-Well, the samples will be brought to the US in order to prove if they are or not chemical weapons, the so called gas. Bringing the samples to US does not give me that 100% trust that the results will be as they should be.

___________________
I live in a Trance, muzik is my XTC, is what makes you dream, feel all those phat feelings... that no other gives!

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Hehe, we made our previous posts almost simultaneously, so this got a bit confusing. In my post above there is a reference to a book which tells that the Soviet Union had a decent military capability for offensive operations - at least on paper. Taking a look at how they invaded Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland gives some kind of indication of what was the real truth. You may be right in that their real capability was not so great yet in 1941 (at least when compared to their estimated capability). Of course, the Germans must have had better training and equipment in 1941. But I believe the poor performance of the Soviet army during Hitler's initial invasion was due to their preoccupation with attacking rather than defending.

I agree it's an intersting theory and one that I've never come across before but allow me to outline a few points in defense. Firstly, this theory challenges the mainstream belief that the Germans invaded Russia without significant provocation. As such it is not necessarily a fully proven theory when taking all evidence into consideration. Secondly, I believe that the ULTIMATE goal of the Soviets were to invade Germany but certainly not any time recentely in 1941. To support my viewpoint I draw upon your own statements that Russia seeked a war between the western nation states to weaken Germany such that Russia would be able to take advantage of their weaknesses. In 1941 neither the United States nor Britain were fully involved in the war to weaken Germany, as such Russia would be attacking Germany at full strength. Second of all, despite Russia's man power mobilization and its million man paratrooper division, it simply lacked any techonological or logistical capabilities to mount a significant offensive. For example, the T-34 tank had yet to be developed and Russia lacked any close comparison to the panther and tiger tanks. Additionally, The Yak fighters and the IL-2 were still in early development and testing as opposed to the German proven Fockwulfe, Messerschmidts, and Junker attack planes. Russia simply did not have the offensive capabilities to mount an effective attack. This is evident by how quickly russian forces were overwhelmed. Yes you can say that this is because they were in an offensive posture as opposed to a defensive posture but would you say that the German forces would have been so easily overwhelmed if they had been attacked preemtively?

quote:

Actually, there may not be any alternative plan to get rid of Saddam and WMD. Saddam appears to have had huge underground networks, and top security services, so getting military control of the whole Iraq is necessary to find most Iraqi WMD and kill members of Saddam's regime located underground. So this part of any military / political plan must be quite constant independent of which anti-Saddam clique carries it out.

Agreed.

quote:

But in addition to these necessary operations, there were also some extra operations, which reflect the PNAC agenda for a US Hegemony rather than helping Iraqis or neutralizing WMD: the idea of a US military governor, the non-existent role of the UN, the threats that Rumsfeld made towards Iran and Syria (the former threat was completely out of place except for PNAC's plans, the latter possibly justified, but exaggerated), the non-existent role of Iraqi Shiites, Iran and Syria to help collapse Saddam's regime.

But is that so difficult to imagine after the US, Britain, and Australia have been the SOLE contributors to ousting Saddam Hussein? It seems semi-ludicrous for the US to make all the sacrifice in human lifes, expend all the financial costs, and then relinquish ALL say in the matter of a future Iraq to the United Nations who advocated a status quo in Saddam Hussein's control of the country. Personally I would arrive at the same decision. Yes the UN can have a significant role, but to say that the UN should have absolute control when they have done absolutely nothing to achieve an independant Iraq is ridiculous. As for threats against Syria and Iran, I view them as simply that ... threats for them to maintain their disinvolvement in this war. Additionally keep in mind that all plans for leadership in Iraq are plans for transitional governments to last less than 6 months until order is achieved in the country.

quote:

You Americans are guarded by the strongest military in the world. But we here in Europe are scared that we might be the next victim of the US! If not militarily, then politically. After all, the neoconservatives expressed their wish to subjugate all opponents on all continents. And there has already been many European countries whose politicians joined the US "Coalition" despite heavy opposition of the public opinion (Spain, Italy ...)

So please provide evidence that Spain and Italy, were "subjugated" to comply with the US. And please explain how they were so easily "forced" to agree with us as opposed to France, Germany, Belgium, etc. Again you're being biased assuming that EVERY country that agrees with us is somehow someway being FORCED to comply. It's a ridiculous, naive notion to assume that every country that disagrees with us is "standing up" against American aggression whereas every country that agrees with us si being bought out or coerced.

quote:

France and Russia might have joined a truly multilateral UN coalition if it had given them a sufficient strategical advantage to defend against the Neoconservatives. But by staying out of a basically unilateral US coalition they retained more of their influence than if they had got involved without any real power. However, their participation even in a UN coalition was unlikely unless they had had very heavy reasons for it.

