Quick Quiz

Meh · 23-04-2003 10:53am

Originally posted by Sparks
http://www.cadu.org.uk/resources/index.htm

That's not scientific evidence, it's just a list of pamphlets.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/policy/cur_du.htm

Based on our own estimates of intakes of DU, we have
drawn the following conclusions:
a Except in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield
conditions are likely to be undetectable above the
general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime. This remains true even if our estimates of risk resulting from likely exposures are one hundred times too low.
b The extreme circumstances will apply only to a very small fraction of the soldiers in a theatre of war, for example those who survive in a vehicle struck by a DU penetrator, or those involved in cleaning up struck vehicles. In such circumstances, and assuming the most unfavourable conditions, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer could be about twice that in the general population.

You know you're in trouble when even your own source backs me up. This study presents no evidence whatsoever that DU is a significant environmental health problem. The most it says is that, under some extreme circumstances, more investigation is needed into its effects.

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/mettoc.htm
http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/regpapers/no78choose.html

Where's the science? Where are the statistics? All I see is unfounded assertions by people attached to various lobby groups, most of whom aren't even doctors.

BTW, remember that some 11 tons of DU was used in Kosovo, as opposed to 340 tonnes in Iraq - so the end results will be more pronounced in Iraq. Still, that's not stopping a lot of nato soldiers demanding to be transferred from the Balkans due to the high number of lukemia cases turning up...

Nonsense. Read the UN paper I quoted above:

On the basis of available information, it is concluded that exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that would be received. Moreover, in view of the fact that committed doses from incorporated DU build up over a lifetime and in view of the minimum latency period of cancer induction, such effects could not occur during the first few years after incorporation as a result of radiological exposure. This conclusion applies in particular to leukaemia: while the latency period for leukaemia is shorter than for solid cancers, uranium accumulates very little in blood forming organs such as bone marrow.

Originally posted by Eomer of Rohan:
And what Meh doesn't seem to notice, or is unwilling to notice is that several nations in Europe deploy DU weapons - not least France Germany and the UK.

And I suppose the WHO deploys DU weapons as well, does it? I suppose attacking the source is the only way open to you, given that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly contradicts your position.

Hobart · 23-04-2003 10:58am

Originally posted by bonkey
Hobart...

You want to bring up the rules...then fine.....lets not discuss a single additional point, until either spandauballet admits that these are not facts and just unsupported information he chooses to believe, or until someone provides linkage to back up the original claims in the first place.

But no....thats not a problem. Its okay for spandau to have presented this stuff without linkage, but as soon as someone wants to disagree with the same unsupported claims in the same manner, you want to trot the charter as a reason why they're wrong to do so?

So, I'll take your stance.

The originally posted article is nothing but unsupported personal opinion, presented as fact.

Spandau has repeatedly defended this article as being true and factual...but offered no relevant linkage. It has been shown that biological agents have been used, but no-one has presented any evidence that such usage constitutes the classification "Weapon of Mass Destruction".

The original article, therefore, is in violation of the charter of this board, and not worth discussing further until either re-presented as unsupported opinion, or with sufficient linkage to establish the credibility of each and every point.

If and when someone establishes linkage that these claims have validity, I will more than willing to come back and discuss them then.

In the meantime, I'll just discard them as charter-violating opinion-masquerading-as-fact rubbish, shall I?

Good idea.

jc

First of all I have already given my views on what the original post is. And in some ways I agree with you. I feel it is a bit late in the day for you to be raising the 'charter rules' when the original thread was started 8 days ago. In fact I would say that it is quite convienient for you to raise this issue at this point.

As a moderator of this board you, or another mod, should have raised this issue earlier than this, if it was percieved to be a problem.

And again as usual the thread has taken many directions with the original article being somewhat of an after-thought at this stage. If you wish to address Spandauballet directly to re-edit his post I suggest you PM himor edit the thread yourself to reflect what it should be, as per the charter.

To get back to my previous point I would suggest that you stop ducking the issue and either provide some backup or else publish your 'facts' on WMD as your own opinion. In my last 3 posts I have asked you a direct question. On each subsequent reply you have tried, among other things,to ridicule my replies and to call them irrelevent.

Now as a moderator you can deal with the original post/poster what ever way you see fit. But again I will ask you in relation to my specific questions. Show me your backup as per the charter rules, stop ducking the issue, stop filiblustering and answer the question(s) as I have answered yours and others.

