On the plus side of the war in iraq, from the information I am gettign from my military friends the troops have finaly figured out that the republicans do not have their best interest at hart and will be voteing agenst bush in the next election
Printable View
On the plus side of the war in iraq, from the information I am gettign from my military friends the troops have finaly figured out that the republicans do not have their best interest at hart and will be voteing agenst bush in the next election
bballad, I'm sure your friends will enjoy coming home to a country ravaged by terrorist attacks thanks to the democrats removing all of the national security measures in place and openning our borders with Mexico. :rolleyes: Your friends obviously don't care much about what's good for the entire nation, buddy.
CXGJarrod, your giving Bush a lot of credit, coming up with a scheme like that. I thought you and your buddy bballad weren't done calling him an "illiterate moron"? :rolleyes: BTW, I'm sure the oil appreciates it :rolleyes:
Seriously, where do you guys stand? First you said that there weren't any WMD's, then you said bio and chem weapons didn't count, now you're back to no WMD's? Well, chem and bio count as WMD's, and there has been evidence presented that says WMD's existed but were moved/hidden so there wasn't enough time to deploy. Don't change the subject, why do you insist that they don't exist?
Clinton was a shitty president, but I will always be thankful for at least two things he did. Reform welfare and for engaging in the few military conflicts that he actually did. Should have fought harder, that would have gained the support of the other isle even more. Sounds tough, then again we Americans don't take any ****, especially from dictators and terrorist. Be weary bad guys!
there whee no WMD's. bio and chems are not WMD's but nonconventional weapons, and there where no nonconventional's either....iraq was never a threat, but was a nice easy traget to up approval ratings, and had lots of oil.
How have the dems weakend the boarders, last I checked that was the presidents job...and he is failing at it. you see they do care about the good of the nation, they feel that we should be makeing more then a token effort to go after binladen insted of fighting a war to line halaburtans pockets with iraqi oil.Quote:
Originally posted here by TheRepublican
bballad, I'm sure your friends will enjoy coming home to a country ravaged by terrorist attacks thanks to the democrats removing all of the national security measures in place and openning our borders with Mexico. :rolleyes: Your friends obviously don't care much about what's good for the entire nation, buddy.
WTF? Did the left start spinning the definition of WMD? A scud loaded with a pawload of nerve agent no longer has the ability to produce mass casualties? Biological and Chemical have always been part of the definition. It was one of the indicators the UN inspectors where always looking for and defined in post world war 2. Ah, don't believe me. Believe our friend google.
http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...ss+Destruction
Kind of ironic isn't it RoadClosed. Back in April the left wants to claim that handguns are WMD's
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...562275,00.html
But not Chemical and Biological Weapons. NOOoooooo! ......... Geeeze!
BTW here is a link to the Department of Defense Plan for Integrating National Guard and Reserve Component Support for Response to Attacks Using Weapons of Mass Destruction.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/wmdr...chapter_1.html You'll have to scroll down some or you can just read the excerpt below.
Definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction
For the purpose of this strategic plan, WMD include any weapon or device that are intended, or have the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, a disease organism, or radiation or radioactivity.
1st no one ever said I was on the leftQuote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
WTF? Did the left start spinning the definition of WMD? A scud loaded with a pawload of nerve agent no longer has the ability to produce mass casualties? Biological and Chemical have always been part of the definition. It was one of the indicators the UN inspectors where always looking for and defined in post world war 2. Ah, don't believe me. Believe our friend google.
http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...ss+Destruction
second a scud with a load of nonconventionals will not cause mass casualties. Iraqi has shown this with their attacks on the kurds, it was found that they would have killed many more people and would have done more damage if they had droped conventional bombs insted of chemical attacks, cemicals and biologicals have a terror effect, this is tru, but they do not cause deth or distruction on any signifigant scale.
That really depends on how persistent the agent is, weather conditions, and the amount of toxins released.Quote:
Originally posted here by bballad
1st no one ever said I was on the left
second a scud with a load of nonconventionals will not cause mass casualties. Iraqi has shown this with their attacks on the kurds, it was found that they would have killed many more people and would have done more damage if they had droped conventional bombs insted of chemical attacks, cemicals and biologicals have a terror effect, this is tru, but they do not cause deth or distruction on any signifigant scale.
bballad said:
Look at California! The Democrats there are allowing illegal aliens to enter the country, to get drivers licenses, and to vote! They are here illegally, taking jobs, causing crime, and the Democrats have decided that just because they are within US borders they should have equal rights as full, hardworking, taxpaying citizens! Clinton was no exception. He not only vetoed laws to help control illegal aliens, laws that could have put 9/11 hijacker mohammad atta out of commision, put passed more of these ridiculous laws to give illegal immigrants rights! Some on the far left have even asked for open borders with Mexico! How is that not weakening our borders!?! Also, did you look at any of the links I gave? Bio and chem weapons are WMD's, no question. Most will cause mass casualties if they are civilians with no protective equipment like the residents of the Middle East and of the USA! So give it up!Quote:
How have the dems weakend the boarders
OK my bad - but I don't agree that biological weapons are not WMD. If you remember the gulf war: Israel told Sadam if one, just one scud had any biological contagion they would nuke Baghdad. Given Israel’s resilience in these matters, everyone believed that a nuclear strike was imminent and especially Sadam. So he continually lobbed scuds at Israel killing many civilians, he wasn’t even really aiming – just reckless attacking at semi random targets. A Scud can almost destroy an entire building like an apartment block typical of the Middle East. But, given a calm night in the desert and no wind; two or three scuds dropped in high population areas would cause a nice little bit of mass destruction if it was a highly toxic nerve agent. You have the explosion of the scud, plus fallout of poisonous gas. It makes your nervous system stop sending and receiving electrical signals and you go into convulsions before dying violently. Or just as nasty, a blood agent that interferes with hemoglobin and makes it so your red blood cells can no longer exchange oxygen. So you can breathe normally and gasp for air all you want and you slowly suffocate. Nasty beasts, they were outlawed in rules of warfare and engagement for a reason. Oh and using them in the mountains? Very stupid.Quote:
1st no one ever said I was on the left
Elections are coming up so you can vote how you please. But right now, no front running Democratic candidate has said they plan to pull out of Iraq. Sure they might replace the current political buzz word company slash contractor and turn everything over to the U.N. Bush has been soliciting more UN support already but maybe a democrat would have more success since Bush basically put them in their place for historical in-action in any heated situation. May guess is their world headquarters would have been next. Terrorist groups in Iraq have no problems bombing local UN headquarters and killing the very people there to help. And who, I mean who attacks and kills Red Cross operations helping their own people. Crazy, but the U.N is in charge of Bosnia, you can make your own assumption for success there. But no one is willing to go on record and say they will pull out. If a real candidate, in the running has, I haven’t heard it.