I don't understand ... you're referring to the "neoconservatives" as if its an individual country! Russia and France never had ANY intent to enforce any resolution with Iraq. They were very much content with the status quo in their arms sales to Iraq and their contracts to develop oil fields in the country. Please provide ANY evidence of Franco-Russian initiatives to develop a multilateral UN coalition against IRaq's transgressions.

quote:

That's what I believe. I was heavily influenced by Pat Buchanan's views on Neoconservatives, and many other articles where people from the American military, intelligence services, senate representatives and lawyers have claimed that the Neoconservatives are running their own show.

Sorry to break it to you but Buchanan is more or less viewed as a racist and a has been quack in this country ever since a predominant plan in his presidential campaign was to build a 20 ft tall wall across the entire border of the US and Mexico in order to keep all the immigrants out.

quote:

I can back up my views with references. The Neoconservatives are the advisers, and Bush adopted their advice. The Men Who Stole the Show http://www.fpif.org/papers/02men/box1.html Among the key conclusions of PNAC’s defense strategy document were the following: - Develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world. - Control the new ‘international commons’ of space and ‘cyberspace,’ and pave the way for the creation of a new military service—U.S. Space Forces—with the mission of space control. - Increase defense spending, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually. - Exploit the ‘revolution in military affairs’ [transformation to high-tech, unmanned weaponry] to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. - Need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements complaining that the U.S. has virtually ceased development of safer and more effective nuclear weapons. - Facing up to the realities of multiple constabulary missions that will require a permanent allocation of U.S. forces. - America must defend its homeland by “reconfiguring its nuclear force” and by missile defense systems that “counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. - Need for a larger U.S. security perimeter and the U.S. should seek to establish a network of ‘deployment bases’ or ‘forward operating bases’ to increase the reach of current and future forces, citing the need to move beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia to increased permanent military presence in Southeast Asia and other regions of East Asia. Necessary to cope with the rise of China to great-power status. - Redirecting the U.S. Air Force to move toward a global first-strike force. - End the Clinton administration’s devotion to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. - North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or similar states [should not be allowed] to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself. - Main military missions necessary to “preserve Pax Americana” and a unipolar 21st century are the following: secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter rise of new great-power competitor, defend key regions (Europe, East Asia, Middle East), and exploit transformation of war. Bush has supported most of these. I can dig up references if you want. Here are a couple to get you started: Pump Up the Pentagon, Hawks Tell Bush http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.or...1pnac_body.html http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-012303.htm PNAC'S Present Dangers As Blueprint for Bush Doctrine http://www.presentdanger.org/fronti...1031neocon.html

I don't disagree with you that many policies coincide but first of all, many of those policies were already present governemnt objectives, and second of all it's insufficient evidence that "neoconservatives" run the government. And I most certainly disagree with you that this minute group has managed to penetrate the entirety of the exuctive AND the legislative branch. Additionally, many of these policies aren't "neoconservative" (I don't know how that term arose) they are simply conservative and REPUBLICAN viewpoints. Yes you can attempt to isolate this into a specific conspiracy group, but many of these policies have been PARTY policies all along.

quote:

I disagree about Soviet offensive power. Although the 5 year plans made a significant impact on the Russian economy they were still relatively inept militarily. They had nowhere near the industrial capabilities or technological weaponry that the Germans possessed. If the Russians had significant military capabilities, why did it take 2 years and over 10 million deaths before the Russians were able to rally enough industry to arm their forces and begin offensive operations against the Germans? Truth be told, the after the ribbentrop-molotov treaty was signed the Russians had no intent to invade Germany anytime soon. Stalin's gross and criminal errors in even recognizing the German invasion as it was happening is testament to the level of trust Stalin placed in the treaty and the Germans.