Pompey Magnus · 23-04-2003 11:51am

enjoy bonkey....

1. US creating Osama

2. Nothing objectionable

3. ABM treaty

4. Biological Weapons Convention

5. Kyoto treaty

6. Worlds biggest polluter

7. Small arms Convention

8. Arms Exporter

9. Beirut (not great on this topic but
interesting none the less!)

9 & 10. Bombings(arond the middle somewhere)

11.Childrens rights

12. Child executions

13. Land Mine Treaty

14.Test Ban Treaty

15. Unlawful use of Force

16.International Criminal Court

17.America & war criminals

18.US- Israel aid

20. US- Israel anti terrorism

21.Genocide convention

22.Guatamalan genocide

23.Was the price worth it?

24.Twenty nations bombed by US

I'll exclude the last contentious issue on the biological weapons so as to not upset anyone!!! Excuse any inaccuracies as this took me quite a while and some of them are long so you might have to dig a bit!.

bonkey · 23-04-2003 12:47pm

Originally posted by Hobart
I feel it is a bit late in the day for you to be raising the 'charter rules' when the original thread was started 8 days ago. In fact I would say that it is quite convienient for you to raise this issue at this point.

I didnt raise the issue of the charter at this point - you did.

I have challenged the "biological WMD" assertion from my first post, repeatedly asking that someone show WMD usage. I pointed out that "in my book" was not a sufficient answer. You were the one who brought up "but the charter says...." and who has dragged us off on this side issue. Apparently, though, you doing so is my fault, and its convenient for me. OK - fine. I accept that. Youre right. Its my fault you brought it up. Lets move on.

As a moderator of this board you, or another mod, should have raised this issue earlier than this, if it was percieved to be a problem.

Thank you for telling me how to moderate this board, but I already know my job.

Part of it is reacting to reported posts. There have been a grand total of 0 on this thread, so as a moderator, I must assume that the readers/posters are happy enough with the path being taken, so its at my (and the other mods) discretion as to whether or not to make a formal issue of it.

Given that nothing seems to be grossly out of hand and there are no formal complaints I think that falling back on the letter of the law would be a bit precipituous.

It is for that reason that I havent actually stepped in to this discussion as a moderator. I have not instructed anyone to modify content, nor modified it on them myself. I have responded only as a poster - as an ordinary user.

It is also that - as a poster - I refrained from bringing up the whole "rulebook" issues....until you decided it was necessary to bring it up.

To get back to my previous point I would suggest that you stop ducking the issue and either provide some backup or else publish your 'facts' on WMD as your own opinion. In my last 3 posts I have asked you a direct question. On each subsequent reply you have tried, among other things,to ridicule my replies and to call them irrelevent.

They are irrelevant to the discussion at hand - well the one which was at hand until you dragged me off onto this "rules discussion".

Watch....

Assume that I badly worded my original post which has caused you all this aggro, and that I was offering opinion that I did not clarify as such.

OK? No reference. There's your answer - it was badly presented personal opinion. (Who cares if thats true....its the most damaging answer which we can apply to my position, and I'll happily accept it for that reason.)

In fact, lets go one step further. Lets say I made it up completely. Its fiction.

Now....how is this in any way relevant to whether or not the US is or is not a rogue state, or whether or not it has or has not used biological weapons of mass destruction - the two major points I was discussing? Its not.

Is it any less credible a definition than the "in my book", "is beyond me", "how could it not be" and so on that you and others have been offering? No - its about the exact same.

I questioned the unsupported assertion that the US have used biological WMDs. I have asked for examples of when they have done this. I have been doing this since my second post.

So far, we have had several possibilities suggested. In not one case has anyone shown that these are WMDs - only that they are biological in nature. We've even had one major case which occurred before the creation of the US as a nation as an example of that nation's WMD usage.

However, no-one has shown in any case presented that it is a WMD attack, in anything more credible than "my book", or "how could it not be".

So to quote your good self :Show me your backup as per the charter rules, stop ducking the issue, stop filiblustering and answer the question(s)

When has the United States ever used biological Weapons of Mass Destruction.

