more news from different places, please
David Millman
I'd like to see more participation from those outside of the US who
may be able to supply more 'facts' than we are able to scavenge from
our own crippled press.
While battle details are probably all screened through the US
military, no matter where they appear, other kinds of news may slip
through: e.g. I heard from someone in contact with her sister, a nurse
in Germany, that they are receiving about 40-50 casualties a day in
German hospitals.
I have not seen this in the local papers; and even now it has to
stand as an unsubstantiated rumor. But that's not so far from what
we're getting in the US press anyway. Remember early CNN (maybe PNN:
Pentagon News Network?) reports of the massive success? Maybe that
sort of thing is good for our morale, especially if you liked our
policy in the first place, but it's not really news.
Also curious about public sentiment outside of the US. Apparently
our press does not feel compelled to accurately report local protests,
making everyone even more isolated and polarized.
EVEN UNSUBSTANTIATED, THIS GROUP CAN SUPPLY MORE INFORMATION FROM
WHICH WE CAN DRAW OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.
Also, on Bio-Warfare: Apparently the FDA approved, in mid-December, a
change in the law permitting our military to perform biological
experiments on their own personnel, immediately. Wonder who suggested
that? I think this violates a treaty (Nuremburg?) going back to WWII.
Anyway, can anyone fill us in on the possibility of having any sort of
effective vaccine against bio-weapons, especially now that genetic
modifications are relatively easy, rendering a known & deadly disease
to become an unknown & deadly other disease?
thanks,
David Millman
Columbia University
Carol Farlow Lerche
the law permitting the military to perform biological experiments on our own
personnel". The antitoxins to biological weapons have not been FDA approved,
for what seem (to me) pretty obvious reasons. The military have received a
waiver to inject the troops in the gulf with these antitoxins, if necessary.
ben a green
My roomate is turkish and reads the turkish newspaper, also his father
is a very very higher up in the mil.
It seems Turkish reports say that 300 plans flew to IRAN, which is
quite a chunk of Iraq's air power...That contradicts earlier reports
of 3 or 80 or whatever was said.
Also, it was stated that Iran was with Saddam (well the whole Arab world
is, even the common man in the street in Saudi!)
It seems Turkish newspapers are having the same problems we are in getting
news.
The AWACS say 80 planes have left Iraq. Maybe some got away undetected,
but who cares? As long as they aren't opposing us, I say the more the better.
Iran's foreign ministry says it is maintaining neutrality.
Reporters in Saudi Arabia say that the common man in the street is against
Saddam.
--
Ben A. Green, Jr.
gre...@crd.ge.com
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Scott K Wood
>A bit of news from a "different" source.
>My roomate is turkish and reads the turkish newspaper, also his father
>is a very very higher up in the mil.
>Also, it was stated that Iran was with Saddam (well the whole Arab world
>is, even the common man in the street in Saudi!)
It seems that the Turkish paper is just as vulnerable to Iraqi
propaganda as the rest of the world is. Trouble is, they don't
know what not to report. When you say "Iran" is with Saddam, what are
you referring to specifically? I seriously doubt the ruler of Iran
(sorry, can't remeber his title) would be on Iran's side after an 8
year war.
>In other words, it could blow up, the whole Gulf...I dont want to
>interject any comment into this (I already have), but
>GOD WHY DID WE DO THIS!!!, Iran was AGAINST Saddam at first because
>they didnt want him to get Kuwait and become more powerful...BUT NOW
>SINCE AMERICA (the land of satan worshipers, as they call us) IS THERE,
>THE ARAB WORLD HAS ITS BIG CHANCE TO CRUSH THE INFIDELS....
>Our presence there is STUPID!...Saddam could have never unified the
>Arab world so much if American presence was never there. Serious
>economic sanctions would have hurt him...and other arab nations would
>have been glad (every ruling body wants their state to be the most
>powerful in the area)...
And how were we to know that? Saddam has a HUGE military power,
the largest in the gulf I believe. After the invasion of Kuwait, NO ONE
in the Arab world responded to help Kuwait. It was not until Iraq's
threat of invading Saudi Arabia did the gulf cry out for help! If the
US did not respond, what was going to keep Saddam from taking over the entire
gulf?
>Well, we could still get out now...but Im afraid that wouldnt look
>good...suit up men aged 18-26 (20-26 first, then 18 and 19), looks
>like when the whole area blows up...we'll all be going (congress is
>debating about the draft already, all they have to do is move up the
>expiration date on the renewal bill...that would take one day...the
>draft starts the next)
US public opinion is strongly AGAINST the draft, especially after
the Vietnam fiasco. The real anti war sentiments WILL start if a draft
is instituted. Currently, there is no need for a draft, the ground
war hasn't even started yet. You claim the entire Middle East will
"blow up" against the Allied forces. It seems to me that after the
Allied show of power, FEW arab countries will attempt to fight against us.