What about Persian Gulf sickness, I bet a lot of people who don't believe in WMD were on that bandwagon when it was happening. If you remember U.S. soldiers were and are complaining that they were subjected to some kind of chemical? Who knows, just tossing that in for fun!
Oh - The plight of the Kurds is very close to my heart. Sadam systematically was eradicating them and your statement that he would have been more successful at using conventional payloads vs. biological just proves that according to US, UN, and Geneva charters that he had and used WMD without remorse. In fact long after the media left the gulf, bands of Iraqi's still hunted and killed Kurds in the northern mountains of Iraq. And the Kurds didn’t do **** but try and run.
THe statemment about the kurds is not compleatly true, they did a lot more then try and run, they have been fighting a war for indipendence with iraq for a hell of a long time(they are fighting turky also) in war people die...did husain attack civilian population vcenters, yes, ut fighting gorilla wars leads nations to do irrational things, look at the russian actions in chcnia or the US actions in vitinam or iraq civilians often die when combatants hide among them.
As for the damage a nerve agent would do, none kill instantly, unless you are in a confined area you can walk out of the gas cloud, this is why they are only good on confined spaces or agenst troops that are pinned down by some means and are not prepared.
This is true if you encounter a choking or burning chemical agent, of course you will endure extreme pain with a chemical agent until you remove the substance. You can walk away from a Biological agent, but your body will have to deal with the resulting infection at some point in time. Maybe you will get lucky and there will be a cure for whater you have been infected with.Quote:
Originally posted here by bballad
As for the damage a nerve agent would do, none kill instantly, unless you are in a confined area you can walk out of the gas cloud, this is why they are only good on confined spaces or agenst troops that are pinned down by some means and are not prepared.
Walking out of a deployment of Blood agent and you chances of survival are slim even if you have an antropine injector to counter the affects. Depending on composition of a Nerve agent, all it takes is one drop in the eyes or mouth and you get to do the dead coackroach dance. You wouldn't be able to walk away from a deployment of Nerve agent. BTW Blood and Nerve agents are typically liquid based droplets similar to a light rain, not a mist or cloud.
The Kurds are like the Palestine’s, but with no real power behind them as with the Palestines. They want territory and sovereignty for their people. Terrorist villages in both Iraq and Turkey are constantly bombed in secret because, unlike Israel the western part of Turkey and Northern Iraq are not remotely safe after dark. Bands of roving pirates will stop and kill you for food and all interstate traffic from western regions in that area completely halt at sundown. It's a constant struggle but no longer fashionable on the nightly media because there is no political motivation to cover it
I have no problem with those attacks on bad people, Kurdish - Palestine- Israeli, Russian or American. That's not my beef; in fact Kurdish insurrection within Baghdad was not a major issue in recent time. Saddam squashed any resistance to his power grip, including jailing children. But to diminish what happened in Northern Iraq during the last few months of the war and on into the next few years is probably not understood.
Saddam didn't like the fact these people were fleeing in droves and not succumbing to his totalitarian doctrine. He tried desperately to stop them and the northern alliance only did a mediocre job protecting them, too much territory. There are extremely large Kurdish populations in Middle and Western Turkey, some day they may get what they want if they stop attacking shop owners, government officials and foreign corporations (mostly German and Swedish). Just like any group they have multiple factions that claim responsibility. The most radical one's have been hunted and eliminated. Ever heard of the PKK? It's the Kurdistan Workers Party but like the IRA they have some that like to shoot people in the streets for being a CEO of a company or an American advisor. At least they don't bomb children waiting for busses to school.
and from what I understand they have to consistancy of kayro syurp, I can see your point if you mentioned bilster agents (musterd gas and the like) thats nasty stuff. As for biologicals, last I checked there are cures for smallpox and anthrax, will a few people die, probably, but not a overly high number. here is a qoute form an vet with NCB training.Quote:
Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
This is true if you encounter a choking or burning chemical agent, of course you will endure extreme pain with a chemical agent until you remove the substance. You can walk away from a Biological agent, but your body will have to deal with the resulting infection at some point in time. Maybe you will get lucky and there will be a cure for whater you have been infected with.
Walking out of a deployment of Blood agent and you chances of survival are slim even if you have an antropine injector to counter the affects. Depending on composition of a Nerve agent, all it takes is one drop in the eyes or mouth and you get to do the dead coackroach dance. You wouldn't be able to walk away from a deployment of Nerve agent. BTW Blood and Nerve agents are typically liquid based droplets similar to a light rain, not a mist or cloud.
chemical and biologicals are great terror weapons, and will probably cause a painc, as weapons of war they are reather inefective.Quote:
How To Survive A Terrorist Attack
Words of Wisdom About Gas, Germs, and Nukes
By SFC Red Thomas, Armor Master Gunner
U.S. Army (Ret) 10.19.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the media have decided to scare everyone with predictions of chemical, biological, or nuclear warfare on our turf I decided to write a paper and keep things in their proper perspective. I am a retired military weapons, munitions, and training expert.
