"Andrew Venor" wrote in message
...
Al Dykes wrote:

In article Zcb0g.927239$xm3.272895@attbi_s21,
George wrote:

"Andrew Venor" wrote in message
...

George wrote:

"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message
...


George wrote:


"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in
message . ..



"George" wrote:




The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move
back into the world community. Once they have no economy left
because their
infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow
the
Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place.
When
money talks, people walk. It's a fact.

Explain Afghanistan, then...


Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a
larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential
election in the last 100 years. NEXT.





Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design
binoculars
that can peer over the horizon, let us all know.

Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at
a
map THIS TIME, will you?



Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide.




Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't.

You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though.

Who said anything about conquering Iran?

You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given.
Look
at Iraq or Afghanistan...


Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining
and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes,
there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed.




Because,
1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to
comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which
they are a signatory.

Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no
law
against nations having nuclear weapons.


I suggest you read the NNPT.




2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would
have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S.
economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered.

But they wouldn't agree with a war either.


If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that
heads will change, and heads will roll.




Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to
Iraq
up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming
equipment,
equipment which is only five years old.

No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in
the
80s.


I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which
was composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the
1990s, and was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to
the present.




Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf
War
I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is
called
Gulf War I.


Not my fault Urpeans are stupid.




And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons.
Your point being?

Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and
many
other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all,
a
petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like
all
other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control
what
Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can
control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as
to
think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or
nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff.

I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological
weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and
I
could order said cultures).


Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq
received biological cultures from U.S. private corporate
laboratories, as well as British, French German and laboratories.
Not only that, but U.S. labs sell the same cultures to many
countries, including Britain and France. The cultures were sold for
medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we don't control the end
product of the raw material. There was a guy a few years ago here
in the states who was arrested for illegally culturing anthrax. The
anthrax came from a british lab.




And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to
Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to
make
the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons.


You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But
then, Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear
reactor, and actually sold and had it built it for him.

George

Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different
things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such
materials with any efficiency.

Dean


Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical
religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.

George

True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their
lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the
crowded enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to
kill twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were
injured in the attack as well.

That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of
delivering chemical weapons.

ALV

The point is that they were easily able to pull it off. How much more
effective could Saddam Hussein's people have been, with all that money
at their disposal?



That cult didn't lack for money or expertese. ISTR they had picked up
some Russian scientists. They put lots of thought into it.

They put much thought into producing the sarin. Fortunately they didn't
put too much thought into the delivery system. The Aum Shinrikyo could
have caused many more fatalities if they had released the weapon using
aerosol cans.

ALV

They also puit a lot of thought into producing mustard gas, a fact with
which the Kurds and Iranians are all too familiar.

George