When Hitler attacked, Stalin suffered great losses and had to move most of his industry behind the Ural mountains. That took time, and during that time he didn't have almost any working factories so it took him a lot of time to rebuild his army. And When Germans attacked, they didn't have Tigers and Panthers, they only had Panzers III and IV afaik.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Well, there's a 90% opposition to war in Spain. How did Bush dare to get an ally whose entire people is fiercely opposed to it? Can't Bush see what kind of effects this has on the Europeans' belief in democracy? Of course he does, but he doesn't care! This is IMO in itself an intuitive confirmation to what I have thought about the Neoconservatives being in charge of the invasion. I can't remember other American conservatives doing such things to Europe. Guys like Powell and Buchanan have their weaknesses, but can anyone imagine that they or like-minded traditional conservatives could ever be behind this kind of a bullying foreign policy. All evidence points to the Neoconservatives, and to those who dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, I can only say that you will see.

Since when do governments always follow the will of their constituents? Just because the PEOPLE are against something does not mean that their government is against it. Like I said before, is it so hard for the Spanish and several other governments to perceive Iraq as a threat that needs to be stopped??? To assume that the US is bullying EVERYBODY is simply naive. And its presumptuous to assume that every foreign government does not percieve Iraq as a threat to global security. I mean listen to yourself, you're saying the US is OBVIOUSLY bullying britain, Australia, Spain, Kuwait, Poland, the Czech Republic, etc, etc, etc. Yet countries like France and Russia are OBVIOUSLY the consumate virgin mary's who are resisting this "bullying" and you're dismissing any concept at all that they have their OWN personnel interests at stake in this matter. I don't think that intuition and confirmation are two words that go very well together ...

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 When Hitler attacked, Stalin suffered great losses and had to move most of his industry behind the Ural mountains. That took time, and during that time he didn't have almost any working factories so it took him a lot of time to rebuild his army. And When Germans attacked, they didn't have Tigers and Panthers, they only had Panzers III and IV afaik.

That is true, but the panzer tanks were still vastly superior to the Soviet KV tanks. At any rate, I simply cannot believe that the Soviets were planning an attack anytime in 1941 ... they just didn't have the numerical superiority in tanks, artillery pieces, or airplanes to significantly confront the Germans, especially in a one front war. Even if Stalin's factories were operating at full output, his armies would have been pounded into the ground in much the same way that they were in barbarossa.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa When there is an extremely high level of unanimity of the public opinion, democratically elected politicians must obey the will of the people. Perhaps if the national security is urgently at stake, then politicians making their own decision might be allowed, but now in the case of Spain there was no such urgent reason. A PM is not a consult who is hired to make his own analysis and act upon it. He is there to carry out what his voters want.

I'm not too familiar on European parliamentary government, but in America, representatives are elected as representatives of the people. As such they are not obliged to make a decision whichever way public opinion sways (what's the point of a representative in that case) but rather they are elected to make informed decisions FOR the people. So as to whether his actions can be depicted as treasonous or unwarranted, I don't know. My guess is that there is no clause in spanish law that says the Prime Minister is obligated to adopt public opinion after a certain point or that his job is to "carry out what his voters want." (Again what would be the point of a having a PM if the will of the majority is always carried out?) So I find you claims that he is treasonous to be without merit. Unless you are more aware of spanish parliamentary law than I am ...

quote:

Everyone can make their own conclusion about Aznar's treason based on the following articles: Aznar counts cost of war as voters rebel http://www.observer.co.uk/internati...,930571,00.html Supporters desert Aznar as Spaniards reject conflict http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,897753,00.html Aznar faces 91% opposition to war http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,925118,00.html Please read these articles before trying to justify Aznar's deviation. Aznar's motivation was apparently to use his support to Bush to get a ticket for Spain into G7. But when democratically elected politicians are guilty of such treason, democracy collapses, and the people take matters into their own hands: Petrol bombs were hurled at offices of Spain's ruling Popular Party (PP) last week, fuelling fears that the simmering rage over Madrid's whole-hearted support for the war in Iraq will flare into widespread violence. Thanks to Bush for bringing this to Europe He's really "spreading democracy to the world".

So you're equating violent demonstrations as a sign of democracy collapsing and that the will of the people are not being carried out by the government as it should be? I guess the French government is then guilty of not carrying out the will of the people by not digging up British cementaries from France and exporting them to Britain as was violentely protested. At any rate I was under the impression that the membership of G7/G8 was fixed. But going by your own previous arguments, you stated that Spain was an example of a country being "bullied" to support the United States. If Aznar's own political career is at stake and his future chances at reelection virtually thrown out the window wouldn't he stand more to LOSE by supporting the United States???