Lesson number one: In the mid 1990s there was a series of nerve gas attacks on crowded Japanese subway stations. Given perfect conditions for an attack, less than 10% of the people there were injured (the injured were better in a few hours) and only one percent of the injured died. CBS-Television's 60 Minutes once had a fellow telling us that one drop of nerve gas could kill a thousand people. He didn't tell you the thousand dead people per drop was theoretical. Drill Sergeants exaggerate how terrible this stuff is to keep the recruits awake in class (I know this because I was a Drill Sergeant too).
Forget everything you've ever seen on TV, in the movies, or read in a novel about this stuff, it was all a lie (Read this sentence again out loud!). These weapons are about terror, if you remain calm, you will probably not die.
This is far less scary than the media and their "experts" make it sound. Chemical weapons are categorized as Nerve, Blood, Blister, and Incapacitating agents. Contrary to the hype of reporters and politicians, they are not weapons of mass destruction. They are means of "Area Denial," effective to keep an enemy out of a particular zone for a limited period of time: terror weapons that don't destroy anything. When you leave the area you almost always leave the risk.
That's the difference; you can leave the area and the risk. Soldiers may have to stay put and sit through it and that's why they need all that spiffy gear.
These are not gasses; they are vapors and/or airborne particles. Any such agent must be delivered in sufficient quantity to kill or injure, and that defines when and how it's used.
Every day we have a morning and evening atmospheric inversion where "stuff," suspended in the air gets pushed down. This inversion is why allergies (pollen) and air pollution are worst at these times of the day.
So, a chemical attack will have its best effect an hour of so either side of sunrise or sunset. Also, being vapors and airborne particles, the agents are heavier than air, so they will seek low places like ditches, basements and underground garages. This stuff won't work when it's freezing, it doesn't last when it's hot, and wind spreads it too thin too fast.
Attackers have to get this stuff on you, or, get you to inhale it, for it to work. They also have to get the concentration of chemicals high enough to kill or injure you: too little and it's nothing, too much and it's wasted. What I hope you've gathered by this point is that a chemical weapons attack that kills a lot of people is incredibly hard to achieve with military grade agents and equipment. So you can imagine how hard it would be for terrorists. The more you know about this stuff, the more you realize how hard it is to use.
A Case of Nerves
We'll start by talking about nerve agents. You have these in your house: plain old bug killer (like Raid) is nerve agent. All nerve agents work the same way; they are cholinesterase inhibitors that mess up the signals your nervous system uses to make your body function. It can harm you if you get it on your skin but it works best if you to inhale it. If you don't die in the first minute and you can leave the area, you're probably going to live.
The military's antidotes for all nerve agents are atropine and pralidoxime chloride. Neither one of these does anything to cure the nerve agent. They send your body into overdrive to keep you alive for five minutes. After that the agent is used up. Your best protection is fresh air and staying calm. Listed below are the symptoms for nerve agent poisoning.
Sudden headache, Dimness of vision (someone you're looking at will have pinpointed pupils), Runny nose, Excessive saliva or drooling, Difficulty breathing, Tightness in chest, Nausea, Stomach cramps, Twitching of exposed skin where a liquid just got on you.
If you are in public and you start experiencing these symptoms, first ask yourself, did anything out of the ordinary just happen, a loud pop, did someone spray something on the crowd? Are other people getting sick too? Is there an odor of new mown hay, green corn, something fruity, or camphor where it shouldn't be?
If the answer is yes, then calmly (if you panic you breathe faster and inhale more air/poison) leave the area and head upwind, or outside. Fresh air is the best "right now antidote." If you have a blob of liquid that looks like molasses or Karo syrup on you; blot it or scrape it off and away from yourself with anything disposable.
This stuff works based on your body weight: What a crop duster uses to kill bugs won't hurt you unless you stand there and breathe it in real deep, then lick the residue off the ground for while.
Remember, the attackers have to do all the work, they have to get the concentration up and keep it up for several minutes, while all you have to do is quit getting it on you and quit breathing it by putting space between yourself and the attack.
Bad Blood and Blisters
Blood agents are cyanide or arsine. They affect your blood's ability to provide oxygen to your tissues. The scenario for attack would be the same as nerve agent. Look for a pop or someone splashing or spraying something and folks around there getting woozy or falling down. The telltale smells are bitter almonds or garlic where it shouldn't be. The symptoms are blue lips, blue under the fingernails rapid breathing.
The military's antidote is amyl nitride and, just like nerve agent antidote, it just keeps your body working for five minutes till the toxins are used up. Fresh air is the your best individual chance
Blister agents (distilled mustard) are so nasty that nobody wants to even handle them, let alone use them. Blister agents are just as likely to harm the user as the target. They're almost impossible to handle safely and may have delayed effects of up to 12 hours. The attack scenario is also limited to the things you'd see from other chemicals. If you do get large, painful blisters for no apparent reason, don't pop them. If you must, don't let the liquid from the blister get on any other area: the stuff just keeps on spreading. Soap, water, sunshine, and fresh air are this stuff's enemy.
Bottom line on chemical weapons (and it's the same if they use industrial chemical spills): They are intended to make you panic, to terrorize you, to herd you like sheep to the wolves. If there is an attack, leave the area and go upwind, or to the sides of the wind stream. You're more likely to be hurt by a drunk driver on any given day than be hurt by one of these attacks. Your odds get better if you leave the area. Soap, water, time, and fresh air really deal this stuff a knock-out-punch. Don't let fear of an isolated attack rule your life. The odds are really on your side.
