Vive La France

[Elana]

If you want to flame anyone....flame the people who made the quotes. /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif


\"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes.\" ---Mark Twain

\"I just love the French. They taste like chicken!\" ---- Hannibal Lecter

\"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.\" --- General George S. Patton

\"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion.\" --Norman Schwartzkopf

\"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it.\"
---- Marge Simpson

\"As far as I\'m concerned, war always means failure\" ---Jacques Chirac, President of France
\"As far as France is concerned, you\'re right.\" ---Rush Limbaugh,

\"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee.\" --- Regis Philbin

Next time there\'s a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.

\"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn\'t have the face for it.\" ---Sen. John McCain

\"You know why the French don\'t want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people.\" --Conan O\'Brien

\"I don\'t know why people are surprised that France won\'t help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn\'t help us get the Germans out of France!\" ---Jay Leno

\"The last time the French asked for \'more proof\' it came marching into Paris under a German flag.\" --David Letterman

[franki]

I flame you for writing \"Viva la France\", I believe it is \"Vive la France\". /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif

Franki

[Elana]

/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif That would deserve a flame.
Are you certain?

[franki]

I am certain \"viva\" is not french.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[franki]

I see you listened to me. /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Elana]

Don\'t get used to it.

[franki]

Franki < ----------------- throwing a box of chocolates to Elana

[tallmacky]

I AM OUTRAGED how dare you blame all of those in a country on the actions of a few you know what you are evil I swear you are the devil. you suck

is that flaming? Am I now a flamer?

[franki]

Was that a joke? /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif

Franki

[**DONOTDELETE**]

She\'s not the devil. I\'m the devil. Elana\'s just a devil\'s imp. A good one, mind you, but hardly evil incarnate.

[tallmacky]

yes ftr you firey red devil,

I am investiging more then a few cases of young men who came on this forum and wound up never to be seen again. We are certain it is a certain female on the forum who is inviting these guys for a \"fun time\" and later eating their bodies leaving only their bones and testicals behind. You are supsect #1.

Yeah thats a joke

[Elana]

Are you talking to me? ARE YOU TALKING TO ME???
You want some of this? Huh?

[tallmacky]

only elana knows that

2nd post:

I would like all of that can you first give me your breasts then maybe some head. and some ass and please send fedex I hate government mail.

[Elana]

Well you know it can\'t be me, because I would eat the testicles too. Why would I let good food go to waste?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

That\'s what I was just thinking. I sure would not leave the testicles behind.

I\'ll be glad to send you some ass but I have to keep the head or SDR will get really mad.

I\'m out of FedEx labels. Will DIHL -- oh, I mean, DHL, do?

[tallmacky]

testicals were completely empty of any fluid, our suspect is also very very educated and skilled in the act of love making.

Damnit I don\'t know what to think its like a vaccum what person could have possibly done this. oh lord. I think I am going to hand in my badge and gun to the sargeant.

to many cliches to count

SDR? well I don\'t think he minds at all after all he is just an acronym

[Elana]

/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gifI\'m sure whoever is committing these horrible crimes is French. Just sticking with the topic /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Whitehall]

Now that the notion of renaming \"French Fries\" as \"freedom fries\" is sweeping the country, the French Embassy in Washington has announced that the recipe is really from Belgium.

Heard that on NPR today at lunch.....

[tallmacky]

french fries to freedom fries I think we are moving a bit fast on that note, though its about time someone shots saddam in his big head.

[Elana]

/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif/ubbthreads/images/icons/crazy.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I do love a man who comes to the point.

[druid]

i think viva is spanish. vivir conjugated in the thrid person.

[franki]

\"Vive La France\"

Am I allowed to remind you that your Angel perfume is made by french fashion designer/perfumer Thierry Mugler and that the Sephora shops belong to the french LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moet Henessy) company?

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

At least they\'re good for something.

[druid]

yeah the french have been acting kinda.....well FRENCH lately.

[Elana]

Angel perfume and my Lancome foundation are the only things French that I continue to buy. I\'m stocked up now, so I won\'t have to buy anytime soon.
Bundyburger just sent me an article that Thierry Mugler is closing down shop, so either Angel sells to another company (hopefully American) or we have to find another scent.

http://www.hellomagazine.com/2003/02/03/thierrymugler/ (\"http://www.hellomagazine.com/2003/02/03/thierrymugler/\")

[**DONOTDELETE**]

SH!T! Say it isn\'t so!

Lancome rocks. That\'s reason enough to protect the French. For perfume and Lancome. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif And Edith Piaf.

[Whitehall]

I made this mistake this weekend too - bought a mini of Tsar by van Arpel. After I got it home, looked at the bottom of the bottle and saw that it was made in France! ARGGGGGH!

[frenchie]

I am french, with 100% germanic blood in my veins. I read this thread several times, couldn\'t believe it.
I am against this war, as I am against any war. Some europeans here could understand it. The battlefields were in Europe, a lot of other horrible things too. No battlefield in America since the Secession war, if I\'m not mistaken.
Should I stop talking with you just because you\'re americans ?
Should I stop buying pheros just because it\'s an american company ?
The day I started to understand what propaganda is (whatever it is) was when I visited a communist country, Poland (it was communist at this time). I realised there is propaganda in any country in the world, and from then on I knew politics suck. But I\'m still very concerned about our planet.
Should I stop writing in english ?
Will most of you never write to me again just because I\'m french ?
This is the first time in my life I have a \"patriotic\" reaction... it\'s hard for me, but I feel I have to react to your posts.

Frenchie

[bundyburger]

I don\'t blame you Frenchie.

Each individual country and it\'s people has the right to support or not support war. I\'m sure there are people in France (known as \'the french\' I here. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif ) who would like France to support the USA.
Sure it would be great to have more support, but it doesn\'t matter that France\'s leaders have said no. It\'s the fact that a number of countries have vito powers that screws things.

Many French are against war. Many Australians are against war. Many Americans are against war. Why pick on the French because of their political leaders chosing peace?

Everyone wants Saddam out. Even the French.

[Watcher]

Because political leaders prefer to attack other political leaders its that simple.

[frenchie]

Maybe I\'m the only french human being on this forum, so I feel tons of bad talking on my back... not a nice feeling indeed !
\"It\'s the fact that a number of countries have vito powers that screws things.\" : these are anti-democratic words. The UN are supposed to have a democratic way of working, and that is normal.
Yes, most people want Saddam Hussein out, I do too. I disagree with Chirac on many things, but I think he is right on this subject. Let\'s be clear : what would happen if there was no oil in Iraq, he ? would your president really want to help democracy ? Politics really suck.
Anyway, I give up. I just hope this will end very soon and that we will go on talking nice.

Frenchie

[bundyburger]

<<\"It\'s the fact that a number of countries have vito powers that screws things.\" these are anti-democratic words.>>

No. It\'s the fact that one country with vito powers (say Russia) can overpower a majority. Is that Democratic?

<< Let\'s be clear : what would happen if there was no oil in Iraq, he ? would your president really want to help democracy ? >>

Hey. I\'m Aussie. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif ...And I was trying to be on your side, yet have my own opinion. LOL /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

To clarify with everyone here: I DON\'T KNOW wether we should go to war or not. I\'d rather no war, yet Saddam should have been ousted a decade ago. I\'m glad it\'s not me who makes the decision. I just feel for the Iraqi people who have been, and will be, suffering because of one Toolbag.

[Elana]

Frenchie- I am very sorry if I hurt your feelings in any way, however, I have been boycotting French products for many reasons. One being France\'s tolerance for anti-Semitism, and for obvious current events. It is a personal choice that I have made.

[seadove]

<<<yet Saddam should have been ousted a decade ago>>>

I\'m afraid he\'s going to last two more decades.This stammering that\'s going on between the UN and USA is going to keep Saddam in his throne almost forever.

That\'s too bad.

[proteus]

There are many folks, myself included who think this anti-French fever that is gripping the US is absurd at best, and to me just another example of how infantile many are. It\'s like the little kid in the schoolyard who doesn\'t get his way and throws a tantrum. Just another example of this absurdity - certain conservative members of Congress have renamed \"French Fries\" and \"French toast\" , \"Freedom Fries\" and \"Freedom Toast\" respectively. I kid you not - do a search on AP/Reuters stories earlier this week if you think I jest.

[nonscents]

The US appears to be moving towards an economic crisis. We here in the US always like a good war in such times to help us feel better. Unfortunately, our erstwhile allies in such past ventures have the temerity this time to tell the emperor he has no clothes.

Frenchie, in the US today national chauvinism is being whipped up to a feverish pitch. I don\'t blame you for feeling unwelcome under such circumstances. My sister has dual citizenship and works in France. These are not happy times.

I can only ask you to overlook and forgive those who have no sources of knowledge of what goes on in the world aside from the traditional media. Certainly, they have no personal animus towards you. And for those who do have the access to alternative sources of information and still choose to French-bash, well, this is a pheromone discussion board last time I checked. You really don\'t have to pass a litmus test on international affairs to join it. Shoot, you don\'t even have to buy anything from Bruce to join it.

Let\'s come up with a policy about where to keep discussions about international politics. Then, if these discussions really bother you, you can just avoid that part of the discussion forum. Otherwise the reality we must face is that at times we will be made uncomfortable by the hostility of others. In France right now it might not be a big deal to be opposed to the war. Certainly I am aware that my position is not that of the majority of my fellow Americans. So be it.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yes, Frenchie, sorry for any part I may have had in offending you. I don\'t know anything about politics and nothing about France anyway. I do know I don\'t want you hurt. So please would you accept my apologies for any stupidity I\'ve written on the subject.

[Whitehall]

Americans have been dismayed at the policies of the French government since at least the time of Clemenceau, Fuch and most certainly DeGaulle. Chirac\'s behavior can only increase the amount of American blood lost in this war. There is a lot of anger about this here.

There is not many ways for us to express this dismay and anger - we feel betrayed by a country we\'ve repeatedly sacrificed for - WWI, WWII, the Cold War. The relationship between our governments is bad and it\'s going to get worst. The French people will ultimately regret Chirac\'s election.

This tension will be expressed by individuals in trivial ways. I understand that Americans in Europe are being treated rather poorly. I know that French individuals here will generally be treated personally with dignity and respect. No one has dissed you personally, now have they?

Yet, we think we have a right - no, duty - to express our outrage about France. So far, we\'ve done this in jokey ways - Freedom Fries, indeed. If French manufacturers of wine, cheese, cologne, fountain pens. etc find Americans are no longer interested in their products, they can complain to their government.

Hang around. It\'s not about you.

[druid]

\"Everyone wants Saddam out. Even the French.\"

THE ONLY WAY TO GET SADDAM OUT IS BY FORCE. Is anyone here actually nieve enough to believe that Saddam will just walk away or accept exile???? So the French WANT Saddam out and Don\'t want a war? Seems like the French are talking out of both sides of their mouths. What real alternatives are there besides war? More inspections? I think we have established that he has weapons he is not suppose to. Then how do we reticfy this situation w/o war?

[franki]

There are options, like the CIA killing Saddam and trying to install another regime. These options are not very realistic though ..

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[frenchie]

Bundyburger : sorry, I didn\'t know you were Aussie ! I agree with you : Saddam should have been ousted 10 years ago. God only knows how he escaped : they were very close to the goal...
Saddam may be crazy - Khadafi was crazy, he\'s still at the head of Libya. Arafat was crazy, he\'s at the head of Palestine. Poutine is a dangerous man, he is at the head of Russia.

As a french citizen, I have absolutely nothing against the americans (generally speaking) because Mr B wants a war, and I will go on talking with you. I just think one can express such important opinions only when one knows about the subject (thanks, FTR for your post). I can\'t understand this basic France-bashing. It\'s the only reason why I reacted.

The text which made me really cross was this one : \"The last time the French asked for \'more proof\' it came marching into Paris under a German flag.\" --David Letterman. I think this quote is shocking for the french and the germans. The flag was nazi, not german, and there\'s a big difference between them.

Back to pheros, please...
Frenchie

[Whitehall]

\"The flag was nazi, not german, and there\'s a big difference between them. \"

About 70 years - The previous time the Germans were sipping coffee in conquered Paris was January 28, 1871 after Bismarck\'s victory in the Franco-Prussian War.

During WWI, the Germans got close enough to shell Paris but not sip coffee there.

Letterman\'s quip was to the point.

[tallmacky]

I did not even take this post seriously, I thought it was half truth half joke. I agree and disagree with both sides like I always do. Firstly I believe many of the post made were just letting off heat, I am sure on any french related forum (dominated nationality) they say much worse. Is that a good point no! Its very moronic and childish.

I do not like how people just change their minds and make a universal assumption. Sure France has stood by or is a stagnant in alot of political issues, but that right there is debatable. Does this have to do with the French people as a whole? Do you we need to insult their way of life or makes sterotypical jokes such as the semi-gay guy with a beret sipping wine? Is it that hurtful though? I doubt its a tragedy, When someone makes jokes that relate to you I bet you would feel much different (frenchie). I mean what if someone was making a joke in school about people with down syndrome and a family member of yours had it I am sure you would care alot more then someone else non related to the issue.

Frenchie you said 100% germanic blood, are you originally from Germany?

[Whitehall]

So the British offered a compromise measure to the UN Security Council.

According to a White House spokesman \"France had rejected the latest British proposals even before Iraq did.

\"If that\'s not an unreasonable veto, what is?\" he said.




