[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by tie:
We've also tried to squash an international treaty against them with teeth (inspections) because we didn't want people nosing around our biotech companies.

That's true. But bear in mind, this is an area where the US acted many years before there was a convention in the works. It isn't a case where a treaty was signed, and then the US decided whether to sign and disarm in compliance. The US disarmed unilaterally and then a bunch of johnny-come-latelies decided to create a convention.

[denim]

Originally posted by Raidiant:
Time for some humor

So, where's the humor?

[Raidiant]

Nevermind lol , it was meant to be contradictory but I guess it turned out boring.

btw can't they just assasinate saddam?

[Developer]

Originally posted by Raidiant:
can't they just assasinate saddam?

I guess that would be illegal.

Let's stick to international law and get a UN resolution to drop a 10 tons bomb on him.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


but everyone else, please, continue the war mongering or treehugging, whichever the case may be.

You left out appeasing. But you're getting the hang of it.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by eVil_kEybOarD:
Dear God,

I have seen death.

C'Ya soon,
Iraqi Soldier #1123993

Iraq has that many soldiers?

Oh. maybe they started counting from #110000. That might explain it.

(for the humor impaired: I have no clue how big Iraq's army is, and I assume many people in Iraq's army will surrender at the first sign of U.S. troops. So there.)

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nothing the US has done violates SALT-1...

The US committed 32 years ago to eliminate (not reduce) its entire nuclear arsenal. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I believe it's Article 4 but can't remember offhand, the US committed to pursue effective disarmament measures. Is it doing that? The nonnuclear states agreed never to acquire nuclear weapons, in exchange for the nuclear weapon states agreeing eventually to get rid of theirs. I suppose Bush thinks they should keep their end of the bargain. In 2000, the US again committed to the "total elimination" of its nuclear arsenal.

Then in 2002, the Bush administration publishes its Nuclear Posture Review which lays out elaborate plans for designing and developing new generations of nuclear weapons in 2020, 2030, and 2040. Hello, you're supposed to be disarming not planning to develop nukes up to 2040!

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The US has no biological weapons. The US unilaterally disarmed in 1969...

You're very naive if you believe that the US doesn't have biological or chemical weapons. Rumsfeld passed Anthrax on to Iraq in the 80's and you say it disarmed in 1969. Huh? "Codename Artichoke�the Secret Human Experiments of the CIA", by Edmond R. Koch and Michael Wech makes an interesting read or you can pop over to Sunshine-Project.org. They said "beyond a reasonable doubt that the Department of Defense's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate is operating an illegal and classified chemical weapons program." That was in 2002.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The US uses depleted uranium rounds. Depleted uranium is not a radiological weapon. There is no medical evidence that it is "killing, maiming and disfiguring people" other than Iraqi propaganda.

Actually there is medical evidence on this, some of which is referred to here and virtually none of it comes from Iraq. There is far better evidence coming out of Kosovo and from European studies. You can look at the Italian court evidence or any number of other sources. I'm not even going to point you to other links; there are so many. Basically, when a depleted uranium round hits a tanks or a cave, it breaks up creating a fine radioactive dust which when ingested becomes an internal source of radiation. It also leaves traces of radiation all over the tank that little kids ingest after the war when they play on the tanks. French research shows higher rates of birth defects in areas where depleted uranium shells were used. And then there's "Gulf War Syndrome."

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The US has dumped 80% of its nuclear aresenal (or thereabouts)...

Maybe so, but the US still has an obscene number of nuclear weapons despite all of its undertakings to get rid of them. You have 550 nuclear tipped ICBMs. US submarines carry 192 nuclear warheads (enough to kill 50 million people) and that's just the live ones in the subs themselves (not counting the stockpiles). All told, the explosive power of America's nuclear warheads is 100,000 times greater than the single Hiroshima bomb. And the US's nuclear war plan keeps many of these weapons on hair-trigger alert.

It's a double standard. The US develops weapons in violation of international law too. Terrorists get hold of the US's WMD's too. The US shares its WMD's with pariah states too. I don't disagree with making Saddam disarm, but I'd like to see Blix and Co. doing U2 overflights and weapons inspections in the US too!

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Raidiant:
Nevermind lol , it was meant to be contradictory but I guess it turned out boring.

btw can't they just assasinate saddam?

Bwa ha ha ha! When it comes to assassination, the U.S. is the most inept country I've heard of. Do you know how many times the U.S. tried to assassinate Fidel Castro? And he isn't half as paranoid a Saddam! Maybe if we hired the Israelies to do it, but otherwise the idea seems laughable to me.