Up and Atom
Nuclear bombs: These are the only weapons of mass destruction on Earth. The effects of a nuclear bomb are heat, blast, EMP, and radiation. If you see a bright flash of light like the sun, where the sun isn't, fall to the ground! The heat will be over a second. Then there will be two blast waves, one out going, and one on its way back. Don't stand up to see what happened after the first wave. Wait. Everything that's going to happen will have happened in two full minutes.
Any nuclear weapons used by terrorists will be low yield devices and will not level whole cities. If you live through the heat, blast, and initial burst of radiation, you'll probably live for a very very long time. Radiation will not create fifty foot tall women, or giant ants and grasshoppers the size of tanks. These will be at the most 1 kiloton bombs; that's the equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT.
Here's the real hazard: Flying debris and radiation will kill a lot of exposed (not all)! people within a half mile of the blast. Under perfect conditions this is about a half mile circle of death and destruction, but when it's done it's done.
EMP stands for Electro Magnetic Pulse and it will fry every electronic device for a good distance. It's impossible to say what and how far, but probably not over a couple of miles from ground zero is a good guess. Cars, cell phones, computers, ATMs, you name it, all will be out of order. There are lots of kinds of radiation, but , physically,you only need to worry about three: alpha, beta, and gamma. The others you have lived with for years.
You need to worry about "Ionizing radiation," little sub atomic particles that go whizzing along at the speed of light. They hit individual cells in your body, kill the nucleus and keep on going. That's how you get radiation poisoning: You have so many dead cells in your body that the decaying cells poison you. It's the same as people getting radiation treatments for cancer, only a bigger area gets irradiated.
The good news is you don't have to just sit there and take it, and there are lots you can do rather than panic. First, your skin will stop alpha particles, a page of a news paper or your clothing will stop beta particles. Then you just have to try and avoid inhaling dust that's contaminated with atoms that are emitting these things and you'll be generally safe from them.
Gamma rays are particles that travel like rays (quantum physics makes my brain hurt) and they create the same damage as alpha and beta particles only they keep going and kill lots of cells as they go all the way through your body. It takes a lot to stop these things, lots of dense material. On the other hand it takes a lot of this to kill you.
Your defense is as always to not panic. Basic hygiene and normal preparation are your friends. All canned or frozen food is safe to eat. The radiation poisoning will not affect plants, so fruits and vegetables are OK if there's no dust on them (Rinse them off if there is). If you don't have running water and you need to collect rain water or use water from wherever, just let it sit for thirty minutes and skim off the water gently from the top. The dust with the bad stuff in it will settle and the remaining water can be used for the toilet which will still work if you have a bucket of water to pour in the tank.
The Germs' Terms
Finally there's biological warfare. There's not much to cover here. Basic personal hygiene and sanitation will take you further than a million doctors. Wash your hands often, don't share drinks, food, sloppy kisses, etc., ...with strangers. Keep your garbage can with a tight lid on it, don't have standing water (like old buckets, ditches, or kiddy pools) laying around to allow mosquitoes breeding room.
This stuff is carried by vectors, that is bugs, rodents, and contaminated material. If biological warfare is as easy as the TV makes it sound, why has Saddam Hussein spent twenty years, millions, and millions of dollars trying to get it right? If you're clean of person and home, eat well and are active, you're going to live.
Overall preparation for any terrorist attack is the same as you'd take for a big storm. If you want a gas mask, fine, go get one. I know this stuff and I'm not getting one and I told my Mom not to bother with one either (How's that for confidence?). We have a week's worth of cash, several days worth of canned goods and plenty of soap and water. We don't leave stuff out to attract bugs or rodents so we don't have them.
These terrorist people can't conceive of a nation this big with as much resources as it has. These weapons are made to cause panic, terror, and to demoralize. If we don't run around like sheep, they won't use this stuff after they find out it's no fun and does them little good. The government is going nuts over this stuff because they have to protect every inch of America. You only have to protect yourself, and by doing that, you help the country.
Finally, there are millions of caveats to everything I wrote here and you can think up specific scenarios in which my advice wouldn't be the best. This article is supposed to help the greatest number of people under the greatest number of situations. If you don't like my work, don't nitpick, just sit down and explain chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare in a document around three pages long yourself. This is how we the people of the United States can rob these people of their most desired goal, your terror.
SFC Red Thomas (Ret) Armor Master Gunner Mesa, AZ
Unlimited reproduction and distribution is authorized. Just give me credit for my work, and, keep in context.
any personal connection with this or like me are you just a student of conflict, its rare to find anyone with a deep knoladge of the kurd issue. What worries me about the PKK is that the US has been arming them and inlisting their help in the Iraq war, I can just see a new alquida like organization being created from this...it would be nice if our polititions learned form the past insted of constently repeating past mistakes.Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
The Kurds are like the Palestine’s, but with no real power behind them as with the Palestines. They want territory and sovereignty for their people. Terrorist villages in both Iraq and Turkey are constantly bombed in secret because, unlike Israel the western part of Turkey and Northern Iraq are not remotely safe after dark. Bands of roving pirates will stop and kill you for food and all interstate traffic from western regions in that area completely halt at sundown. It's a constant struggle but no longer fashionable on the nightly media because there is no political motivation to cover it
I have no problem with those attacks on bad people, Kurdish - Palestine- Israeli, Russian or American. That's not my beef; in fact Kurdish insurrection within Baghdad was not a major issue in recent time. Saddam squashed any resistance to his power grip, including jailing children. But to diminish what happened in Northern Iraq during the last few months of the war and on into the next few years is probably not understood.
Saddam didn't like the fact these people were fleeing in droves and not succumbing to his totalitarian doctrine. He tried desperately to stop them and the northern alliance only did a mediocre job protecting them, too much territory. There are extremely large Kurdish populations in Middle and Western Turkey, some day they may get what they want if they stop attacking shop owners, government officials and foreign corporations (mostly German and Swedish). Just like any group they have multiple factions that claim responsibility. The most radical one's have been hunted and eliminated. Ever heard of the PKK? It's the Kurdistan Workers Party but like the IRA they have some that like to shoot people in the streets for being a CEO of a company or an American advisor. At least they don't bomb children waiting for busses to school.