That does sound a bit fishy, no?

[bundyburger]

<<THE ONLY WAY TO GET SADDAM OUT IS BY FORCE. Is anyone here actually nieve enough to believe that Saddam will just walk away or accept exile???? >>

I\'m sure most people here aren\'t in any way nieve about that. The main problem I have here is what long term effect this will have on the UN. Another thing

What I\'m worried about is all the soldiers who will die. OK. We get rid of Saddam. It costs lives. We get another big terrorist attack anyway ( This is a \"What If\" ). What will be the feelings that families of dead soldiers will get when this measure doesn\'t put a dent in terrorism?? So do we then go and invade the Soudies??

[tallmacky]

Does boycotting french goods seem childish to you?

[bundyburger]

<<Does boycotting french goods seem childish to you? >>

Hadn\'t thought about it like that.
Elana has given her reasons which make more sense. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif
Boycotting Iraqi goods makes sense. Boycotting child labour and \'sweat-shop\' goods makes sense. Boycotting french goods because they don\'t want war???

[tallmacky]

Elana\'s desposition are just side effects of her infatuation and obessesion with me they will pass.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

It\'s important for us to be tolerant of each other\'s consciences in these matters. If someone feels like boycotting whosever stuff is the right thing, then that\'s the right thing for them and maybe we should just say good on you and let it go. With all the people about to die and get hurt, all of us should be extra careful not to hurt each other and to stay friends at least.


Tallmacky, you gotta quit smoking that sh!t, tho. It\'s gone to your brain.

[seadove]

<<<Maybe I\'m the only french human being on this forum, so I feel tons of bad talking on my back... not a nice feeling indeed ! >>>

My dear friend Frenchie
I would like to put in my 2 cents on this subject.As you know I am neither an American, nor a Frenchman.I am what you call a forged Englishman.That is because although I am \"made in the UK\" my heart and soul is with a small problematic country called Israel.
This forum, very fortunately, has a place where you can put off some steam, in the off topic, and things are said, on and off, sometimes in the positive framework and sometimes negative.Sometimes I like what is said and many times I hate the very way it is said.
But I accept the right of that person to say what he wants to say, and under no curcumstance I \"understand\" as if things are said AGAINST me.
When you say \"tons of bad talking against you\" I can vouch that it is 180 degrees the opposite of what you think.It least with my friends that I PM occasionally.To say the least, and as far as I am concerned I never miss reading your posts about pheromones , women stuff and other things ,and your opinion on these subjects are very valid and authentic, you being a declared lesbian and an ordinary human being too.
So you\'re wrong.You are very much appreciated and please feel nice about it too.
Chin up and keep on smiling.
/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

[frenchie]

Tallmacky : I am alsacian. But I don\'t speak any german and I have always lived near Paris. Deep inside I feel bi-cultural, between germanic and more latin civilisations.
I suppose people are very aggressive on french forums. I never read them, I know we French speak a lot more than we do things :-). I just try to get some info on an event if I want to have an opinion about it.
I was a kid when people were talking of boycotting south african products (Oustpan oranges), because of the apartheid there. The reason for this boycott was right, and direct : the enemy was apartheid.
Today I feel many americans are mistaken on who the enemy is : your enemy is Saddam, not France. Even friends can disagree on any subject and still be friends. I am sometimes shocked by some aspects of american civilisation, but I will try to understand, not boycott american products just because...
see the difference ?

Frenchie

[**DONOTDELETE**]

don\'t worry the USA is about to save the world form an evil dictator. We are going to kill his ass and the world will be a safer place. Everyone can see the USA is the hero they just ares they don\'t have the balls to do it. THIS IS IMPORTANT INFORMATION SO READ THE FOLLOW AND REALIZE WHAT THE FRENCH ARE DOING. China manufacturs a liquid rubber that is used to fuel long range missles that haveintercontinental range. Of cousrse the UN restricts Saddam from having this under the un resolution. Unfortunatly the reality is a french weapons company has brockered this long range rocket fuel for Saddam and its now being stored in Syria. When the USA defeats Saddam the french know the USA will have proof of this. The french are supply Saddam with the fuel he needs to use long range missles to deliver biological and nuclear weapons. thats why the frecnh are agaisnt the war because they know there ass will be in trouble for thi , The french are antiamerican!!!!! ITS obivious they are antiamerican! Anyone with good moral and a logical mind can see this easily!!!!!BOYCOTT FRENCH PRODUCTS!!!! GOD BLESS THE U.S.A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[franki]

So, did Iraq attack the USA with these missiles you are talking about?

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

THOSE WONDERFUL FRENCH

The New York Time’s William Safire writes that France, China and Syria have been supplying Saddam Hussein with the materials he has needed to build long-range missiles. We’re talking about the types of missiles that could be used to deliver chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons. Nutshell version. Hussein needs some fancy rocket fuel. China has the fancy rocket fuel. The U.N. says that Saddam can’t have this rocket fuel. Sooooo. A French weapons broker with active trade relations arranges for a shipment of this fuel from China to Syria. The French broker in Paris monkeys around with the shipping invoices to hide the fact that this is fancy long-rang rocket fuel. Syria receives the fuel and pumps it into some tanker trucks and … you know the rest … it’s on its way to Baghdad.

Another reason the French are siding with Saddam? Their prestige would suffer a bit, wouldn’t it, when we find out that they truly ARE on the other side.

This is courtesy of Neal Boortz

Franki if you wer going to make long range missles what would you do with them. WHY does someone hide that there are making these and as we all know repeatedly break UN sanctions.

I guess he just a nice guy you know making missiles to decorate his house with, lol!

frank man what are you thinking, Anyone who looks at this situatoin with an unbiased opinion can easily realize Saddam plans to do some damage to somebody. Consider that these missiles Saddam had. I want you to think about this, Saddam has obttained long range rocket fuel that the UN told him he could have he has been breaking UN sanctions for over 10 years, over 4300 days. Im sorry you can\'t think in a logical fashion. I feel bad for you but your just not thinking. You don\'t allow criminals to keep obtaining weapons until he commits another crime

[franki]

I am not saying it is right what the French do, I am trying to figure out why those actions you describe are particularly anti-american. These missiles we are talking about at least cannot reach american territory. You are right though, in that the international community (or the USA alone) should do something about it.


Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Whitehall]

What Saddam intends to do is control the world\'s major oil supplies, just like he tried to do by invading Kuwait in 1990.

Once he has long range missiles with nukes or maybe smallpox, he\'ll be able to offer deals that the Saudis or Qatar, or Dubai can\'t refuse.

[EXIT63]

So, did Iraq attack the USA with these missiles you are talking about? ...

They don\'t have to. If they attack Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, or any other US ally. It\'s the same as attacking us.

If the N Koreans launch nukes at S Korea, Japan or any of our allies in the region, will they be attacking us? Not directly (aside from our troops in the region). Will we respond? Ofcourse!!! America DOES what needs to be done. We don\'t sit on our asses eating brie and sipping champagne while the world goes to hell.

[MadDoctor]

I can\'t blame Frenchie\'s government at all, and I will continue to happily buy French products.

Here\'s some history on the US\'s position on Iraqi weapons programs and use:
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html (\"http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html\")
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true (\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true\")
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm (\"http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm\")

The US and Britain have known since 1995 that Iraq had destroyed all of its WMD, including the nerve gas and anthrax that Bush and Blair keep going on about.
http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/iraq/warpedperspective.htm (\"http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/iraq/warpedperspective.htm\")

When Newsweek ran the story last month, a CIA spokesperson said of the report, \"It is incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue.\" Unfortunately for CIA credibility, photocopies of the original UNSCOM debriefing were leaked to the press 2 days later, and the former head of UNSCOM verified that the photocopies were true and correct.
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html (\"http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html\")

Then physical evidence of the destruction of Iraq\'s WMD surfaced, confirming what we\'d learned in 1995. http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1 (\"http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1\"),3523,1296564-6080-0,00.html

Leaked State Depertment reports say that overthrowing the Iraqi government will not bring democracy to the Middle East.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2003/03/000402.html (\"http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2003/03/000402.html\")

There has never been even the tiniest iota of evidence to tie Iraq to 9/11. The only evidence that Iraq was trying to reestablish a nuclear weapons program (given to the UN by US and British intelligence) was proven to be a forgery. Officials of the government of Niger who supposedly signed the documents were in some cases not even in office at the time of their supposed correspondence. Although US and UK intelligence have yet to say anything about where these documents were crafted, the International Atomic Energy Agency has tactfully avoided the suggestion that we might have forged them ourselves.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/09/1047144870971.html (\"http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/09/1047144870971.html\")
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-iraq-forgery (\"http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-iraq-forgery\"),0,2591983.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

It\'s hard to be sure what to think, though, since the Secretary of Defense has admitted that the government is spreading propaganda and disinformation.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/28631.html (\"http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/28631.html\")
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/osi-followup.html (\"http://www.fair.org/press-releases/osi-followup.html\")

Why, then, would we want this war? Many of the current administration formed a group called Project for the New American Century in 1997, and started asking for it then. The group, heavily laden with oil company executives, wanted us to permanently occupy Iraq and use it as a base of operations for controlling the remainder of the Middle East. Even friendly governments like Egypt and Saudi Arabia were to be candidates for overthrow. We are to start an age of \"Pax Americana\" (their term, not mine), using our military occupation of the Middle East and its oil to control the rest of the world. Members of this group included Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney, among others.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html (\"http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html\")
http://truthout.org/docs_03/022803A.shtml (\"http://truthout.org/docs_03/022803A.shtml\")
http://www.quotes2u.com/archives/012303.htm (\"http://www.quotes2u.com/archives/012303.htm\")

This explains why, even though we condoned and assisted Iraq\'s acquisition and use of WMD, and had no qualms with its human rights abuses, we now complain about both. (If we attack without an imminent Iraqi threat to the US, our leaders could be hauled in on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. International law does not condone non-defensive warfare, so we need a smokescreen.) This explains why, even though one of Bush Sr.\'s proudest moments was the peace accord which installed Arafat, Bush Jr. is now putting a cloud over his own father\'s reputation by suddenly demanding the removal of Arafat after a decade of US acceptance (the PNAC wanted Arafat out). This explains why the government will not give a date for withdrawl from Iraq, why Patriot Act II wants to remove the sunset clauses from Patriot Act I and eliminate our rights permanently, why the last defense budget matched to the penny what PNAC had said they wanted. This explains why the White House has announced a new military policy, allowing for unilateral preemptive attacks, including with nuclear weapons, even though this violates US and international law. It\'s not supposed to end, it\'s supposed to be the beginning of US global domination and empire.

I can\'t blame France, Germany, Russia, China, and scores of other countries for being squeamish about this idea. If I were in their shoes, I\'d be pretty f*cking alarmed by it too.

Attack US allies in the Middle East? Ask the Vice President or the Secretary of Defense about that, they are the ones who seem to be crazy about that idea.

[MadDoctor]

> Attack US allies in the Middle East? Ask the Vice President or the Secretary of Defense about that,
> they are the ones who seem to be crazy about that idea.

Oh, that\'s right, they already admitted that they\'re lying to us. Scratch that idea.

[bundyburger]

I\'m not sure, but did I hear right that Iran has an army on the Iraqi border ready to attack Iraq from the opposite side when the USA commences attack??

[franki]

I doubt that they want to do that, as they would come in conflict with the US-troops, who are not their best friends.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[bundyburger]

I only seen this on the news last night, but wasn\'t listening properly.

Apparently if they see any confirmation that there is a go ahead, they want to take advantage of it.
Maybe they want the UN to vote yes. I\'m not sure.

[Lucky]

MadDoctor,
Thought provoking post....interesting that Ahmed Chalabi is rarely mentioned in the mainstream news. Imagine that.

[Whitehall]

During the Clinton administration, the US and the world has drifted without leadership or a strategic plan. The result is the development of challenges to world peace and order. The proliferation of cheap and readily available WMD threatens civilization (in the long run.)

Wolfowitz and associates have presented a credible plan for bringing order and peace to the world. I think their plan is doable. It does imposes continual burdens on the US for maintaining order but continued world anarchy will just not do.

It will involve a weakening of power for every other nation as they realize that they have to give up some autonomy to the world hegemon (the US) in exchange for global policing. The other governments of the world do not yet know or understand just what they will have to give up nor what they will gain - hence the opposition. Other countries (FRANCE!) see this as an opportunity to exploit the unease caused by the moves of the US.

I see the Wolfowitz plan as giving us solid direction for the next 10 years. After that, events and developments may cause a rethinking of our strategy although I suspect that it will not need major revision for 20 years and maybe longer. The time around 2020 could be a time of major upheaval in the world.

Trying to demonize a farsighted thinker like Wolfowitz is pure ad hominem argument.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Did anybody else notice that the madoctors links were all from what most good americans would consider left wing sources. lol it was just abunch of links to biased reporting. Some of those articles were almost ten years old anyway the world is always changing and if you can learn from the sistory of the modern word, and even ancient civilizations, ememies can become friends to take care of a greater ememy. Well i just thought i would bring it to atenttion of all the forum members here to keep that in mind when you read madoctors post. To me theres nothing more irritating than when someone does what he did and supports stupidity with lies. Just because its in the newspaper doesn\'t make it fact. Well its past arguement anyway we are going to make the world a safer place for all of the world. You know 95% of americans support the boycott of france and 1% doesn\'t know , and 4% Have no balls!!! lol

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Oh bullsh!t. You know what\'s irritating to me is when conservatives call any good argument that doesn\'t support their stated opinions \"left wing\" so as to try to discredit it. Us left wing sympathizers are forced to read your dogma; you should read ours sometimes just for a change, for the mental exercise of it. It\'s comfortable to get yourself situated in your position and never look around and see what anything else has to offer but it\'s no huge virtue to be narrow minded.