(Interestingly....I notice that the only item I raised as being potentially false is now the only one that spandau is choosing not to supply informational links for)

jc

Hobart · 23-04-2003 2:50pm

Well if nothing else you have made me laugh Bonkey. Fair play to you. Again you have tried and tried to turn this back on me. As far back as Saturday you come up with your definition of a WMD. I am simply asking you to back it up. You seem to be unwilling and/or unable to do this. So, as you have said above, it was a personal opinion. OK then. You made it up. You have no reference. I would not agree with you that it was badly worded. In fact, it looked quite good, in my book. So I will assume that your previous definition of a WMD was made up and that we do not know at this juncture what a WMD actually is defined as. OK then.

Now then......

On the moderating side. First of all I was not trying to tell you how to moderate rthis board. I was merely pointing out the fact that it was a bit late and convienient of you to raise a point about another poster when our discussion was relitively seperate from what he had said. Having said that he clarified and backed-up with relevant links. The only reason I brought up the charter in the first place, just in case you did not already know, was your complete refusal to answer a direct question. Simple as that. And don't think for a minute that it was anything else.

Again you raised the point about the original post not me.

Now....how is this in any way relevant to whether or not the US is or is not a rogue state, or whether or not it has or has not used biological weapons of mass destruction - the two major points I was discussing? Its not.

Because it allows you to dismiss any points or references made about biological weapons based on a devfinition of a WMD which you, youself, have made up. That's how. And that is why it needed clarification. These is a very thin line between fact and making something appear to be fact and that is why it was and is importatnt to establish that your WMD definition is exactly that. Your perception of what a WMD is and not what is defined by some external authority such as the UN/Nato etc.... Now do you get the reason why?

I am not going to re-hash my previous references to Bio weapons and WMD. If you want to have a look at them and answer them go ahead. If not do what you have been doing and ignore them. Ok.

bonkey · 23-04-2003 3:45pm

Originally posted by Hobart
As far back as Saturday you come up with your definition of a WMD.

And as far as last Thursday I have been asking for evidence of usage of a biological WMD. Not one link has shown that any argued case can be classified as "WMD".

So I will assume that your previous definition of a WMD was made up and that we do not know at this juncture what a WMD actually is defined as. OK then.

OK - so you agree that nothing you have presented can be construed as use of a WMD because you have not defined what a WMD is.

We're making progress here.

Would you subsequently agree that such a definition is therefore central to the truth or otherwise of any claim that the US has used BWMDs?

Thus, does it not follow that prior to making any allegation that the US has used BWMDs, the definition of that term should be established?

it allows you to dismiss any points or references made about biological weapons based on a devfinition of a WMD which you, youself, have made up.

I mainly dismiss the points and references because the people making them have either made up their own definitions of WMDs, or simply not bothered to clarify what a WMD is.

I have been questioning that point and asking for clarification since my first post on this subject, and every single time I have pointed out that such a definition is missing, I have been given "how can it not be", "good enough in my book" and other such platitudes.

These is a very thin line between fact and making something appear to be fact and that is why it was and is importatnt to establish that your WMD definition is exactly that. Your perception of what a WMD is and not what is defined by some external authority such as the UN/Nato etc.... Now do you get the reason why?

Look - I take your point that I should have clarified it as personal opinion, but do you not see that it is completely seperate to the issue at hand.

Regardless of where my definition of WMD comes from, the people either making or defending the allegations that the US have used BWMDs have failed to show that their cases in point are classifiable as WMDs.

Barring one post, where I offered my understanding of a WMD, I have been consistently asking "is this classifiable as WMD". Not one reference has supported a single answer offered.

When asked to do so, you can supply linkage to prove "The United States" (ignoring the blankets thing, cause it was pre US)
When asked to do so, you can supply linkage to prove "biological".
When asked to do so, you can supply linkage to show its harmful.
When asked to prove WMD...you accuse me of ignoring your points, filibustering, and the like, and bring up the fact that I haven't supplied linkage to disprove the allegation.

Uh-huh. Guess the US is guilty till proven innocent then.

jc

Hobart · 23-04-2003 4:17pm

Legal definition of a WMD as per Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2332

(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title; (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
(C) any weapon involving a disease organism; or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life

Here is the section referenced above. FYI notice the point (C) any weapon involving a disease organism. Don't see any mention of scale of anything in relation to "It has to have a devestating effect on the scale of a nucleur attack" there. But I may be missing it.