My perception of the PKK and Kurdish nomad cultures is not based on written accounts.
I was elated when I read that cures were available for small pox and anthrax. I googled on "Cure for Anthrax" and "Cure for Smallpox" but all I could locate were some proposed cures. This is not a dig by the way. If you could post a link that affirms a cure for these diseases, I would be greatly interested in reading the article.Quote:
Originally posted here by bballad
As for biologicals, last I checked there are cures for smallpox and anthrax, will a few people die, probably, but not a overly high number. here is a qoute form an vet with NCB training.
From what I could tell we can vaccinate and treat the symptoms of these diseases, but not cure them. (The effectiveness of these vaccines are questionable.)
Smallpox and Anthrax are just a small example of diseases that can be used for biological warfare some others are: Plague (Septicemia, Pneumonic, Meningitis), Cholera, Tularemia, Brucellosis, Q Fever, Viral Encephalitides (Venezuelan Equine, Western Equine, Eastern Equine), Viral Hemmoragic Fevers (Lassa, Argentine, Bolivian, Brazilian, Venezuelan, Rift Valley, Crimean-Congo, Hantaan, Marburg, Ebola, Yellow, Dengue, Kyasanur Forest, Omsk), Staphylococcal enterotoxin B, Ricin, Botulinum toxin, and Mycotoxins. Some of these are easily treatable others are highly infectious with a devestating death rate.
General FYI
The following is a link on the History of Smallpox:
http://www.aventispasteur.com/us/vac...eneinfo19.html
Links to the CDC's information on Smallpox and Anthrax respectively:
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/index.asp
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/anthrax/index.asp
Hey Spy and others, if you want a scare read THE PLAGUE MAKERS. If you think biological weapons are harmless and outdated, give it a glance. May make you shiver, I read it back in 99. Here are some diolog, not from the book but from the author in various interviews.
Quote:
There are situations in which biological weapons would work against military targets: concentrations of troops, say, or a task force at sea. And more importantly, biological weapons are cheap and easy to make. Figures presented to the United Nations estimate the cost of killing civilians using different types of weapons. In this macabre calculation, each square kilometre of casualties come with a different price tag: $US2,000 for conventional weapons, $US800 for nuclear, $US600 for nerve gas, and $US1, that's $US1, for germs. A biological arsenal is the poor country's means of mass destruction. Nixon may well have realised just how quickly other countries would develop their own, and how dangerous it would finally be for the US itself if it didn't outlaw them before this could happen.
Quote:
The situation today, then, makes people nervous. But what lies ahead is worse. Now that scientists are beginning to understand the genetic structures of organisms, they're learning how to change them. This means they could make today's germs into more effective agents for weapons. Today's bacteria may be slow-acting or unstable, or persist in the environment. They could be genetically engineered into more fast-acting organisms which might die after a specified time, or in certain environmental conditions. And this could make them more reliable from a military point of view. And of course, if you're spreading a germ you've altered, then the usual vaccines won't work against it
Quote:
It's when you combine this genetic engineering with the exploding knowledge of our own genetics that the most horrifying scenario emerges.
of course that last quote is about 4 or 5 years old about Iraq. This has nothing to do about supporting current policy, it's just a look at biological warfare in general.Quote:
Churchill was right about one thing, that these atrocities become more acceptable if nobody objects to them. We've had a glaring lesson of that with Iraq. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war, and on his own Kurds at Halabja. Ten years on, they're still suffering appallingly. There was hardly an international murmur of complaint about these attacks, and look where we are now.
we are quibaling on symantics here, with a combination of vaciense and treatment the death rate for anthrax and smallpox is very low.Quote:
Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
I was elated when I read that cures were available for small pox and anthrax. I googled on "Cure for Anthrax" and "Cure for Smallpox" but all I could locate were some proposed cures. This is not a dig by the way. If you could post a link that affirms a cure for these diseases, I would be greatly interested in reading the article.
From what I could tell we can vaccinate and treat the symptoms of these diseases, but not cure them. (The effectiveness of these vaccines are questionable.)
I would be much more woried about an accidental outbreak of a naturaly occuring virus with no treatment or cure(ebola) then a biological attack.
On a side note I am amazed that no terrorist group has perpously gotten its members infected with one of the true nasties running around nature and then hoped on an international flight..... No way I can see to stop it from happening so I try not ot dwell on it.
Clinton was riding the reagan wave bottom line thats why he was voted in twice
Ok I need an explaination for this one, Reagan was a conservative republican with hugh popularity which is why bush was elected, bush was a rather bad president which is why clinton was electe, clinton did a good job his first four years which is why he was reelected....how are you tieing him into reagan?Quote:
Originally posted here by /|Glacier|\
Clinton was riding the reagan wave bottom line thats why he was voted in twice
Ok maybe I have to spell this out for you. Cliton was riding the reagan economy....Liberals are smoking way to much crack these days. Now do we understad BballadQuote:
how are you tieing him into reagan
By the way who are you voting for this go round? pls respond if your not embarrassed!
So you are saying that it takes 20 years for presidential economic changes to take affect?
now I am truly confused. You do relise that there was a president between reagen and clinton, and that for eight years post reagen(and about 15 years after he instituted his vodoo econmics) the econamy was crap. It wasn't untill clintons second term that we saw the econamy take off (which then turned into the buble that burst in 2001). So how did regans econmoic changes that where largly undone during bushes attemtpt to save his presidency and further undone during clintons first term account for the economic gain in clintons second term.