BlackGriffen

[Demonhood]

Bomb video link (really bad quality and angle. real video format)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
The US committed 32 years ago to eliminate (not reduce) its entire nuclear arsenal. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I believe it's Article 4 but can't remember offhand, the US committed to pursue effective disarmament measures. Is it doing that? The nonnuclear states agreed never to acquire nuclear weapons, in exchange for the nuclear weapon states agreeing eventually to get rid of theirs. I suppose Bush thinks they should keep their end of the bargain. In 2000, the US again committed to the "total elimination" of its nuclear arsenal.

This is called changing the subject. You said that US nuclear weapons violate the SALT treaty (you didn't specify which SALT treaty, but I'll assume you mean SALT I since SALT II was never ratified). Now you are talking about the Non-Proliferation treaty.

My personal view is that the reference to eventual nuclear disarmament was probably unwise since I find it hard to imagine that could ever realistically be done. But since the language is there, the operative word is clearly "eventually." Eventually is a long time. Indeterminate, in fact.

The irony is that if the US did unilaterally disarm of all of its nuclear arms, it is pretty clear that your response would be the same as your response to the news that the US has divested itself of all biological weapons. "Oh you are so naive to believe that" you would say.

[denim]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
Bomb video link (really bad quality and angle. real video format)

Note: saying "really bad quality" and "real video format" in the same line is redundant. Do you know of any place which has that in a useful format?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
Bomb video link (really bad quality and angle. real video format)

The Airforce Website has it as well. www.af.mil It's in Quicktime as well. Imagine that.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by typoon:
The Airforce Website has it as well. www.af.mil It's in Quicktime as well. Imagine that.

I don't see a Quicktime format anywhere there. I only see RealPlayer format.

Link it here, please

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sure. We know how to build bio weapons because obviously, once you have built them once, the knowledge never goes away and because the materials needed aren't that complicated. Therefore we could build them again. But that would break US domestic law. And using them would violate international law.

So the point is the US has given them up, as have many other countries. The US no longer possesses them. It has disarmed of its bio weapons. Iraq, by contrast, has been trying to obtain them (and they have probably succeeded).

There's still a little matter of 20 people getting infected with a bio agent called anthrax in the year 2001 in the USA. 5 People died then. The FBI followed the leads which ended up in a place called fort Detrick in Maryland. The FBI was then blocked in following the leads as they led to higher and higher circles...

I remember, you Simey, telling the board about how much your life had been in danger because one of the postmen at a postoffice nearto you was one of those who died.

AND YOU MERRILY FORGET ALL THAT in your zeal to see people killed in a country far away that you have never seen. People who have nothing to do with that biowarfare attack perpetrated by people from your own country, not so far away...

Congratulations.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
I don't see a Quicktime format anywhere there. I only see RealPlayer format.

Link it here, please

I'll find the link and link it.

[UNTeMac]

For any of you that think this is comparable to a nuke....it would be roughly equal to a .00095 Kiloton nuclear weapon (note the nuclear, not nukyuler) minus of course the whole splitting atoms thing.

Nagasaki was 20 kilotons.

[UNTeMac]

dp

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is called changing the subject. You said that US nuclear weapons violate the SALT treaty.

You have a nasty habit of misquoting people. I didn't refer to any SALT treaty actually. SALT flows out of the NNPT anyway. If I'm changing the topic, your post is called avoiding the issue. The point is the US is not complying with its obligation to disarm. It's pretty irrelevant whether the failure to comply is under NNPT, SALT I or Ronald McDonald's secret recipe.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But since the language is there, the operative word is clearly "eventually." Eventually is a long time. Indeterminate, in fact.

The obligation is to decrease the number of nuclear weapons that you have over time. Increasing the number that you have (as Bush plans to do) at any point, is a breach of the obligation to disarm.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
There's still a little matter of 20 people getting infected with a bio agent called anthrax in the year 2001 in the USA. 5 People died then. The FBI followed the leads which ended up in a place called fort Detrick in Maryland. The FBI was then blocked in following the leads as they led to higher and higher circles...

I remember, you Simey, telling the board about how much your life had been in danger because one of the postmen at a postoffice nearto you was one of those who died.

AND YOU MERRILY FORGET ALL THAT in your zeal to see people killed in a country far away that you have never seen. People who have nothing to do with that biowarfare attack perpetrated by people from your own country, not so far away...

