Our Allies... the Germans

[Sandman]

Smallpox viruses are large, and like all viruses, are rather fragile. It's difficult to make an effective aerosol of anthax endospores, even though they're just about the toughest things in the living world.

I cannot imagine that Iraq has the capability to make a smallpox aerosol.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
Smallpox viruses are large, and like all viruses, are rather fragile. It's difficult to make an effective aerosol of anthax endospores, even though they're just about the toughest things in the living world.

I cannot imagine that Iraq has the capability to make a smallpox aerosol.

But the question is, Sandman, are you willing to risk your life on the answer to that question?

[Sandman]

I consider the risk neglible.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sandman
Smallpox viruses are large, and like all viruses, are rather fragile. It's difficult to make an effective aerosol of anthax endospores, even though they're just about the toughest things in the living world.

I cannot imagine that Iraq has the capability to make a smallpox aerosol.

Its not simply a matter of creating an aerosol though. For an effective weapon it needs to have good dispersion into single virus so that you can get the maximum number of infectious particles. After all, there's no point in having most of the virus forming clumps and infecting only a few people when the same number could be spread out and kill many more.

[Dr Strangelove]

I for one would like to know where Germany got this information and how reliable it is. I just might consider volunteering for the vaccine.

[Sandman]

It's just occured to me that the camelpox could have been used to make a smallpox vaccine.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Ned
Leonidas, if I understand the article correctly, Germany has been selling Iraq illegal weapons and weapons materials that can be used to produce proscribed missiles and weapons of mass distruction during the period 1991-2003. Perhaps this is the source of German knowledge that Saddam has weaponized smallpox. Perhaps Germans even helped Saddam in his weaponization efforts.

I don't know how many times I've read on this forum that America has no business criticizing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction because, after all, we provided him very materials to make chemical and bio-weapons in the 1980s. But no one has accused the United States of providing Saddam with such materials during the 1990s. If it turns out to be true and the Germans are violating international law by supplying Saddam with illegal materials and now stands athwart any efforts to disarm Saddam, what is the true meaning of German policy?

I think it is time for the German people to have a regime change. Schroeder cannot be trusted either by the German people or by Germany's allies.

Ned:

Yes, Germany has been supplying Iraq with not only weapons, but the chemicals, factories and know-how to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Guess who built the Iraqi nuclear plant the Israelis bombed in 1981? France and Germany. . .

When Iraq released its report in December, 8,000 pages were missing from it. Even with what was in the remaining 4,000 pages, we have gotten a glimpse into what Germany has been doing since 1991.

BTW, the UN sanctions that were imposed on Iraq, means that for over 10 years 80 German firms (some of the biggest in Germany) were performing ILLEGAL arms, weapons, and chemical transfers to Iraq.

This was all known by the various German gov'ts, but they simply ignored it. . .

The holier-than-thou stance of the present German and French gov'ts is hypocritical to say the least, and out-right criminal, especially if these German companies were doing all this with their knowledge. . .

I wonder why we don't hear more about all this in the western press and on CNN?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And for the record, Rasmussen is right.

What Saddam WANTS is to stall long enough so that public opinion turns against war (people don't like the tension and uncertainty....keep it high too long, and they'll start to balk), such that any attempt to USE force would be political suicide here in our western democracies.

How do you do that?

You play shell games.

Refuse to cooperate till the last possible minute, and then make a few concessions.

If they buy it, then it *looks* like you're trying, and they'll give you more time.

Rinse and repeat.

Public anti-war sentiment grows, and Saddam wins.

Good job, peaceniks! You just provided some added job security for a ruthless dictator!

-=Vel=-

So what? It's not like he's the only ruthless dictator on the planet, or the only one with WMD capabilities. He's just the only one who used to be our boy, but strayed from his would-be master's path. We sure as **** weren't concerned about Hussein when the US decided to fast track Iraq back to diplomatic normalization, then to all sorts of semi-covert financial aid at US taxpayer expense. It was only when he stopped being our boy that there was any concern.

If the US's chosen mission in life now is to liberate every shithole country with a nasty dictator in it, then it would be nice if there was a policy declaration to that effect. Otherwise, Iraq is just tying up half the ground combat capability of the US for an indefinite period, to pursue a policy with no clear goal and no clear exit strategy. (Hint: regime change isn't a goal. It's a step on the way to a goal.)

[oedo]

Originally posted by Leonidas
I wonder why we don't hear more about all this in the western press and on CNN?

yeah, this is indeed very, very strange. as I said before, if this turns out true, it would be more than enough to overthrow a goverment.

even more, the US could have used the Iraqi report to completely knock out Germany´s position and Powell would have had better evidences than he actually presented two weeks ago.

