Usa's Latest Trick
Dread
Join Date: 2002-07-24 Member: 993Members
Join Date: 2002-07-24 Member: 993Members
<div class="IPBDescription">and you say they are clean?</div> <a href='http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html' target='_blank'>Observer</a> tells on their web site, that USA is planning on bugging other UN delegates phones and read their e-mails.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.
The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also I saw in the news something about USA moving chemical weapons(these are not allowed in modern war) to Iraq borders.
I don't know what to say <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> If this all is true, USA has clearly no respect for any mutual agreements, laws and other countries, not even for their "allies". I say kick them out of the UN and put G.W Bush charged for his crimes, that is, if this all is true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.
The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also I saw in the news something about USA moving chemical weapons(these are not allowed in modern war) to Iraq borders.
I don't know what to say <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> If this all is true, USA has clearly no respect for any mutual agreements, laws and other countries, not even for their "allies". I say kick them out of the UN and put G.W Bush charged for his crimes, that is, if this all is true.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Seeing as though the most recent 10 or more of their "articles" (cough:: propaganda) were clearly anti-war articles, I don't see how you could take this "leaked" information seriously.
Seeing as though the most recent 10 or more of their "articles" (cough:: propaganda) were clearly anti-war articles, I don't see how you could take this "leaked" information seriously. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well im not very familiar with Observer thats why wrote "If this is true". Maybe we get more information on this later on.
Edit: And I saw it in the news, thats why I think it might be true. At least the chemical weapons part is, some other newspaper informed about that.
I'm reluctant to give bigger opinions about something that hasn't been verified yet from anywhere else, but should this be true (and my feeling says 'yes'), it'll at least cost Mrs. Rices head. Whether that's good or bad remains to be seen.
We do have EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) teams stationed around the Middle-East that have been destroying Chemical & Biological weapons that were found in the area, we've been doing that for over a decade now. Someone probably just blew that story out of proportion and turned it into excremental gossip.
The US have admitted to stock their forces with several of them and a wide range of narcotics, amongst them the one used by Russian special ops during the recent hostage crisis (120 hostages were killed by that gas).
[edit]BTW, while we're at posting leftist propganada... I pray to god that at least 75% of <a href='http://www.counterpunch.org/tripp02202003.html' target='_blank'>this</a> is exaggerated.[/edit]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's amazing how people need hardcore, ironclad, irrefutable evidence before they are even willing to <i>consider</i> the fact that Saddam has chemical weapons, but then will grasp at the any shred of evidence to level the same charge at the US.
So, if Colin Powell had just released to the UN that he had heard that Saddam had WOMD through 'the news', then presumably, that would be enough for you?
Edit: Yes, I <i>know</i> we have them . . . that's not my point. I'm just always amazed by how some people will let their high standards of proof slip in cases involving the US.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's amazing how people need hardcore, ironclad, irrefutable evidence before they are even willing to <i>consider</i> the fact that Saddam has chemical weapons, but then will grasp at the any shred of evidence to level the same charge at the US.
So, if Colin Powell had just released to the UN that he had heard that Saddam had WOMD through 'the news', then presumably, that would be enough for you?
Edit: Yes, I <i>know</i> we have them . . . that's not my point. I'm just always amazed by how some people will let their high standards of proof slip in cases involving the US. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam never claimed to be saint, USA does. I would expect at least US to follow the laws they say they are protecting. And its not "any shred of evidence". USA confessed they DO have them there. They are planning to avoid all that messy city-fighting by paralyzing(heh) whole citites, killing couple of thousand people(like in Russia, except hundreds). Use of these weapons would practically render the whole agreement useless, unleashing thousands of Chemical weapons to be used in future wars.
Interesting . . . I'm guessing you've never read any of his speeches or his press releases, nor have you watched any interviews with him. He's pretty assured of his righteousness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And its not "any shred of evidence". USA confessed they DO have them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, but that wasn't your point-- you had said that the US was bringing them to the borders of Iraq, which insinuates that they're going to be part of some nefarious, evil scheme. And you were accepting this at face value because you saw it on 'the news'.
