??

[**DONOTDELETE**]

January, 2003

Afghanistan: The Nuclear Nightmare Starts
By Davey Garland

When questions were asked in the British parliament a year ago about whether depleted uranium (DU) weapons had been used in the military strikes on Afghanistan, \"It is not being used at present\" was defense minister Geoff Hoon\'s reply.

A few days earlier, Hoon had been similarly vague on the issue, assuring us that: \"No British forces currently engaged in operations around Afghanistan are armed with depleted uranium ammunition. However, we do not rule out the use of depleted uranium ammunition in Afghanistan, should its penetrative capability be judged necessary in the future.\"

The defense minister played his cards close to his chest, no doubt having been informed that DU or other uranium weapons were being used by the United States (and no doubt British) forces to penetrate the caverns of Tora Bora and other targets (including civilian ones), especially in the vicinity of Kabul.

The refusal of the Ministry of Defense to fully admit that dangerous uranium weapons may have been used in Afghanistan and the conflicts in the Balkans (Bosnia and Kosova), when evidence shows the contrary, illustrates just how sensitive the government is to the possibility that its use, or its collusion in the use, of weapons of mass destruction may be discovered.

This is not just because thousands of innocent civilians will suffer due to radiological (and heavy metal) poisoning, but also because the government is prepared to send British troops and aid workers, possibly for a long occupation of the war zones, ill-equipped and vulnerable to contamination.

When the Afghan crisis began, many of us believed that a great amount of DU/dirty uranium would be used to achieve the US-British campaign objectives, both to penetrate the opposition\'s hideouts in rocky terrain and to test new weapons systems (dirty uranium or dirty DU contains radioactive contaminants, such as plutonium isotopes, derived from spent fuel from power reactors). The amount used in Afghanistan might have exceeded the several hundred ton\'s of DU/dirty uranium used in the 1990-91 Gulf War and the Balkans conflicts.

Startling report

A startling new report based on research in Afghanistan indicates that our worst fears have been realized. The study, produced by the Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC), points to the likelihood of large numbers of the population being exposed to uranium dust and debris.

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a professor of nuclear medicine and radiology and a former science adviser to the US military, who set-up the independent UMRC, has been testing US, British, and Canadian troops and civilians for DU and uranium poisoning over the past few years. His findings confirm significant amounts in the subjects\' urine as much as nine years after exposure.

Two scientific study teams were sent to Afghanistan in the aftermath of the conflict in 2001-02. The first arrived in June 2002, concentrating on the Jalalabad region. The second arrived four months later, broadening the study to include the capital Kabul, which has a population of nearly 3.5 million people. The city itself contains the highest recorded number of fixed targets during Operation Enduring Freedom. For the study\'s purposes, the vicinity of three major bomb sites were examined.

It was predicted that signatures of depleted or enriched uranium would be found in the urine and soil samples taken during the research. The team was unprepared for the shock of its findings, which indicated in both Jalalabad and Kabul, DU was possibly causing the high levels of illness but also high concentrations of non-depleted uranium. Tests taken from a number of Jalalabad subjects showed concentrations 400% to 2000% above that for normal populations, amounts which have not been recorded in civilian studies before.

Those in Kabul who were directly exposed to US-British precision bombing showed extreme signs of contamination, consistent with uranium exposure and with some types of chemical or biological weaponry. These included pains in joints, back/kidney pain, muscle weakness, memory problems and confusion and disorientation. Many of these symptoms are found in Gulf War and Balkans veterans and civilians. Those exposed to the bombing report symptoms of flu-type illnesses, bleeding, runny noses and blood-stained mucous.

The study team itself complained of similar symptoms during their stay. Most of these symptoms last for days or months. The team also conducted a preliminary sample examination of new-born infants, discovering that at least 25% may be suffering from congenital and post-natal health problems that could be associated with uranium contamination. These include undeveloped muscles, large head in comparison to body size, skin rashes and infant lethargy. Considering that the children had access to sufficient levels of nutrition, the symptoms could not be due to malnourishment.