After all, if worse comes to worse....we have ICBM's armed with nuclear
warheads, THEY don't...
Scott
Mitchell D Dysart
>
>you referring to specifically? I seriously doubt the ruler of Iran
>(sorry, can't remeber his title) would be on Iran's side after an 8
>year war.
Gee, the ruler of the Soviet Union (whatever his name is) seems to be
on the US's side after a forty-plus year Cold War. And the United States,
who was absolutely opposed to the Soviets from the time of the Russian
Revolution, quickly teamed up with the Russian dictator Stalin during
World War II.
>
>Allied show of power, FEW arab countries will attempt to fight against us.
>After all, if worse comes to worse....we have ICBM's armed with nuclear
>warheads, THEY don't...
>
This, I think, is EXACTLY the point. The United States wants to keep
a monopoly on world power. In the short run, that may work, but in the
long run, it will be self defeating, because sooner or later, some other
power will arise in the world, stronger than the United States, and possibly
really pissed off at the way the US will have been conducting itself.
Eventually, every great civilization falls, from without or from within,
and concentrating on remaining a world power in the short run bodes ill
things in the long run.
--Mitch Dysart
dys...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Aron S Klein
>In article <33...@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> du...@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Darrell Ulm) writes:
>
> My roomate is turkish and reads the turkish newspaper, also his father
> is a very very higher up in the mil.
>
> It seems Turkish reports say that 300 plans flew to IRAN, which is
> quite a chunk of Iraq's air power...That contradicts earlier reports
> of 3 or 80 or whatever was said.
>
> Also, it was stated that Iran was with Saddam (well the whole Arab world
> is, even the common man in the street in Saudi!)
>
>It seems Turkish newspapers are having the same problems we are in getting
>news.
It seems that all presses are somewhat censored. The ones that aren't
censored and are contidict each other so you really can't base any
statements on 'facts' heard or seen. The US gov't has a nice hold on the
info coming out everywhere.
>
>The AWACS say 80 planes have left Iraq. Maybe some got away undetected,
>but who cares? As long as they aren't opposing us, I say the more the better.
I heard about 3 dozen of the planes 'fled'. But I don't sit down and
watch TV for hours, so I could be grossly off.
>
>Iran's foreign ministry says it is maintaining neutrality.
I won't flame now, but it seems Iran can't get into any war right now. They
pretty much got their a** kicked into the sand when they fought Iraq. The Arab
world is in no state to take sides- they are to weak. Syria got pounded against
the wall by Isreal, Egypt wouldn't even think of attacking because Lybia would
just walk up behind them and take over that country, and Jordan has no power
to speak of. It looks like they will throw their 'weight' in when one side
looks like it is going to win. If we win, they get to take a piece of Iraq.
If Iraq wins, they look great to their respective public- they defeated
the military 'giant'. Of corse the Israelies are whole different ball game,
but they won't get in if they don't have to.
>
>Reporters in Saudi Arabia say that the common man in the street is against
>Saddam.
>
>--
>Ben A. Green, Jr.
>gre...@crd.ge.com
> Speaking only for myself, of course.
Speaking of the Isrealies jumping in- if Saddam wanted them in why hasn't he
shot a missle with a chemical warhead? Either:
1) He can't arm the 'SCUD' or,
2) He is afraid of Isreal's power or,
3) He really doesn't know the way his 'friends' are leaning.
Of course I can be way off key,
Please comment with facts
to either support or
contridict ( or flame by E-mail)
ERSHOLE
Greg Holley
> Also, on Bio-Warfare: Apparently the FDA approved, in mid-December, a
> change in the law permitting our military to perform biological
> experiments on their own personnel, immediately. Wonder who suggested
The FDA approved an exemption allowing the military to use vaccines
and treatments that have not yet been approved by the FDA on the
troops, to protect AGAINST biological warfare. The story I read said
that the treatments are not extraordinary or experimental; they simply
haven't yet been approved through normal FDA channels.
--
Greg Holley sun!sono!holley hol...@sono.uucp
"My tale is so strange that, were it written with needles on the interior
corner of an eye, yet would it prove a lesson to the circumspect."
Foxvog Douglas
>A bit of news from a "different" source.
>
>is a very very higher up in the mil.
>
>It seems Turkish reports say that 300 plans flew to IRAN, which is
>quite a chunk of Iraq's air power...That contradicts earlier reports
>of 3 or 80 or whatever was said.
>
BBC reports that Iraq had sent its whole COMMERCIAL fleet to Iran before
the US attack started. This may well make up the difference between the
(rising) US figure of 80-100+ WARPLANES and the Turkish figure of 300
PLANES. You ALWAYS have to read between the lines.
>
>Dulm
Foxvog Douglas
>is, even the common man in the street in Saudi!)