Interesting . . . I'm guessing you've never read any of his speeches or his press releases, nor have you watched any interviews with him. He's pretty assured of his righteousness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And its not "any shred of evidence". USA confessed they DO have them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, but that wasn't your point-- you had said that the US was bringing them to the borders of Iraq, which insinuates that they're going to be part of some nefarious, evil scheme. And you were accepting this at face value because you saw it on 'the news'. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They have them, there, in the borders. Duh. Also, maybe Saddam has clamied to be saint, but no one believes him anyway <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> USA on the other hand, is "supposed" to be righteous defender of moral values and democracy.
Of course, your comments suggest that few believe that, as well...
As little as I trust the integrity or the intelligence of our current administration, I'd need to see some pretty hard proof before I bought into this. Also, I'd want to see some info on type, quantity, delivery support, etc.
Who knows . . .
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->USA on the other hand, is "supposed" to be righteous defender of moral values and democracy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh. And our president is "supposed" to be an intelligent, well-spoken, historically educated, noble individual.
So, if Colin Powell had just released to the UN that he had heard that Saddam had WOMD through 'the news', then presumably, that would be enough for you?
Edit: Yes, I know we have them . . . that's not my point. I'm just always amazed by how some people will let their high standards of proof slip in cases involving the US. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Best quote of all times. Especially when everyone immediately changed the subject and acted like it wasn't true in this thread. I don't care if you don't like the US, just don't be such hypocrites about it. Otherwise I'll have to start bringing up the reason the middleeast is such a cesspool anyways - ever heard of the Balfor Declaration, and european colonialism?
As little as I trust the integrity or the intelligence of our current administration, I'd need to see some pretty hard proof before I bought into this. Also, I'd want to see some info on type, quantity, delivery support, etc.
Who knows . . . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im TRYING to find that link, I'll post it here if and when I do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Heh. And our president is "supposed" to be an intelligent, well-spoken, historically educated, noble individual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, well there is a reason why this all is happening; things don't always go the way they are supposed to <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The reson why i think there is chemical weapons in the borders, is that the news(Nem Zero also noted this) said "UK government is worried because US's chemical weapons in Iraqs borders..."
I'd think that they know better before telling this in news.
So, if Colin Powell had just released to the UN that he had heard that Saddam had WOMD through 'the news', then presumably, that would be enough for you?
Edit: Yes, I know we have them . . . that's not my point. I'm just always amazed by how some people will let their high standards of proof slip in cases involving the US. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Best quote of all times. Especially when everyone immediately changed the subject and acted like it wasn't true in this thread. I don't care if you don't like the US, just don't be such hypocrites about it. Otherwise I'll have to start bringing up the reason the middleeast is such a cesspool anyways - ever heard of the Balfor Declaration, and european colonialism? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know Saddam is evil. The thing im trying to do here, is to get you(americans) to know, that your current government isn't actually very nice either <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
We of course know that our government can be bad. Which of us went through the vietnam war? Honestly. Creating a topic called 'The USA's latest trick' is not an effort to have us mystically understand that we have a goverment that does unsavory things periodically. It's just designed to irritate and inflame people.
I still return to Mike's point that it takes 12 years for us to make anyone believe (unsuccessfully) that Iraq has mustard gas pointed at its neighbors, but people jump on this newspaper with ease and believe anything. I mean, this article won't sell papers right? right? I repeat - it's the hypocricy which irritates me.
We all know that the Pentagon is having treaty-violating programs on them, they admitted this themselves, after all. Follow me so far?
We also know that a whole row of innovative weaponry is going to be used in Gulf War 2. Still in consensus?
Then it's a pretty safe bet that the US won't waste their taxdollars by not using nonlethal chemical weapons that were specifically used for occasions as we're about to witness, or isn't it?
I'm once again hampered by the language obstacle here, but if you truly wish, I'll be happy to search for quotes proving each of these claims in reliable English-speaking newssources (although I guess some of you will call them propagandistic, too).