Durakovic and his team have searched for possible alternative causes, such as geological or industrial sources, or the likelihood of Al Qaeda having uranium reserves. But the uranium found is not consistent with the \"dirty bomb\" scenario proposed by the US (in which stores of radioactive materials might explain the findings), nor is it connected to DU, or an enriched uranium-type dust that has been found in Iraq and Kosova.

The only conclusion is that the allied forces are now possibly using milled uranium ore in their warheads to maximize the effectiveness and strength of their weapons, as well as to mask the uranium, hoping that it may be discounted as part of any local natural deposits.

However, marked differences between natural uranium and the uranium used in the metal fragments found in Afghanistan was uncovered with the use of an electron microscope, which revealed the presence of small ceramic particles produced by the high temperatures created on impact. This method of disguising uranium would benefit governments that are under pressure! from the growing anti-DU lobby.

Repeated warnings of this possible contamination was sent to both the British and Afghan governments in April by scientific researcher Dai Williams in her report, \"Mystery Metal in Afghanistan\". Warning were also sent to the UN Environment Program, the World Health Organization and Oxfam. All have ignored them and failed to conduct their own investigations.

Iraq

Present information and studies stressing the growing mortality rates amongst young children, especially the new born, indicate that malnutrition and other social causes cannot be the only attributable source of this phenomenon. This is confirmed by health specialists, international observers and a few brave officials from local hospitals who are convinced that this rise in illnesses and malformation are due to uranium/DU weapons.

In October, Durakovic spoke on al Jazeera television, claiming that the amount of DU/uranium used in Afghanistan far exceeded that of past conflicts. He also warned that if the scale of the attacks in Afghanistan was matched or exceeded in a forthcoming war in Iraq, then the consequences would be of appalling proportions for both civilians and military forces alike.

This scenario has substance, if the $393 billion defense authorization bill that Congress approved recently is taken into account. More than $15 million was assigned to modifying bunker busters bombs to nuclear capable, quite apart from uranium being added to conventional and bunker buster systems. Money was also invested in other weapons of mass destruction, including thermobaric and electromagnetic weapons.

The anti-war movement must oppose radiological and other weapons, as well as research and access to the source materials. Many of us have seen the heart-wrenching pictures of deformity and death in Iraq, and know of the growing cancer wards in Bosnia and Kosova, not to mention the 80,000 American, 15,000 Canadian and thousands of British, Australian, French and other troops! who are suffering a painful existence from Gulf War Syndrome — plus the growing number suffering from a Balkans equivalent.

Davey Garland is a coordinator of the British-based Pandora DU Research Project. Source; Green Left Weekly, Issue of December 2002.

[Whitehall]

From the article about the featured \"investigator\'s\" reports -

\"All (official UN agencies and others) have ignored them and failed to conduct their own investigations.\"

This article makes no sense. Internally, it uses crossed-up logic and inference. Externally, it doesn\'t jive with my professional understanding of uranium sources, hazards, or effects.

Uranium is ubiquitous in the Earth\'s crust - there is more uranium than lead in surface rocks, for example. It\'s everywhere! It\'s radioactivity is of trivial health concern and it\'s heavy metal toxicity to the kidneys (like lead) is orders of magnitude greater than its hazard from ionizing radiation.

One technical point is that the US government owns thousands of tons of clean depleted uranium - projectile weapons like armor-piercing bullets is one of the few uses for the stuff. The article \"hinted\" that heavier isotopes have been found. These would come from reprocessing nuclear reactor fuel and recycling the uranium from that process into the production of projectiles. This would be a bad practice since the depleted uranium would then have quantities of plutonium, americium, etc which are bad actors, health-wise. Still, there is no incentive for the US to do so since they got a huge storage problem with all the clean depleted uranium laying around and the clean stuff would be cheaper and easier to handle in manufacturing. If they are using reprocessed fuel for weapons, then they should indeed stop that practice. Still, I doubt that they do.

Frankly, this article is the worst form of bunk. Just propaganda.