Iran is not Arab, neither is Turkey. The other countries in the area
(except Israel which has a significant Arab population) are Arab.
>GOD WHY DID WE DO THIS!!!, Iran was AGAINST Saddam at first because
>they didnt want him to get Kuwait and become more powerful...BUT NOW
>SINCE AMERICA (the land of satan worshipers, as they call us) IS THERE,
Actually the "Great Satan". The Christian God and the Islamic Allah are
recognized by Muslims as the same [from my understanding. I am not
Islamic, myself]. They would not consider Christians "Satan
worshipers".
>THE ARAB WORLD HAS ITS BIG CHANCE TO CRUSH THE INFIDELS....
Perhaps you mean Islamic. Your point is taken, however. Islamic people
around the world have supported Saddam in significant numbers (Potential
flamers: note I did not say "all" or even "most"). This reaction has
been prevalent in non-Arab Islamic countries such as Iran, Pakistan, and
Indonesia as well as in Arab ones.
This is a group for FACTS. Please be careful of yours before you post.
>
>Our presence there is STUPID!...Saddam could have never unified the
>Arab world so much if American presence was never there. Serious
>economic sanctions would have hurt him...and other arab nations would
>have been glad (every ruling body wants their state to be the most
>powerful in the area)...
Every one? the UAE? Bahrain? Qatar?
>Dulm
Howard C. Berkowitz
>change in the law permitting our military to perform biological
>experiments on their own personnel, immediately. Wonder who suggested
>that?
I believe you are referring to a FDA ruling which allows
the military to use drugs for protection against chemical
or biological weapons, but drugs which do not have an FDA
approval for the specific indication of chemical defense.
FDA approval has to be put in context. The FDA does NOT
independently test drugs proposed for general use, but accepts
New Drug Applications (NDA) sent in by the pharmaceutical
industry, which come with testing data provided by the manufacturer
(which may and often are done by independent investigators; the
manufacturer collates them for the NDA)..
The FDA then reviews the data, a process often taking several years.
There is a three-step process of drug evaluation before approval:
Phase I on normal volunteers (mostly to work out the concentrations
produced by various doses; also to pick up major side effects fro
single doses, Phase II in limited clinical use with close supervision,
Phase III in multicenter clinical trials). Drugs are approved for
general use based on Phase III results; Phase IV tracks post-release
side effects.
Now, manufacturers submit NDAs only when they think the drug
has a commercial market (there is a special category for Orphan
Drugs used to treat rare diseases). Unless the military funds it,
there is no commercial market for drugs to treat military chemical
attacks. Atropine and 2-PAM are used to treat poisoning by nerve
gas and related insecticides, but that stems from the insecticide
work. Dimercaprol ("British Anti-Lewisite" or BAL) was originally
developed to treat military gas poisoning, but, as far as I know,
has FDA approval as a general treatment for heavy metal poisoning,
not specifically war gas.
The DoD request to use these drugs was an effort to make things
available which reasonably could treat poisoning, but had not been
submitted to the FDA because the manufacturers had no economic
reason to do so.
>I think this violates a treaty (Nuremburg?) going back to WWII.
I think you have in mind the 1925 Geneva Protocol on Chemical
and Biological Weapons, not a Nuremburg decision. That affects
military use of CB weapons, but not drugs to treat their effects.
US-USSR bilateral agreements on biological warfare allow defensive
research only, which would address the kind of treatment experiments
you discuss.
>Anyway, can anyone fill us in on the possibility of having any sort of
>effective vaccine against bio-weapons, especially now that genetic
>modifications are relatively easy, rendering a known & deadly disease
>to become an unknown & deadly other disease?
Yes, you can modify bioweapons to make them hard to treat. This
may or may not make military sense, because you have to allow for
the possibility of treating/immunizing your own personnel who may
be exposed to the agents.
The problem of developing military biological agents is much less
a matter of making them more "unknown and deadly," but getting them
to work in a warhead. Without getting into excessive detail, consider
that these are living organisms, which can tolerate a limited
temperature range. If you simply put them in a SCUD explosive
warhead and exploded it, the heat of the explosion would kill most
of the organisms before they could infect anyone. Just spraying
them out of a warhead coming in (as does the SCUD) at supersonic
speed also might heat and kill them. Even spraying from a tank
on an airplane can heat them if not done carefully.
If the heat problem is beaten, then there is a significant problem
of getting the spray mixed so the droplets containing organisms don't
clump and fall in a small area. Remember, the organisms are solid,
rather than nerve gases, which are liquid with a low vaporization
temperature.
This is getting rather long, so just bear in mind that there are
good engineering reasons why Saddam may or may not have been able
to build bio warheads for missiles. It's not impossible, but the
problem is much harder than it appears.
--
how...@cos.com OR {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard
(703) 883-2812 [W] (703) 998-5017 [H]
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Corporation
for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body.