I wonder why this all didn´t happen.

[DuncanK]

MtG,

Saddam may not be the only ruthless dictator, but he and Kim in NK are the ones who get in trouble with the US. There are going to be dictators out there. We know that, but we can't have dictators out there who are our enemies. Not in this day and age, when it is so easy to get WoD and get them to terrorists.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by oedo


yeah, this is indeed very, very strange. as I said before, if this turns out true, it would be more than enough to overthrow a goverment.

even more, the US could have used the Iraqi report to completely knock out Germany´s position and Powell would have had better evidences than he actually presented two weeks ago.

I wonder why this all didn´t happen.

It's because we have great interest with the Germans, even though they pull this crap. If a nation that our government didn't like pulled this crap you better believe we would hear about it. They would stop all TV programming and blast it at us.

[oedo]

Originally posted by DuncanK


It's because we have great interest with the Germans, even though they pull this crap. If a nation that our government didn't like pulled this crap you better believe we would hear about it. They would stop all TV programming and blast it at us.

maybe, but does it explain, why Schröder is still our cancellor? the german press usually isn´t that thoughtful towards our politicians and weapon deliveries to Iraq post 1991 would be a big seller.
show me more links, convince me. this one is important to know exactly.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DuncanK
MtG,

Saddam may not be the only ruthless dictator, but he and Kim in NK are the ones who get in trouble with the US. There are going to be dictators out there. We know that, but we can't have dictators out there who are our enemies. Not in this day and age, when it is so easy to get WoD and get them to terrorists.

We've already admitted (in effect) we can't do squat about the DPRK militarily, so we have to ask nicely and hope diplomacy works.

There's also a little problem with the concept of sovereignty. If the US decides it's approach to foreign policy is to thump anyone who pisses us off enough (for whatever reason) that is going to have rather unpredictable long-term repercussions all over the world.

The US isn't building up a military capability to becoming the global ass-kicker, and we're overcommitting what capability we have now, without taking any steps to increase that capability in any substantial way.

As far as terrorists getting WMD's, the genie is already out of the bottle. Non-proliferation is nothing more than a voluntary decision not to develop those capabilities. The expertise is out there, the technology and materials are out there, and in so many hands now it's essentially impossible to prevent some ******* from getting whatever toys he wants, given enough time and determination on the *******'s part.

[Lancer]

We need the CIA to double their efforts at penetrating those *******s.

[DuncanK]

MtG,

The US will do everything it can to prevent dictators and terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. I think in general the world will allow the US to do this, except like in this case where some of them have economic interests in the state facing attack.

I think we can do more than use diplomacy with NK. We can blockade them. I'm sure we'll do that if we have to. God forbid, if they nuke us, we will show the world that we can't be bullied by nukes the way we did in the Cuban Missile Crisis. You've got to think about the game plan that is being strategised by the government in this new world.

[Ned]

MTG, Rather than focusing on America, just tell me why Saddam is so intent on stockpiling chemical and bio-weapons, and upon developing nuclear weapons?

Does the term "aggressive war" come to mind?

[Ned]

MTG, on NK. They have a pattern of using their missle and nuclear development programs to extort beneficial deals from the West. NK has not invaded anyone for 50 years.

I fear though that if we blockade NK, that lunatic Kim may just be crazy enough to land one on Tokyo or San Francisco.

So, as soon as we are done in Iraq, I say send the divisions to the DMZ and the airforce to take out NK's nukes.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by oedo


yeah, this is indeed very, very strange. as I said before, if this turns out true, it would be more than enough to overthrow a goverment.

even more, the US could have used the Iraqi report to completely knock out Germany´s position and Powell would have had better evidences than he actually presented two weeks ago.

I wonder why this all didn´t happen.

oedo: It's true alright. You have to wonder why the media is so shy about reporting on these things, especially when Germany and France are so vocal about criticizing the US Gov't.

Here's more information:

MIDDLE EAST

Germany, France Assisted Iraq’s Weapons Program


By Dale Hurd
CBN News Senior Reporter

February 14, 2003


CBN.com – No matter how much evidence has been uncovered about Iraq's links to terror, Germany and France have said it is not enough. That has led to speculation that there are other reasons those two countries oppose a war against Saddam. And reports now indicate that some of those reasons are embarrassing for both countries.

The world has known part of the reason why France and Germany oppose the toppling of Saddam Hussein: they will lose billions in cancelled business contracts and unpaid debts.