Red, please read these things CRITICALLY before you post them.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I post them so you can read them critically. I\'ve said a million times I don\'t know anything about this stuff. I read things and then ask you questions. That\'s why I posted without comment. Its a very scary article. If you are convinced it\'s bunk, that\'s the best news I\'ve heard all day.

[Whitehall]

Thanks for endorsing my opinion in these matters.

If someone had some serious issues based on fact and sound science, of course it should be taken seriously. Still, I see none of that here.

Of course, depleted uranium is used because it IS better at killing than lead. But the environmental consequences are not much different once the shooting stops, given any care or responsibility in the manufacture.

One problem is that uranium is much more detectable in the environment than any non-radioactive material. Think of a radioative particle has one that sends out extremely strong searchlights or beacons (on an atomic scale) while non-radioactive materials are dark and silent. You can actually SEE a single atom of uranium decaying in a cloud chamber. Hence, it\'s easy to find.

[Whitehall]

Here\'s a technical link giving you more than you ever wanted to know about depleted uranium:

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/overview/index.cfm (\"http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/overview/index.cfm\")

If you have questions about ANY of this, let me know via PM and I\'ll try and answer them.

[Watcher]

Ok im not saying that they have or havent. A couple of history points.

The amount of agent orange used in vitenam was what caused all the vietnam vets to have their health problems.

It is a much more effective killing bullet. Now what needs to be discussed is wether it would be advisable for the US military to use these enhanced bullets and weapons.

As far as bunker busters, if the US used any nuclear weapons this is a use of WMD which they are trying stop. Its highly hippocritical to say they want to stop their spread when and if they begin using them. It fits in with US doctoring on global strategy to remain the only global superpower and do everything in its power to stop any other nation surpassing its military and technical superiority.
What i think should be happening is the european approach on north korea of diplomatic approach and with IRAQ send in a sniper to assasinate this bastard saddam huiseen and see if they can get another leader in.

Another approach would be to kill his top generals and family members such as uday to remove his power support from under him. Of course the CIA isnt trying to kill him so many millions will die in the process to remove one dictator.
While the US is at it perhaps they should destroy all their weapons of mass destruction at the same time to avoid being hypocritical in nature.

[Whitehall]

Get real. To compare Saddam and his posession of WMD with the US government shows a complete failure of moral distinction.

Yes, the government of the US will use force to provide security for it\'s people. That is the basic duty of government. The US has been the most lethal government to its foes since the Mongols - we are very competent at inventing and applying lethal, overwhelming military force. We like it that way.

Since we\'re a democracy, it is a clear policy, highly desired by our citizens, that we apply Patton\'s Dictum to war:

\"You don\'t win a war by dying for your country; you win a war by making the other poor bastard die for HIS country.\"

Saddam is a threat to world peace, not just to the economic interests of the US government. He has a track record. If he is not stopped soon, he or his successors will attack again, either directly, with WMD, or with the operational support of terrorism. He has already killed 1.2 million people in his wars and his internal repression.

Should Saddam use his WMD against the US and its Allies, we will respond with overwhelming force of weapons of our choicing. If we must use nuclear weapons to destroy his military, it will be worth it.

The world is too small for the international anarchy to continue. America will provide that order. We will do so to protect ourselves but we will do it in a manner that extends the blessings of liberty and of international order to others. The Iraqi people will thank us, just as the French thanked us after WWI and WWII.

Yes, the US is going to rule the world. It will be an empire unlike any other before it, where eventually a more open and safer world society will develop. It will cost us dearly in blood and resources but the it will be worth it.

Perhaps the best vision of what that world will look like is the US will be the parlimentarian and sargeant at arms of the world. Everyone can conduct their business and work out issues but no one will get out of line or disrupt the proceedings. We won\'t have much interest in another country\'s internal workings although somebody will step into stop ethnic cleansings or disruptive developments like Nazism.

Ideally, the world will develop a very broad-based democracy, with a World government to replace the US as planetary policeman.

Of course, as soon as that Utopia comes about, we\'ll get hit with an asteroid.