Or are you saying that 12 years of republican rule killed the econamy and left voters hopeing for some fiscal sanity so they ran from trickel down to the democrats? If that is the point you are trying to make then I would agree that Reagens econamy directly lead to clintons election.
bballad,
I disagree that Bush Sr. was a bad president. I will say that due to the Democrat controlled congress that he was an ineffective president, since he was unable pass any laws that significantly spurred the economy. I think that what glacier is trying unsuccessfully to say, is that he believes that Clinton took office, essentially with the economy guided by Reagan, due to Bush Sr's said inability to affect the economy. I personally do not see where Clinton really affected the economy in a positive way. Yes Clinton and the Democratic congress worked significantly to reduce the national debt, which is a cause I would like to see Republicans pick up and also champion, but this still did not spur the economy. Clinton was lucky that he was in office when PC prices became affordable and Internet transactions and technologies became in demand. If it was not for Regan's "voodoo" economics, I do not think that the tech bubble would have manifested when it did. Trickle down economics is really very simple. If corporations are not seeing significant returns on investmets, then corporations are not going to invest in additional research, benifits packeges, etc..., however when corporations are seeing significant returns on their investments, then these returns are more likely to be passed on to the employee. I don't know about you but, I know my pay raises were significantly higher prior to the bursting of the tech bubble, and significantly lower prior to its advent. Just my thoughts.
The tech buble happened almost 20 years after regans policies, when clinton took office the econamy was an abosolute mess. If what you are saying is true then the tech buble burst and our current economic down turn is bush seniors fault and we will have to wait 12 more years to see the effects taht clinton had. Add that to the fact that clinton wasn't elected in a time of a good econamy, he inharetid a bad one and it didn't get better untill his second term. I agree that it takes time for economic changes to take effect but I doubt it takes 12+ years for it to happen.
If he said that bush seniors econamy was the fault of regan I would by that, and the first clinton term was from bush I would by that, but not clintons second term being effected by regans first term, that dosn't work.
We also must look at the econamy when clinton took office for his first term, it was crap, more over his econmic plans where vastly difrent then regans why would anyone who liked regans econamy vote for clinton. why would anyone who was happy with the econamy at the time not vote for bush his argument is ludicris.
I think we have to agree to disagree on this one bballad. I can see it taking 12 years for an economy to turn, since Regan and Bush did not have the support of the House and Senate to reduce taxes. And Clinton certainly did not reduce taxes. I personally see this as a unique set of circumstances that led to the eventual tech bubble. However your arguments certainly have merit, 12 years is an awful long time to see an economic turn around.
As for why people voted for Clinton. Everyone was hoping that if the Democrats wer given the power, perhaps they could make some positive changes in the economy. As I said before, I do not see where Clinton or the Democrat controlled Congress spurred the tech bubble or positively affected the economy in any other way during Clintion's presidency.
ok so how did clinton rid regans econamy to the presidency?
and if bush and reagon could do nothing do to a democratic congress how could they have created the boom of the 90's?
one last question, if it takes 12+ years for the presidential economic changes t oaffect the econamy then regan and bush are responsable for the curent downturn in the econamy and for the buble bursting.
Your reply was kind of confusing, but I will attempt to reply.
Simply put - Trickle down economics worked in spite of Bush Sr's inability to reduce taxes and Clinton's atempt to raise them. This stagnation of economic stimulus delayed what was to become the eventual tech boom of the 90's.
The tech bubble burst, partly because of the loss of the Twin Towers, but mostly because of major Corporate dishonesty. I.e. Enron.
Now let me ask you a question. If Clinton did not "ride" the Regan economic plan during his Presidency, then what did Clinton do to stimulate the economic boom that occured in the 90's?
I never said he stimulated the econamy, personaly I dont think the president has much say in how the econamy gose. Once again Imust point out that at the time of clintons elction the econamy was very bad so how would he be rideing any ones econamic coate tales, especialy some one whos econamic plans he didn't agree with? that is the question you still haven't answered.
Oh and are you in the work force, your grasp of the curent econamic down turn leads me to think you are not. We could all see the tech buble start to burst in 1999, the down hill track started in 2000 well before 9/11 or enron came out. Did tohse events make it worse ...perhapse, but the econamy was poised to go down fast, this was manily due to stupid IPO's and a lot of investors betting with oter peoples money on trends.
You forget taht econamic boom was in the late 90's after clinton got elected a second time, the econamic boom could not have had anything to do with clintons election.Quote:
Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
Now let me ask you a question. If Clinton did not "ride" the Regan economic plan during his Presidency, then what did Clinton do to stimulate the economic boom that occured in the 90's?
Quote:
Originally posted here by bballad
I never said he stimulated the econamy, personaly I dont think the president has much say in how the econamy gose.
The president has a direct impact on the economy. Yes any economy will experience "cycles" of ups and downs, but the leader of a country guides the direction of spending and taxation. It normally takes several years for the results to be seen but the economy will fluctuate due to these implementations.
I have answered this question multiple times, but I will try again. Let me put it like this: It does not matter if Clinton agreed with Regan's economic plan or not. The point is that Clinton and Bush Sr. accomplished nothing where stimulating the economy is concerned. Since they accomplished nothing positive for the economy, then the upturn of the economy can logically be attenuated to Regan's economic policies.Quote:
Once again Imust point out that at the time of clintons elction the econamy was very bad so how would he be rideing any ones econamic coate tales, especialy some one whos econamic plans he didn't agree with? that is the question you still haven't answered.