[EXIT63]

Here\'s a little more anti-pinko dogma.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidhorowitz/dh20030318.shtml (\"http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidhorowitz/dh20030318.shtml\")

[belgareth]

I don\'t know where you got the number of 95% supporting the boycott of France, but it is bogus. Half the population of the US do not support Bush\'s war nor do they support the unfair attacks made against the French people. Before you start quoting numbers, please get honest numbers.

[tallmacky]

Actually its 96% who are for the boycott, it is a ture and accurate poll, you can go to www.foxnews.com/oreilly (\"http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly\") I think. The point is that half of the US is not against this war its just the media trying to paint a picture of post-vietnam where people were looking for something to believe in and decided the war needed to stop and so on. That is not the case for this generation. To be blunt many protest now just for the \"image factor\" it looks like you are caring and politically on top of things and so on.

[EXIT63]

HUH?!?!

In the event that American forces or those allied to them should face a new situation such as a chemical or biological attack, France would assess the measures of assistance to take in a spirit of friendship and solidarity.\"

I thought they didn\'t have any.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=SEGLKJVOF4E0WCRBAEKSF FA?type=worldNews&storyID=2402847 (\"http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=SEGLKJVOF4E0WCRBAEKSF FA?type=worldNews&storyID=2402847\")

[belgareth]

I\'d hardly call that a scientific or even valid poll. 95% of the people who chose to listen to his program agreed with him. That anybody would apply that to the population as a whole is absurd. Do you have realistic poll data from an unbiased, source covering a statistically valid group within the US population?

I am still not for or against the war, I\'m on the fence. But using numbers like that just do not prove anything.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Thought they didn\'t have any measures of assistance?

[EXIT63]

no, chemical weapons

[Watcher]

I would like to know what the nature of their assistance would be, would it be substantial or would it be a token guesture to get media attention.

[EXIT63]

...I would like to know what the nature of their assistance would be, would it be substantial or would it be a token guesture to get media attention...

Probably waiting tables.

[MadDoctor]

They (Fox) actually did a more scientific survey too:
\"France and Germany have been outspoken opponents of military action against Iraq and instead have pushed for more time and inspections. Even so, only about one in five Americans thinks the United States should impose sanctions against France and Germany because of their opposition and even fewer (15 percent), say they have stopped purchasing French or German products.\"

So 80% don\'t believe in sanctions against France, and 85% aren\'t boycotting.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0 (\"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0\"),2933,79819,00.html

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Exit, they\'re saying if we got hit with biological or chemical weapons, in a spirit of friendship, France would decide what kind of help they might give us.

I dunno about you, but I feel a draft at my back ...

[Whitehall]

Chirac has seriously overplayed his hand and Bush called his bluff.

The British ruling class has had a repeat lesson in why you can never trust the French. Hopes that the UK would subsume it\'s national identity in the European Union should evaporate.

It will now be US policy to subvert and oppose the European Union - so long as France has a lead role. It has me thinking about the long-term stability and reliability of the euro. We\'re bidding on a huge, multi-year project worth billions to be paid in euros - what happens if the EU collapses before the project is complete and paid?

NATO has proved worst than useless - it\'s now a weapon to be used against American interests.

Chirac has made many powerful enemies in this country. He\'s going to have to kiss more than cheeks to find a friend here. We\'re going to cut the French off at the knees. They should remember what happened to the Japanese in the 80\'s after they got too big for their britches - their economy is a basket case now. Give us a year or two but the discipline will come.

The French people are going to wish they had voted for Le Pen.



Another prediction - Colin Powell will not serve in the next Bush administration and might leave sooner.

[abductor]

was... Statue of Liberty-US Freedom-NY was a France gift !?!?

[MadDoctor]

> The French people are going to wish they had voted for Le Pen.

Ah, the man who tortured Algerians in 1957 with beatings and electric shock. The one who founded the National Front, getting help from a convicted war criminal, a former Nazi collaborator and member of the Vichy militia, and a former member of the Waffen SS. He who unabashedly stated that races are not equal, that Chirac is under the control of the Jews, that the holocaust was \"a mere detail of history.\" Banned from the 2000 elections for physically assaulting a rival political candidate. Wonderful guy, sounds like a model leader.

By the way, the quote you use in your signature is from Voltaire, not the Marquis de Lafayette. The Marquis is better remembered for statements like \"When the government violates the people\'s rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties.\" Friend of Washington and Jefferson, he was the ultimate champion of liberty, and co-author (with Jefferson) of The Declaration Of The Rights Of Man And Of The Citizen.
He favored representative and democratic government, either by constitutional monarchy or republic. Napoleon invited him to join his government and accept the Legion of Honor, but he wanted nothing to do with Napoleon\'s imperial ambitions and declined both. He did, however, happily participate in arranging Napoleon\'s abdication in 1815.

Here\'s another good one from Voltaire: \"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.\"

[franki]

I think the more the USA opposes Europe the more european countries are going to have to get together. This will rather lead to a stronger EU than a collapse of the union. The Iraq-crisis has showed us one more time how important it is that Europe should speak with one voice.

I don\'t think the Euro will collapse. The japanese economy is down the drain, but their currency is still strong against the dollar (that is one of their biggest problems). A few basic economic data, such as the fact that the USA imports way more capital than it exports, rather speak for a weakish dollar.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[franki]

I think Europe is in a dilemma. On the one hand it doesn\'t want a weak isolationist USA. We need the USA for security and stability in the world. Best example for this is that Europe couldn\'t solve its own problems in Bosnia and in Kosovo. If you go farther back there is WW1 and WW2.

On the other hand, we don\'t want the USA to become too strong. If it becomes too strong Europe is afraid the USA will dictate the world its will.

If Europe would become a super power itself, we probably wouldn\'t have these problems, but then I am not seeing that happen in the near future (too much disconsense) and I don\'t know if it is the right thing to do.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[bivonic]

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

Originally posted by Whitehall:
Chirac has seriously overplayed his hand and Bush called his bluff.

The British ruling class has had a repeat lesson in why you can never trust the French. Hopes that the UK would subsume it\'s national identity in the European Union should evaporate.

It will now be US policy to subvert and oppose the European Union - so long as France has a lead role. It has me thinking about the long-term stability and reliability of the euro. We\'re bidding on a huge, multi-year project worth billions to be paid in euros - what happens if the EU collapses before the project is complete and paid?

NATO has proved worst than useless - it\'s now a weapon to be used against American interests.

Chirac has made many powerful enemies in this country. He\'s going to have to kiss more than cheeks to find a friend here. We\'re going to cut the French off at the knees. They should remember what happened to the Japanese in the 80\'s after they got too big for their britches - their economy is a basket case now. Give us a year or two but the discipline will come.

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

Originally posted by franki:
I think the more the USA opposes Europe the more european countries are going to have to get together. This will rather lead to a stronger EU than a collapse of the union. The Iraq-crisis has showed us one more time how important it is that Europe should speak with one voice.

<hr></blockquote>

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

Originally posted by franki:
I think Europe is in a dilemma. On the one hand it doesn\'t want a weak isolationist USA. We need the USA for security and stability in the world. Best example for this is that Europe couldn\'t solve its own problems in Bosnia and in Kosovo. If you go farther back there is WW1 and WW2.

On the other hand, we don\'t want the USA to become too strong. If it becomes too strong Europe is afraid the USA will dictate the world its will.

If Europe would become a super power itself, we probably wouldn\'t have these problems, but then I am not seeing that happen in the near future (too much disconsense) and I don\'t know if it is the right thing to do.

<hr></blockquote>
I have lost all faith in the French, our allies do not need to fully support our actions - take Canada for example they are not in a position to send more troops, that\'s OK, but when our allies make such flagrant statements such as, \"We intend to veto any resolution that the United States puts forth.\" to directly oppose our actions for their own selfish self-interests (whether it be financial or to cover up their contributions to their military regime) - to hell with them! I have never been more ashamed to have french lineage in my blood, I actually considered legally changing my last name I am so disgusted by their flippant behavior.

[franki]

The french government has a tradition of acting arrogant, in that we agree, but what about some of the things that cause the French to act like they do, the American position?

\"If you are not with us, you are against us\" In other words, if you not support us with EVERYTHING we do we consider you as our enemy. I know this is oversimplified, but that is what it comes down to. How do you expect other countries to react to that?

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Bruce]

Franki,
Well said. Interesting to hear what resonable folks overseas might be thinking about the situation.
Bruce

[frenchie]

\"The french government has a tradition of acting very arrogant, in that we agree\"
I agree too, when it comes to european laws : France is not ready to obey, is always late and it\'s no good for Europe (I think of environmental and ecologic problems).

\"If you are not with us, you are against us\" In other words, if you not support us with EVERYTHING we do we consider you as our enemy\"
isn\'t that an arrogant and very proud attitude ? Moreover, this is how world wars have begun... does Mr B want a world war ?

For those who say we should have voted for Le Pen... well come on here in Paris and say it loud. You\'ll see the reactions !

Frenchie
not boycotting this thread though we are political enemies ! :-))

[Whitehall]

As to Le Pen, he was #2 vote getter I understand. I do not have to make a decision as to the best leader for France - that\'s for the French voters. I am saying that the French will look back on this episode of history and find that they have been ill-served by Chirac. He has made a historic gamble and I think he will be shown to have lost it to the long-term detriment of the French people.

As Franki points out, Europe has been forced to make a choice - aspire to integration and then super-power status or continue to fall-in behind American global leadership. From where we sit, Europe has little hope of mounting anything like a serious challenge - now or in the foreseeable future, especially under French leadership. Do you really think welfare state socialism and bureaucratic centralization is the wave of the future? There is little objective evidence saying that method of organizing society and economics is competitive with more lasseiz faire economics and minimal government intervention as practiced in the US. Asia\'s economical growth came only AFTER it renounced excessive governmental controls. It\'s your choice - you\'ll have to live with the consequences.

Of course, each country in Europe is free to order their own society (within limits, of course.) Just don\'t be surprised if the choices you make do not support your global ambitions or self-image in a competitive world.

As to the source of my quote - Lafayette vs Voltaire, you may well be right. If Voltaire, he was a scribbler and not prone to \"fight to the death\" about anything. At least Lafayette picked up a gun and put himself in harm\'s way in the American Revolution. The quote sure takes on more legitimacy if Lafayette said it!

Our US diplomats are already talking about patching things up with the French. Chirac is making quacking noises that suggest he\'s really our true and loyal buddy-buddy. This is necessary and proper in the short run but don\'t be fooled - US foreign policy will be bent on dominating \"Old Europe\" and opposing any growth in its power to oppose the US in the future.

Today, in the US, it has become a powerful, biting political slur to say of a politician \"He supports the French position.\"

From where we sit, a new world war has already begun. Just as WWII began for us with the 2,500 Americans killed in a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, the 3,000 dead on 9/11 was the first blow. Just as victory after WWII came from our efforts to remake the world with the reconstruction of Germany and Japan as functioning, friendly democracies, we\'ll have to remake the world again, beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq.

We are not \"enemies\" of the French. We are serious competitors. I think it was Tallyrand\'s line that \"politics is the art of accommodating the inevitiable.\" Chirac didn\'t follow that wise French stateman\'s advice.

[franki]

&gt;&gt;&gt;
As Franki points out, Europe has been forced to make a choice - aspire to integration and then super-power status or continue to fall-in behind American global leadership. From where we sit, Europe has little hope of mounting anything like a serious challenge - now or in the foreseeable future, especially under French leadership. Do you really think welfare state socialism and bureaucratic centralization is the wave of the future? There is little objective evidence saying that method of organizing society and economics is competitive with more lasseiz faire economics and minimal government intervention as practiced in the US. Asia\'s economical growth came only AFTER it renounced excessive governmental controls. It\'s your choice - you\'ll have to live with the consequences.

Of course, each country in Europe is free to order their own society (within limits, of course.) Just don\'t be surprised if the choices you make do not support your global ambitions or self-image in a competitive world. &lt;&lt;

You are almost 100% right with that, but remember that Europe is also capable of spending 300 or 400 billion dollar a year on its military when it wants to. I don\'t say that is a good idea, but it is an option to keep in mind.

Airbus is selling more airplanes than Boeing this year, while nobody would have ever thought that would happen. So, what I want to point out is that there is quite a bit possible.

I don\'t like the idea of Europe as a political rival of the USA, I would rather see the both of them work together like they did during the Cold War. NATO is (still) one of the instruments for that, Rice said in an interview with a german newspaper that NATO is going to survive the problems that recently occured. I would like to believe that, but I also have my doubts.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[EXIT63]

I don\'t know a lot about the E.U. (obviously) but IMO they should aspire to be an economic superpower rather than a military one. It\'s much less expensive.

Just think about the billions and billions they\'ve saved over the past decades by having the U.S. foot the bill for their security. (Not to mention the freedom and liberty that was saved when the Soviets were knocking on the door).

After crushing the Nazi regime and rebuilding Europe and their economies, we spent 40 years fighting the cold war. And when we ask for some help with the next series of challenges we are told to piss off. Thank You very much.