[Watcher]

The spread of WMD continues because one country (make that multiple countries have them)

To avoid killing to many \"cilvilians\" within IRAQ the quickest way to end this is to launch a pre-emptive strike upon saddam himself. Which means locating his position (which im sure the CIA knows at any one point of time where he is) get killing authority from the president and strike with a single missle to take the bastard out or assasinate him with a sniper.

Why this hasnt happened i dont know. If the WMD / invasion of rogue states theroy holds true then the USA should be invading.

IRAQ IRAN and NORTH KOREA at once, and or if they do invade iraq the oil fields should be opened up to global corparates and not just those US oil companies. SO i say post IRAQ russian, european chineese australian and any other oil companies should be able to go in and exploit those reserves. Actually i have a better idea, set up an iraqi oil company that will distribute funds equally to all citizens within iraq so they can benefit from the $$$ generated from oil sales.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I think you may be right.

[Watcher]

FTR it would seem that US military does in fact use depleted uranium bullets in foreign countries, this is to ensure that the population suffers long term as a signal that if it were to rise again the US would be there to batter the [bad word] out of it with its military forces once again.

Just look at their reaction to europe upon any disagreement with the US over global policies, they attack the UN for being irrelvant if the rest of the world doesnt agree with their christain crusade, you have the nutter Islamamic terriorists blowing things up. Perhaps we should take a science approach and ban all religions, the communists countries have had great success with this esp china which has boomed in recent years. I guess you could call capitalism a religion to as everyone worships the almighty $$$ but thats another story.

[Watcher]

In what way FTR. A bogus report on WMD being used by the USA. Ok i admit that the democracy has benefits over a dictatorship in terms of $$$ and technology gains.

Perhaps greater discloser by the US federal government is required in admitting that they have used these weapons and $$$ compensation to those countries affected by past military actions.

Britian is also to blame here. The use of military force is essential to provide global security but much more $$$ needs to be spent encouraging higher global living standards to remove the base driving forces behind such wars and terrorists acts. That is the US sucks up global resources pollutes the environment and what do they give back in terms of real social effort and $$$ very little. Post afganistan the US has spend a minute amount on aid and finanical support, they have pulled out and guess what bin laden is still alive and active. Will they hang around in IRAQ to help it recover i guess not, it will turn out several smaller states will develop along ethnic lines (kurds in the north etc). And the US will pull out because for george bush the political benefits of doing so will outweight the \"global democratic\" good in terms of opinion polls and $$$ campaign contributions. I think the british prime minister is taking a greater risk and stands to lost but he is a signal of new europe in helping countries help themselves instead of blowing them up. I say go kill saddam and his family and allow the natural course of events to take over. And guess what nothing has been proven in terms of IRAQs WMD as of yet. Its all media blowup, in terms of real inspections the smoking gun is still waiting to be found.

If it is post invasion proven WMD were in fact stored i will take it back - my thoughts they will get in there and find very little WMD and George W bush will be left with egg on his face and the US global standing will be dimished.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I\'m not saying I like what Whitehall said. I said I think he might be right. In fact, I don\'t like it in many ways. But I think he\'s right. What he said about us is true. Once you read that and really understand it, with respect, I think your arguments become irrelevant, while I tend to like them. They sound better to me, they sound more appealing on many levels. However. We\'re not dealing with it anymore. You can\'t exercise diplomacy when people are not operating in good faith and don\'t have similar goals. There is nothing to negotiate. It doesn\'t [bad word] matter if it would be more efficient to just take Saddam Hussein out, and it doesn\'t matter if it can be proven conclusively exactly what weapons they have or don\'t have, it doesn\'t matter. We\'re not doing it anymore, this dicking around he said she said, you have I have neither of us has. We\'re down to, \"It\'s my way or the highway. You chose the highway, take what\'s coming to you,\" and we don\'t really care but the bullshit will stop, we\'re saying when and we\'re saying how, because we can. Because we can.I don\'t like it but it\'s true. I don\'t see any choice. The international anarchy must, will, stop, yes. It\'s not going to stop according to THEIR volition, and nobody else will take the responsibility for forcing them but us, so we will. We do think it\'s better for us to rule the world than for this bullshit to continue, especially since now they think we\'re so stupid as to continue to welcome and educate and employ their agents against us. They think we\'re stupid. They think we\'ll consent to live in fear. We won\'t. If we have to be the last men standing, whoever has to die.