Congratulations.

Sigh.

Fort Detrick is a US Army facility in charge of biological warfare defenses. It is well-known that they have all kinds of nasties in there - some of which are doubtless a lot nastier than anthrax. You have to have the agents in order to properly prapare for them in case there is ever an attack on the US or US forces. But this is a long way from saying the US has a weaponized biological capability.

As for the FBI investigation, I don't know where you are getting your information about it, but AFAIK, it seemed to have reached something of a dead end. I personally never had much stock in the link to the US scientist (what was his name, Hatfield?). They have searched his house a bunch of times, but apparenltly never had enough for prosecution or even an arrest. The FBI, unfortunately have a bit of a track record for being the last people to exonerate one of their suspects. The Richard Jewell case comes to mind. Another case that comes to mind is the recent Washington, DC sniper case. The police and FBI profiles turned out to be 100% wrong. But oh, they were so confident in them!

I personally have always suspected a link to the 9/11 plot. I'm no sleuth but the fact that the first attack with anthrax just happened to be next to the airfield where the hijackers was quite a coincidence. So was the coincidence of the timing. And there was also the story by a doctor who claims that he thinks he treated one of the 9/11 hijackers for skin anthrax. All of those to me point to a more likely connection than the disgruntled federal employee theory.

If it was al-Queda that leaves the question of where they got weapons-grade anthrax. As far as I have heard, the Czechs are still standing by their story about the meeting with the Iraqi agents in Prague. But I assume the US government has discounted it. After all, if it was completely reliable, we would be hearing about it right now. So I don't know what to think about that.

But anyway, Ft. Detrick is not evidence of a secret bio weapons program. It's hardly a secret of anything. What goes on in there is pretty well publicized.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You have a nasty habit of misquoting people. I didn't refer to any SALT treaty actually.

Go look at your post on page 1. You wrote: "I don't suppose they tell you that the US is in violation of its SALT obligations"

Or am I misquoting you?

BTW, if the US is in violation of any treaty agreements with Russia, then it is for Russia to complain about it. I haven't heard them do that.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
Bomb video link (really bad quality and angle. real video format)

I think that if Saddam sees this, he'll still get the message. According to a piece I heard on the radio the damage area is 1.9 miles. A good palce to use MOAB would the the Presidential Palaces of Saddam!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
The obligation is to decrease the number of nuclear weapons that you have over time. Increasing the number that you have (as Bush plans to do) at any point, is a breach of the obligation to disarm.

No, because the overall number will still go downwards. Putin and Bush have agreed on the goals but you are confusing numbers with types. It doesn't matter if a new type of weapon is added, provided that more weapons of other types are removed from stocks. The overall number still goes down.

Besides, you have a couple of other problems with your logic. First, the history. The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT-1) was not an arms reduction treaty. All it did was limit the number of launchers by imposing a cap higher than the number either had at the time of ratification. Moreover, it did not limit the number of warheads. As a result, both sides started putting more warheads on their launchers - first MRV, and later MIRV warheads. The number of nuclear weapons thus went up, not down, as a result of SALT. As I recall, the numbers roughly tripled. So your statement on the first page that somehow referenced SALT is misplaced.

As for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (a multilateral treaty, SALT was only bilateral), as I said earlier the language only commits the declared and adhering nuclear powers to disarm at some unspecified time in the future. Maybe that will happen, probably about the time humanity enters Nirvana. So your second problem is you are unrealistically focussing on what amounts to a dead letter. No nuclear power takes that language seriously. Not the US, not Russia, China, Britain, and certainly not France. None of them are going to become ex-nuclear powers any time soon. It is as likely as all that dead letter language in the UN Charter about standing UN armies.

[roger_ramjet]

The START treaties were the arms reduction treaties. The START II Treaty was signed on January 3, 1993 by President George Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin. The U.S. Senate ratified it on January 26, 1996. The Russian Duma finally ratified START II on April 14, 2000.

[roger_ramjet]

dp

[Spliffdaddy]

Somebody help me pick Troll up off the floor...

[nickdman]

SHOULD HAVE BEEN NUCLEAR

[Troll]

SALT doesn't stand for Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty Simey, it stands for Strategic Arms Limitation TALKS!

I was keeping things simple abbreviating the whole process that commenced after the signing of the NNPT and referring to a bunch of obligations stated in various documents that commenced the process and arose out it. For that specific reason, I never used the word "treaty" and never put a number behind SALT. Your misunderstanding of the meaning of SALT made you think I referred to a treaty, but you actually did misquote me.