Pompey Magnus · 23-04-2003 4:18pm

This is beginning to annoy me now!!!.....
"The Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch of the United Nations defines weapons of mass destruction as "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." here

this implies to me that these weapons being nuclear, chemical or biological in nature will cause "mass destruction"

"a generic term for radionuclides, biological and chemical agents or materials, and their delivery means produced or used for non-peaceful purposes and whose effects can cause large numbers of casualties and/or large-scale material damage." here

now the swine fever that america infected Cubas pigs with here was biological and it was a weapon, which is defined as:
a)An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
b)A means used to defend against or defeat another.
there is no restrictions on a weapon necessarily being used against humans. In this case it was against lifestock to cause "large-scale material damage", forcing the entire pig population in Cuba to be killed.

Now, where is the difficulty? and anyway you are concentrating on this one point too much. even if technically the weapons that the US used aren't defined as WMD does that make everything alright?

Pompey Magnus · 23-04-2003 4:46pm

lets not get stuck up on semantics here, the point being put across is that America isn't the holier than thou nation it puts itself across as, the upholder of all that is good and right and without it the world would crumple into anarchy. America has done alot of good for the world but its current role as global policeman is not helping, deciding unilateraly what is right and what is wrong,undermining what little power the UN had, forcing democracy into nations down a barrel of a gun or under the threat of sanctions. a new approach is needed as there is now a serious problem in the middle east thanks in no small part to the american interventions. the fact that half a million iraqi children dying under US sanctions was found worthwhile by their administration is disgusting and the attitude they hold that the middle east hates them because of the freedom enjoyed by americans is preposterous.

out of interest bonkey, are you happy with the current position of the US as a global judge, jury and executioner?

Trebor · 23-04-2003 5:50pm

a bit off topic but the best thing would be for the UN to use this time to try to get rid of the veto systems as it is that which causes the most damage to UN power

Victor · 23-04-2003 5:56pm

Originally posted by Trebor
a bit off topic but the best thing would be for the UN to use this time to try to get rid of the veto systems as it is that which causes the most damage to UN power

Yes and no, a large part of the reason the USA has been involved in the UN is because it had a veto. No veto and why should they bother? is their attitude.

Meh · 23-04-2003 6:03pm

Originally posted by spandauballet
the fact that half a million iraqi children dying under US sanctions

Weren't those sanctions imposed by the UN rather than the US?

vorbis · 23-04-2003 11:25pm

spandaubullet you call a bunch of opinions from leftist anti war supporters fact. Dear god, this is bordering on the absurd. As for wmd, weapons of mass destruction. The closest any contributer has got to this is alleged poisoning of Cuban pigs. Doesn't it feel like scratching the barrel?

Trebor · 24-04-2003 9:07am

Originally posted by Victor
Yes and no, a large part of the reason the USA has been involved in the UN is because it had a veto. No veto and why should they bother? is their attitude.

i suppose, but it would be fun to see the rest of the world try to put sanctions on the USA and see what happens

if no one sells them any oil i'm sure they may be more cooperative........ nah they would just invade some one

Pompey Magnus · 24-04-2003 1:48pm

Originally posted by vorbis
spandaubullet you call a bunch of opinions from leftist anti war supporters fact. Dear god, this is bordering on the absurd. As for wmd, weapons of mass destruction. The closest any contributer has got to this is alleged poisoning of Cuban pigs. Doesn't it feel like scratching the barrel?

:mad: what are you saying? is it that just because "Sir" Tony O' Reilly or Rupert Murdock choses not to tell you something, it makes it untrue? just because you mightn't like the source gives you absolutely no right to act as if that their argument is false. Now if you have evidence to back up your claim of absurdity then lets see it or maybe it just blind faith that good ol' Uncle Sam has no hidden skeletons in the closet.
As for the wmd, I'm sure you recognise that its only the final third of the catagory,biological weapons, that there is any conflict on. If the US never used biological weapons it still doesn't wipe the slate clean as they already used both the nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction, killing innocent civilians. I notice you continue again with the pattern of the critisisers of the original post that you pick on what is the most contentious point raised and used your unsatisfaction of the evidence provided to make out the entire post as wrong. The fact is that even mainstream journalists accept that the US has used all three catagories of WMD, including war correspondent John Pilger here. Now evidently you find those with questioning views untrustworthy, Pilger is a journalist who has written for The Gaurdian, The Independent, The New York Times, The Los Angelese Times, The New Statesman, New York among many others,his awards include:
1966 Descriptive Writer of the Year
1967 Reporter of the Year
1967 Journalist of the Year
1970 International Reporter of the Year
1974 News Reporter of the Year
1977 Campaigning Journalist of the Year
1979 Journalist of the Year
1979-80 UN Media Peace Prize, Australia
1980-81 UN Media Peace Prize, Gold Medal, Australia
1979 TV Times Readers' Award
1990 The George Foster Peabody Award, USA
1991 American Television Academy Award ('Emmy')
1991 British Academy of Film and Television Arts - The Richard Dimbleby Award
1990 Reporters San Frontiers Award, France
1995 International de Television Geneve Award