Does America do everything right? Of course not. Do we make mistakes? Sure. But the USA has done more good. Saved more lives. Fed more people. etc, etc, than any other country on Earth.

So when some third rate country like France (who has spent the last 20 years sponsoring terrorism) says they will veto any resolution without even reading it. I think the American people have the right to be mad at them.

[franki]

\"And when we ask for some help with the next series of challenges we are told to piss off. Thank You very much. \"

Some people think differently in Europe. Eight european countries decided to support the USA initiatives regarding Iraq. German Patriot (defence) missiles are protecting Israel and Turkey against a Iraqi attack. You might not believe it, but there are even a few german soldiers in Kuwait from a special unit with the mission to help the people in Kuwait and the allied troops in Kuwait in case of a chemical or biological attack of Iraq and the US-troops are happy to have them there.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[EXIT63]

Thank You!

[Whitehall]

\"But remember that Europe is also capable of spending 300 or 400 billion dollar a year on its military when it wants to.\"

One gripe here is that Europe has been and continues to be a free rider on US defense expenditures. It was the US that had to cleanup the Balkans in the 90\'s - which are part of EUROPE! Many of us thought that the Balkans were none of our business and responsibility. We\'re still there! Maybe if you spent some more on defense (and used it wisely), we US taxpayers could spend less. We\'d love to spend less on defense - there are much better things to spend that money on - health care for one.

As for Airbus, we see them as European governments buying business. Boeing could use some competition in commercial airplanes anyway.

[franki]

\"Maybe if you spent some more on defense (and used it wisely), we US taxpayers could spend less. We\'d love to spend less on defense - there are much better things to spend that money on - health care for one. \"

Are you saying it is Europe\'s fault that the american military budget is too high ..?. lol
Maybe that was true in times of the Cold War, but not now I think ....

[Whitehall]

Increasing Europe\'s efforts to defend itself would allow the US to lower our defense expenditures. Likewise Japan. So, in a word, yes.

Granted, it was moreso during the Cold War but this war is just starting up.

[upsidedown]

Just because the Cold War with the Soviet Union is over...there are still lots of bad people out there..Iraq, North Korea, and China can still cause problems if the free world and democracies don\'t remain strong.

The fight for peace and freedom remains, only the opponents change.

[Whitehall]

Chirac\'s decision on the Iraq question was like one of Napoleon\'s -

\"Worst than a crime, a blunder,\" in the words of Tallyrand (again.)

[MadDoctor]

&gt; Are you saying it is Europe\'s fault that the american military budget is too high ..?. lol

Excellent point. Let\'s look at US military spending relative to some other countries. We\'ll start by adding up the military budgets of China, Russia, France, Germany, the UK, Canada and Japan, as leading industrialized powers of the world. Let\'s throw in some southerly countries too, say... Brazil, New Zealand, Cameroon, Senegal, Guinea, the Congo, Benin, Togo, Namibia, the Central African Republic, Madagasgar, Guyana, Suriname, Ecuador, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Niger and New Guinea, so we get a total of 25 countries.

The US\'s military spending is significantly more than all of those countries put together.

It\'s not that other countries are slacking off, it\'s that US vastly outspends any other country in the world. We spend nearly 4 times as much as Russia and China put together. For that matter, we handily outspend the entire southern hemisphere! Someone\'s out of line alright, but it\'s not our allies.

[EXIT63]

And now you\'re gonna see what we paid for. Laser guided devastation that is gonna blow the worlds mind. Welcome to the 21st century. Does anyone else wanna play?

[MadDoctor]

&gt; Does anyone else wanna play?

North Korea seems to be thinking about it, and they might bring China as their playmate. Then we could play global nuclear war! Oh joy!

Then again, they might not. We might just wipe out our economy trying to hold onto foreign territories, while the last vestige of moral high ground we had disappears forever and hundreds of thousands of people who hate us attack our interests in whatever way they can. There are about 8 times as many Iraqis as there are Palestinians. Sounds like fun, eh? How many suicide bombings a day do you think it would take before we decided we\'d screwed up?

Guess we\'ll be finding out soon enough.

&gt; And now you\'re gonna see what we paid for.

Yep, Baghdad has almost 5 million inhabitants, and over half of those are under 18. Most of the remainder are women. In the first Gulf War, we killed around 100,000 civilians. This time it looks like we\'ll be hitting a lot harder. I\'ll wager at least 150,000 dead women and children in the first week. I\'m just jumping for joy that my tax dollars will play a part in that.

[Whitehall]

100,000 Civilians!!!!


Where the HELL did you get that number????

[Gerund]

Yeah.

What color is the sky in your world, MadDoctor? Will the Mother Ship be returning for you soon?

[MadDoctor]

Here\'s a little quick cut &amp; paste answer, with the figures coming from that notorious, wild-eyed commie publication, US News &amp; World Report.

\'To find the human toll caused by U.S. weapons, one often had to look in the nooks and crannies --
like U.S. News &amp; World Report\'s \"Washington
Whispers\" page (4/1/91), which featured this one-paragraph item, captioned \"The Grim Math\":
\"Although top U.S. commanders last week estimated that Iraq
suffered at least 100,000 military deaths during the war, other sources in the Gulf say the final
total -- including civilian fatalities -- will be at least twice
that. These sources say the allied aerial attacks inflicted far more casualties than previously
thought.\"

The report of a possible 200,000 dead took up little more than an inch of space. At that rate, the
Nazi Holocaust against the Jews would take up about 30
inches -- and could almost be contained on one page in U.S. News &amp; World Report.\'

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Well France ists only a matter of time before the truth comes out. Great news people we might have got Saddam already. You know its time for the french to back track. I hope they killed that bastard saddam

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Red actually im neither left wing nor right wing i don\'t go by what anybody says. Im more of what you would call an independent thinker. I really look at things from all propestives. Red to be honest i have read your right wing dogma(if thats what you were impling when you said \"ours\" as well. When i read it or here it though i always hear things i know not to be true. If you look at America though as a whole and not by specific states or communittys one can easily see that the mainstream media is far liberal in all asspects of there reporting. Well anyway its ususally the less educated or women that are liberal. Im a very open minded person and i love to try new things in many different walks of life. Its just im not a supporter of not taking action when you know action needs to be taken. Anyhow that wasn\'t a good arguement. I know a good arguement when i see one.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Nate, I have a bachelor\'s degree with high honors from a good school and I\'m well read and observant.


Having said that,


bite me. You wouldn\'t know a good argument if it fell on your head. Your posts don\'t show that you can make one, at least.



What right wing dogma have I spouted?


Is there ever going to be a break from you f*cking idiots on this forum, ever? Since you reduce every single thing to ad hominem, why don\'t I just jump in at your level so you can feel comfortable and we\'ll sling it out from there. You know what? You talk like a guy with a little d!ck. Got yourself a dig in about women, too, didn\'t you manage to? Nice. How did that go? Oh, yeah, \"it\'s ususally the less educated or women that are liberal.\"



I\'m delighted to hear that you look at things from all prospestives, and that when you read it or here it you hear things you know not to be true.


When you\'re even vaguely literate, and have one thing to say that\'s not some canned crap, come back and we\'ll talk.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I disagree! I have made rational arguements in the past. I have recieved support from many forum members in this forum. To be perfectly honest i really don\'t give a damn what you think. You are free to say what you wamt to say. Hey you know in my opinion you talk like an ugly stuck up bitch who thinks shes knows everything. My dick is seven inches sense you seem so curious to know and just for your informaion my Fiance orgasms 3 or 4 times before i even cum once. You know what else, its true about the less educated and woman being more liberal. They are are more sensitive. Im a great guy and anyone who knows me will tell you i respect women. Just not the bitchy ones who think the world revolves around them. Also as far as literacy goes i tested way above the average 8th grade reading level of the average Amercan. LOL well anyway i wasted too much of my time.






On a more positve note, i will be getting married in may to a very sweet, loving hot and smart woman. Guys i promise they are out there.

[frenchie]

is it a new war coming, this time between FTR and Nate dogg ?
Nate dogg, who cares about the size of your dick ? you want this war ? OK, so if you have guts, just go there and fight. Be a man.
That was the feminine solidarity post, FTR ! :-)

Frenchie

[MadDoctor]

Actually, you have it backwards. The less educated vote more conservatively, in almost every country and every time. When the English first allowed men without property to vote, they expected a boost for the left, but it ended up almost totally to the benefit of the Tories (Conservative Party). The same is true in the 21st century US. Even the president knows that.

\"The tax cuts will make the economy grow. As people do better, they start voting like Republicans -- unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.\" As quoted by Nicholas Lemann in \"Bush\'s Trillions\" in the New Yorker Feb 19 and 26, 2001, p. 78. Karl Rove, 19-Feb-01

[Whitehall]

At least MadDoctor offered a source.

I will point out that your source is pure speculation that is 12 years old. The dust had hardly settled. Further estimates made after the war with the opportunity for reflection put the number at closer to 5,000 civilians and 50,000 soldiers. But, we\'ll never know for sure.

Kuwait had roughly the same dead.

[MadDoctor]

After the war the government did everything in its power to try to make it seem like there had been few casualties, with Pentagon sources claiming as implausible numbers as 1500 dead. But a months-long government study concluded that there were over 150,000 dead, with 110,000 or more of those being civilians. After the figures were leaked to the public, the government fired the demographer who did the study and rewrote her report to claim a lower number of civilian casualties. She successfully challenged her dismissal and refuted the charges of anything unprofessional in how she\'d compiled the report.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2003/01/05/news/nation/4874382.htm (\"http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2003/01/05/news/nation/4874382.htm\")

[Whitehall]

Read the article!!!

The questionable estimate assigns 70,000 Iraqi deaths to loss of water and power following the end of hostilities. That is, on its face, unbelievable. While dislocation of Iraqi infrastructure was caused by the war, I suspect that Saddam didn\'t make the welfare of his nation his highest priority either.

Most of the other deaths are from Saddam\'s suppression of Shi\'te and Kurdish rebellions. The US can take some blame for not better supporting them.

Even the contested estimate only claimed 13,000 civilian deaths during the fighting with Coalition troops.

MadDoctor, before you post, please do a sanity check on the facts and sources. Your credibility is at stake. I do appreciate your arguments, but they have to be based on something more solid and reliable than the \"facts\" you\'ve provided so far.

(The source of the quotation was one I\'ll grant that you were right.)

Back to the French, here\'s a good analysis of the aftermath of the UN debates on the French.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/388afjiw.asp (\"http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/388afjiw.asp\")

[MadDoctor]

I did read the article. You may find the figures unbelievable, but she was a professional, University of Chicago-trained demographer who had access to all available data, and spent months going over it all, applying standard methods. The fact that most of the civilian deaths were slow, resulting from the destruction of the national infrastructure, does not make them any less a direct result of US military action any more than it brings them back to life. That was exactly the question she was answering, how many died as a clear consequence of our military action.

Of course, she couldn\'t yet know about the thousands more that would be killed by leukemia, lymphoma and other cancers as a seeming result of the hundreds of tons of radioactive U238 dust (with contaminants like U236 and plutonium) we left in southern Iraq. Or the huge jump in severe birth defects they\'d experience.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html (\"http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html\") if you have a very strong stomach

These would add thousands more to the civilian fatalities, but the fact that only the plutonium component has a halflife of less than a billion years means that we will never know how many tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians may eventually be killed by it.

At first the official Pentagon figures were over 100,000 dead, but the spin doctors have been at work on it ever since, silencing people such as the demographer above, and instead releasing and encouraging this sort of material:
\"As few as 1,500 Iraqi soldiers may have been killed by allied forces in the Persian Gulf War - a tenth of the previous lowest estimate - according to a former analyst in the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, John Heidenrich. The most conservative estimate of Iraqi battlefield casualties from allied air and ground action had been 15,000 but most range from 25,000 to100,000.\" (Vancouver Sun, Mar. 11, 1993)

As Jane\'s Information Group Ltd. said about the same claims:
\'Heidenrich says that the Pentagon\'s reluctance to publish more definitive
casualty figures was due to \"quite simply, fear. Senior officials fear that any estimate will provide ammunition to Pentagon critics. A high estimate could bring charges of barbarism.\"\'

Heidenrich went on to claim civilian deaths of \"less than 100.\"

This despite close to 1000 killed by a direct B52 hit on a civilian bomb shelter in Amiriyeh, carpet bombing of a 20-mile stretch of road between Kuwait City and Basra which was clogged with fleeing refugees, killing by some estimates as many as 8000, and many smaller incidents like the bombing of a marketplace in Falluja, crowded with hundreds of women doing their family\'s grocery shopping, killing or severely injuring hundreds. Groups like Human Rights Watch have documented many such events, even if the Pentagon would like us to think they never happened.

\"Less than 100\"... yeah, right.

[Whitehall]

Dude,

Your wild assertions about radioactive uranium-238 (usually called \"depleted uranium\") just proved to me beyond any doubt that you do not have a decent grip on reality or at the very least do not require factual bases when you want to make your case.

There is precious little reason to have plutonium in depleted uranium as it is the waste product of the enrichment of natural uranium which contains no plutonium. The half life of Pu-239 is 24,110 years, BTW. Depleted U is about as toxic as lead but more effective as a projectile.


The Iraqi people have suffered terribly during the reign of Saddam. We agree on that. They suffered directly by Saddam\'s hand and they suffered from the hands of other nations in retailiation for Saddam\'s bad decisions.