Besides, I think you're nitpicking! I don't think your analysis of the obligations the US has are correct but in any event, you sound a lot like an Iraqi statesman quoting line and verse obligations to justify that your weapons are legal but all the while failing to comply with the spirit of the undertaking to disarm!

The point is that 35 years after the US undertook to "eliminate" nuclear weapons it is still developing new ones. As I said, it's a double standard. Saddam isn't complying with his obligations to disarm and neither is the US.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I was keeping things simple abbreviating the whole process that commenced after the signing of the NNPT and referring to a bunch of obligations stated in various documents that commenced the process and arose out it.

I must say, that's a pretty nice way to wriggle out of you accusation! You refer to "SALT," but you didn't actually mean SALT, you meant something other than SALT. And if somebody else reads "SALT" and thinks by "SALT" you mean SALT, then you will accuse that person of misquoting you!

Come again?

As for the wider point, the US, and the other declared nuclear powers who signed on to the multilaterial Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (i.e. Russia, China, the UK, and France) all agreed to nuclear disarmament eventually. And maybe they will, eventually. But in the real world, none of them are going to do so now.

And no, that is not the same as Iraq's position. Iraq was ordered to disarm of all its WMD not eventually, but immediately.

Do you always have this problem with the plain meaning of words?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You refer to "SALT," but you didn't actually mean SALT
Come again?

I don't know whether to laugh at you or despair. I use a term in the correct way, you use it incorrectly and then you accuse me of wriggling. I say black, you say I meant white. I say, no, no, I actually meant black and you say I'm wriggling! Bizarre.

SALT = Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.

SALT Treaty I = The Moscow Treaty otherwise known as "(Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) Treaty I." Some people incorrectly refer to it as the "Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I".

I never used either "SALT I" or "SALT Treaty I" so for you to assume that that's what I meant is your big, not mine!

I think your "eventually" argument is as leaky as Liza's bucket, but heck, I've said enough on that topic. Agree to disagree.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I don't know whether to laugh at you or despair. I use a term in the correct way, you use it incorrectly and then you accuse me of wriggling. I say black, you say I meant white. I say, no, no, I actually meant black and you say I'm wriggling! Bizarre.

SALT = Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.

SALT Treaty I = The Moscow Treaty otherwise known as "(Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) Treaty I." Some people incorrectly refer to it as the "Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I".

I never used either "SALT I" or "SALT Treaty I" so for you to assume that that's what I meant is your big, not mine!

I think your "eventually" argument is as leaky as Liza's bucket, but heck, I've said enough on that topic. Agree to disagree.

We can agree to disagree about this. What I object to is your accusation that I misquoted you. You clearly referred to SALT on page one (a passage I have quoted directly). Saying you "didn't refer to any SALT treaty actually." is disengenuous. You did, and there was no need to make a false accusation.

Of course, what you actually said in the first place is wrong too. You said the US was in violation of its SALT obligations. Obligations are not imposed by generic talks, or a process. They are imposed by specific language in signed and ratified treaties. You have listed the two SALT treaties above. Only one of them was ever ratified, and that was the first one. The US is not in violation of that treaty (which in any case is superceded).

I don't see how you can say that the term SALT includes the non-proliferation treaty since that treaty came into force two years before SALT-1, and in any case it was negotiated separately. To reiterate: one is a multilateral treaty falling under the UN, the other was a bilateral treaty between the US and the Soviet Union. To say that the term SALT includes an entirely separate treaty that was ratified ealier and which was negotiated with different parties is, as you put it, as leaky as Liza's bucket.

BTW, which Liza do you mean? Liza, or Liza?

In future this could probably be avoided by the use of precise terminology. If you mean the US is in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, then say so (though next time be honest enough to admit that the US is no more in violation than any of the other declared nuclear powers). You know as well as I do that the SALT treaties (SALT-1 and SALT-II) are commonly referred to as the SALT treaties. Your use of the term is unusual and quirky and you can't blame people for misunderstanding you if you use the term to mean something entirely different. After all, your definition is so broad that it would include the START treaties, and the INF treaty.

[Spliffdaddy]

Earlier in the thread I asked for help picking Troll up off the ground.

Now we need a shovel.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Earlier in the thread I asked for help picking Troll up off the ground.

Now we need a shovel.

Oops. Sorry.

[palmberg]

Originally posted by Raidiant:
Time for some humor

Can someone post the link to the story about the United States President explicitly ordering a chemical weapons attack against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil? Seems like everyone but me has seen it....

