Our Allies... the Germans - Page 3

Sava · February 18, 2003, 18:18

some people think themselves into conclusions, when in reality, they have limited knowledge of subjects

Lefty Scaevola · February 18, 2003, 18:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

I don't know if you're a DL, but you're funny!

Venom is a dual personality, not a dual logon.

Lefty Scaevola · February 18, 2003, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
some people think themselves into conclusions, when in reality, they have limited knowledge of subjects

I was unaware that anyone had compleat knowledge or any subject.

Sava · February 18, 2003, 18:42

this day cannot be called lost, for you have learned something new!

DinoDoc · February 18, 2003, 18:50

Quote:

The German government suppressed evidence of small pox virus arsenals in Iraq for months, fearing such news could undermine Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder's re-election campaign

I think that we need to get back to the point of this thread.

How do you think this news will effect Schroeder's standing? Will it change the dynamics in the Security Council?

Lancer · February 18, 2003, 18:54

DinoDoc, I don't think so. The opposition to war in Iraq is BS. They are opposed to the US, and this news won't change that. These people don't seem capable of thinking...just hating the US.

Lancer · February 18, 2003, 18:55

They are programmed.

Sava · February 18, 2003, 18:56

Yeah, because there aren't any good reasons to be against a war in Iraq.

oedo · February 18, 2003, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think that we need to get back to the point of this thread.

How do you think this news will effect Schroeder's standing? Will it change the dynamics in the Security Council?

not at all. do you think even only one goverment will withdraw because of secret deliveries of WMD s in the past? if so the whole western world would face new presidents, prime ministers and cancellors.

this article from last year summarizes the german deliveries of weapons and technologies to Irak. most of them are from the middle 80´s. biotechnical exports are mentioned there as well:
http://www.epd.de/entwicklungspolitik/2488_8116.htm
it´s in german language but I think it´s worth the translating.

DinoDoc · February 18, 2003, 19:08

Quote:

Originally posted by oedo
do you think even only one goverment will withdraw because of secret deliveries of WMD s in the past?

That's not what I was talking about. Read what I quoted.

Az · February 18, 2003, 19:10

Oedo: BTW, if you remember me asking you about an article in Focus magazine, this was the article I was talking about.

oedo · February 18, 2003, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

That's not what I was talking about. Read what I quoted.

ok.
it´s up to the UN or the US to develop an affair out of it. if what you quoted is true and a unique case then I would call it a scandal.

Azazel: yes I remember you asked, if Focus is serious magazine. however I don´t remember the topic/link anymore.

Az · February 18, 2003, 19:19

It was in one of them Iraq discussions. I asked about Focus, since I've heard they were the first to come with the story, that was posted as the topic of this thread.

Well, Nevermind.

Dr Strangelove · February 18, 2003, 21:22

Let me see if I understand what is going on:
(1) There is evidence that Iraq has some sort of smallpox virus stock.
(2) The german government kept this information a secret.
(3) The virus may actually be Camel pox. Is this the same thing that the German documents were referring to?
(4) While the virus may be similar to human smallpox virus do we know if it is feasible to make it able to infect humans? Does Iraq have the means to do this?

Ned · February 18, 2003, 22:05

Dr. Strangelove, What I think is going on is that the German government knew that Saddam had supplies of human smallpox virus and disclosed this information only when it was asked for justification for funding for an additional 100 million vaccination packages. In other words, the German government was preparing its people for a small pox attack even while withholding the information that might have prompted other governments across the world to themselves stockpile the vaccine. This could lead to millions of deaths outside Germany if Saddam attacks using small pox because they will not be prepared as is Germany.

I believe that withholding this information from the world while pretending that Saddam has no WoMD is criminal. It would have been more honest of Germany to simply tell the world that Saddam intended to use small pox if attacked and that if we must attack, that we should not do so until every nation has the proper amount of vaccine available.

Venom · February 18, 2003, 22:46

And yet this story still refuses to draw attention from anyone.

Bereta_Eder · February 18, 2003, 22:49

Germany probably didn't want to scare you

Venom · February 18, 2003, 23:28

If Germany was trying to be scary all of Europe would have already surrendered.

Ted Striker · February 18, 2003, 23:47

Interesting.

Now the mystery of what's REALLY happening is starting to unfold.

Way to go Schroeder. Scheissekopf.

Ned · February 18, 2003, 23:54

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
Germany probably didn't want to scare you

True. The whole would might be panicked if the Germans had told the world what they know.

In fact, why aren't they panicking now? Is there something we do not know about the spread of small pox? AFAIK, it is contagious and deadly. The Roman Empire was decimated by it.

In the US, only the health workers are being vaccinated. Is this the right procedure if the Germans are planning to vaccinate their entire nation?

Dr Strangelove · February 19, 2003, 00:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Dr. Strangelove, What I think is going on is that the German government knew that Saddam had supplies of human smallpox virus and disclosed this information only when it was asked for justification for funding for an additional 100 million vaccination packages. In other words, the German government was preparing its people for a small pox attack even while withholding the information that might have prompted other governments across the world to themselves stockpile the vaccine. This could lead to millions of deaths outside Germany if Saddam attacks using small pox because they will not be prepared as is Germany.

I believe that withholding this information from the world while pretending that Saddam has no WoMD is criminal. It would have been more honest of Germany to simply tell the world that Saddam intended to use small pox if attacked and that if we must attack, that we should not do so until every nation has the proper amount of vaccine available.

So how did Camel pox figure in all this? Has Iraq been acquiring both? Why would it bother with Camel pox, or is ti that what Iraq actually has is the Camel pox virus, which it may be trying to render into something that infects humans?