Second, the issue that sparked this thread was an article by one of the biggest newspapers in the world claiming that the NSA broke just about every rule of respect and integrity the UN are based upon in direct order from one of the Presidents closest advisors (which are usually held up when somebody brings the 'But Bush is an idiot' issue in the discussion).
Anybody who has to say something on that?
that's one of the scariest things I've read in a long time
I'll wait for a few other outlets to bring up this story. Why wouldn't they if it's true? Imagine how many people would tune into CNN if it was saying the US has chemical weapons in Kuwait? That would be HUGE news. Just be patient and wait for someone besides this tabloid paper to bring it up. Wile my natural tendency is distrust ALL governments, I also naturally distrust news outlets. Both have axes to grind which are designed to increase their own power and money.
As for other outlets bringing the story...
<a href='http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=383006' target='_blank'>The Independent</a> (Concerning the 'C' story.)
<a href='http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,238412,00.html' target='_blank'>Der Spiegel</a>. (Check your favorite newssources archives for 'Rudolf Augstein' if you have doubts about its integrity.)
And it's - how old? Three hours?
We all know that the Pentagon is having treaty-violating programs on them, they admitted this themselves, after all. Follow me so far?
We also know that a whole row of innovative weaponry is going to be used in Gulf War 2. Still in consensus?
Then it's a pretty safe bet that the US won't waste their taxdollars by not using nonlethal chemical weapons that were specifically used for occasions as we're about to witness, or isn't it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dunno, Nem-- there are a couple leaps in logic that I'm not comfortable about, much as my agreement with Ned leaves me a bit unsettled <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Let's start with the bang-for-your-buck factor. The US is hardly in the market of using unconventional weapons just for the sake of giving the US taxpayer some sort of tangible R.O.I. Besides, they're not really all that sexy, are they? (Remember the recent theater fiasco? I'd imagine the US gov't was taking notes, especially if they had a vested interest in developing a 'non-lethal' chemical arsenal) Now, bombs, missles, and things that go BOOM-- that's what we use to excess, because CNN can run hour after hour of footage of these things hitting their tragets (ommiting the hours where they <i>don't</i>), and Joe Taxpayer gets a little excitement when he sees where his 30% is going.
There are too many leaps in logic for me to buy into your reasoning . . . let's put the shoe on the other foot-- since Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons before, since there isn't 100% proof that he's stopped, since he wouldn't want to waste all the time and money spent on their development, and since they would be perfect to use in a 'last stand' scenario, as this is likely to be, wouldn't that be proof enough that he has them?
Edit: Also, just a thought, which could be a discussion topic in itself-- regardless of the nomenclature that treaties and such use, should non-lethal chemical weapons be treated the same as lethal chemical weapons? Again, the Russian theater debacle shows us that the lines are still very blurry, but should a knock-out agent be characterized (and criminalized) the same as VX gas, or some other chemical designed to kill as many as possible, in the most horrible manner?
Basically, we haven't got a comparable situation here. Aside from the fact that there was suprisingly little turmoil after the fiasco, this time, the people who could die are far away - and thus medially less interesting (check the deaths during the Afghanistan assaults for reference). Also, the gases the Pentagon admitted to posess are 'semi-defensive'. The question isn't whether they're better looking than a missle strike, the question is whether they're more appealing than lots of American casualties during house-to-house combat.
I admit that I was shortnening myself, but you have to admit that the Pentagon would be mighty stupid not to use weapons it developed for a very specific situation when this situation actually appears.
This all is however getting pretty hypocritical, too. On the one hand we have a regime that's being accused of producing chemical weaponry, on the other hand, the accusing country (or more precisely, its government), produces just those weapons itself.