I'm not sure why you have to turn this thread into a personal attack, insinuating that I am not compotent of evaluating historic economical postures, if I am not currently in the work force, but that is your decision. The truth be known, Yes I am in the work force. And I agree with you that the downward turn of the tech bubble began in the late 90's, however 911 and the Enron scandal rapidly accellerated this downward process by giving corporations an excuse for immediate, massive layoffs and spending cuts. If these events had not occured, there would have been a better chance of a significantly faster economic recovery. Ah well, hindsight is 20/20.Quote:
Oh and are you in the work force, your grasp of the curent econamic down turn leads me to think you are not. We could all see the tech buble start to burst in 1999, the down hill track started in 2000 well before 9/11 or enron came out. Did tohse events make it worse ...perhapse, but the econamy was poised to go down fast, this was manily due to stupid IPO's and a lot of investors betting with oter peoples money on trends.
OK. Earlier you hinted that no president can affect the economy to a great extent, that leads to the question of Why did the economic boom even occur? Do you have a better solution than Reganomics?Quote:
You forget taht econamic boom was in the late 90's after clinton got elected a second time, the econamic boom could not have had anything to do with clintons election.
I think that if you want to see who is effecting the econamy look no further then greenspan, I think his attempts at slowing the econamy in the late 90's was his only mistake. If he had worked earlyr or more agressively we may not have had as bad of a bust.
As for 9/11 and enron, well 9/11 probably helped the econamy in the long run (more military and construction contracts.) and quite poassably sped up the recovery (wars often do this, although we will pay for it later when the full weight of the deficite hits us). Enron was a symptom of the bad econamy not a cause. Look through the historu at ****edcompany.com you will see the bust starting well before any of the rest of this crap happened.
Back to the origional point how did linton rid regans coat tails to the election, if the econamy had been good in the early 90's bush senior (the man how rode regans coat tales) would have been elected. It wasn't, so in came clinton. We could see he start of a recovery in te mid 90's so he got another 4 years (well that and the fact that bob doll came across as a compleate tool.). Unless you are claming that regan was so inept that the populace was sick of the republicans I find it hard to see any convinceing argument that regan was responsable for clintons election
to stop the boom, yes, better corperate regulation and further oversite in the markets, curoption in the investmant banks that underwrote the IPO's for webvan and pets.com (as well as the rest of the dot coms) led to the boom and enevitable bust, the tech boom was a pyramid scheam (although I am not blameless I took part in the VA Linux IPO, was smart enough to read the writeing on the walls and got out quick), a giant pump and dump of worthless companies with useless busniess plans. No amount of goverment can stop human greed, but proper regulation and oversight can keep it form geting ou of hand.Quote:
Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
OK. Earlier you hinted that no president can affect the economy to a great extent, that leads to the question of Why did the economic boom even occur? Do you have a better solution than Reganomics?
As for reganomics, if you want to stimulate the econamy its best to put mony in the hands of those who spend the most, thats the middel class not the 1% of the nation that is helped by reganomics
Some facts for the clinton supports..*cough* *cough* Bballad
Starting in 1994, Russian and Chinese military units began to purchase
U.S. made super-computers for nuclear weapons research. It may shock America
to find out that Bill Clinton allowed super-computers to be sold to Russia and
China weapons research facilities, however, the exports to Russian and Chinese
military labs came as no surprise to Clinton insiders.
Stick that one in your pipes and smoke it you commie's.
Good, america needs some balancing (i trust putin more than bush), ohh wait i forget some times that the us is good and everyone who doesn't bow down and worship is bad . (you might want to post your source , or was it from the junky hippocrite rush limbaugh?)
Thats not how we view things lumpyporridge.
and Rush limbaugh is no junky hypocritte. He's probably one of the most brilliant political thinkers in my opinion.
CNN Executive EditorQuote:
[i] (you might want to post your source , or was it from the junky hippocrite rush limbaugh?) [/B]
29 July, 1999
In 1995, Tony Podesta -- a powerful D.C. based lobbyist and brother of White
House adviser John Podesta -- had a consortium of top U.S. computer CEOs
attend secret meetings inside the White House. The meetings were on computer
hardware and software exports to China and Russia. The meetings occurred just
before Clinton changed super-computer policy. Within weeks, the Russian and
Chinese were buying computer power that now surpasses the U.S. Defense
Department.
According to documents from the Commerce Department, in 1995 the Computer
Systems Policy Project (CSPP) was represented by Tony Podesta. The CSPP is a
group of computer companies, that in 1995 included Apple, AT, Compaq, Cray,
Data General, Digital Equipment, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Silicon Graphics,
Stratus Computer, Sun Microsystems, Tandem, and Unisys.
Officials working for Apple and Silicon Graphics are documented by the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) to be very large Clinton donors.
Great point about Greenspan. And I agree that he could have / should have done more sooner to help the economy, simply as a part of doing his job. However I disagree that his slowing the economy caused the recession to be larger. To summise from your statements, if the Enrons of the world were allowed to continue to grow in a booming economy, wouldn't that have made the bubble bigger, thus causing a larger fallout from unsuspecting individuals and companies falling prey to the massive pyramid schemes. Just a thought.Quote:
Originally posted here by bballad
I think that if you want to see who is effecting the econamy look no further then greenspan, I think his attempts at slowing the econamy in the late 90's was his only mistake. If he had worked earlyr or more agressively we may not have had as bad of a bust.
As for 9/11 and enron, well 9/11 probably helped the econamy in the long run (more military and construction contracts.) and quite poassably sped up the recovery (wars often do this, although we will pay for it later when the full weight of the deficite hits us). Enron was a symptom of the bad econamy not a cause. Look through the historu at ****edcompany.com you will see the bust starting well before any of the rest of this crap happened.