Well here's more "treason" from government officials who go against public opinion, world opinion, and the condemnation of the UN:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9508/franc..._protest/09-11/

How ironic that national security overrides world and UN opinion in this case.

quote:

I think that now you unilaterally ( ) claimed that I was saying many things which I did not say Please re-read my post You have seriously misunderstood me. I never said anything about Australia, Kuwait, Poland nor the Czech Republic nor did I say that the US is bullying EVERYBODY.

I stand corrected

quote:

Intuition means heuristical reasoning based on incomplete information and probability. When using intuition, a person subconsciously establishes lemmas, and then subconsciously combines them into a theorem which is true with a certain probability. Intuition is not any worse method in many real life problems than the overvalued logical argumentation. Especially when under a threat, intuition is often a better confirmation than logical argumentation. I think Bush made his final war decision in early 2002 based only on his intuition after hearing about Saddam's deteriorated mental state, which is an explosive combination with his stocks of WMD. How could an American, who supports the invasion using an intuitive argument (about Saddam's WMD as a serious threat), claim that the intuition of an European (that the Neoconservatives are running the show) is automatically not a credible confirmation. I could try to transform my intuition into a logical argument if I have time, but it will not make it into a more credible confirmation than my original intuition.

So you're saying Bush made the correct decision in using intuition to perceive the threat of Iraq to confirm the belief that they do indeed pose a threat and thus the use of force is necessary to remove him?

Well I believe that Bush's decision did not solely rely on intuition.

quote:

A couple posts ago I mentioned that the US political and military plan has a blueprint straight from the Neoconservative reports. Just compare the Neoconservatives' military doctrine to the final US plan. The similarity proves my point. The heavy use of Special Forces, and a specifically renewed Shock And Awe bombing strategy, avoiding head-on clashes with the Iraqi troops, an unprecedented Psychological Operations campaign. This is not the traditional American warfare that Bush Sr used. I have a US Spec-Ops book written in the 1990's which estimated a bigger role for clandestine warfare, but its assessment was that the US Military is not likely to change their military tradition very rapidly. The current invasion didn't originate in Pentagon, but on the contrary some US officers even criticized it mid-war. The plan could not have been possible if it hadn't been conceived entirely by the Neoconservatives.

Are you insinuating that the Pentagon war plan did not originate from the Pentagon? Yes there have been various murmerings of adjustments to the Pentagon warplane but nothing so far on the level that you are implying. Also these are unconfirmed reports, it's likely that we will never know for sure what originated from the Pentagon and what was changed. If this IS a neoconservative military doctrine then it's a pretty damned effective one.

quote:

A more traditional American invasion plan to liberate the Iraqis from Saddam and to get rid of the WMD would have used more help from the UN (available even without a second UN Resolution). Getting UN peacekeepers into Iraq immediately would make Iraqis to not see it as an occupation. A more prominent UN role instead of threatening Iraq's neighbouring countries might have made Turkey and Iran to rally their loyal Iraqis to act as the main invasion force on the side of the Coalition. That would automatically result in a truly Iraqi post-war Government in the liberated areas.

I wasn't aware we had a tradition in invasion plans. How could we have gotten more help from the UN when France or Russia would have automatically vetoed anything such that they aren't "legitimizing" our actions?

quote:

When I'm talking about a UN role, I don't at all refer to weapon inspections nor to sharing the post-war reconstruction contracts etc. The US, Britain and the rest of the Coalition can keep their spoils as far as I'm concerned. France and Russia are IMO best off without any blood money. I would have liked to see a UN role only for the sake of the Iraqi people, not to bring money to Europe. The only benefit of a UN role for Europeans I'd like is that the Arabs wouldn't erroneously consider Europeans as the Neoconservative allies.

Well thank you for allowing the US and Britain to keep the "spoils" of the money WE spend to rebuild Iraq . And the UN will have a role in setting up an Iraqi government.

Back on topic for a second, an intersting article:

Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river
By David Harrison in Nasiriyah
(Filed: 06/04/2003)


Mustard gas and cyanide have been found in river water in the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah, coalition forces said yesterday.

The poisonous substances are believed to have been dumped in the Euphrates either by Iraqi soldiers fleeing from American troops or local factories that produced weapons of mass destruction.

A spokesman for the United States marines, based just outside the city, described the quantities of chemical agents found as "significant" and claimed that it was further evidence that Saddam Hussein has produced weapons of mass destruction.

He said yesterday: "I think this discovery shows what kind of guy is running this country.

"This stuff is just dumped in the Euphrates without any concern for the many people who drink and wash with water from the river."