[EXIT63]

Amen Red!

YOU WANT TERROR!!!....We\'ll show you the real meaning of the word.

How come nobody is protesting against Saddam. Last time I checked, he was responsible for the death of a million or so Iraqis and Kurds. I don\'t see anyone carrying signs in the streets of Bagdad. Gee, I wonder why?

Don\'t worry Red. You can go to your orgy knowing that the full force of the United States Military is protecting your way of life.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yes. If I have to be a woman, thank god I\'m a woman in this country. I wouldn\'t want to be one in any other. And thank god for the military might we enjoy. I\'m deeply grateful.

[Whitehall]

In Watcher\'s words:

\"US military does in fact use depleted uranium bullets in foreign countries, this is to ensure that the population suffers long term as a signal that if it were to rise again the US would be there to batter the [bad word] out of it with its military forces once again. \"

Mr. Watcher,

That is rank slander against my country. History clearly shows that the US has been, on the whole, a great benefit to the people of the world. The Japanese and the Germans are both much better off economically and politically since we defeated them in WWII. The Vietnamese wish we had won - just ask the boat people. Who\'s better off, North or South Korea? The Panamains? The Grenadians? Who beat back the Japanese in New Guinea and in the Coral Sea and in the Solomons to save you Australians from becoming part of the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere?

You\'re really getting on my nerves with your juvenile, insulting raving.

What would you do about Bali? Maybe the 200 Australians who died there are not the business of the US.

[franki]

Whitehall, a few weeks ago I believe, there was a US government official talking about using small nuclear weapons to destroy the deep bunkers in Iraq, that cannot be destroyed in another way. Do you know the story about these weapons and is there a possibility that they are going to be used?

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Whitehall]

Even with the best conventional weapon design, it\'s feasible to build an underground bunker that can\'t be destroyed. Guess what? Saddam has designed and built a \"subway\" system that we can\'t touch. What some in the US are talking about is designing small, low radiation nuclear weapons in a \"penetrator\" case that could dig these bunkers out - actually, they would shake the contents so badly that the people inside would look like \"Spam in a can\" afterward.

We\'ve done some work on such designs as part of Project Plowshare which hoped to use nuclear explosives for civilian purposes - digging canals, cracking underground oil and gas formations, etc. The weapon designers at Lawrence Livermore National Labs are the lead group.

I think that one could make considerable progress in reducing local fallout from such a weapon - that\'s the goal, since otherwise you might as well just do a 20 megaton ground burst - that makes one huge crater but enormous fallout. Still, the new weapon would be one to use only in the last result since they would still, most definitely be nuclear weapons with all that entails.

My opinion is that we might as well add them to our inventory, although, like all all but two of the thousands on nuclear weapons ever built, we\'re not at all likely to use them. It would be worthwhile just to let adversaries know that it going to be very expensive to find anyplace to hide.

[Watcher]

Well australian support for the \"coalition of the willing\" is based upon our governments need for a Free trade deal with the USA. Thats all, what is wrong with waiting 4 more months for extra UN WMD inspections. Im sure mr Bush could wait that long or perhaps not it might hurt his re-election chances next year if it drags out that long now we cant have that can we.

Why not just assasinate mr hussien and avoid the masacre of the Iraqi citizens.

And with the bali bombing simple co-operation between australian federal police and indonesian authorities has lead to the capture of 95% of suspects and all face the death penalty. That has been done without any USA support. No military action was required so at least the families get justice.

We didnt need the US support with the bali bombings, i agree IRAQ and NORTH KOREA need controlling its just the approach that irks me.