But there is also a far more sinister reason. French and German fingerprints are all over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Asian Times reports that deleted portions of Iraq's December 7th report to the UN Security Council show that German companies were the major suppliers for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

Several German companies exported dual-use nuclear technologies and precursor chemicals for Iraqi chemical and biological warheads.

So, while Gerhard Schroeder tells the world Germany wants peace, he may also not want to the world to learn the extent to which Germany helped Saddam build deadly weapons. American trial lawyers are reportedly looking into filing lawsuits against the Germans.

But according to terrorism expert Kenneth Timmerman, French companies have made the most applications to the UN for the sale of dual-use technology to Iraq, including agricultural sprayers that could be used to deliver biological weapons, and digital imaging equipment that will allow Saddam to better track political opponents.

Both countries may be headed for a rather unpleasant payday. Iraqi leaders in exile told Timmerman that they know all about the German and French help to Saddam, and they intend to remember those who helped them, and those who did not.


http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/0302...p?option=print

[Ned]

Leonidas, If France and Germany continue to oppose a UN authorization for war, I would like to see Powell publicly hit them over the head with this before the entire world.

Germany and France are self-righteous hypocrits to a degree that is simply unbelievable.

[HershOstropoler]

Ok, Leo, I read until:

"they will lose billions in ... unpaid debts."

Another journalist who knows **** about some happy little rule that government changes do not affect the obligations of the respective state. You can forget every article that starts with this bullshit.

And the US admin will definately not want to change it. Or Lula could cancel Brazil's debt to the IMF, US banks etc. So could every country.

Ming:

"It's the people that think their leaders are far superior and act with more moral fiber that piss me off when they attack Bush."

Maybe you should ask the counterquestion when someone attacks Bush: "Is your chimp any better?". I doubt you'll get many yes.

Anyway, "moral fiber"... the scary thing about Bush is "moral fiber". I'm afraid he believes all this stuff. If he were just a corrupt lying gameplaying politician on this issue, you could at least deal rationally with him. To some extent the same problems appears to extend to Blair...

MtG:

"Otherwise, Iraq is just tying up half the ground combat capability of the US for an indefinite period, to pursue a policy with no clear goal and no clear exit strategy."

I like this NY Times Friedman quote: "The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on strategy and terrible at diplomacy." Hardly surprising if you think you're doing God's work...

Anyway, what I wanted to ask you: half the ground combat capability of the US - what is the manpower in that overall capability? Shouldn't that be something like 500k+, not including reserves?

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Ok, Leo, I read until:

"they will lose billions in ... unpaid debts."

Another journalist who knows **** about some happy little rule that government changes do not affect the obligations of the respective state. You can forget every article that starts with this bullshit.

And the US admin will definately not want to change it. Or Lula could cancel Brazil's debt to the IMF, US banks etc. So could every country.

OK, Hershy:

Ah, yes, nice neat legal obligations. . .

Have you never heard of countries defaulting?

In the past Germany did just this (defaulting on loans to the USA) which started a domino effect that helped plunge the world into the Great Depression.

More recently, Russia and Argentina defaulted on massive loans.

This of course, does not include the untold "illegal" things that Japan, Italy, and Germany were able to get away with that led up to WWII. . . They simply snubbed the international community. . .

Look what North Korea is currently doing. . .

With Iraq, we are dealing with a brutal dictatorial regime that has already killed tens of thousands of its own citizens. Do you really think there will be much left of its infrastructure in this latest war, to allow it to continue to pay its debts and honour its contract obligations?? Millions and even billions of dollars of investment money will probably be destroyed when war comes again to Iraq. And who has invested a great deal of this money? France and Germany. . .

Remember what happened in the 1991 Gulf War? Saddam blew up 100s of Kuwaiti oil wells, destroyed untold wild life in the Persian Gulf (after dumping oil into it), and caused the death of thousands of his own soldiers. . .

And who picked up the bill for all of this?

If you think a creditor was able to slip a bill for all this damage into Saddam's mailbox, expecting him to pick up the tab, then you are indeed innocent to the ways of "international law", dictatorships, the cost of war, and the world. . .

[Leonidas]

Heres more on Iraq's development of WMD:


Iraq has secretly built chemical weapons plants in Sudan, transferred nuclear materials to Algeria, and sent a dozen of its top scientists to develop a biological warfare complex in Libya.

- US House of Representatives claim

BY ALAN COOPERMAN, USNEWS, February 16, 1998

U.S. airstrikes cannot eliminate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction for the simple reason that Iraq has smuggled many of them to other Arab countries for safekeeping.