The poisons were discovered by the marines' scientists who were testing the quality of water taken from the Euphrates before purifying it and distributing it to the residents of Nasiriyah, a city of 250,000 people.

It follows the discovery of hundreds of gas masks and chemical warfare suits at a military base near the city.

Weapons found at the site included rocket launchers, machine-guns and rifles, bayonets and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

Yesterday the site was deserted except for a few American soldiers examining the contents of the armoury, picking their way carefully through grenades and a huge amount of other explosives packed in boxes or strewn in and around the storerooms.

Among the boxes were papers with details of Iraqi soldiers, each with a small black-and-white passport photograph attached. There were also dozens of unused black berets of the sort worn frequently by Saddam Hussein.

The marines returned to the Euphrates in Nasiriyah yesterday to distribute purified water to hundreds of Iraqis who formed an orderly queue on the river bank.

Under the watchful gaze of heavily armed troops, the water was taken directly from the river, cleaned and then piped into buckets and jerry cans of all shapes and sizes.

Most residents were pleased that water was being provided, although some pointed out that the water problem only arose at the beginning of the war when American aircraft destroyed the city's treatment plant.

Abdul Ahmed, 33, said: "We are grateful for their help but we only have this problem because of the American bombings."

He added: "Before that we had water from the taps in our houses so we are still worse off than we were before the start of the war."

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/new.../ixnewstop.html

thats pretty damaging... but wouldnt surprise me coming from the iraqi government
just goes to show how inhumane they are and dumb they are - iraqi military chief "Ya, thats a good idea, lets dump our non exsist chemical agents down the river, that way no one will ever find them and we'll have damaged our rivers and water source for those damn occupiers "

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

Didn't you guys read the article that JohnSmith posted?

"When Jeff Miskin planted a tree in Spring Valley, a wealthy suburb of Washington DC one day in the summer of 1996, he didn’t expect to be poisoned by a US made chemical weapon. But Jeff Miskin found a toxic surprise buried for 70 years under the lawn of the President of American University.

[...]

Spring Valley’s 1200 odd homes sit atop the remains of the American University Experiment Station, where chemical weapons were tested and dumped during WWI. Mustard gas and lewisite contained in rusting old bombs are buried underneath the backyards of some of the most powerful people in the United States; senators, ambassadors, diplomats. Chemical munitions were recently removed from the backyard of the South Korean Ambassador.

While George W. Bush calls for a war on Saddam Hussein for using chemical weapons ‘against his own people’ Spring Valley DC is being quietly cleaned of the arsenic residue from the breakdown of lewisite. Community pressure forced the Army to expand clean up operations from a few isolated sites."

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Hmmm yes ... why I never thought of it before, but the cleanup of an 80 year old chemical weapons test site does equate with the gassing of the kurds or the deliberate dumping of chemical weapons into a major source of drinking water for the Iraqi people.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Of course, Saddam had WMD. Bush knew this, and so did everyone else. No country with potent weapons is going to destroy them all, but instead hides them in caches. This is the normal military practice. The Iraqi WMD were a risk to the world. It was necessary to get rid of them and Saddam before the WMD ended up in the wrong hands. But is this in some way a justification to the current American invasion? Not any more than when in the late 1930's, Hitler had a good reason to plan an invasion to the Soviet Union. Stalin was preparing to attack Germany, and had a massive army of Spetsnaz Spec-Ops trained to crush Germany's defenses (to realize their capability, see what happened in 1944 when the Soviet army started their offensive). So Hitler had to invade pre-emptively, so that Germany wouldn't need to fight against the offensive capability of the Soviet army. Did this make the German invasion justified? Of course not because the Nazi ideology was rotten. The American Neoconservatives are not any better than Nazis. They want to subjugate the world to serve the interests of two countries. The WMD were only a pretext. The whole world knows this. I can't see why Americans now start a celebration, as if finding Saddam's WMD is going to make their invasion justified. Note that I'm not against a military operation to destroy Saddam's WMD. And I'm not against America. I just think that talking about WMD is missing the point because really bad guys are now in charge of American foreign policy. I strayed somewhat off-topic, but finding Saddam's WMD were only a matter of time, so I wanted to remind you not miss the big picture of the American invasion.

Have you not heard of Liebensrom? hitler wanted the 'lesser' slavic races for slave labor and wiched to use there land for the new larger aryan nation.

Vesa your sigz are scrumptious!