And the oil fields need to be given to the Iraq people post war sceniro. Looks like the US might just have to wait 4 months and george bush can just suffer at the polls, i think most people would prefer a democrat anyway. Based upon the furore surrounding his 2000 election win. Mr Bush shouldnt even be in the white house, give the lax nature of youre voting system, my god voting isnt even compulsory why is that why not make every citizen of the USA vote for their government. It isnt a democracy in the traditional sense where 100% of the population of voting age vote.

Sure they have helped the world but the double standards led to a lot of the arab resentment in the first place. This caused the terriosts acts to happen in the first place. Perhaps the way isnt military action but economic aid to poorer countries access to free medicines to combat AIDS etc. Advisory advice to governments to better implement technology and equity reforms to the social systems in place. Why isnt the US helping reform afganistan. Once they overthrew the taliban they have left the country to the existing war lords. It will bite them on the ass long term but hey you guys know what you are doing.
Heck the europeans and the UN are the only ones hanging around trying to do something there and africa and Isreal are the same. You guys go in bang bang then walk away once the threat is removed thats why it keeps coming back = no long term strategies except for political short term gain for the incumbant government. Japan is an example of a decade post 1945 reform. Unfornatley they didnt do the same in afganistan somalia and guess what problems still there.

Ok enough ranting for now.

[Whitehall]

\"Ok enough ranting for now.\"

Promise?

[Watcher]

Slander lol ok well my ranting isnt. What we have now is the US bombing the no fly zone but what no war yet, i thought by last week mr invasion bush would have gone in but we wait longer and his oil companies benefit by this delaying tactic as oil prices stay high the longer this whole chrade goes on. 6 Months now - the bottom line is improving.

I think nothing will happen for another year - another year of poor stockmarket returns, i tell this much he is doing his best to destroy the global economy through all this uncertainly.

[Gerund]

For one thing Watcher, we bombed targets in the no-fly zone because they fired on our aircraft.

For another, you rant in one post that the U.S. is too impatient, and that inspections should be allowed to continue. Then unbelievably, you turn around 180 degrees, and accuse Bush of delaying the onset of war as a means of keeping oil prices high for \"his\" companies.

Well, which is it you want, Watcher? Make up your friggin\' mind.

You personify the phrase, \"a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.\"

One obvious thing you fail to consider or acknowledge is that Iraq complies with U.N. inspections only when we have a massive military presence in the area poised to strike.

Exactly how effing cooperative do you think Sadam would be if we pulled out of the area? Do you think he\'d start to refuse inspections again?

Another thing you fail to realize is that you cannot appease a dictator. Tyrants view negotiation and compromise as evidence of their opponents\' weakness. Neville Chamberlain tried appeasing Hitler. What happened following Chamberlain\'s \"triumphant\" return to England proclaiming \"Peace in Our Time.?\"

Grow up and stop blathering. Or stop blathering and grow up, if you prefer. Your childish, ill-considered, half-baked conspiracy theories and paranoia are very wearisome.

Enough is enough. You are cut a lot of slack in this forum because of your youth and inexperience. Don\'t abuse it.

[Whitehall]

Grow up or not - that\'s your choice - just STOP blattering on public bandwidth.


Your inconsistency tells me that you\'re also insincere, besides being irrational and uninformed.

[Watcher]

The public bandwidth is here for people to blathering on.

They bombed targets in the no fly zone
* To soften up defensive targets ahead of an invasion
* Also because they did target because they knew war is coming. The chicken and the egg argunment.
Im saying that the US needs to go in and that by being impatient and dragging out that they are benefitting in relation to oil companies.
Knowledge is a dangerous thing if in the wrong hands. Saddam and george bush have both shown this.
Even if they do co-operate my hussien is going to be blown up, he has brought this on by not cooperating for the last 12 years or so.
He needs to be assiasinated NOW to avoid any of the above problems continuing.
Please dont bring up the past with hitler - its a totally different situation the US has mere technical superiority over any opponent. I think the link needs to be to the roman empire that was a semi republic and continued to expand its dominance over the known world and in the end it was destroyed because it over expanded. Given the global interconnections these days this is in less danger of happening but should a powerful president come to power in the USA then problems could occour if they removed checks and balances or invoked martial law.

