Our Allies... the Germans

[Sandman]

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

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

[Ned]

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

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

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

[Sandman]

I consider the risk neglible.

[SpencerH]

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

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

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

[Dr Strangelove]

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

[Sandman]

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

[Leonidas]

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

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

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

Ned:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MichaeltheGreat]

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

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

How do you do that?

You play shell games.

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

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

Rinse and repeat.

Public anti-war sentiment grows, and Saddam wins.

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

-=Vel=-

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

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

[oedo]

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

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

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

I wonder why this all didn´t happen.

[DuncanK]

MtG,

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

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by oedo


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

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

I wonder why this all didn´t happen.

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

[oedo]

Originally posted by DuncanK


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

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

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DuncanK
MtG,

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

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

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

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

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

[Lancer]

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

[DuncanK]

MtG,

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

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