The bottom line is that the Iraqis will be much better off without Saddam. The Coalition is making all reasonable efforts to minimize civilian hardships. Bush is making a reasonable bet that they will thank him when it\'s over.

[bivonic]

Take it for what it\'s worth, since I have access to this data, I thought I would share.

Breakdown for the State of NY
Total Liberals + Democrats: 4.1MM
Total Conservatives + Republicans: 3.3MM

Total Female Liberals + Democrats: 2.7MM
Total Female Conservatives + Republicans: 1.9MM
Total Male Liberals + Democrats: 1.38MM
Total Male Conservatives + Republicans: 1.4MM

So to summarize:
Out of the 5.3MM Female registered voters, 52.0% are Liberal
Out of the 4.4MM Male registered voters, 31.6% are liberal

Out of the 4.1MM registered voters that are Liberal, 66.5% are Female compared to 33.5% that are Male
Out of the 3.3MM registered voters that are Conservative, 57.7% are Male compared to 42.3% that are Female

I think the argument FTR was making was the way nate worded his post:
&lt;&lt;Well anyway its ususally the less educated or women that are liberal. Im a very open minded person and i love to try new things in many different walks of life.&gt;&gt;

In that it could be interpretted that women = less educated, which was not the point I think he was trying to establish, just that in his opinion less educated people as well as females were more likely to make up the liberal populous.

[MadDoctor]

&gt; There is precious little reason to have plutonium in depleted uranium as it is the waste product of the enrichment of
&gt; natural uranium which contains no plutonium.
The possibility of plutonium as a contaminant was brought up by the World Health Organization in their study of Kosovo\'s relatively light exposure. You might want to write the WHO and correct them, since you clearly know more than they do.

&gt; The half life of Pu-239 is 24,110 years, BTW.
Yes, I know that. Pu-244 has a halflife of 82 million years. And so on. But the uranium components have halflives in the billions of years, 4.5 billion for U238. All of this is just as I said.

Not that the halflives matter much. It seems highly unlikely that there will be any humans left in 24,000 years anyway.

&gt; Depleted U is about as toxic as lead but more effective as a projectile.
Depleted uranium is about 70% as radioactive as non-depleted uranium. Lead is not radioactive at all. DU\'s only been depleted of materials which are considered useful, NOT of radioactivity. It\'s also contains significant traces of U235, which is undeniably dangerous, along with a number of other radioactive components. It\'s not as if they were trying to make it safe, they just stop refining it when they\'ve gotten out as much U235 as is cost-effective, what\'s left is toxic waste.

Of the 50-man cleanup crew the US sent after the first Gulf War, some wore full radiation gear and others did not. Of those who did not, 10 died. Nice, safe stuff. The leader of that team was Prof. Douglas Rokke, former army colonel and director of the Pentagon\'s DU Project. You should look up what he has to say some time. Things like \"DU is the stuff of nightmares. It is toxic, radioactive and pollutes for 4500 million years. It causes lymphoma, neuro-psychotic disorders and short-term memory damage. In semen, it causes birth defects and trashes the immune system.\"

But maybe you know more than him, too.

&gt; Your wild assertions about radioactive uranium-238 (usually called \"depleted uranium\") just proved to me beyond
&gt; any doubt that you do not have a decent grip on reality or at the very least do not require factual bases when you want
&gt; to make your case.

Quit being insulting. You have yet to refute a single thing I\'ve said. I document my claims, if you want people to believe you I suggest that you show the research. How about starting by proving beyond any reasonable doubt that there were only a few thousand Iraqi casualties in the first Gulf War, eh? That\'d be a nice beginning.

I\'m waiting.

[MadDoctor]

I think the dispute was mostly over education level. Anyone who\'s looked into demographics should be aware that there\'s a \"gender gap,\" that\'s been established over and over, even made into a TV buzzword.

[Gerund]

Let me explain why we have a problem we your posts. You said, and I\'m doing a direct cut-and-paste:

** \"In the first Gulf War, we killed around 100,000 civilians.\" **

You didn\'t say, \"Some sources speculate,\" or \"it has been rumored,\" or anything whatsoever to qualify your statement, which was keening in agony for qualification. You stated it as a FACT, when it was nothing of the sort.

And do you SERIOUSLY think we\'re going to kill 150,000 women &amp; children the first week:

** \"I\'ll wager at least 150,000 dead women and children in the first week.\" **

Well, tell you what. I\'ll take that bet. If you can find a middleman to hold the bet money, I\'ll match you for any dollar figure you\'re foolish enough to gamble on such a stupid statement. And you\'re also being very irresponsible -- there may be some naive enough to believe those statements that make an end-run around your brain.

But the problem is, you weren\'t serious, were you? You were just grandstanding, weren\'t you? Sensationalizing, and being inflammatory.

***** MadDoctor, your mouth is writing checks your brain can\'t cash. *****

[MadDoctor]

&gt;Let me explain why we have a problem we your posts. You said, and I\'m doing a direct cut-and-paste:
&gt;** \"In the first Gulf War, we killed around 100,000 civilians.\" **
OK, I can live with that. I should probably have said something like \"According to what appears to be the most in-depth study ever to have been conducted by the US government (or any other party), around 110,000 civilians were killed as a direct result of our actions in the first Gulf War.\"

I get lazy about doing that much typing sometimes. I\'m not a FTR-speed typist, and things are pretty busy at work.

As for how many will die this time, I don\'t think we\'ll ever have a clear figure any more than we\'ll ever know whether the WMD that the Pentagon will undoubtedly claim to have found were real, and Iraqi. The victors write history, and the Iraqi military is much weaker now than a decade ago. They will be wiped out in no time, and we\'ll be told whatever the administration feels like telling us. There will be nobody to dispute it, and claims of high civilian casualties would be both political suicide and potential fodder for a war crimes tribunal. So I expect to hear \"a few hundred\" or \"a few thousand\" again.

Over the next couple of years, human rights groups and the UN may start putting the pieces together and coming up with some real numbers, but I don\'t expect any reliable ones to be released to the public before that. I wish I could accept your wager, but I don\'t think that either of us have the patience for it.

[franki]

Actually, there has been much focus from the media on this war, more than on any other war. The most important thing for the Bush-administration is that they get a good press. So therefore I hope this war can be war with as less civilian casualties as possible and with a little amount of \"war crimes\".

I still have some kind of hope this is going to be sort of a \"clean\" war, even though I know there are no clean wars.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[MadDoctor]

I\'d hope so, too. But you know, what opened the world\'s eyes to what really went on in past wars was the ability of the press to wander freely and tape what they saw. In Viet Nam, for example. They weren\'t expected to be \"embedded,\" to be under the military\'s watch every moment, going only where they\'re told they can go, with military censors checking over everything before it can be aired. I\'ve heard that of the various US networks, only CNN had a cameraman left in Baghdad two days before the war started.

If you watch American news broadcasts, you\'ll mostly see Department of Defense footage played over and over. That\'s sad, if you ask me. I hope that some foreign journalists will take it upon themselves to show us what\'s going on.

[upsidedown]

&gt;&gt; don\'t think we\'ll ever have a clear figure any more than we\'ll ever know whether the WMD that the Pentagon will undoubtedly claim to have found were real, and Iraqi.&lt;&lt;

Sorry Mad Doctor. Discussion and debate is a good thing. But your comments above give away the fact that you are approaching this entire subject with a bias. It sounds like you\'ve already decided what\'s going to happen, and all the details and motives behind it. Seeing how you look at things, I really doubt you can be open minded and unbiased in anything related to this topic. So, I shall just have to continue reading everything you write with your pre-judged biases glaring out at me like a huge neon sign.

Even if the numbers you listed are accurate.....consider how many people Saddam Hussein has brutally murdered. In the U.S. you can speak your mind....even if your facts may be complete fantasy. If you did such in Iraq, you\'d be tied up in public and have your tongue cut out and left to bleed to death as a public deterent to others. That actually happened within the past week in Iraq.

[franki]

Well, no-one is completely without bias of course. I wonder how much objectivity you can expect from someone. Maybe more than what MadDoctor shows us, but how much?

Most of the time we (all) only mention the facts that help our argumentation or support our standpoint.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Lucky]

The Mad Doctor\'s posts are well documented and refreshing, whether he\'s biased or not. We can all make up our own minds...so goes history.

[MadDoctor]

Yes, I do have some preconceptions about human conduct and the workings of the world. You only err if by \"bias\" you mean a political bias, as opposed to deep cynicism about human nature, greed and power. There is no party that I trust, no nation, no corporation. I know that most people aren\'t motivated by selfless compassion for others and the desire to do only what\'s right, and that those who rise to the top tend to be a lot more power hungry and self-interested than average. I believe that power corrupts, and that the desire for power does so as well. I don\'t know if Diogenes ever felt that he had found an honest man, but I\'m entirely sure that he didn\'t find any in palaces.

I\'m not singling out this administration, this era or this country for criticism. Greed, injustice and dishonesty are universal, the only differences are in matter of degree. Saddam Hussein has always been scum. He was bad when the CIA put the Baath Party into power, he was bad when we later got mad at them, he was bad when Rumsfeld shook his hand and Reagan restored diplomatic relations, and he\'s bad now. One day the proto-Taliban are wonderful \"freedom fighters,\" the next they\'re horrible fanatical terrorists. Hell, they were always fanatical terrorists! We just liked it when they were terrorizing the Soviets, and hated it when it became our turn. Unlike governments, I don\'t flip-flop about things. I call a tyrant a tyrant, end of story. If someone said to you that they wanted to start blowing up people and buildings around town \"to frighten and create panic and chaos,\" you\'d say they were a terrorist, right? That\'s almost a textbook definition, and close to the one currently in US law. But the phrase I chose about creating panic and chaos with bombing comes from what the Pentagon says they\'re doing in Iraq.

In a way I find it refreshing that people like Elliot Abrams and John Poindexter, despite their convictions for lying to Congress, have been appointed to the present government. It shows what little regard politicians have for either the truth or for what any informed party thinks of them, which is itself almost a strange form of honesty. And for us, it\'s like going out with someone who has cheated on everyone they\'ve ever had a relationship with. At least you know what to expect.

Any time you have a concentration of power, that power will try to perpetuate itself, and usually to expand. It\'s human nature. Ask any corporate PR person, or advertising copywriter, or politician, or government spin doctor. The struggle for power, financial and otherwise, leaves us constantly buried in data which are, at best, half truths. I can accept DoD tapes and \"embedded\" journalism as the complete and unbiased news to the same extent that I think that if I drink Coors beer I will have a life filled with wild parties where skinny, airbrushed models drag me off and start making out with me. Call it bias if you like, I call it realism.

By the way, I\'d like to take this opportunity to apologise to Whitehall for going off at him. He got me pissed off by personally attacking me, but there\'s no excuse for replying in kind. In my 14 years on the Internet, I\'ve never seen a good flame war, they were at best about like listening to a friend who is in the middle of a divorce go on about what an inhuman monster their ex is. For the good of the readership and the peace, I am hereby dropping participation in this topic. I won\'t be reading it or posting to it, unless I hear that I\'m being personally attacked. One of the only redeeming characteristics a flame war can have is brevity, so brevity it will have.

As long as I\'m at it, I have to respect Whitehall\'s unabashed championing of the current administration\'s defense policies and military ambitions. In a world where Trent Lott is replaced with someone with a civil rights voting record which is virtually identical, the biggest difference being of consistency in lying, I really have to admire those who come out and say exactly what they feel, with no tiptoeing around the truth of the matter. I may think of imperialism as misguided greed which historically fails, but if Whitehall thinks there\'s something good in it then I cannot criticize his coming out and saying so, with no excuses or spurious attempts at making the motives seem different than they are. There is no substitute for integrity, so I can only applaud that aspect of his posts. My hat is off to all who look for truth, think things through and say exactly what they feel, whatever I think of their conclusions.

See you all in the on-topic areas.

[Whitehall]

MadDoctor,

I directly and pointedly objected to the quality of your postings in that the numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths was, I felt, deliberately and grossly exagerated, to the point of disinformation. Your choice of sources was highly selective and disingenuous - all to make your political point.

You postings about depleted uranium flies in the face of my formal education in nuclear engineering and health physics and my decades of experience in the industrial uses of uranium. I kept a bottle of uranium on my desk for years and still have a bottle in my darkroom. I\'ve handled the stuff as solution, crystals, ceramic, and as a gas. In one small facet of handling spent uranium fuel from power plants, I\'m probably THE world expert. I\'ve watched the whole depleted uranium debate for years and suspect that it\'s driven by some other country\'s intelligence service - the attacks just don\'t make sense and seem contrived to embarress the US. From your postings, you can\'t even handle the rudimentary scientific concepts involved with any cogency or consistency, nor do you seem to want to learn - if it undercuts your political agenda.

So far, I\'ve seen very little I can respect in your arguments and much that I must object to in the name of reasoned, civilized debate. You\'ve gone way beyond mere bias.


Yet.....

[Gerund]

***************************
nor do you seem to want to learn - if it undercuts your political agenda.
***************************

Bingo. I phrased it somewhat differently in a recent PM to someone who was wondering why I was giving MD such a bad time. It was a lot wordier; I said something like:

***************************
\"he acknowledges only that information which tends to confirm his prejudices, beliefs, or suspicions, or paranoia -- and to that end will dredge up any outdated &amp; discredited source to support his \'position\', while conveniently ignoring voluminous data accepted as relevant, reliable and confirmed by even those sympathetic to his windmill endeavors.\"
****************************

Okay, Okay, I wasn\'t that eloquent. But you get the gist. Whitehall is right, dead right.