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What I object to is your accusation that I misquoted you..

Okay, since you object I feel I should explain to avoid any hard feelings. Here's a quick summary of our discussion:

Originally posted by Troll:
I don't suppose they tell you that the US is in violation of its SALT obligations,

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You said that US nuclear weapons violate the SALT treaty.

I then accused you of misquoting me. Which is true. I never said that the "US nuclear weapons violate 'the SALT treaty'". Interesting that you referred to "the SALT treaty" (note the singular) and yet you accuse me of using terms inaccurately!

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You know as well as I do that the SALT treaties (SALT-1 and SALT-II) are commonly referred to as the SALT treaties. Your use of the term is unusual and quirky and you can't blame people for misunderstanding you if you use the term to mean something entirely different.

You're still misquoting me! I never used the term "the SALT treaties". There is absolutely nothing quirky about referring to SALT as Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. That's what it means. We know why we're having this argument - it's because you misunderstood the meaning of SALT. You thought/think the T stood for TREATY. That's the only explanation for your misquoting me so many times.

By way of sign off, I don't think it would have been very efficient for me to make a whole list of the various promises that the US has made and not kept relating to nuclear weapons. I think referring to the talks generally was far more efficient and the explanations I provided more than adequately dealt with your requests for precision. You're just avoiding the issue by arguing the technicalities. The US is not disarming. End of story.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You're still misquoting me! I never used the term "the SALT treaties". There is absolutely nothing quirky about referring to SALT as Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. That's what it means. We know why we're having this argument - it's because you misunderstood the meaning of SALT. You thought/think the T stood for TREATY. That's the only explanation for your misquoting me so many times.

Good grief! I misspoke when I used T for treaty instead of talks. That's all. I originally referred to SALT treaty (singular) because legally, there only ever was one of them. The second was never ratified. You can't violate talks, a country can only violate signed and ratified treaties.

But the bottom line is that you did refer to SALT on the first page, and then on the second, you denied that you ever referred to SALT. Then in order to avoid admitting that you made a false accusation, you make the ridiculous claim that SALT is a generic term encompassing all nuclear treaties. This has been quite a pathetic performance.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Good grief! I misspoke when I used T for treaty instead of talks.

Finally he admits that he didn't know what SALT stood for. Problem is, it's not about you making a little mistake in what an acronym stands for. I've already forgiven you for getting the meaning of SALT wrong. It's about you attributing your own mistake to ME and then going off on a technical argument about the precise obligations the US has under one specific treaty that I didn't refer to!

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But the bottom line is that you did refer to SALT on the first page, and then on the second, you denied that you ever referred to SALT.

Why don't you read before you post, or have the decency to quote what I'd said if you insist on accusing me of changing tack? If you had bothered to read my posts properly you would have seen that on the first page I referred to Strategic Arms Limitation Talks ("SALT") obligations and on the second I denied having referred to any Strategic Arms Limitations Talks Treaty ("SALT treaty"). I did not refer to SALT and then deny that I ever referred to SALT!!

Besides, what's the point of going on about this point when you've already agreed with me that the US is in violation of obligations it has to disarm. Enough now.

[Face Ache]

Mother of all bombs just a huge scare device.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Finally he admits that he didn't know what SALT stood for.

I admit I misspoke. I wrote "treaty" because I was thinking of the SALT-1 treaty. Of couse I knew that the talks preceded the treaty. Happy?

Problem is, it's not about you making a little mistake in what an acronym stands for. I've already forgiven you for getting the meaning of SALT wrong. It's about you attributing your own mistake to ME and then going off on a technical argument about the precise obligations the US has under one specific treaty that I didn't refer to!

No, it's about you unfairly accusing me of misquoting you and denying that you referred to SALT when you did. Now, if you misspoke when you wrote SALT when you were thinking about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, then I can underestand that. Why not just admit an error? Or are you Mr. Perfect?

on the first page I referred to Strategic Arms Limitation Talks ("SALT") obligations and on the second I denied having referred to any Strategic Arms Limitations Talks Treaty ("SALT treaty"). I did not refer to SALT and then deny that I ever referred to SALT!!

Yeah, you did. But in any case, your statement was wrong. The US is not in violation of any "SALT obligations" because the only onligations under SALT were the ones laid out in the only signed and ratified SALT treaty - the one commonly referred to as SALT-1, which the US abided by until it was superceded by START (or abrogated, in the case of the companion ABM treaty).

