the bombs there would have been another million casualties within the first week. Repeat: The first week.

Thanks, Artoo.

 

The USA is decommisioning their arsenal. It's at a slow pace partly because it is so risky to do it (according to my WHis teacher, there's a 2% chance a bomb will actually go off when disarmed Don't know if there still is, but hey, do you want to us disarm 1000+ nukes with a 2% chance of detonation for every single one)? Difference is that Saddam is producing illegal weapons and not really disarming, to say it that way. He also refused to admit he had the weapons in the first place. The USA never did.

[Artoo]

Eagle just curious, but what has happened to you? If I remember right you were pretty liberal, yet you seem to argue pro-war which is a conservative standpoint right now. Are you keeping your liberal stances and being pro-war? Or are you shooting more independant from the big parties? Or what?

[edlib]

Can anyone's position on the upcoming Iraq war really be defined by party lines? I know plenty of Democrats and otherwise liberal individuals who believe Saddam must be removed from power at all costs.

I have also become aware that there is a group of otherwise conservative folks, most notably Pat Buchanan, (who in my mind was always the uber-conservative,) who oppose the administration's stance towards Iraq. This surprised the hell out of me when I learned of it.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

As promised. Part 2:

 

The war in the Pacific ended in August 1945. The cover-up began almost immediately. Ishii was declared dead and a mock funeral was held in his town. Although he and his staff had destroyed some of the evidence against them, there was plenty of information left to barter. Under the advice of scientists from Fort Detrick, Maryland (The USA's own bacteriological and chemical research units), General Douglas MacArthur radioed Washington, recommending that Unit 731 scientists be granted immunity in exchange for thier data.

The reply from the Committee for the Far East was: "The value to the US of the Japanese BW (biological warfare) data is of such importance to national security as to far overweigh the value accruing from war crimes prosecution". To it's credit, the State Department was against the plan, if only becuase it might later embarrass the United States.

Not a single member of Unit 731 was prosecuted for war crimes by the United States. the only ones to be prosecuted were twelve who were caught by the Soviets in China: thier well-documented trial in 1949 was suppressed by the United States and regarded as Soviet propoganda.

In spite of articles in 1946 in both the New York Times and the Pacific Stars And Stripes (the official newspaper of the US army) the government refused to admit that Americans had been the victims of Unit 731, let alone that Ishii was cooperating with the United States.

There were romours throughout the 1950's that not only Ishii lectured at Fort Detrick, he had also gone to Korea to help the American war effort. There was certainly some fimiliar-looking evidence. On an April night in 1952 an American F-82 fighter was spotted flying over a Chinese village near the Inner Mongolian border/ With the break of the day, residents were greeted with an infestation of700 voles. Of the voles which survived both the cold nights and ravaging cats, many were "sluggish or had fractured legs". A test on one dead vole showed that it was infected with the plague.

the US government did it's best to kill the rumours. In the 1950'2, it even resorted to charges of treason against some American civilians who had dared to imply that the government may be using technology originating in Unit 731/ The charges were thrown out for lack of evidence.

The cover-up continues. In 1987, US and British veterans of the Manchuria campaign were told there was "no evidence" for claims that Unit 731 experimented on them. And as recentely as 1989, a British book was published in the United States minus one chapter freely available in the British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand editions. The chapter was entitles "The Korean War".

And what became of the men of Unit 731? Ishii died of throat cancer at the age of 67 in 1959. Others went to exalted positions in post-war Japan: Governor of Tokyo, President of the Japan Medical Association and head of the Japanese Olympic Commitee. The leader of the team in charge of inflicting frostbite and vivisecting the victims went on to a lucrative career in the frozen fish industry.

In 1975 the US finally signed the Geneva Protocol.

Frank Spotnitz admits to some trepidation in weaving the true story of Unit 731 into the X Files mythology. "There's a lot of sensetivity to this issue, in Japan escpecially. But I was born in Japan, and I have never heard of this, and I am just amazed... I am no expert, but I don't think the Japanese had the national soul-searching which the Germans certainly had..."

Spotnitz's main concern is for viewers to realise that 731 was a genuine historical event. "I think we put in enough factual-sounding information so that they would recognise it. I hope so"

 

I got the text from my X-Files second edition book which covers inspiration and stories behind the episodes. Remember this is all true.

 

Here are some things I found the episode inspired by this

 

Unit 731

 

Oh no, what I posted was about some American treatment of serios war criminals.

Maybe I should post something about experiments on the US public?

 

Look out for Part 3 soon.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Eagle just curious, but what has happened to you? If I remember right you were pretty liberal, yet you seem to argue pro-war which is a conservative standpoint right now. Are you keeping your liberal stances and being pro-war? Or are you shooting more independant from the big parties? Or what?

 

My views on war aren't dependant on parties, especially as I'm not too familiar with American parties in the first place.

 

After it was proved that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, I'm undecided. Now Iraq has missiles that can strike at Russia, Turkey, Israel, Syria, Egypt, Iran, and Oman, just to mention a few:

 

Basically, he's holding these countries hostage, supplying Palestinian suicide bombers with money and thus taking a side against Israel. This means that if we go to war against him, it's likely that he will fire missiles at Israel.