Now maybe with credentials like this there may be the tiniest sliver of doubt emerging in your mind as to the accuracy of YOUR argument. Also I got the initial post raising the points from Robert Fisks website, now he has won the British International Journalist of the Year award seven times and i don't believe he would publicise points like the WMD issue unless he believed the authenticity of it.
Now these are two of the few journalists that I really respect as they are willing to tell the whole story and not the sanitised version that all too many others feed us and aren't afraid to question. it is my belief that the sooner people in general stop giving our politicians such an easy ride. I agree with the opinion think that the greatest form of patriotism is not in blindly backing your government (party allegiences included) but in questioning its decisions.

Éomer of Rohan · 24-04-2003 6:10pm

Weren't those sanctions imposed by the UN rather than the US?

Yes, sanctions were imposed by the UN. Sanctions remained imposed because of the US operating their veto within the security council on the occasions where China and Russia suggested that they were removed or at least severely curtailed on a humanitarian basis.

bonkey · 24-04-2003 6:23pm

Originally posted by spandauballet
The fact is that even mainstream journalists accept that the US has used all three catagories of WMD, including war correspondent John Pilger here.

Yup. Mr. Pilger also managed to refer to smallpox being used against native americans by the United States - something I thought we had fairly conclusively established (from references supplied by those favouring the claim) that occurred before the inception of the United States as a nation.

Witness also his description of DU shells - not only is it hopelessly poorly worded in terms of describing the actual munitions (although that could be a deliberate "dumbing down" for the reader), but he presents exactly one side of the story....that it is "potentially as deadly as Agent Orange". No mention that there has never been incontestable proof about its dangers, nor about the fact that most scientists admit further research is needed.

Now evidently you find those with questioning views untrustworthy,

Pilger isnt questioning anything in that article. He is stating exactly one side of an argument....his side. Its an opinion piece - not balanced reporting - and as such should be considered as nothing more.

it is my belief that the sooner people in general stop giving our politicians such an easy ride.

Agreed, and if you want to get the tabloid lovers on your side, the article you posted originally is a good start. They love a good billious read.

On the other hand, if you want to actually convince people rather than just stir up emotions, you generally need opinions voiced more eloquently (like Pilger - to give the man his credit, he is a superb writer), as well as reporting which offers both sides of the story rather than only one - reporting which looks at the why instead of just reporting that "it happened". Its all about the context.

For example....look at the Rights of the CHild point. Correct - the US has only signed and not ratified this for reasons I've already explained. Reasons which are omitted from the article. Is that balanced?

Lets go one step further. What about the Optional Protocols for the Convention for Rights of the Child - CRC-OP-AC and CRC-OP-SC. These would respectively be the one pertaining to the involvement of children in armed conflict, and the one pertaining to the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography.

Here, we see numerous nations have not yet signed, and indeed of those who have, many/most have not ratified it since signing.....including Ireland who signed it over 2.5 years ago (although the figures I have are from Dec 02, so it may now be ratified)

(Information here : http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf

Now, you tell me which is worse...a nation who does not ratify a treaty when it cannot constitutionally do so, or a nation who hasnt even signed the optional rights which concern war and the sex trade....nations like Hungary, Egypt, half of Africa and a goodly chunk of Asia.

Even more telling is that nations such as the Lebanon signed only one of the two Optional Protocols, which means that they must have some objection to signing or ratifying rights of children in armed conflict.

Indeed, if you go further, and examine the "reservations" from nations upon signing or ratification, we see that various nations have imposed conditions on their acceptance. For example, Algeria stated that a childs education is dependant on the religion of the father - which means that if the father's religion says the child does not require education, it is no longer mandatory.

Now, compare the actual rights enshrined in law in teh various nations and see how the signature compares to the reality.

When you've done all that, come back and tell me whether or not the US not ratifying it is really that damning.

Am I harping on about "just one point" again? Yes and no.