I don\'t know whether the exact correct term would be \"intellectual honesty,\" or \"intellectual integrity.\" Whichever it is, you need to explore it, MD.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Ok, break for the remedial student. It happens that I am sympathetic to MadDoc\'s political agenda and the things he\'s said are things I\'ve also read and points of view I\'ve seen accepted as valid. Could it not be that it depends on who you ask? Can any of us know the truth about certain things if we haven\'t seen them with our own eyes? MadDoc documented his statements - he gave sources. He didn\'t write the source material. Why is his intellectual integrity being attacked? It would seem to me (understand that I admit to total ignorance on the subject and this is a stab in the dark) that the problem is that you each have political agendas, or, if not agendas, leanings or tendencies, and because of those leanings or tendencies, you read what reinforces the beliefs you\'re most comfortable with, and accept as reliable those sources that most agree with what fits into your scheme. From my perspective (I admit it\'s hard to see much, sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on my head), it would appear that the arguments on either side are biased, because they must be. Why is one side fact and the other side, as well or better documented, not only just plain wrong but also dishonest?

This post is not to take sides but to ask a question about methodology with regard to evaluating someone\'s argument.

Whitehall, patience, please -- I posted not long ago, out of concern, an article I\'d read about uranium ... how can those articles continue to be published if they\'re the horse sh!t you say they are (I do not challenge your statement, understand.)

[franki]

I recently heard the number of 100000 casualties on german television. This was supposed to be the number of civilian AND military casualties in the Desert Storm operation. I have no idea how many of those are civilian, but it should be considerably less than 100000, but still a whole lot.

BTW, the liberation of Kuwait was not the First Gulf War, but the Second. Everywhere I see people talk about it as the First. ..

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[EXIT63]

A rabbit and a snake, both orphans and blind since birth, lived in the forest. One morning, the rabbit was making his way through the forest when he accidentally stepped on the snake. \"I\'m sorry!\" he exclaimed. \"I didn\'t know you were there. You see, I have been blind since birth. I\'m also an orphan; I don\'t even know what I am.\"
\"That\'s ok\" said the snake. \"Actually, I am also an orphan, and have been blind since birth. I don\'t know what I am either. Tell you what... why don\'t I slither all over you and I\'ll be able to feel what you are and let you know\".
\"Great\" said the rabbit. So the snake proceeded as agreed, and afterwards said \"well, you\'re soft and furry, with long ears and a fluffy tail. I would say you are definitely a rabbit\".
The delighted rabbit immediately responded \"why don\'t I feel around with my paw, so I can then tell you what you are too?\"
\"Great\" said the snake. The rabbit proceeded as agreed and afterwards said \"well, you are smooth and slippery; you have a forked tongue, no backbone and no balls. You must be French.\"

[frenchie]

maybe the rabbit suffered of myxomatosis ? /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Whitehall]

Here\'s an article that summarizes the depleted uranium issue. It certainly fits my technical understanding of the health issues involved. The article also points to Iraqi intelligence agencies as the drivers on this issue.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb032603.shtml (\"http://www.reason.com/rb/rb032603.shtml\")

[Gerund]

***********************************
MadDoc documented his statements - he gave sources. He didn\'t write the source material... Why is one side fact and the other side, as well or better documented, not only just plain wrong but also dishonest?
***********************************

His \"source material\" is one 12-year old speculative report.


***********************************
...it would appear that the arguments on either side are biased, because they must be
***********************************

I don\'t believe Whitehall or myself argued \"for\" or \"against\" anything -- we took issue with MD\'s fast-and-loose use of statistics, and his extrapolation that there are conspiracies in every shadow.

MD said: ** \"In the first Gulf War, we killed around 100,000 civilians.\" ** And he found one 12-year old speculative source to back up his statement. Oh yeah, there was the one-paragraph item he cited in U.S. News &amp; World Report under \"Washington Whispers,\" (which is unconfirmed rumors -- not held out as established fact). And this second source was also 12 years old. And even this second \"source\" HE cited in no way referred to 100,000 civilian deaths, but military and civilian combined.

To summarize: he gave us two 12-year old \"sources,\" comprised of speculation and rumor.

And then, referring to the current conflict, he comes out with ** \"I\'ll wager at least 150,000 dead women &amp; children in the first week.\" **

Let me say again that it isn\'t his politics we took issue with. If he stated equally ridiculous LOW figures in his arguments, about casualties or anything else, and backed them up with equally non-existent \"factual sources,\" he would have received the same treatment. It\'s about intellectual integrity.

I am pretty indifferent to his political beliefs; what I am interested in is the accuracy of numbers and statistics that someone is using to support their assertions.

Equally important to me is whether statistics are presented out of context, so that the reader is not given all information to consider (as you may recall from another dispute I was involved in not long ago).

To rely on scarce, outdated, and discredited rumor and speculation, and call them \"facts\" to support a position is intellectually dishonest.

[EXIT63]

...** \"I\'ll wager at least 150,000 dead women &amp; children in the first week....

He was pretty close. He was only off by about 149,900.

[Lucky]

Statistics are commonly manipulated in articles, the results often reflect the intent of the author. Have to read between the lines and maybe...possibly, the truth lies within....

[bivonic]

Ever hear the saying:

\"Liars, Damn Liars, &amp; then statisticians.\"

[**DONOTDELETE**]

A very interesting discussion.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yes bivonic I am aware of the registration statistics. I apologize for not citing the numbers for everyone to read.

&lt;Well anyway its ususally the less educated or women that are liberal. &gt;

I meant that in general the liberal voters are either less educated people or females. In most cases the less educated vote liberal due to benefits they recieve from liberal politicians or lack of education to make logical decisions. Women on the other hand tend to vote liberal and have a more liberal view because women are sensitive to other\"s feelings. If i was going to say women are less educated i would have said \"less educated women\" without the cunjunction \"or\". I meant that women have a tendency to vote liberal because they allow there compassion To overcome logic sometimes; Although, i admit,this to has its exceptions as well. Of course there are many educated women, i am friends with many of them. There are always exceptions, and you know i realize that. I want this to be clear to everyone. Its just like i was making a statement about the demographics of the liberal voters, and it was twisted into being something that you can tell it was not meant to be. If you look at my post as a whole you will notice that. My arguement was that im an independent and don\'t allow myself to be indoctrinated by the media. Its not necessary to realize that, i just wanted everyone to know that i was not being negative toward women in any way.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Nate Dogg,

I\'ve been meaning to post an apology to you. I overreacted. You know I read every last word on this site, and in a couple of the other forums there was some very negative stuff about women that was making some of us sick at heart and angry. I think someone had just added another post to one of those threads and I was under the effect of that when I came here and belted you one. I took it out on you and I apologize.
Forgive me?

Renee

[MadDoctor]

Following half a dozen people PMing me expressing regret that I left this thread, I\'m back to comment a little on the renewed discussion.

Of the various things we\'ve talked about here, the ones still being discussed are both highly politically charged and unclear. One side of the Iraqi civilian casualty debate has claimed as low as \"less than 100\" civilian deaths, others have gone well over 100,000. My point was only that it is reasonable to infer that tens of thousands of civilians died as a result of the last war. Since the vast majority of them died from consequences of the destruction of their national infrastructure, even if this were not a political hot potato, no number will be more than a guess.

As a result of attacks on Basra\'s water plant and power plant, and cutting of the power lines between them, the people of Basra have been drinking contaminated water for about a week. Basra has about 1.3 million residents, with around another .7 million in the suburbs. Per UN and Red Cross figures, about 5% of the Iraqi population are children who have suffered from chronic malnutrition for years, and another 5% were acutely malnourished before the outbreak of war. Without worrying about anything unusual like cholera, the likelihood of dysentery and other water-borne diseases is quite high. If conditions are similar to what is surfacing in Umm-Quasr, there is also virtually no food. With 200,000 frail children in this population, it is not unreasonable to expect that quite a few of them will die. This is where the massive casualties will come from, not from shrapnel. And the siege of Baghdad (population 5 million) has yet to get rolling.

That is why the UN projected up to half a million Iraqi deaths from this war, the great majority of them civilian. They won\'t be the ones shot and bombed, which various tallies will account for, they will just be thousands of skinny little kids who got sick and died because we destroyed their country\'s infrastructure, cutting off their electricity, food and water. And quite a few of their relatives will die along with them.

DU is another political hot potato. If you noticed, the author of that article was also the editor of \"Global Warming and other Eco Myths,\" author of \"ECO SCAM: The False Prophets of the Ecological Apocalypse,\" and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a \"public interest group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government in a wide range of economic and environmental public policy issues.\" (www.cei.org) In May they\'re having House Republican leader Tom de Lay as the keynote speaker for their annual dinner. He\'s also an adjunct scholar at the entirely political Cato Institute. (www.cato.org) So maybe, just maybe, that author could have some trace of bias himself.

I readily admit that there are biased people on the other side of the debate as well, that\'s always true of charged topics. I\'ve therefore made some effort at finding research on the subject which are recent, conducted by people with extremely strong scientific backgrounds, and who have no relationship to Iraqi war issues. They document things skyrocketing cancer rates in Sarajevo (2600% increase in lymphatic and blood cancers, 1200% increase in breast cancer, about a 580% increase in cancers overall) in the 5 years following the use of DU there, and fundamental inaccuracies in the traditional radiation risk models (which predate the discovery of DNA), which assume that sitting in front of a fire is exactly equivalent to eating a hot coal, giving results which are off by upwards of 70,000% when applied to internal radiation sources. There are also very good explanations of why the rather unusual sort of airborne uranium particles produced by DU use are quite dangerous, even though U238 is not very hazardous in most contexts.

The first one was written by the co-editor of the regulator\'s guidelines for dealing with low level radiation published by the European Committee on Radiation Risk, on behalf of the EU Parliament. She has quite an astonishing resume in my opinion( http://www.iicph.org/docs/cv_rosalie_bertell.htm (\"http://www.iicph.org/docs/cv_rosalie_bertell.htm\") ). Her perspective on social and political issues seem to be consistent with her membership in the Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart -- cares about people, medical care, the environment, human rights, peace. Consider that bias if you like.
http://www.iicph.org/docs/DU_Human_Rights_Tribunal.htm (\"http://www.iicph.org/docs/DU_Human_Rights_Tribunal.htm\")

Dr. Asaf Durakovic started off as a US Army colonel and chief of nuclear medicine at a veteran\'s hospital, where he found clear connections between Gulf War Syndrome and radiation exposure. He was fired when he refused to terminate his research. He\'s testified before Congress, authored over 100 publications on the subject. He was a professor of radiology and nuclear medicine at Georgetown University until he left the US (as a result of warnings that his life was in danger if he continued his research). He\'s the founder and director of the Uranium Medical Research Centre in London. I can\'t find anything much on his politics, although after the firing and death threats, he may be a little pissed off. He does have some connection with Iraq, having served there as a US Army officer in the last war.
http://www.umrc.net/duBasics.asp (\"http://www.umrc.net/duBasics.asp\")

Chris Busby has a PhD in Chemical Physics and teaches at the University of Liverpool\'s medical school. He is the UK representative and Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, member of the UK Ministry of Defense DU Oversight Board, member of the Committee Examining Radiation Risk of Internal Emitters set up by the UK Departments of Health and Environment, has testified on DU to the Royal Society and EU Parliament, and so on &amp; so forth. He seems to be quite concerned about environmental issues, if that qualifies as a political bias. This paper is longer and more technical, but well worth it if you can follow what he\'s talking about.
http://www.llrc.org/du/subtopic/pragrept.pdf (\"http://www.llrc.org/du/subtopic/pragrept.pdf\")

\"Reasonable minds may differ,\" as my law professors used to constantly remind the class. I\'m in no way claiming that anything I post on topics like this are the last word. The last word comes when debates are over, when one side has so clearly won that there\'s no point in continuing. With Iraqi death counts from a decade ago, there will never be a provable answer. The DU debate will also drag on for some time. Until then, I\'d appreciate it if people don\'t treat me as if I had no idea what I was talking about, or cannot distinguish truth from fiction.

[Irish]

\"...They document things skyrocketing cancer rates in Sarajevo...\"

Please note that the years following the use of DU are also the years following the deliberate bombing of chemical plants, petrochemical stores, plastics factories, and a host of other disastrous actions that led to the contamination of the region\'s aquifer and settled ground contamination. Not to mention the airborne exposure at the time of the strikes. The WHO referred to these activities in the region as \'ecocide\', without reference to use of DU.

To lay emeging health issues in the region solely at the feet of DU, when there are many other obvious and overiding candidates all around, is unwarranted without direct evidence.

[Whitehall]

The regime of Saddam Hussein is clearly at war with his own population - we\'re at war with him. There will be civilian deaths in the cross fire and from disruptions in the normal patterns of life. The US is clearly going out of its way to minimize the effects of battling the regime. Saddam seems eager to continue to punish his own people - Bush is trying to liberate the Iraqis, the Middle East, and the world from his savagery. Who\'s side are you on?

Your critique of the linked article on depleted uranium was simply ad hominem - the lowest form of rhetorical argument. You offered nothing that a reasonable person could use in assessing the risks of DU. I offered the link as it supported my personal experiences and education concerning the technical aspects of the subject - you come back with smear.

