21-05-2004 09:13									#61
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich WMD = NBC. NBC = WMD.

Try again. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to put chemical and biological weapons in the same class as nuclear weapons.

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich The terms mean the same thing. I couldn't care less about your opinion of the terminology.

They don't, unless you are into political doublespeak.

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich What does justice have to do with sensible foreign policy?

Without justice, your foreign policy will not be sensible. Say, Iraq?

	21-05-2004 09:15									#62
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Try again. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to put chemical and biological weapons in the same class as nuclear weapons.

Except that they are, in fact, in the same class as nucelar weapons?

quote: They don't, unless you are into political doublespeak.

How is it political "doublespeak"? The terms have never been used to mean anything other than each other.

quote: Without justice, your foreign policy will not be sensible.

Where'd you get that idea?

	21-05-2004 09:32									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Yes, hypothetically. The Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway by members of AUM Shinrikyo in 1995 shows that it's a lot more difficult in real life.

Difficult, yes. But they also didn't utilize it as well as they could have:

quote: How deadly was the sarin used in Aum Shinrikyo’s 1995 attack? Not very. Just prior to the attack, Aum hurriedly produced a low-lethality batch of sarin. Moreover, the sarin was disseminated poorly; the perpetrators left punctured packages of liquid sarin in subway cars and stations, which gave officials time to seal off the affected areas. If purer sarin had been released, particularly as an aerosol, the attack might have been much worse.

http://cfrterrorism.org/weapons/sarin.html

	21-05-2004 09:58									#64
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark As of now Tel Aviv does not have a metro (funding still under dispute?) The "carmelit" in Haifa is not that heavily used, IIUC, and in any case its few stations are I assume watched most carefully by Israeli security. I would rate a chemical attack by AQ on Israel as one of the less likely prospects in the WOT.

Presumably, AQ would operate the same way they were trying to do so in Amman (which AFAIU, didn't involve any subway, if there is any there), though I'm, not completely clear of their plan - has it even been released what type of chemical was to be used in that attack?

	21-05-2004 10:22									#65
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Huh? Where are they making those? I find it difficult to imagine Israel forming secret alliances with neighboring countries...

You'll never understand until it's too late.

	21-05-2004 10:44									#66
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich quote: They don't, unless you are into political doublespeak. How is it political "doublespeak"? The terms have never been used to mean anything other than each other.

Again, it is not. There is no basis for chemical and biological weapons to be put in the same class as nuclear weapons, a point you have yet to address.

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Where'd you get that idea?

What, did I not point Iraq out to you?

	21-05-2004 10:48									#67
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Edan Difficult, yes. But they also didn't utilize it as well as they could have:

Certainly. The fact that even a terrorist group as well funded as the Aum Shinrikyo, which had good research and production facilities, could not pull of such an attack successfully indicates the difficulties involved.

	21-05-2004 10:55									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Whoha The capitals aren't the oil wells.

*Cough*

quote: al fukaida better rethinks before they act , .... the whole arab world might be nuked to hell , .....

quote: Yea, I hope they do nuke the Arabs off of the map.

"Capitals" hadn't been mentioned yet at this point of the thread. Next time, try reading what I'm responding too.

	21-05-2004 10:59									#69
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Again, it is not. There is no basis for chemical and biological weapons to be put in the same class as nuclear weapons, a point you have yet to address.

I don't care - the fact is, they ARE in the same class. They always have been. It really doesn't matter, when it comes to what Israel's response will be, if they actually "shouldn't" be in the same category.

quote: What, did I not point Iraq out to you?

Yes, but I don't see how it illustrates justice being some necessary component of sensible foreign policy.

	21-05-2004 11:00									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Pax Africanus You'll never understand until it's too late.

Ah, you've convinced me now.

Do you even understand the causes of WWI? Let me tell you, the situation in the Mideast isn't comparable at all. It's a completely random connection.

	21-05-2004 11:17									#71
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I support a pre-emptive strike against the middle east.

We know eventually they will nuke the U.S. and Israel.

I say we get a jump on them and nuke every single city in the middle east.