I am trying to show how "just one point" is not a cut and dried issue. There are plenty of others. There are also some which are perfectly cut and dried, and where there is little to defend the US' position (such as its decision not to sign the Kyoto accords). However, unless we look at each point on its own, and determine the reality behind the accusation, all we can say is that - as a whole - its a mixed bag of valid and irrelevant criticism.

The original piece is not balanced. It cherry-picks its points, obscuring the reality where necessary to add impact, and neglects context and background entirely.

The Pilger article you just referenced is also not balanced, but at least focusses on a single issue and presents a more thorough argument - albeit a completely one-sided one. As I said...its a good opinion piece, but its not "reporting".

So, getting back to your basic reason for posting the article (I think).....

Yes, people should stop giving politicians an easy time. The first thing they should do in order to do this is educate themselves properly about the issues. You cannot do this with a bullet-list of condemnations which doesnt even offer a nod in the direction of objectivity.

jc

Éomer of Rohan · 24-04-2003 6:43pm

but he presents exactly one side of the story....that it is "potentially as deadly as Agent Orange". No mention that there has never been incontestable proof about its dangers,

No scientist has ever come up with incontrovertible proof that Global Warming is a result of CO2, CO, SO2 emissions and so forth but that hasn't stopped most nations in the world from signing and ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

Pompey Magnus · 24-04-2003 8:17pm

Originally posted by bonkey
Yup. Mr. Pilger also managed to refer to smallpox being used against native americans by the United States - something I thought we had fairly conclusively established (from references supplied by those favouring the claim) that occurred before the inception of the United States as a nation.

Witness also his description of DU shells - not only is it hopelessly poorly worded in terms of describing the actual munitions (although that could be a deliberate "dumbing down" for the reader), but he presents exactly one side of the story....that it is "potentially as deadly as Agent Orange". No mention that there has never been incontestable proof about its dangers, nor about the fact that most scientists admit further research is needed.

It pains me to have to keep returning to this but I'll try and clear it up...
In the 1820s ( please note the year, 1820s) Cherokees were given blankets infested with small pox bacteria when they were evicted from Georgia in the infamous Trail of Tears march to the Oklahoma territory. Cholera-infected blankets were distributed to native Americans in the 1860s. In 1900 American Army doctors in the Philippines, two years after the islands were seized by the United States, infected five prisoners with plague and 29 prisoners with beriberi. At least four of the subjects died. In 1915 an American doctor exposed 12 prisoners in Mississippi to pellagra..here

No doubt you will go off on the usual tangent of so what, ages ago etc etc? in 1980, yes 1980 (recent enough for ya?) hundreds of Haitian men who had been locked up in detention camps in Miami and Puerto Rico developed gynecomasia after receiving "hormone" shots from US doctors. Gynecomasia is a condition causing males to develop full-sized female breasts*. .here Is there, now heaven forbid I don't wan't you jumping to any conclusions, can't be having that sort of tabloidesque activity, but is there by any stretch of the imagination even the tiniest pin prick of suspicion raised in HUNDREDS of men under the protection of the United States govenment developing breasts after recieving "hormones" from US doctors. now would be wrong of me to suggest, just suggest, that there could be a bit of biological weaponry being used.
Now the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 meaning the United States was in existance at the time. the only thing I can think of that must have confused you bonkey into thinking that we had somehow cleared this up was that they were at it before the foundation of the state (how that makes it all right is beyond me but anyway....).
now the Depleted Uranium issue, Depleted Uranium has been classified by the United Nations as a weapon of mass destruction, despite the best efforts of US/UK.here
why would they be classified as weapons of mass destruction if they were as harmless as you imply?

Bonkey could you just clarify something that is confusing me, is it in your opinion that:

a)Yes, the US is doing or has done the above (or most of) but so are numerous others and all should be let away with it, the "well if he can do it, then so can I" point of view.

b)Yes, the US is doing or has done the above (or most of) but so are numerous other nations and ALL should be held accountable, including the US.

c)No, America is innocent of ALL (or most of) charges put to it and I have been spreading Anti-American propoganda throughout this thread.

I really don't get where you are coming from and it might help.

[* Lets have none of the "those lucky guys,I'd love to have breasts" statements]

bonkey · 24-04-2003 8:19pm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
No scientist has ever come up with incontrovertible proof that Global Warming is a result of CO2, CO, SO2 emissions and so forth but that hasn't stopped most nations in the world from signing and ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

Yes and no...