I\'ve participated in 30 years of public debate over nuclear issues and I\'m quite sensitive to the phoney arguments and plays on public fears typically put forward. The debate over DU follows those same tactics. Half truths are repeated and disingenuously screamed out just to frighten - reasoned clarifications in calmer tones just can\'t cut through the clatter, leaving only the association to fear in the public mind.

The opponents to the war in Iraq have simply run out of cogent, reasonable agruments. I believe that US and UK public opinion recognize that. The protesters have sank to utopian appeals and to personal slanders on our leaders and those that support them - just look at the signs they carry. They want peace - who doesn\'t? - but offer no implementable plan to make it happen or to prevent near-certain future wars.

[franki]

\"They want peace - who doesn\'t?\"

Maybe the weapons industry ..... (??)

[MadDoctor]

&gt; To lay emeging health issues in the region solely at the feet of DU, when there are many other obvious and overiding candidates all around, is
&gt; unwarranted without direct evidence.
Read the third page I cited. The first two are only sort of executive summaries, the third is a technical article which covers the role of low level (particulate) radiation with epidemiological studies. They include Chernobyl and other power plant accidents which had no other sources of contamination to confuse the issue. The critique of the old method of testing radiation risk, which dates from the study of Hiroshima, is absolutely brilliant. The EU is quickly abandoning the old model, the WHO seems to be considering doing the same. This is new research and solid science, it does not assume that having a few micrograms of plutonium in your lymph nodes is the same as getting a chest x-ray (as the old model does).

Read the article. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Whitehall]

Sounds like the return of the \"hot particle\" hypothesis. This notion was that a concentrated, tiny particle of an alpha emitting radioisotope like plutonium-239 would cause so much local damage that the local cells had a high chance of creating a cancer.

Sounds good but years of detailed reseach failed to support it and it is no longer given any credence. That\'s what you have to do when faced with facts.

Now someone seems to be reviving \"hot particle\" hypothesis to make a case against uranium-238. Note that Pu-239 is 185,317 times more radioactive on an atom-to-atom basis than U-238. (A ratio of the half-lives - a rough measure. The alpha particle from the decay of Pu-239 is about 25% more energetic than the one from U-238.)

As Irish (not Franki in rev 1 of this post) has pointed out, the data from the field is highly confounded with the many other insults going on during a war. The Chernobyl results have been far FEWER radiation-related health effects than originally estimated.

[Irish]

I did read your citations. The third in particular attempts to refute opposing findings which would support my point. In any case, it does not address my objection to your post. I repeat for clarity:

1. The area in question is thoroughly contaminated by military action apart from DU. The water table is befouled for coming generations by known toxins; the poeple were subject to airborne exposure to these \'conventional\' toxins at the time of the airstrikes.

2. The inhabitants drink these contaminants daily, and eat them in locally grown foods. These people are awash in known toxic agents, and will be so for generations (deep water contamination, as well as soil).

3. Health problems are emerging in the population.

4. It is not sensible to blame these health problems categorically on a contaminant of controversial potency (DU), to the exclusion of the more likely known contaminants they are and have been exposed to. General death and disease rates do not specifically imply DU poisoning, esp. in a region of exposure to other toxins - too many uncontrolled variables.

The Balkans are a bad \'proof\' of potential DU poisoning becuase the people are already poisoned by known toxic agents.

I couldn\'t care less if DU is poisonous or not. Find a better test case to convince us.

[MadDoctor]

It\'s rather hard to find a population which has been exposed to DU weapons use without there being a war involved. If a few thousand people were to step forward and offer to breathe DU dust, we could settle things once and for all, but I doubt that will happen.

Skepticism about the old risk model has been growing for decades, if you look at, for example, the study of the Hanford power plant\'s workers done in 1981 by Kneale, Mancuso and Stewart. They found a 1500%-2000% deviation from the external exposure model. Many other researchers have done studies over the years coming to similar conclusions (see http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/compendium2.htm (\"http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/compendium2.htm\") for some examples). With that much groundwork done, it is now possible for scientists like Busby to put the pieces together and make a good case that the old model is refuted.

Busby\'s model for risk of internal alpha and beta emitters does successfully explain increased cancer rates associated with exposure to fallout, nuclear plant accidents, cancer rates among UN forces stationed briefly in Yugoslavia (who did not receive long exposure), cancer and mutation in Iraq, while the older model did not explain any of these. It does not single out DU ammunition, it only points out that DU exposure seems to follow the same rules as most other (unnatural) internal radiation emitters.

To go back to the fundamentals of science and causality, we have to look at what factors were in common when a given result occurred, and what factors were different between times when the same result occurred and when it did not, as Busby points out. So far, in areas where DU ammunition has been used, all exposed populations have had large increases in cancers and mutation, and all that have been tested showed DU in their urine. Very similar patterns are to be seen where other populations have inhaled very small amounts of radioactive materials. Were the cancers a result of long-term environmental contamination by mutagenic chemicals, it seems unlikely that UN peacekeepers would show a cancer rate so similar to people who have lived in those areas for decades. Likewise for Gulf War veterans, many of whom were in the contaminated areas for only a few weeks. Doctors in Herat and Kandahar (Afghanistan), soon after heavy DU usage there, began reporting a strange sort of poisoning that was showing up in some of their patients, a few of whom died of it (as reported in Reuters and Agence France-Presse in late Oct. 2001). In early Nov. 2002, DU-exposed parts of Afghanistan began reporting a large increase in birth defects. One Afghani scientist recently reported that in his tiny home village, where DU had been used, and where there had been no birth defects in recent memory, 23 babies were born with horrible deformities in 1 year. What sudden flood of mutagens did rural Afghanistan share with Basra and Sarajevo? There are no factories, no warehouses full of chemicals, very little in common with urban settings. While it is possible that we used mutagenic and carcinogenic chemical weapons in all of those settings, I know of no evidence of that. I suppose that some of our conventional explosives could be candidates, but I haven\'t heard of anything suggesting it. Were that the case, I\'d think that other countries who\'d been attacked with mainstream, conventional munitions (but not DU) would have noticed something.

Why, was there some other toxin that occurred to you as a likely cause?

[Irish]

You\'ve convinced me. There can be absolutely no doubt that that the increased general disease and death rates in the Balkans are entirely due to DU. The WHO laundry list of regional contaminants is obviously unrelated - how could it be otherwise? Steel-trap scientific logic is conclusive and prevails once again.

Guess I better clear my home of DU, and drink gasoline safely.

Sarcasm aside, my beef is in your presentation of general trends, from which you claim DU linkage to the exclusion of any other causal possibility, regardless of likelihood, and in the abscence of direct causal DU evidence.

I hope DU is the culprit in all the cases cited - one villain, many effects.

[Whitehall]

Frankly, prenatal maternal stress and strain from living in a war zone and its aftermath is much more likely than expended DU munitions, as Irish suggested.

The radiation model for many years has been the linear effects hypothesis. We take populations that have received BIG doses of radiation from medical treatments, industrial accidents, and at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and counted the long-term effects. So we have data points at, say, 100, 200, 500 rem and plot them. That gives us roughly a straight line of dose vs effects - but only for doses that are extremely rare and essentially result in acute radiation syndrome (\"radiation sickness\") - these people are few and far between.

We have for years CONSERVATIVELY assumed that we can take the dose/effect curve all the way to zero dose and zero effect. Hence, a million people exposed to 1/1000 rem is the same as one person getting 1000 rem - long term since 1000 rem to one person in one shot is usually fatal.

A LOT of research has gone into this question. The problem is that it takes a LOT of radiation for a population to show ANY statistically significant long-terms effects. Natural exposures range from about 0.1 rem per year to maybe 4 rem but one can see no difference.

The result is that the scientific community thinks that the linear effects hypothesis breaks down at low doses as natural healing and repair processes handle low level radiation damages and only doses over a threshold that swamp the repairiblity of natural tissue cause damage.

The anti-nuclear crowd WANTS to see low dose effects but so far they have little or no evidence to support that desire. They only seem to convince those who share their agenda AND refuse to look at the evidence.

Please keep in mind that depleted uranium is just about the LEAST radioactive material known to man. The standard unit for radioactivity is the Curie, named after Madam Curie. One Curie is one GRAM of radium-226. One Curie of U-238 is many TONNES of material.

No one is saying it\'s OK to let your baby teethe on DU or you can sprinkle it on your barbeque charcoal. We just see no basis for saying that using DU for bullets is any less safe or irresponsible than using lead.

[MadDoctor]

There was certainly an attempt made to discredit the idea that a high localized dose of radiation was more harmful than a weaker generalized dose. As one irate radiochemist complained to the Secretary of Energy:
\"...for more than 40 years, the staff of the AEC/ERDA/DOE have contrived to minimize radiation health effects in almost every conceivable way, including blocking the conduct of research on the role of radionuclides in the etiology of some of the more common lethal human cancers, including lung cancer and other soft tissue cancers. The AEC/ERDA/DOE staff controlled the review and funding of radiation research, and thus limited the scope and direction of the research they sponsored. They also exercised a high degree of control of radiation research sponsored by other agencies. Thus, for example, the Radiation Study Group of the National Cancer Institute was invariably chaired by a pronuclear staff member of the nuclear energy establishment. Research proposals on important aspects of radiation-induced cancer were given short shrift. Monthly reports of the Public Health Service on radioactive fallout and radiological health were screened and sanitized by the AEC\'s Gordon Dunning, a leading defender of the \"no harm\" theory of radioactive fallout. In the suppression of disturbing information on radiation health effects, the AEC/ERDA/DOE had the help of the national and international agencies involved, including the NCRP, ICRP, IAELA, and even the BEIR-IV committee of the U.S. National Academy of Science. With rare exceptions, members of these organizations and committees were high salaried staff of the nuclear establishment and their contractors. Reports of these organizations should be judged by their sins of omission and their understatement of the more serious radiation health effects. Reports of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation provide a far more objective and credible source of the effects and risks of ionizing radiation (see UNSCEAR, 1988, \"Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionization Radiation\").

My main purpose here is to direct your attention to a few of the most serious areas of neglect as well as misstatements regarding cancer risks and other adverse health effects attributable to inhaled and ingested alpha- and beta-emitting radionuclides of both natural and man-made origin, as follows:
[......]
Average Organ Dose vs. \"Hotspots\": In a discussion of cancer risks from internal alpha emitters, polonium and plutonium (BEIR-IV, 1988, p. 163) we are incorrectly assured that the average organ dose is the more pertinent measure of cancer risk and that a diffuse distribution of alpha activity \"can be as effective or even more effective in carcinogenesis\" than is a highly nonuniform distribution of aggregates which deliver much higher alpha radiation doses in small tissue volumes. These BEIR-IV statements are completely at odds with the cancer distribution for inhaled 239PuO2 in rats (see, for example, Sanders et al., Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 54, 115-121, 1988). These authors point out that \"High-dose overlapping, alpha-track radiation zones in bronchiolar epithelium may be required for maximum development of lung tumors.\" The BEIR-IV suggestion that the cell-killing component of aggregates diminishes their effectiveness in cancer induction also is seriously misleading. A high rate of cell killing at hot spots stimulates the mitotic activity of cells, including the proliferation of premalignant cells, and speeds up the multistage process of malignant transforrnations. This is only one example of the seriously misleading discussions and important sins of omission of the BEIR-IV report.\"
(Lt. Col. Edward Martell, PhD, at http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/martell2.htm (\"http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/martell2.htm\") )

It is now acknowledged within the industry that risks from internal alpha emitters are higher than the standard DDREF formula specifies, especially for weakly radioactive materials -- while it calls for dividing the risk in low-level dosages, research indicates that they should actually be multiplying it, that low level doses may be more harmful than high level. See, for example, \"The Linear Non-Threshold Dose-Response Hypothesis: A Critical Reevaluation\" in Proceedings of the 26th NRC Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting, NUREG/CP-0166, Vol. 1.

In other words, the low radioactivity of U238 does not necessarily decrease the risks associated with it. Because cells which are dividing are easily destroyed by radiation, and because cancer cells divide extremely frequently, highly radioactive substances (as internal emitters) are very likely to kill off some of the cancers that they have caused.

That internal alpha emitters cause cancer is not a topic of much debate within the medical community. All they\'re really discussing now is how they do it so well. See, for example, this study by the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University, which observes that the damage may extend well beyond alpha particle range:
http://lowdose.tricity.wsu.edu/2001mtg/abstracts/brenner.htm (\"http://lowdose.tricity.wsu.edu/2001mtg/abstracts/brenner.htm\")

Note that there is no justification given for the idea that internal alpha emitters cause cancer. The reader is assumed to know that already.

The US Army\'s own study, arguably likely to be extremely biased in view of the 440,000 DU-exposed Gulf War veterans, tested DU on osteoblasts (bone cells seem to be very resistant to alpha radiation, coincidence?) still found that DU increased cancer risk by 960% for purely toxicological (as opposed to radiological) reasons. For discussion of the apparent resistance of bone to alpha radiation, as well as the suggestion that the EPA\'s assessment of risk from internal alpha emitters is far too low, see the Centers for Disease Control site:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/ireprevf.pdf (\"http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/ireprevf.pdf\")

If know of any recent research (preferably not funded by someone related to nuclear power or weapons) which refutes the idea of damage from internal alpha emission, I\'d love to see it.

