Chemaical weapons found...(perhaps)

Thanks. Very insightful and thought provoking. Like I said, low dose exposure hadn't been studied well. This is "cutting edge" stuff, and I'm sure more will come out.

One word of caution, however, is that epidemiology is very difficult. By that I mean that it is hard to isolate causative agents without effecting other variable. This is not to say that they are wrong, they help narrow the search considerably...but we are in the begining phase, really, of these studies. Initial results will have to be independantly confirmed and actual pathways of identified.

It is a scary picture that is emerging, though. (note the conflicting info in my above post)

Lerkfish, well it looks like the reports of the iraqi's rising up in the streets and the chemical weapons finds are making your position a very shaky one at best. You can talk about how inspections were working, but 12 years of history have proven that wrong as well.


Of course you can blindly hold on to your misguided beliefs for here to eternity, but that doesn't make you right.

Thanks for playing, Don Pardo, tell him what what kind of fabulous parting gifts we have for him,

In Lerk's defense, the inspectors wheren't in for the whole 12 years, and they have had their hands tied behind thier backs while they were in Iraq. Part of the problem (as I saw it, at least) is that both sides were intractable in their positions: Status quo Vs Blow-em up.

I'm just curious: what do you perceive as "my position"? It doesn't appear you have a good handle on it, just your knee-jerk assumption of what it is.

btw, though on the other hand, I DO appreciate your attempt at humor...something sorely needed in the politics forum. Bravo!

We've got Rice-A-Roni! Rice-A-Roni combines rice, vermicelli pasta and the perfect mix of seasonings to create classic side dishes and main dish recipes. With the variety of flavors available, there's bound to be a flavor to please your entire family! Rice-A-Roni ... the San Francisco Treat!

Very good point. The policy of containment was intended to offer security and protect the economic/strategic interests. In that regard it succeeded. Iraq didn't make a peep for 12 years for the most part.

It's only in light of the War on Terror that suddenly Containment seems like such a questionable policy. If we suspect that Iraq might be festering in it's box, but offering aid and support to outside enemies, then we have a problem.

Some interpret 9/11 as some kind of new threat or new conflit. If you believe that, it's easy to see Iraq as central to the problem.

If you think 9/11 was essentially another horrible event in what's been decades of horror and conflict, Iraq doesn't seem the immediate threat some would portray it to be.

Did Containment keep Saddam from attacking anyone? Yep.

Did Containment cause Arab Nationalism to fester even more than we ought to have allowed? Definitely.

I've always said I thought there were lots of options between "status quo" and "blow 'em up". Too late to wonder about it now. At this point I'm hoping we can recognize how Containment failed (in respect to Arab Nationalism) and take the necessary steps after the Ba'ath regime is gone to prevent the same mistake all over again.

Indeed. People will find it more difficult to hate and blow themselves up when they are fattened up on Mcdonolds and watching dubbed episodes of Baywatch on Fox. ...

Except that regime change has been the policy of the United States since before Bush became President. Clinton was ready to do what Bush was doing now in 1998 (and had more justification for doing so). After a great deal of negotiation with Kofi Annan, we ended up with Operation Desert Fox instead, which didn't do much of anything.

LOL, well I suppose there is a silver lining in that dark, miserable cloud of diminishing cultural diversity

I've always said that nobody (or hardly anybody) will miss the Ba'ath regime, but how we handle post-Ba'ath Iraq matters a helluva lot more than simply removing them.

Kind of like Afghanistan. Nobody misses the Taliban (except maybe Pakistan) but post-war Afghanistan isn't exactly what was promised. In fact, you might say that the first 2 years of "liberation" have been quite a failure. It's just easy to ignore Afghanistan so no one talks about it (in fact, they keep putting it in the list of "successes":rolleyes

I don't think Iraq will be ignored. To many countries will be all too eager to point it out if we screw it up. Then again, that doesn't mean that anyone in the US will be listening.

Regime Change might have been a new policy, but the means of achieving it are certainly different.

After all, Perle recommended ousting Saddam and running it ourselves (and quite a few more aggressive ideas) after Gulf War I. That administration was so alarmed at his ideas that they were leaked to the press and Cheney was asked to rewrite it into something less "crazy".

Clinton was stupid to believe anyone (if, indeed anyone actually recommended it) who thought Regime Change could happen militarily without a land invasion.

Some have been advocating Regime Change in Iraq for 30 years. We just didn't think it should be done militarily.

Do you genuinely think that Clinton would have attacked Iraq entirely by air had he gotten his way back in 1998?

Bill Clinton may have been hesitant to send in ground troops, but removing Saddam Hussein from power militarily would certainly have taken more than airstrikes. I'm sure Clinton knew this.

Which is why I'm skeptical that Clinton ever really bought into the idea of regime change through military means. I mean, if they did counsel him to use the military to oust Saddam, they certainly did a poor job of briefing him on what it would take

Rather, I suspect that Clinton thought he could bully Saddam back to the negotiating table with a quick and painless airstrike. Or perhaps they had reason to believe they could decapitate the regime.

Wolfowitz wrote that document didn't he? Certain Perle and Rumsfeld were contributors....

Wolfowitz wrote the original draft. Cheney helped with the final version.

Not that it matters. Regime change was not an official policy of the United States until well into the Clinton Administration.

Just incase I missed this being posted.

false alarm

[Edit: Still doesn't explain the missiles?]

Yes, sorry. It was Wolfowitz. Brain cramp

Thanks for the correction. You too, BasketofPuppies

Thanks for the link.

Thanks...As I posted above (probably got lot in the chemical biology lesson), many pesticides have the same basic structure (and same basic mode of action) as these nerve gases. It is not suprising that the first level tests, which are either antibody or reactivity tests, would mis-identify them.

It does not, however, say anything about the missiles. This is still not corraborated, and the officials are being pretty tight-lipped. curious.

Actually the report you just linked to has not been confirmed either. Rumsfield said that the AFP report was too early to be sure of anything.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83449,00.html

The exact quote is as follows.

"Agence France-Presse reported that the substances had turned out to be pesticides, but Rumsfeld said it could take several_days to get a positive identification of the chemicals."

For the record, the AGP is just as biased as some claim Fox news is.

[drool]maybe the allies haven't corroborated the missile story cause they're planning to use them on a bunch of Iraqi wimmin and chiddren.[/drool]

Where's my sign that sez "No War for Oil"? I'm going to protest! Or maybe I'll go bowling. Tough choice.