[upsidedown]

Watcher,

Bush isn\'t dragging out the start of the war to benefit the oil companies. If it were up to him, he would have gone in 6 months ago. He\'s delaying because everybody says that he has to have U.N. approval, and that we should make France and Germany happy, and because everybody says that we have to have a coalition of the word and can\'t do it in a unilateral manner. He\'s also delaying it to get U.N. approval so people won\'t go around calling him a \"cowboy\" and saying that he is rushing into war. Funny thing though is even though Bush has tried to appease all those who want to take it slow, he\'s still being accused as being a cowboy and rushing into this. Anyway, Bush is essentially dealying in order to pacify all those who feel the U.N. is the final geverning authority in the world and they should have the final say in whether or not the U.S. has a right to defend its citizens.

To Bush\'s and Blair\'s credit, they\'re ultimately going to go in and do what needs to be done anyway despite the wishes of the U.N. Security Council.

[Watcher]

Bush has waited so he can build up overwealming military forces in the region to avoid big casulities. He has used the UN to get media support - if he takes to now then he has a better chance of being able to say he waited x amounts of months.
The oil companies being so rich adn powerful have naturally benefited from higher oil prices, people still need to buy the oil and they make more money.
Germany france russia and china are all blocking it because they have economic interests in IRAQ its all about the oil and nothing more. They were always going to block it.
The US is taking pre-emptive and not retalitory action here there is a difference.
The best option remains the assiasination of Saddam huieseen.
They are going to war because it will be quick and decisive with all this armed power now in the gulf and kuwait its that simple. Although i wish they would hurry it up instead of dragging it out even further.

[Gerund]

************************************************** **
Watcher: The public bandwidth is here for people to blathering on.
************************************************** **

As long as you know and admit you are blathering, I can live with it.

Just let us know when you post something that reflects on reality, so we can bother to read it.

Your demonstrated absence of critical thinking ability precludes trying to educate you about anything, as the following will show:

If you really, truly don\'t realize the analogy about Hitler and the way dictators think wasn\'t 100% relevant and on-target -- that you can\'t appease someone with that mindset -- you don\'t understand anything at all. Technical superiority has absolutely nothing to do with what I was illustrating, so it can\'t be a \"totally different situation.\"

I can\'t believe I\'m bothering to explain this to you.

And then you bring in the Roman Empire\'s demise due to \"overexpanding.\" For crying out loud. We\'ve never expanded, so I don\'t understand how you think you\'ve made a point. We\'ve won wars, then rebuilt the countries and let them resume their sovereignty. That\'s not \"expanding,\" just in case you didn\'t get the point.

Beside, it wasn\'t \"overexpansion\" that did in the Roman Empire -- it was corruption, debauchery, and complacency.

************************************************** **
should a powerful president come to power in the USA then problems could occour if they removed checks and balances or invoked martial law.
************************************************** **

This one shows just how ignorant you are. You can attach the word \"if\" to anything and make a scary scenario if you want. But what\'s the likelihood that it will happen? You totally ignore that consideration. How likely is it that checks & balances will be removed or martial law invoked? Allow me to illustrate the sheer stupidity of catastrophic \"if\" proposals:

************************************************** ********************

*** if they removed checks and balances or invoked martial law, problems could occur.

*** if Watcher turns out to be a alien, then problems could occur.

*** if the moon flies out of its orbit, then problems could occur

*** if all the oceans dried up, then problems could occur

*** if photosynthesis stopped working, problems could occur

************************************************** *********************

You get the idea? I had a professor at college who would figuratively just nail me to the wall if I tried to make a point in an argument using \"if\" to preface my position. He would respond with:

***\"Well, \"if\" my grandmother had wheels, she could be a trolley.\"

His point was to illustrate just how ridiculous my position was. And now I\'m wondering, do you get the point?

[Watcher]

Apeasing Saddam hueiseen isnt a thing that can be done i understand that.
The USA has formed alliances that keep europe under a reasonable amount of control.
G.Bush seems like the type who would try to consolidate his power after a major terrorists attack. Its a what if sceniro but it would probably occour.
Given the advice of his military and intelligence advisors to limit civilian liberties, the environment would allow limiting laws and constitutional changes to be implemented and passed.

