Re: 17,000 deaths a year from the cold

"Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Listen George. Until you find actual physical evidence that is
evaluated
> > by
> > > trained legal and forensic people, you are blowing wind out your anus.
> > >
> > > ---------------- What is known ( fairy well established at
> least ) ------
> > >
> > > Both Iran and Iraq used chemical agents in their conflict.
> > >
> > > Chemical weapons do not 'point fingers' back at the originators so
some
> > > conflicts have little evidence as to which side used them. There are
> some
> > > other incidents where it was clearly Iran or clearly Iraq.
> >
> > You obviously have not heard of chemical fingerprinting, a very common
> test
> > to determine the origin/manufacturer of a chemical.  You are such a
dork!
>
> Both Iran and Iraq used thiodyglycol as the precursor. It is relatively
easy
> to obtain under the designation of 'pesticide production' and easy to
> convert to mustard gas with limited technology. Fingerprinting cannot make
> fine distinction such as you suggest. You might be able to pinpoint the
> country of origin of the precursor material but you cannot say who USED
the
> gas. Both Iran and Iraq could easily get the same material from the same
> exporting country.

So now you are saying that we sold precursors to Iran as well?  I have
conducted a many environmental investigations that involved chemical
fingerprinting, and I can tell you with no uncertainty that every
manufacturer leaves a chemical signature in the chemicals they produce.  The
very nature of the manufacturing process makes this possible because
different manufacturers use different methods, or variations of those
methods, and differing concentrations of compounds.  Most, if not all in the
US keep batch samples that can be readily used in the fingerprinting
process.  I can collect a sample of gasoline contaminated soil and tell you,
using chemical fingerprinting, if it was produced from Exxon, Chevron, or
BP.  In some cases, depending on the age of the sample in the environment
(i.e., the amount of degradation, biotic activity in the soil, etc), I can
even tell you when it was made, within boundaries.  Having said that, by
fingerprinting the thiodyglycol, you can make a reasonable determination of
whether or not it was made by a US manufacturer.  If it was, then the
chances would be good that it came from the US, and hence the gas would have
been used by the Iraqis.

>
> >
> > > The origin of the materials for chemical and biological weapons was
> often
> > > the U.S. which backed the Iraqis in their war as a check on the power
of
> > > Islamic Iranian Fundamentalists.
> >
> > And Belgium, and Germany, etc, etc, etc.  Your point is?
>
> That the use of chemical weapons in the war was supported by the U.S.

Bullshit!  Provide the documents, dweeb.

> > You said above
> > that "Chemical weapons do not 'point fingers' back at the originators so
>
> They do not. If country A uses them or country B, unless there is
something
> unique about the precursor/production ( which there are not )

Yes there is.  There is always something unique about precursors.  Read
above.

>you cannot
> distinguish which country threw it. There are many examples of this,
> including the Kurdish village, which the CIA could not attribute to one
side
> or the other.

So, you think the CIA screwed up the intelligence on Iraq, but your willing,
for the sake of your argument, to accept their intelligence on the Kurdish
attack?  Are you running for hypocrit of the year, or what?

> > some
> > conflicts have little evidence as to which side used them."  I say they
> can
> > easily be traced.  and Yet you have no problem pointing the finger at
the
> US
> > for providing chemical precursers despite the fact that you have no
> evidence
> > whatsoever that Iraq actually used those provided chemicals to make the
> > weapons in question.
>
> I have no problem finding who supplied the precursors. That can be done
with
> export receipts. My god you are a dim shit. The question is who USED them.
> And the answer is BOTH countries.

Again, you are suggesting that the US supplied both countries with
thiodglycol?  And you base this on what?  More CIA imtelligence?  Where is
the data?

> >
> > > The Geneva Convention ( to which both are a signatory ) prohibits the
> use
> > of
> > > Chemical or Biological weapons but the fact is that both Iran, Iraq,
and
> > the
> > > U.S. thumb their noses at the convention whenever they like. The real
> > > recourse for the convention is that once one side uses them, the other
> is
> > > free to do so.
> >
> > Using that seriously fucked up reasoning, its ok to pollute Canadian
> waters
> > with our pollution because they are doing it to us.  Your argument is
> flawed
> > kimosabi.
>
> You failed the Logic 0.0009 course. There is no moral evaluation of what
is
> ":right" here. When one talks about a protocol or treaty one is talking
> about legal sanction. If morals were being discussed, the U.S.'s massive
> stockpiles and misuse during tests would be the talking point.
>
> Obviously use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons is abhorent and
> thus banned in the first place. I have been talking about the practical
> legal ramifications. There is no basis for invasion based on the use of
> Chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war. It was not a threat to the U.S. nor
> is there any sanction from the use during this conflict. The WMD
> restrictions stem from the Kuwait war and the U.N restriictions on
military
> equipment that were imposed.

And I have been trying to put a human face to those legal ramifications.
The fact is that Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer who killed tens of
thousands to further his political and financial goals, and should be tried
for crimes against humanity, or if he won't go quietly, should suffer the
same fate as his sons.  Everyone on the planet but you seems to think this
is the case.  What does that say about you, Ian?