Ted Striker · February 19, 2003, 00:22

Yeah I mean it makes no logical sense for them to be working with camel pox. What are they trying to do, kill off the camels in Iran?

SpencerH · February 19, 2003, 08:06

No one has reported that Iraq definitely has smallpox. The Germans knew (but didnt tell) that Iraq has been working with camel pox virus. There are three reasons for this:

1. They want to protect their camels
2. They are trying to make the canel pox virus more lethal to humans.
3. They are using camel pox virus to acquaint themselves with methods for small pox use.

The germans think that its number three (with the implied threat that the Iraqis have smallpox). Thats why they're stockpiling vaccine.

SpencerH · February 19, 2003, 08:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

True. The whole would might be panicked if the Germans had told the world what they know.

In fact, why aren't they panicking now? Is there something we do not know about the spread of small pox? AFAIK, it is contagious and deadly. The Roman Empire was decimated by it.

In the US, only the health workers are being vaccinated. Is this the right procedure if the Germans are planning to vaccinate their entire nation?

The smallpox vaccine is very unsophisticated. In part thats what makes it so effective, but it also has a high risk of side effects. Some of those are fairly mild but there is risk of death from the vaccine.

Because of the vaccine side effects, the plan here is one of disease containment rather than prevention AFAIK. Whether that would work is just a guess but the alternative that the Germans have chosen is politically incorrect here (and maybe rightly so).

CerberusIV · February 19, 2003, 08:45

Am I the only one who noticed that the original article also referred to labs in NK and Russia having this stuff. I would be more worried about terrorists buying smallpox virus from the Russian mafia than being given a free sample by Saddam.

Eurobash all you want but Bush isn't talking about war with NK or threatening Putin with military action if the Russians don't sort out their act. Which leaves the real US motive on Iraq open to question.

SpencerH · February 19, 2003, 10:02

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Am I the only one who noticed that the original article also referred to labs in NK and Russia having this stuff. I would be more worried about terrorists buying smallpox virus from the Russian mafia than being given a free sample by Saddam.

We know Russia maintained smallpox and weaponized it. As for NK, its speculation whether it has smallpox stocks. Its not impossible that many countries maintained some (hidden away). France was recently mentioned as a good possibility of that.

Quote:

Eurobash all you want but Bush isn't talking about war with NK or threatening Putin with military action if the Russians don't sort out their act.

NK is not Iraq. NK is what Iraq will be if we dont do something before he has nukes and/or missiles with sufficient accuracy and range to reach Europe. The Russians have proved over the last 50 years that they are not irrational with respect to the balance of power. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, has shown a willingness to wage war and use chemical weapons on large scales.

Quote:

Which leaves the real US motive on Iraq open to question.

These comments from people both sides of the atlantic continue to amaze me. If not the stated motive, what is it you think is the motive? Oil? Thats a laughable red herring. A deep seated need by GW to avenge his fathers victory as the leader of the coalition? The american desire to rule the world, starting with a middle east ****-hole?

Please, I'd like a cogent answer (that wasn't addressed to you personally CerberusIV).

CerberusIV · February 19, 2003, 10:19

I don't really want to get into that argument in this thread since that wasn't the original subject. Let's just say that I can accept politicians who are opportunistic shits, like the german chancellor, as that's what 'normal' politicians usually are. I am deeply, deeply suspicious of politicians like Bush and Blair who are claiming a moral high ground to justify their actions.

General Ludd · February 19, 2003, 10:31

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH

These comments from people both sides of the atlantic continue to amaze me. If not the stated motive, what is it you think is the motive? Oil? Thats a laughable red herring. A deep seated need by GW to avenge his fathers victory as the leader of the coalition? The american desire to rule the world, starting with a middle east ****-hole?

Please, I'd like a cogent answer (that wasn't addressed to you personally CerberusIV).

It is, to some extent, all the reasons we have been given, but with different motivations then they like to say.

It is about WMDs, the USA is trying to stop countries from aproaching a level where they are even remotely on the same level as the USA. The USA has probably the most WMDs in the world. They are trying to build missle shields, biological detectors and all sorts of ridiculous things while going around and blowing up anyone who starts developing the same sort of weapons. They are keeping a grip on their global dictatorship.

It is about Saddam being a dictator, in that he isn't a pro-US dictator. The USA's history with installing brutal dictatorships and some of their current allies such as Saudi Arabia are evidence that they do not want a regime change for moral or ethical reasons. (Besides, the people of Iraq have it pretty well off compared to some of their neighbouring countries in the region.)

It is about bringing "stability" to the middle-east, in that they are making it a better atmosphere for Israel, and possibly a bit less anti-american. (officialy speaking, anyways)

The only things that I don't see as playing a very big role, except to gain added support on one side or the other, is oil and terrorist connections. (although I'm sure they do have a very minor part in it aswell)

Also, if what they are telling us is truly the complete and honest truth, why do they continue to make up new reasons and justifications every week? (such as the al-qaeda connections)

I can't say I know for certain why they are going to war - all I know for certain is that they aren't telling us the real reasons why.

Ming · February 19, 2003, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Let's just say that I can accept politicians who are opportunistic shits, like the german chancellor, as that's what 'normal' politicians usually are. I am deeply, deeply suspicious of politicians like Bush and Blair who are claiming a moral high ground to justify their actions.

Typical... All three are claiming the moral high ground to justify their actions. One is anti war because he is against war without justification, and the other two feel the justification is there. But you can accept the german chancellor, but not the other two.

THEY ARE ALL DOING THE SAME THING...

So I think your biases are showing

General Ludd · February 19, 2003, 10:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

THEY ARE ALL DOING THE SAME THING...

Accept that the german chancellor isn't trying to start a war...