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: Also, just a thought, which could be a discussion topic in itself-- regardless of the nomenclature that treaties and such use, should non-lethal chemical weapons be treated the same as lethal chemical weapons? Again, the Russian theater debacle shows us that the lines are still very blurry, but should a knock-out agent be characterized (and criminalized) the same as VX gas, or some other chemical designed to kill as many as possible, in the most horrible manner? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These harsh treaties were signed under the influence of the first World War, where some of the most horrible chemical weapons of all time were employed, so I agree that they're biased, but they're for a good reason: Chemical weaponry isn't as segregated as many other kinds of arms. While some gasses may be non-lethal, other very similiar derivates (i.e. gasses that can be produced by the same factories) can make you cough your lungs out. The rule is there as any other couldn't be enforced properly.[/edit]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it's justification for tax spending, then yes, I think the newsreel-worthiness of their 'performance' is relevant. If it's simply a matter of their tactical validity, then ok. Initially, you were a bit too close to the line of weapon-use for the sake of weapon-use for my liking, but I think you've cleared that up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is getting pretty far from the topic at hand - let's focus on the US side of things and keep the other half in the threads dedicated to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But then, there really wouldn't be much to focus on-- the story is, as you've said, hours old, and hasn't been widely reported. Also missing from the report are any sort of specifics, shy of the dastardly generic cry of 'chemical weapons'.
So let's fire off the conjecture, but make sure to stick it only to the US? It's not entirely fair to paint the US gov'ts greed and hypocrisy as the beginning and the end of all its actions . . . is the US the only nation to have a covert weapons program? Could it be doing so defensively? Could something external have spurred its development?
I'm not saying this is so, only that you can't isolate the US's motivation. Sure, it's hypoctrical . . . but we're talking about governments here. Hypocrisy is a <i>given</i>.
[edit]How is it straying from the topic when the US is accused (rightfully) of hypocrisy relative to its stance on Iraq, but <b>then</b>-- if you turn the same logic used to condemn it back on the recipient of its hypocrisy, suddenly it may be reasonably justified?[/edit]
[further edit]Ok, I can see how it's straying from the UN spying piece. Can't comment on that until I read up on it.[/further edit]
The only thing more curious than these facts themselves is the fact that (if they are accurate) they were leaked . . . you're supposed to <i>really</i> try to keep this sort of thing on the down low.
The line has been drawn to all chemical weapons because with this kind of weapons, you don't want to leave any room for misunderstandings. Use of a knock-out agent could be interpreted in the chaos of war as simply "a chemical strike" and the results could get really ugly. Simple use of a knock-out agent against enemy forces could end up with a VX strike against your own troops. And who could really blame them? Reports of gas being used against their soldiers, with no reliable information about the nature of the gas available. Wait for confirmation about the type of gas? If it is a knock-out agent, all is well and good, but what if it is VX, sarine, tabun, botuline or something else?
So, yes. Knock-out gases and such should be treated as chemical weapons and criminalized in the same fashion.
You'll call me a conspiracy nut for this one, but I wouldn't be suprised if it had been leaked on purpose. Mrs. Rice is mentioned by name, and she's said to be both very influental to the president and one of the biggest nuiseances to the hawks. Rice convinced Bush to wait for the results of the weapon inspections.
Anyway, good night.
12 hours? That's practically forever! yeesh!
/me sits in the corner till then
While we're waiting here for Nem's imposed deadline, this statement doesn't make the slightest sense. Using your logic, it would be illegal to get surgery, have a tooth pulled, or stop a raging mississippi mob from trying to lynch a black man. CS gas (commonly called tear gas) and other restraining anesthisia and knockout gasses are used particularly because their chance of lethality is extremely low. They are specifically preferrable to restraining riots without having to fire bullets into the crowd for dispersal.
I will go ahead and make a prediction here that the US does have restraining chemical agents like tear gas and such stockpiled in the theater. This is because if we were to invade Iraq and occupy bagdahd, you are going to have huge rioting mobs attacking public buildings, slaughtering saddam's informants in street justice, and so forth. It would of course be prudent to gave that sort of thing on hand rather than trying to restrain the mobs in other ways, as it will only cause discomfort, not death.
Having fought rioting cubans while stationed in guantanamo bay in 1994-95 (former convicts castro placed on boats to mix in with legitimate refugees), I can tell you that it's certainly preferrable to get tear gassed than have someone smash your face with a riot batton or take a rubber bullet in the eye. If anyone has the experience to contradict me, I'm open to suggestions.
Tick-tock.