 

Also, North Korea have stated that they will attack South Korea, China, and/or Japan if NATO or CIS invades Iraq. So basically, both Iraq and North Korea are "taking hostages" (Israel and South Korea, respectively) which they threaten to attack if the USA invades. And it has pretty much been proven that he was a major funder of Al-Queda's attack on New York City, USA on the 11th September 2001 (almost 3000 dead).

 

On the other hand, if we don't strike, what is Iraq up to? I think he's building all these long-range weapons to use them. He already helps Palestinians kill Israelis, and he helped Al-Queda kill Americans. How do we know he won't fire missiles when he can kill more of those Westeners he hates so much with missiles than with suicide bombings and hijacked airliners?

 

Oh, and if you wondered, I'm still a left-wing.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Part 3 (hope u're following me so far):

 

Early in 1963 the Atomic Energy Commision held a confirence in Fort Collins, Colarado, for scientists studying the effects of radiation on reproduction. It was the height of the Cold War and there were questions needing to be asked. Questions like the one asked by scientists at an AEC meeting Washington in 1955: "How many bombs can we detonate without producing a race of monsters?". And questions like the one posed in 1949 by an Air Force colonel who enquired how safe nuclear-powered planes would be for his airmen's "family jewels". NASA wanted to know about the effects of solar radiation on astronauts. And the CIA wanted to know about everything.

Dr Carl. G. Heller recalled what happened: "A given group at Fort Collins was working on mice and another group was working on bulls, and they extrapoled the data from bulls or mice to man. I commented one day to Dr. [Paul] Henshaw, who was then.. with the AEC, that if they were so interested in [what would happen to] man, then why were they fussing around with mice and beagle dools and canaries and so on? If they wanted to know about man, why not work on a man?"

In October 1995, the US government's Advisory Commitee on Human Radiation experiments published it's final report. The commitee had been assembled by President Clinton after dogged investigative journalist Albuquerque Tribune reporter Eileen Welsome uncovered evidence of government-sponspored radiation tests on civilians.

Whilst ground-breaking and lauble, the commitee's mandate was limited to the governmen-funded tests between 1944 and 1974. Another problem was that it relied on self-reporting from various government agencies. The CIA, for example, claimthey did only one tiny, innocuous test whereas the Department of Energy admits to 435 studies involving 16,000 subjects. Regardless, the range of admitted tests was astounding.

 

Then goes a paragraph describing the setting and plot of an X-Files episode.

 

Prisons have long been a popular testing ground in America. Between 1963 and 1973 DR Heller, an award-winning medical scientist, ran a series of experiments on inmates at the Oregon State Prison in order to access the effect of radiation on sperm production. Another test involving radiation and reproduction was conducted in Washington State. Prisoner in Pennsylvania were used to test the effects of radiation on human skin. Inmates in Illinois drank water laced with radium. Prisoners in Utah had thier blood removed, irradiated and re-injected. And the tests were not confined to radiation. Just one example: starting in 1944, hundreds of prisoners at Illinois Statesville Prison were given malaria in a project designed to develop a prevention or cure that was disabling Allied Forces in the Pacific.

According to the government's own report;"It is difficult to overemphasize just how common the practise [of experimenting on prisoners] became in the United States during the postwar years. Researchers employed prisoners as subjects in a multitude of experiments that ranged in purpose from a desire to understand the cause of cancer to a need to test the effects of a new cosmetic. After the Food and Drug Administation's restructuring of drug-testing regulations in 1962, prisoners became almost the exclusive subjetcs in nonfederally funded Phase I pharmaceutical trials designed to test the toxicity of new druygs. By 1972, FDA officials estimated that more than 90% of all investigational drugs were first tested on prisoners".

The Agent's discovery in F. Emasculata is a horrific one: a drug company has anonymously sent an inmate a contaminated pig's leg in order to research the contagion - all with the government's permission.

 

It doesn't end here...

 

Look out for parts 4 and maybe 5.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Basically, he's holding these countries hostage, supplying Palestinian suicide bombers with money and thus taking a side against Israel. This means that if we go to war against him, it's likely that he will fire missiles at Israel.

 

Also, North Korea have stated that they will attack South Korea, China, and/or Japan if NATO or CIS invades Iraq. So basically, both Iraq and North Korea are "taking hostages" (Israel and South Korea, respectively) which they threaten to attack if the USA invades. And it has pretty much been proven that he was a major funder of Al-Queda's attack on New York City, USA on the 11th September 2001 (almost 3000 dead).

 

 

1) And good, nice, caring US have never supported terrorist groups?

Osama bin Laden is one example. U trained him for God's sake!

 

2) North Korea will not attack China. China are thier allies. Just like US wouldn't attack Britain.

 

3) A lot of Muslims in the Middle East thout America got what it deserved. I think u should kill all the Muslims.

 

4) Prove that Al-Queda was involded in the tragedy.

And prove that Saddam funded whoever did it.

 

Yes Osama should have been gotten rid of anyway, but there is no evidence to support he did it that I know of.

[Zygomaticus]

1) And good, nice, caring US have never supported terrorist groups? Osama bin Laden is one example. U trained him for God's sake!

 

And why did the USA do that?

 

It's silly when people pick examples like Hiroshima and Nagasaki and USA helping Afghanistan against Russia, to prove their point as America being irresponsible. Wage war on ourselves...bleh!

 

2) North Korea will not attack China. China are thier allies. Just like US wouldn't attack Britain.

 

Not that I'm an expert on this, but what about Japan and/or South Korea. Are they not worth thinking about?