	21-05-2004 17:35									#72
	Increase Your PM Length

si vis pacem, para bellum

"Casualties:

Nation Non fatal Injuries Deaths Totals
British Empire 180597 8109 188706
France 182000 8000 190000
United States 71345 1462 72807
Italy 55373 4627 60000
Russia 419340 56000 475340
Germany 191000 9000 200000
Austria-Hungary 97000 3000 100000
Others 9000 1000 10000
Total: 1205655 91198 1296853"

Hum, that's not very clear, here's an adress:

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesww1gas.htm

Total of 91198 dead. And "Apart from the American figures, these figures are only approximate, and do in many cases differ from the official published figures witch, since they do not include men who died of the gas on the battlefield, tend to be far too low."

Define "mass"....

BTW, would a toxin spread by digestion, ie. with water supply or similar, be effective? (Just narrowing down my possibilities... )

	21-05-2004 17:44									#73
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: A bit of a stretch, isn't it? WMD = NBC. NBC = WMD. It's not even a moral judgement! The terms mean the same thing. I couldn't care less about your opinion of the terminology. You remind me of my little brother - he's a stubborn idiot who says stuff like this. "When I use this word, I actually use it to mean something that no one else in the entire world uses it to mean."

Kudos to UR to keeping up the pressure.

I've made repeated arguments as to why WMD is a misleading, politically motivated grouping. All you can seem to do is semantics.

The term as you use it is contradictory, since "WMD" are not actually WMD; just look at the chequered history of chemical and biological weapons. Firstly, their ability to cause mass destruction is rather limited, and secondly, there are plenty of non-WMD options for causing mass destruction.

I don't care what other people think; my arguments stand up for themselves, since they're based on worldly facts, rather than dictionary definitions.

If there was a category: "persons of exceptional height" that included one giant and two short people, would you call that a sensible definition?

quote: What does justice have to do with sensible foreign policy?

If you are unjust, people will hate you.

	21-05-2004 17:50									#74
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich I don't care - the fact is, they ARE in the same class. They always have been. It really doesn't matter, when it comes to what Israel's response will be, if they actually "shouldn't" be in the same category.

No they haven't. That should be plainly obvious. The term comes from the Cold War-the conventions and legal treaties regulating their uses are not conjoined-one legal framework for BC and a totally different for nukes. And of course, what does that category mean. They are grouped for a reason. The argument being presented here, which is fully valid, is that the political reasons for making such a categorization are faulty.

You seem to be the kind of person who in 1915 would have defended calling someone who was 1/8 black a Negro-why he should be classified as such does not matter-it just IS

quote: Yes, but I don't see how it illustrates justice being some necessary component of sensible foreign policy.

Thinking that nuclear retaliation is sensible for any level of chemical attack is, well, NOT sensible.

	21-05-2004 22:53									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Who at all said Israel would use nukes?


This is a most idiotic arguement ever.

Who would Israel have reason to attack?

Al-Qaeda is a widespread network of not-connected agents.

True, they have been funded by some muslim govts but mostly their money comes from muslim charities and moguls who donate to Islam.

No government really controls them.

It is uncertain whether they even have a central command these days.

So why for the love of god would Israel attack anyone?

	21-05-2004 23:20									#76
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Sandman I've made repeated arguments as to why WMD is a misleading, politically motivated grouping. All you can seem to do is semantics.

The words "liberal" and "conservative" are also misleading and politically motivated. So?

quote: If you are unjust, people will hate you.

They often hate us anyway - a lot because there are differences of opinion on what is just and unjust. For instance, I don't think it just that some guy gets to beat up his wife for not wearing a hijab just because he lives in Iran.

	21-05-2004 23:21									#77
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov Who at all said Israel would use nukes?

panag

	21-05-2004 23:23									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

And you are worrying about something panag said?

	21-05-2004 23:23									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Yup.

	21-05-2004 23:38									#80
	Inflate your Upload Space

Do people here really think the hysteria over nerve gas was started by rightwing or pro-US sources?

Excuuuse me.

Im just too old.


I remember sometime in the late '60s, as a kid, managing to get a glimpse of a 60 minutes segment (imagine a YOUNG Mike Wallace) on nerve gas (my parents apt was so set up i could see the TV from down the hall without them knowing) I had VERY BAD nightmares that evening. Of course 60 minutes and company were not focusing on Iraq, or Libya or whereever - they were raising a fuss about the US nerve gas arsenal.