[Gerund]

************************************************** **
Given the advice of his military and intelligence advisors to limit civilian liberties, the environment would allow limiting laws and constitutional changes to be implemented and passed.
************************************************** **

NO! NO! NO! Hell, No! Any change to the U.S. Constitution requires independent ratification by 3/4 of the 50 States.

I have no [obscene gerund] idea how it works in Australia, but that\'s how it works here.

[Whitehall]

Actually, it\'s 2/3 of the states, not 3/4.

Ultimately, the best defense of liberty is the will of the people. I don\'t think that Americans will allow themselves to live in a dictatorship. We will allow temporary limitations during emergencies but never to the point of seriously allowing a loss of our democracy. Imagine a million people showing up at a demostration with guns. Plus, our military has some of the most ardent lovers of liberty in the country - from top to bottom.

Besides, we would smell a potential tyrant before he advanced far in his career. People were all over Nixon for just looking spooky. During his impeachment, his underlings in civilian and military organizations made sure he played by the rules, just in case, by organizing to refuse illegal orders. Checks and balances worked.

Love of liberty is deep in the souls of Americans - our democracy is safe because of that.

[franki]

One of the problems with freedom in the USA I think are the television networks. From what I repeatedly have read in the newspaper, their news broadcasts are not totally independent (self-censorism) and they turn into some sort of propaganda machines every now and then.

To a free society also belongs a free press, and from what I have been reading only the newspaper and internet media offer good, critical and independent journalism, but the networks do not.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[upsidedown]

I think you got that right Franki. For the longest time, the major 3 networks had a lock on news. Some may disagree with me, in fact I expect it, but I believe the major networks have had a liberal-leaning agenda for the most part. Things have changed in the last 20 years with addition of cable and sattelite news networks, talk radio, and the internet. The big 3 neworks don\'t like having lost their clout.

[Whitehall]

Which network? ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, PBS?

TV is the a lower order of journalism, indeed, but there are checks and balances. As Americans we do share certain common interests and values so it is not surprising that the networks sometimes share a common point of view. Elites have always lead and the people controlling the media have made themselves an elite.

There is plenty of alternative bandwidth for other points of view - newspapers and magazines, certainly, and of course the net.

The problem is that most of the time, Americans don\'t invest much effort in serious policy matters. Things are working pretty well for us so our active participation is not required. It\'s easier to pop a beer and watch a game on the tube.

Just don\'t get people mad!

[Gerund]

********************************************
Actually, it\'s 2/3 of the states, not 3/4.
********************************************

Good call, you saved me from posting a correction. Just before falling asleep, I remembered that it takes 34 States to ratify, not 38, and I realized that 3/4 was incorrect. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Gerund]

Yeah, Franki, I\'m not too crazy about most television news coverage either. They can\'t decide whether their job is to inform, or entertain -- and so they try to do both, poorly.

[BassMan]

<blockquote><font class=\"small\">In reply to:</font><hr>

Yeah, Franki, I\'m not too crazy about most television news coverage either. They can\'t decide whether their job is to inform, or entertain -- and so they try to do both, poorly.

<hr></blockquote>They know their job. Their job is to keep as many viewers as possible sufficiently interested so that they stay around until the next commercial. They just don\'t always agree on the best method.

[Gerund]

I\'ve always thought their job was to report the news accurately, without sensationalizing it, and without \"interpreting\" it for me.

I\'m living in a dream world, huh?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I dunno. The Easter Bunny\'s coming soon, and he might know. Leave a note for him with the carrots and maybe he\'ll email you. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Watcher]

Mmm chocolate eggs my favourite time of the year.
Note folks im a chocoholic.

[Gerund]

Yeah, I like to bite the heads off the chocolate rabbits~ /ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Chocolate bunnies, what we love to eat. Bite their little heads off, gnaw their little feet.

[Watcher]

Make them melt in our mouth and get all gooey inside.