That is the conclusion of a draft report by the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare which was obtained by U.S. News & World Report magazine.

The report -- based on American, German, and Israeli intelligence -- says that Iraq has secretly built chemical weapons plants in Sudan, transferred nuclear materials to Algeria, and sent a dozen of its top scientists to develop a biological warfare complex in Libya.

The Clinton administration has dispatched three aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf and is now building international support for a military strike to punish Saddam Hussein for defying United Nations weapons inspectors.

But "no bombing campaign against Iraq, and even an occupation of that country for that matter, is capable of destroying the hard core of Saddam Hussein's primary WMD [weapons of mass destruction] development and production programs,'' the congressional report states. "The reason is that under current conditions these programs are run outside of Iraq -- mainly in Sudan and Libya, as well as Algeria (storage of some hot nuclear stuff).''

The transfer of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technology began even before the Gulf War. As Saddam Hussein realized that the coalition led by the United States was going to bomb his country in 1991, he hastily smuggled know-how, equipment, and key materials to his close allies. And the smuggling has continued right up to the present.

In March/April 1991, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz got permission from Sudan's president, Umar al-Bashir, to move about 400 Scud missiles and chemical weapons to Sudan for "safekeeping.'' At the same time, Iraq smuggled nuclear materials, documents, and weapons parts -- including 27.5 pounds of highly-enriched uranium-235 -- to Sudan via Jordan using diplomatic mail privileges. For example, barrels of uranium were hidden in a truck marked "furniture'' that went from the Sudanese Embassy in Iraq to Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, in January 1992.

Since Sudan has no nuclear facilities, most of the nuclear materials were later shipped to a Chinese-built research reactor in the Algerian town of Ain Oussera, where they are still being stored, according to the report.

In 1995, Iraq and Sudan jointly built a plant to produce choking mustard gas near Wau in southwestern Sudan. The chemical weapons plant is located in a former fruit factory staffed by Iraqi technicians. The gas has been used at least twice by the Sudanese government against the rebel Sudanese People's Liberation Army in southern Sudan.

In May 1996, the Iraqis and Sudanese tested chemical agents in the desert, and residents got sick when winds shifted suddenly and carried residues into the city of Omdurman.

Last year, Sudan and Iraq completed a far more sophisticated chemical weapons plant along the Blue Nile in the Kafuri region north of Khartoum. The plant is believed to have begun test runs of nerve agents and is producing 122mm and 152mm artillery shells as well as rocket and tactical missile warheads. Iraqi intelligence agents recruited experts from Egypt, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Russia to help with the plant according to the report.

The Iraqis also built a chemical weapons plant at the Yarmook Industrial Complex in the Mayu area south of Khartoum using German-made machines acquired by Iraqi intelligence and smuggled via Bulgaria. Computers were purchased in France. The site includes a mosque, medical clinic, and guest houses for foreign experts from Iraq and Iran. It even has a special farm to keep the "guests'' well fed on fresh milk, vegetables, and dates.

In 1995, the congressional report says, Iraq signed a secret agreement to provide Libyan leader Muammer Qadhafi with experts on ballistic missiles. Iraq also sent nuclear fuel and specialists to work on nuclear weapons development at a secret site in Sidi Abu Zurayq, in the desert about 240 miles southwest of Tripoli.

Since the mid-1990s, Iraqi agents have been buying sensitive technology in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, then diverting it to Libya. Late last year, Iraq sent some of its top experts in chemical weapons to the Libyan chemical weapons facility inside a mountain at Tarhunah, 40 milies southeast of Tripoli.

About a dozen Iraqi scientists involved in biological weapons research arrived in Libya at the beginning of this year. They are helping the Libyans develop a new biological warfare complex under the guise of a medical facility called General Health Laboratories. This secret program, codenamed Ibn Hayan, is aimed at producing bombs and missile warheads filled with deadly anthrax and botulism agents, according to the report.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...557/feb.3.html

[OmniDude]

Originally posted by Ming
...I do get a little tired of the constant America bashing... Not that we don't deserve it, but the holier than thou attitude is what bugs me. EVERY GOVERNMENT has it's own agenda... and they aren't all pure and goodness like some people would like others to believe.

I agree that America-bashing is sometimes overwhelmingly and annoying predominant and brain-dead.

However, it is to be expected given that:

A: The US is the world strongest nation in almost every sense, most notably military-wise.

B: The changing US administrations appears to have little scrouples using this geopolitical position routinely to conduct domestic policy, a feat few other nations are capable of pulling off due to the US dominance.