Of course with the US a party to the chemical weapons treaty, and having spent fortunes destroying old chemical weapons stocks, its not surprising the politics have changed, and those whose ideological predecessesors once trumpeted the horrors of nerve gas now minimize them.

	21-05-2004 23:45									#81
	Remove this text

I'm worried about his words as well.


I can calm you down though, and promise that there is little chance that Israel would respond with nukes to such a threat by Al-Qaeda.

No doubt, they will recieve much more attention by Israeli special forces, in such a case, but nothing else.

	22-05-2004 01:18									#82
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: The words "liberal" and "conservative" are also misleading and politically motivated. So?

Thankfully, people don't use the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' as an excuse to invade countries or a justification for mindbogglingly disproportionate retaliation.

quote: They often hate us anyway - a lot because there are differences of opinion on what is just and unjust. For instance, I don't think it just that some guy gets to beat up his wife for not wearing a hijab just because he lives in Iran.

They'd hate you more. A lot more.

	22-05-2004 02:02									#83
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Do people here really think the hysteria over nerve gas was started by rightwing or pro-US sources? .... Of course with the US a party to the chemical weapons treaty, and having spent fortunes destroying old chemical weapons stocks, its not surprising the politics have changed, and those whose ideological predecessesors once trumpeted the horrors of nerve gas now minimize them.

I really don't get this post. I don;t see Mike Wallace playing down the threats of Nerve Gas. I am, and I can assure you I put together no news reports in the 1960's. Calling Nerve gas a doomsday weapon back then was as innaccurate as it would be calling it a doomsday weapon today.

	22-05-2004 02:09									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Thankfully, people don't use the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' as an excuse to invade countries or a justification for mindbogglingly disproportionate retaliation.

OK, how about "Godless"?

quote: They'd hate you more. A lot more.

If we what? Take away that guy's right to do that?

	22-05-2004 02:09									#85
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap I really don't get this post. I don;t see Mike Wallace playing down the threats of Nerve Gas. I am, and I can assure you I put together no news reports in the 1960's. Calling Nerve gas a doomsday weapon back then was as innaccurate as it would be calling it a doomsday weapon today.

I know of no one on the left (in this context, those who were skeptical of American power) who played them down then. I suppose you would have been the single outstanding individual. Maybe.

Now i know this isnt a substantive argument - others here are making those arguments. Its a response to the notion that the villification of nerve gas is somehow a plot of Americans, neoconservatives, or others to justify intervention in the Arab world, or to villify Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.

	22-05-2004 02:17									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Who was talking about "villifying" chemical weapons? Maybe CharlesBHoff, but honestly, don;t listen to him.

The simple point is that chemical agents are not in any on the same order of magnitude as nuclear weapons.

I would say israel is lucky that the legal framework limiting nuclear weapons is so much more lax than that banning Chemical weapons and that the uS actually wants to enforce the Chemical weapons conventions but is lax when it comes to much more powerful nukes in the hands of friends.

	22-05-2004 02:18									#87
	Support Apolyton

Because nukes are actually less likely to be used, due to their more serious consequences.

	22-05-2004 02:19									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Ah, you've convinced me now. Do you even understand the causes of WWI? Let me tell you, the situation in the Mideast isn't comparable at all. It's a completely random connection.

WW1 was caused by several factors chief among them was nationalism and the type of bravado you display. The leaders of Europe had no idea what they where getting themselves into. Most of them thought the war would be quickly won. They sent their troops off with a flourish of parades and fancy speeches. As usual all sides thought they were fighting the good fight. As usual soldiers paid the price for the big talk of people who thought war was an acceptable form of diplomacy. I see many similarities between the world just before WW1 and now. The first being the general acceptance of war as a solution to problems.

	22-05-2004 02:21									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Of course, you won't believe until we are even more entangled in the Middle East. You won't agree until even more peoples lives have been ruined. Of course it will be acceptable to you far away from the front line.

	22-05-2004 02:22									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Because nukes are actually less likely to be used, due to their more serious consequences.

Bollocks.

Becuase it is far more expensive to get nukes, so if you have them, obviously you have some amount of power that makes it very hard to then enforce the law-while the same is not true for chemical weapons.