Besides, what's the point of going on about this point when you've already agreed with me that the US is in violation of obligations it has to disarm. Enough now.

No, it isn't. I have already explained that the US, like the other four declared nuclear powers (the UK, Russia, China, France) did not promise to disarm by any particular date. They are therefore in no way in breach of any express provision of the NNPT. This should be obvious to anyone not intent in reading something into the treaty not conveyed by the terms of the treaty.

Now, in terms of spririt of the treaty, it is clear that two of the signatories have moved significantly in the direction of disarmament. The US and Russia have dramatically reduced their nuclear arsenals. On the other hand, I do not believe that China, Britain, or France have reduced theirs at all. But I note your disinterest in duscussing any nuclear power other than the US.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
As bad as America is -

at least we're not France.

Last I checked, they still have all their high-rise office buildings...

But hey, it's the price you pay for being "Number 1", right?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The irony is that if the US did unilaterally disarm of all of its nuclear arms, it is pretty clear that your response would be the same as your response to the news that the US has divested itself of all biological weapons. "Oh you are so naive to believe that" you would say.

Seems fair, given that this is how bombing Iraq is justified by the US.

-s*

edit: removed anthrax reference, as the point was addressed above.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Exept that we KNOW that the Anthrax sent by mail last year came from a US military lab. Oops. "Smoking gun"?

-s*

No, we don't know that. We know that was the FBI's theory, but apparently they haven't been able to prove it. We also know the FBI is wrong on occasions especially when, as in the anthrax case, their evidence is mainly on their profiles. For example, they were convinced they knew the profile of the Beltway Sniper. It turned out they were completely wrong.

That they have focussed on one scientist also doesn't necessarily tell us anything. Ask Richard Jewell.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But I note your disinterest in duscussing any nuclear power other than the US.

I'm just going to ignore the SALT references now as I don't think it's getting us anywhere. I know that you wanted to discuss specific treaties and you know I was referring to broader obligations.

As for my 'disinterest in duscussing any nuclear power other than the US,' the only reason I didn't discuss them is that they aren't really relevant to the point since all of them except Britain is not arguing for an attack on Iraq ... but since you want to raise it, fine, I agree that most of the other nuclear powers have also not eliminated nuclear weapons as they promised to do (South Africa is the only country I know of that has complied). So, all of those nuclear countries using Iraq's failure to comply to the letter with its disarmament obligations as a justification to attack Iraq are applying a double standard. I don't believe Spain or Bulgaria have nuclear weapons, so we're talking about Dubya and Poodle only.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
, I agree that most of the other nuclear powers have also not eliminated nuclear weapons as they promised to do (South Africa is the only country I know of that has complied).

Your basic point that only the US is being hypocriticical of course fails by the plain terms of UNSCR 1441, and the other Chapter VII resolutions calling on Iraq to disarm. They all passed by the votes not only of the US, but also China, Britain, France, and Russia. It isn't just the US calling on Iraq to disarm, and indeed, it never was just the US. It just happens that the US and the UK are apparently the only two permanent UN Security Council members who really meant it.

Incidentally, there are some countries other than South Africa who have disarmed. Several of the former Soviet states inherited nuclear weapons (e.g. Ukraine, Kazakhstan). They agreed to disarm and did so under international inspection. Of course, the difference between them and Iraq is that their governments were cooperative. That's why inspection worked in those cases, and why it has failed so miserably in the case of Iraq.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Last I checked, they still have all their high-rise office buildings...

But hey, it's the price you pay for being "Number 1", right?

I would pay a higher price than that to live in America.

Even as a glassy radioactive crater, the United States will still be a more pleasant place than living amongst a bunch of mindless chickenshit French.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your basic point that only the US is being hypocriticical of course fails by the plain terms of UNSCR 1441, and the other Chapter VII resolutions calling on Iraq to disarm. They all passed by the votes not only of the US, but also China, Britain, France, and Russia. It isn't just the US calling on Iraq to disarm, and indeed, it never was just the US.

But it is just the US and Britain that justify fighting a war in Iraq on this basis.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
But it is just the US and Britain that justify fighting a war in Iraq on this basis.

But if your basic objection is the hypocracy of ordering Iraq to disarm without also disarming themselves, then France, Russia, and China are equally hypocritical. They all made the same demand, and none of them are themselves disarming.

Are you somehow suggesting that it is less hypocritical to demand something without really meaning it? How does that hypocracy save them from a charge of hypocracy on disarmament?