Back to the origional point how did linton rid regans coat tails to the election, if the econamy had been good in the early 90's bush senior (the man how rode regans coat tales) would have been elected. It wasn't, so in came clinton. We could see he start of a recovery in te mid 90's so he got another 4 years (well that and the fact that bob doll came across as a compleate tool.). Unless you are claming that regan was so inept that the populace was sick of the republicans I find it hard to see any convinceing argument that regan was responsable for clintons election
to stop the boom, yes, better corperate regulation and further oversite in the markets, curoption in the investmant banks that underwrote the IPO's for webvan and pets.com (as well as the rest of the dot coms) led to the boom and enevitable bust, the tech boom was a pyramid scheam (although I am not blameless I took part in the VA Linux IPO, was smart enough to read the writeing on the walls and got out quick), a giant pump and dump of worthless companies with useless busniess plans. No amount of goverment can stop human greed, but proper regulation and oversight can keep it form geting ou of hand.
I do not think that Regan was responsible for Clinton's election. I think that Congress during Bush SR's presidency, stymied any worthwhile economic packages that were proposed, leaving Bush Sr. in a political vaccum. Clinton was elected as a direct result of Congress's inaction and inability to work with Bush Sr. Too often people become fed up with the bipartizan politics and will vote for the individuals that they feel can work together for a common good. Personally I cast my vote based on values and issues alone.
As grave as these situations were, I agree that "in the long run" 9/11 and Enron will be good for the economy. If for no other reason than better accountbility amoung corporations to state their financial transactions clearly.
Yes! Yes! Yes! More money needs to be in the hands of the middle class families. I'll make a right-winger out of you yet BBallad :) The question is how to accomplish this. I look at it this way: I am better off receiving a 3-10% pay raise every year from my employer, as opposed to a 2-5% tax cut from the government every 12 years, and I will not get those pay raises unless my employer has the money to disperse accordingly. Even though the wealthy have enormous amounts of money, I feel guilty placing further tax burdens on them. After all the wealthy in this great country pay somewhere around 90% of all collected taxes. (A Limbaugh stat I think)Quote:
As for reganomics, if you want to stimulate the econamy its best to put mony in the hands of those who spend the most, thats the middel class not the 1% of the nation that is helped by reganomics
OverdueSpy: I doubtI would ever be an any winger too many nuts on both sides, as for greenspan I think he did the right thing by slowing down the econamy, I just feel that he should have started sooner and he should have been more agressive in his attempts, he let the buble grow to big. We agree on regan ot being responsable for clinton, that was glaciers insanity. the only part I dissagree with you on is money to the middel class, corpreate managers are mostly short sighted, greedy and stupid, they will do anthing they can to get short term profits at teh expense of their compnay, comunity and country. No way do they pass on the mony they get to the rest of us. Watch as companies get taxbreaks, they don't give workers raises they lay them off.
Wow two countries taht allready have nuclear capabilities, so we let them get computers so they will no longer have to live testbombs taht seems like a good thing to me. More over the goverment definition on what is a supercomputer is outdated at the time an apple desktop was a supercomputer as well as a N64 curently the ps2 and the gamecube are rated as supercomputer.Quote:
Originally posted here by /|Glacier|\
Some facts for the clinton supports..*cough* *cough* Bballad
Starting in 1994, Russian and Chinese military units began to purchase
U.S. made super-computers for nuclear weapons research. It may shock America
to find out that Bill Clinton allowed super-computers to be sold to Russia and
China weapons research facilities, however, the exports to Russian and Chinese
military labs came as no surprise to Clinton insiders.
Stick that one in your pipes and smoke it you commie's.
Bballad did you get hit in the head as a kid or somthing? Or maybe you were placed near the microwave to many times.Now back to your ravaged reply. Eventually they will sell there super computers to other communist nations there are technologically behind in the times say 50 or so years in a Bballad world every country deserves nuclear missiles. Your the perfect leftwinger Bballad because your that nutjob you speak of. Which proves my point in a Bballad world its a nuclear winter.Quote:
Wow two countries taht allready have nuclear capabilities, so we let them get computers so they will no longer have to live testbombs taht seems like a good thing to me. More over the goverment definition on what is a supercomputer is outdated at the time an apple desktop was a supercomputer as well as a N64 curently the ps2 and the gamecube are rated as supercomputer.
Did he mention a source? I just wonder if someone (democrat or republican) would really give a good statistic on something like that when THEY themselves are in that tax bracket. I poked around on te IRS website, but havent found anything yet.Quote:
After all the wealthy in this great country pay somewhere around 90% of all collected taxes. (A Limbaugh stat I think)
Hmmmm... so now we are complaining about companies having good old capitalist natures? ;) Also by the early 90's were we not trying to become friends with the Russians and end the Cold War. So what if they could process their pron a little faster on a supercomputer, the Cold War was over!Quote:
Eventually they will sell there super computers to other communist nations there are technologically behind in the times say 50 or so years in a Bballad world every country deserves nuclear missiles.
humm do you live in some sort of fantisy world where russia and the chinese don't allready have enough nucs to vaporise the US. Its not liek these are imerganing powers thay are allready part of the club. All clinton did was losen archeic and pointless restrictions taht where hampering some of our tech companies, acording to the old restrictions modern laptops are supercomputers. It seems to me that easing regulations, shrinking goveremnt oversight and allowing freetrad in an open market should be right wing ideals...oh well.Quote:
Originally posted here by /|Glacier|\
Bballad did you get hit in the head as a kid or somthing? Or maybe you were placed near the microwave to many times.Now back to your ravaged reply. Eventually they will sell there super computers to other communist nations there are technologically behind in the times say 50 or so years in a Bballad world every country deserves nuclear missiles. Your the perfect leftwinger Bballad because your that nutjob you speak of. Which proves my point in a Bballad world its a nuclear winter.
he is in rehab right now i believe or just got out for longterm addiction to opiates and what are his stated views on drug addiction?. I would consider him a shallow blabbermouth myself , a great thinker on the right(not in the right;) ) would be ayn rand or Thomas hobbes.Quote:
Originally posted here by cheyenne1212
Thats not how we view things lumpyporridge.
and Rush limbaugh is no junky hypocritte. He's probably one of the most brilliant political thinkers in my opinion.