C: The US being a democracy, administration policy rubs off on US citizens

D: Most people are not interested in nuances of grey, but like their world view simple and richly contrasted

I'd like the post-cold war US to pull a George Washington/Cincinnatus and - upon winning the Cold War - seriously gearing down their military activity and turning over world leadership to the UN.

That being said, I think French foreign policy in general sucks major a$$... ....but it is funny watching their Secretary of State Villepin run circles around the US diplomacy-wise....

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Another journalist who knows **** about some happy little rule that government changes do not affect the obligations of the respective state. You can forget every article that starts with this bullshit.

And the US admin will definately not want to change it. Or Lula could cancel Brazil's debt to the IMF, US banks etc. So could every country.

Wrong. The French should be worried about losing these contracts. The current government gives them these conracts. Another government may not. The same thing goes for the debt. True the debt can not be cancelled, but the likelyhood of it being payed off should decrease which would decrease the value of the loan.

[Ming]

True... legality is one thing... what a new Government chooses to do or not do is another. The Germans and French stand to lose a lot of future revenue if the regime changes.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ming
True... legality is one thing... what a new Government chooses to do or not do is another. The Germans and French stand to lose a lot of future revenue if the regime changes.

hi ,

, ...... one word "tax" , .....

what shall happen with "tax" when an american general is going to rule iraq for a couple years , ......

how shall those french and german firms feel with that , .....

the americans probably tax the oil and put it on the side for the future iraqi gov and its people , .....

its going to be intresting , .....

have a nice day

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by OmniDude I'd like the post-cold war US to pull a George Washington/Cincinnatus and - upon winning the Cold War - seriously gearing down their military activity and turning over world leadership to the UN.

That being said, I think French foreign policy in general sucks major a$$... ....but it is funny watching their Secretary of State Villepin run circles around the US diplomacy-wise....

OmniDude: HI

We should be careful what we ask for. . .

Post-Cold War USA:

After WWI, the US did exactly as you have suggested. The USA went isolationist, disbanded its military, and left things in the hands of the League of Nations.

The result?

International anarchy and WWII. . .

I don't think anyone wants to see a repeat of all this. . .

French Diplomacy:

Ah, yes. The same clever and under-handed French diplomacy that led to the pro-German Vichy Regime in WWII. . .

[vee4473]

Originally posted by monkspider

I don't think we made Bush's job any more secure.

holy cow... the ignorance is astounding.

george bush is a ruthless dictator?

wow


how can someone defend hussein and defile bush?

no number of posts will change some minds, they have some other (politcal, personal, etc..) reason to hate.

wow

wow wow wow

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Leonidas


OmniDude: HI

We should be careful what we ask for. . .

Post-Cold War USA:

After WWI, the US did exactly as you have suggested. The USA went isolationist, disbanded its military, and left things in the hands of the League of Nations.

The result?

International anarchy and WWII. . .

I don't think anyone wants to see a repeat of all this. . .

French Diplomacy:

Ah, yes. The same clever and under-handed French diplomacy that led to the pro-German Vichy Regime in WWII. . .

forget debating with some people. they believe what they want due to hate in their hearts.

If the US disbanded all military bases around the world and became isolationist, in a very short time, the world world be begging the US to intervene due to all the dictators that would decide to go on the march.

I ALMOST wish we would leave south korea just to see what the currently protesting anti-american south koreans would say when north korea marches over them and enslaves them into poverty.

my problem with that is it would make the deaths of the american soldiers in the korean war be in vain.

[OmniDude]

Whoah...??!!

Take it easy, vee, I'm new to this debate and you have no grounds for shrugging me off like that.

All I'm saying is that

A. the US having far and away the strongest military force in the world and its recent history of using that muscle when conducting domestic policy is not making the post-cold war world more stable and

B. The logic behind the current anti-americanism is understandable, even if its is not always just.

Let me make it clear that I'm NOT a peacenik and believe in just war.
I'm glad that the US is ready to move in and remove Saddam when the time comes and I agree that if the military might of the US forces was suddenly greatly diminished, all hell would break lose a lot of places around the world.
I even think that the UN should consider writing off the 800 mill. $ US debt to acknowledge the costs associated with keeping the worlds hotspots in check.

I am inclined to see the post-cold war world as one big society and the US administration as the commander-in-chief of something like the "Global National Guard". However I strongly believe that they should be kept in check by the "Global Surpreme Court", the UN SC, and this is obviously NOT the way the stringpullers around Bush sees it.
Thank God for Colin Powell....