Science has proven that CO2 etc do cause global warming to the extent that science can prove anything in the physical world.

Where the issues come in are :

1) What other factors are in effect (land & water effects, earths rotational and wobble effects, weather patterns, solar activity, yadda yadda yadda)

2) How big an effect the relatively small changes caused by man will actually have, especially when taking point 1 into consideration.

This second issue was a driving argument behind the rationale the US used when refusing to join Kyoto. IIRC, it was discussed quite well in SciAm at the time.

It wasnt so much that global warming wasnt occurring, but rather that no-one could agree on how big a risk it was - whether we were looking at "2 degrees over 200 years", or "5 degrees in 50" sort of thing.

The US argument (IIRC) was not that global warming isnt occurring, but that mans contribution cannot be readily quantified in terms of effect, nor can scientists actually offer any coherent picture of how bad it will be.

Therefore, the US argued, the science is shaky and we shouldnt accept any of it. Of course, thats complete horsemanure, and they knew it. The science itself is perfectly solid. What is shaky is the degrees of certainty and timescales, which are ultimately caused by reliance on incomplete (incompletable?) models of what is happenning. We know that global warming is occurring, and we know man is contributing to it. We just arent entirely sure of the nitty-gritty specifics.

IIRC, they also queried the impact that the Kyoto proposals would have. As they rightly pointed out - if we took the worse-case projections, Kyoto will make SFA difference. If we take the projections where Kyoto will make a serious difference, then we are already dealing with situations where things arent as cut and dried in terms of whether or not there will be catastrophic effects in the near future.

What the US neglected to mention was that no-one was actually suggesting that implementing the Kyoto Accords was the solution. They were proposing it as the first step along a path which we must follow....and which we need to follow.

The US line was effectively "disaster may not actually be imminent, so we dont need to actually do anything until its clear that disaster is imminent."

No denial that disaster is coming...just about how imminent it is.

The same is not necessarily true about DU. At this point, there is no question about whether or not radiation exposure is dangerous....but there are significant questions about whether or not the exposure caused by use of DU shells really poses a threat. At the moment the most common answer is "we need more data over a longer term".

Is that good enough? Should we look to have the weapons banned on a possibility?

Hard to say. I'd be inclined to say "yes", but I would accept someone saying "no, but we will be more responsible about its use pending further research". Id also like to see any revised figures for the estimated impact on war that not using such shells would have, but I dont think anyone has ever bothered with that.

jc

vorbis · 25-04-2003 12:51am

spandaubullet half the links you post paint the US as the great Satan and contain every conspiracy theory over the last 50 years.
I find it hard to consider that as reliable sources.

Victor · 26-04-2003 8:59pm

Originally posted by bonkey
The US argument (IIRC) was not that global warming isnt occurring, but that mans contribution cannot be readily quantified in terms of effect, nor can scientists actually offer any coherent picture of how bad it will be.

I thought their main argument against ratifying was that China (and India?) wasn't taking part and that Kyoto would affect American competitiveness vis-a-vis China (even it would still take China decades to catch up).

bonkey · 27-04-2003 1:32pm

Originally posted by Victor
I thought their main argument against ratifying was that China (and India?) wasn't taking part and that Kyoto would affect American competitiveness vis-a-vis China (even it would still take China decades to catch up).

Well, it was sort of a two-fold thing I guess.

They did take the line that they couldnt afford to make these sweeping changes as it would destroy their competitiveness (as you said) and basically cost too much - driving too many products out of the consumer's price-range and so on and so forth.

They justified the making of this decision because the experts couldnt agree that there was a crisis - or rather on the specifics of what the crisis/problem is.

If there was a crisis, obviously cost and competitiveness wouldnt matter as much - things would have to be done because they needed to be done. But seeing as no-one can agree, Dubya decided that this somehow meant Kyoto wasnt really that urgent.

jc

Éomer of Rohan · 27-04-2003 1:54pm

driving too many products out of the consumer's price-range and so on and so forth.

Here is the greatest example of the free-market is not free. America's OWN brands and business would have been unable to compete with the foreign brands who have had years of experiences under harsh(er) environmental guidelines, so what does the US do? Overturns an evironmental treaty because she herself will then be the victim of what she has done to countless third world nations; ie made their homegrwon industries uncompetitive through 'structural adjustment' and other neo liberal reforms.

Quick Quiz

Comments