[MadDoctor]

Were it not for Afghanistan, I\'d feel that it was still a bit inconclusive, too. Only when it surfaces as a problem in unpolluted, remote areas does it seem hard to explain otherwise. Should the cancer rate in the DU-contaminated parts of Afghanistan soar over the next few years, as I suspect it will, I think that linkage between DU, mutation and cancer will be hard for even the military to deny anymore. Unless they\'ve been using some new and secret equivalent of Agent Orange, anyway...

You do make an excellent point, though. For the people of Yugoslavia, who have already been through such horrors, the only possible consolation they can have is that some of the many toxins now contaminating their water and soil will eventually break down. Even if DU were harmless, they would still be suffering for generations.

Just the same... some neutral party ought to do animal testing of DU already!

[Whitehall]

Let\'s do some sanity checks....

Are you suggesting that the lower the dose the higher the risk? That means that no dose maximizes cancer risk. That\'s illogical or else implies that radioactivity is GOOD for you (this has been seriously proposed, BTW).

It would also be preposterous to claim that depleted uranium is more toxic than natural uranium. U-238 is has a much lower specific activity than the U-235 that is extracted from natural U to make it depleted. Therefore, DU is safer than natural U because it is less radioactive.

Natural uranium is surprisingly abundant in the Earth\'s crust. Many granitic rocks have concentrations pushing 0.1% and many coals leave ash comparable to uranium ore bodies. Thorium, a radioactive element closely related to U is also very common in certain areas. Monzanite (sp?) or \"black sands\" surface deposits are fairly common is some places. A common food \"Brazil nuts\" are grown in an area in Brazil on top of such deposits and are the most radioactive food you can eat. Watch out if you\'re on Spring Break in Florida - the beaches around Jacksonville contain \"black sand.\" Yet people who spend their lives living on top of black sand deposits do not have significantly different mortality or shorter lives or increased cancer.

So if we expend one ton of DU ordinance per square mile and it mixes within the top square foot of top soil, the net concentration is 0.4 parts per million assuming an average soil density of 3 times water. The average NATURAL concentration in the crust is 2 to 4 ppm. Hence, the increase in U concentration over background under these assumptions is an order of magnitude less than background.

The take-away point is that it takes lots and lots of DU to significantly affect the U that a local resident would be exposed to.

The bottom line is that DU is a health hazard if it\'s flying towards you out of the barrel of a gun but not likely otherwise.



With that, I suspect that this topic is getting tedious. I\'ve always subscribed to Oscar Wilde\'s definition of a fanatic - \"someone who neither changes his mind nor the subject.\"

[MadDoctor]

\"...there is a steady gradient, with the least support for the war among the best educated and the most among the least schooled.

One reason for this was suggested by the Pew analysts: \'In the U.S., college graduates are much more supportive of maintaining close ties with Western Europe compared with those with no more than a high school education (77 percent vs. 55 percent).\'\"
( http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030314-022023-3781r (\"http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030314-022023-3781r\") )

[MadDoctor]

&gt; Are you suggesting that the lower the dose the higher the risk?
No. It appears to start off below the level of background noise, rises for a bit, dips, then starts a fairly steady rise. Just like the NRC report I cited says. This only applies to internal radiation emitters. External, generalized radiation sources appear to act in an entirely linear fashion, and I see no reason to question that.
&gt; Therefore, DU is safer than natural U because it is less radioactive.
Only if danger from internal emitters were linear, but the consensus seems to be that it\'s not. You\'d also have to aerosolize the natural uranium to compare it with aerosolized DU in order to know, since it is the aerosolization which makes DU weapons dangerous. Since nobody\'s done that, we can\'t really be sure which would be worse. They probably wouldn\'t be very different at all.
&gt; Thorium, a radioactive element closely related to U is also very common in certain areas.
Yes, and in natural form it\'s not too dangerous, as with many radioactive substances. Once we monkeyed with it a bit, we created a severe health menace in the form of Thorotrast. It took decades to see all the people it was killing with low-level alpha emissions. ( http://www.burtonreport.com/InfSpine/AdhesArachThorotrast.htm (\"http://www.burtonreport.com/InfSpine/AdhesArachThorotrast.htm\") )
&gt; Yet people who spend their lives living on top of black sand deposits do not have significantly different mortality
&gt; or shorter lives or increased cancer.
True, they just show a lot of genetic abnormalities. Most natural radioactive materials aren\'t dangerous in the doses we normally encounter. Natural uranium is soluable in the human body, moves around and is excreted fairly quickly. Only when we do things like aerosolize it into tiny(&lt; 10 microns), insoluable, ceramic-like pieces can it be trapped in tissues for years.
&gt; The take-away point is that it takes lots and lots of DU to significantly affect the U that a local resident would be exposed to.
Very true, in most parts of the world. The difference is in the form the uranium takes. Nobody claims it\'s a health threat until it\'s been aerosolized into inhalable and insoluable form.
&gt; With that, I suspect that this topic is getting tedious.
Suits me just fine. Topic ended.

[franki]

&gt;&gt; Saddam seems eager to continue to punish his own people - Bush is trying to liberate the Iraqis, the Middle East, and the world from his savagery. Who\'s side are you on? &lt;&lt;

It is funny you hear politicians and generals only talking about \"liberating Iraq\" and securing oil sources. I thought this war was about the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

I don\'t believe much people want to see american and british soldiers die just for low oil prices and freedom of the Iraqi people ......

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[seadove]

What I think is we are all approaching the unknown.What ever it is that we are searching in Iraq, my heart is with the families who have lost their loved ones.And if the people of Iraq are suffering too because of a thick-headed rodan my heart is extended to them too.What we need is a good prayer at this crucial moment.A prayer for success to Mr Bush and Mr Blair, the Generals and the soldiers.I hope that this war will not prolong, for the sake of the peace seeking free world.

[frenchie]

I\'m with you, Seadove. My fear is also that, if this war is to last longer than the US/GB thought/hoped, it\'s going to be very hot in the Middle East, and no-one will win.
My 2 cents

[seadove]

Frenchie the real heat starts around July.

That\'s too much time.

I hope they make it until then.

/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

[frenchie]

I remember almost dying with heat in Massada in April, wearing a wet towel on my head. But what an impressive place !
Hope war will be over by this time too...

[seadove]

I hope so too

/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif

[MadDoctor]

And... there are other valid answers than Saddam or Bush. One might be on the side of the UN, for example. Or on the side of those normal people of various nationalities whose lives will be shattered or ended because some politicians couldn\'t resolve their differences civilly, like the rest of us (mob bosses excluded) have to.

I\'ve even found myself questioning the value of traditional nationalism before. Has anyone else ever had that happen? Each 9/11 victim has had millions of dollars spent on avenging them, scores of millions each if you count this war as in some way a response to that (despite Iraq\'s non-involvement). If SARS becomes pandemic, as appears probable, at least a million Americans are likely to die, along with hundreds of millions elsewhere. What fraction of a cent per victim have we spent on that so far? Is it inevitable that we will have governments that respond to injuries to their pride in such a disproportionate and arguably irrational way?

[franki]

&gt;&gt; I\'ve even found myself questioning the value of traditional nationalism before. Has anyone else ever had that happen? &lt;&lt;

Interesting you say that. To me it doesn\'t matter much that I am a Dutchman (except when it comes to soccer /ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif ). I feel more like a European or a World Citizen. I guess it has something to do with living in a foreign country, like I do. I realized it is not that important what nationality you have.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Xehupatl]

read an informative and serious article on \"surviving war in iraq\" <a target=\"_blank\" href=http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1365>here</a>

http://www.somethingawful.com/guides/survivingwar/burningbuilding.jpg
\"Feel the freedom warming your face?!\"

[**DONOTDELETE**]

\"I\'ve even found myself questioning the value of traditional nationalism before. Has anyone else ever had that happen?\"

Yes. I feel just part of the human race, which is all of us in every country. The physical world seems so small to me, so finite and so fragile, and the distances and differences not so large between us all, surely not worth killing each other over -- but of course that has to be a shared viewpoint.

Love is but a song we sing
Fear\'s the way we die
You can make the mountains ring
or make the angels cry ...

Remember that song? /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[franki]

On the other hand you say you are a patriotic American. Nothing wrong with that, but how does it fit in this story?

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[belgareth]

Being a patriot does not mean you must support the ill concieved actions of your leader in a democracy. You can support your country, the people fighting for you without supporting the person who insisted on having a war.

[franki]

Yes, but being a patriot is also about being very aware of the nation you belong to. Somehow this nation is very important for you then. That is something different than the concept of a \"World Citizen\".

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[belgareth]

I didn\'t claim to be a world citizen. I am a member of the human race and find killing my fellow man for material gain to be barbaric.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

It is possible for a person to hold conflicting feelings.

[franki]

I wonder why I should be proud to be dutch.

Do I have to be proud of our queen and cheer for her?

Do I have to be proud of the many freedoms in Holland? Well, they are not the only country that gives its people a lot of freedom.

Should I be proud of our industry and our achievements in the world? Well, I didn\'t take part in that.

Should I be proud that my countrymen are good people? Hell no. They collaborated like crazy with the germans in finding and transporting away all the jews in WW2.

Am I proud of my family? Yes, of course. But that has very little to do with my country ...

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[belgareth]

Why do you disclaim credit for the achievements but continue to hold the people at fault for actions commited by their parent s or grandparents?

[franki]

I don\'t hold people at fault.

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[belgareth]

Maybe I misunderstood you. Didn\'t you say something about not being proud of your countrymen because of their actiuons during world war II?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Franki, what other countries have you lived in?

[MadDoctor]

While it\'s possible that he meant the handful of Nazi collaborators who are still alive, I suspect what he meant is that in any country you can find many people who, given the right circumstances, would collaborate with Nazis or their equivalent. He therefore cannot claim that the Dutch have inherent moral superiority over people in other nations.

[EXIT63]

If SARS becomes pandemic, as appears probable, at least a million Americans are likely to die, along with hundreds of millions elsewhere. What fraction of a cent per victim have we spent on that so far? ......

So far? Hasn\'t it only been like a week?

[MadDoctor]

&gt; So far? Hasn\'t it only been like a week?

The PATRIOT Act was passed before most of the legislators even had a chance to read it. War spending was also approved almost as quickly as it could be proposed. It\'s been 13 days since the disease, already identified, was believed to have infected 11 people in the US, and we don\'t even have a bill in the works yet as far as I\'ve heard.
http://www.rense.com/general35/emsy.htm (\"http://www.rense.com/general35/emsy.htm\")

[EXIT63]

Yeah, why do we have to wait for an act of congress? I\'m sure the there are other great bureaucracies like the CDC and the WHO that are working feverishly to save us. And besides. You\'re a doctor. Start healing!!!

As far as reading the bills. It doesn\'t matter which one it is. If you really think that congressmen read the bills they vote for. I\'ve got some swampland in Florida you may be interested in.

[Whitehall]

We\'ve seemed to have completely overlooked \"French Roast\" coffee!

Let\'s find something a bit more descriptive like \"Pre-burnt\" or, better, \"Coffee that leaves a Bitter Taste in One\'s Mouth\"

[upsidedown]

All I can say it wow!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0 (\"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0\"),,5944-631671,00.html

I couldn\'t get the link to post properly on here because of the commas in the address. So, you\'ll have to cut and paste it into your browser.

[Watcher]

I think we the current french bashing roasted french would be a better description.

[franki]

Yes, unfortunately there is quite a bit of \"Schadenfreude\" around here over the allied losses in this war ...

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[franki]

Another thing in France is that there is a very large muslimic population. Politicians in France got to have an Arab-friendly policy when they want to get in parliament or government (with the exception of the Far Right of course).

In the not so far away future there could be more islamic than christian people in France ....

Franki /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[frenchie]

hot subject, Franki... there is no arab friendly policy in France, as there is no black or whoever friendly policy (ask them if a political decision is arab or... friendly ! you\'ll have the answer). But it\'s true we have old historical links with Maghreb countries, just as the germans have links with Turkey, England with India or Pakistan... and the americans with indians. That\'s all. You can\'t choose where you come from...
There could be more islamic than christian people in France, that\'s true too - this is statistics. Islamic people are a lot more active and visible than christians. A huge exaggeration would be to say that France is an islamic country...
But most french people (I have to be honest !) are racists and wouldn\'t want to have a black or arab husband for their daughter...

So I agree with you on some points, but I feel I have to give some precisions...

War is over - if you want it (John Lennon)
Frenchie /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

[Whitehall]

\"But most french people (I have to be honest !) are racists and wouldn\'t want to have a black or arab husband for their daughter... \"

I just heard the British Home Secretary recommend that immigrants to the UK should marry locals to better assimilate.

Frankly, many western countries, the US included, have made a huge mistake in allowing and encouraging mass immigration. The social and political costs of creating large subgroups with little incentive to adopt the host country\'s ways threaten democratic cohesiveness. While my experience with working with and being neighbors with people who have recently come to America has been great on a personal level, on a broader scale we\'ve exceeded our rate of integrative capacity - too many, too fast.

The ones who have benefited have been the rich and the ones have pay the highest price are the indegenious poor. It\'s really cleverly disguised class warfare.

[bivonic]

I didn\'t realize there were so many muslims in France, that might explain the following two links:

<a target=\"_blank\" href=http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003150899,00.html>French smear Brit dead</a>

<a target=\"_blank\" href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-631671,00.html>One in three French backs Sadam</a>