German economy slumps

[NOFX]

genocide in Sudan right now? I just disproved that argument. The Darfur peace settlement will proceed.

Gian you did not disprove that there was no Sudan Genocide, its painstakingly obvious there is a genocide:

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

You cant say your the better debater, you need someone to say it for you. Thats like voting for yourself. I think that Rakedog is a better debater.

 

[Giancarlo]

And yet, no matter what bills bush supported, economy in 2002/2003 was bad. And the deficit still dropped in 2004. But at least we are getting the jobs back and the US dollar is growing again. That's a good thing...

Again nice circular logic. The economy was bad in late 2000. Three months before Bush took office.. when Clinton was in power. In 2003 the economy was recovering quite nicely. The jobs growth have been going on for a year and half now I believe.

Right. But there were still no WMD. So you can't deny that Bush miscalculated big time. Freedom is the only part of the war that I agree with... Bush exadderated the part about Saddam being a global world threat.

But now we have all these people getting blown up and assasined.

This is typical liberal nonsense. Miscalculated this, miscalculated that.. that's all you people who oppose this war do.. you miscalculate. I'm glad you miscalculated the 2004 elections and had your ideas crushed. I hope your ideas continue to get crushed as time goes on.

You are typical of someone of the illogical left.. "all these people getting blow up and assasined (SIC)".



A lot more people were dying under Saddam then now. So kiss my rear end.

 

[Giancarlo]

Gian you did not disprove that there was no Sudan Genocide, its painstakingly obvious there is a genocide:

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

You cant say your the better debater, you need someone to say it for you. Thats like voting for yourself. I think that Rakedog is a better debater.

600,000 lives depend on our actions... these are our actions.. I never said there wasn't any genocide. But we have our eyes on the situation and are pressuring the Sudanese to stop these attacks..

WE ARE DOING OUR PART!

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050226/2005022635.html

"The Department Of State spokesman Richard Boucher, in a question and answer session said yesterday: The United States is taking a number of actions to support the comprehensive peace agreement in Sudan. We think the agreement provides a sound basis for achieving stability and national unity throughout Sudan, particularly with respect to Darfur and the areas still affected by conflict. And we urge both sides to implement the agreement fully and rapidly and to seize this opportunity to solve the crisis in Darfur.

A few things we've done diplomatically. We've strengthened our diplomatic presence by appointing Ambassador David Kaeuper .. as the charge d'affaires of the American Embassy in Khartoum. Ambassador Kaeuper has arrived in the Sudanese capital. He will engage the Sudanese Government on critical issues, including the crisis in Darfur, implementing the comprehensive peace agreement, delivering lifesaving humanitarian aid to millions of Sudanese threatened by displacement and food shortages. The Embassy has also sent an official to southern Sudan with a view to establishing a U.S. diplomatic presence there.

Second -- or third, I guess -- the United States has named former Ambassador to Sudan Donald Petterson as its representative to the Abiye Commission. That Commission is responsible for resolving border issues in the Abiye region and that was one of the subjects, as you remember, a separate protocol included with the comprehensive peace accord.

In addition, we plan to name a senior official to the Assessment and Evaluation Commission which will be established to monitor and report on implementation of the agreement.

We urge the parties to establish this and other commissions called for in the agreement as quickly as possible.

The United States is committed to working very closely with the international community to provide assistance and promote peace, security and reconciliation in Sudan. We take this opportunity to underscore our grave concerns about the violence and atrocities in Darfur. Darfur remains a major priority and the United States will continue its strong support for the African Union mission in Darfur.

The United States will not fully normalize relations with Sudan until the situation in Darfur has stabilized.

QUESTION: Have you said that before, that you won't fully normalize relations until Darfur stabilizes?

BOUCHER: I think so. I'm not sure we've used exactly those words, but we've said that they can't expect to see the kind of benefits, diplomatic and financial benefits, that would normally accompany this agreement as long as the situation in Darfur continues.

QUESTION: So then you've given up -- a couple of weeks ago you told us that you were reviving your effort to impose UN sanctions on Sudan, notably on its petroleum industry. Have you thrown in the towel on that?

BOUCHER: No, we have continued to pursue a draft UN resolution that continues to be under discussion up in New York. It includes targeted sanctions and the possibility of further measures in other areas such as petroleum.

QUESTION: But not actually -- it's just a possibility down the line, not actually --

BOUCHER: I think that was the language that was worked out is targeted sanctions now and then noting specifically for the UN Security Council to identify specifically that possibility of further measures. I'm not -- that's a paraphrase. I don't have the exact language in front of me. But we continue to pursue a UN resolution. We think that the issues right now before the UN Security Council on Sudan are very important. It is -- the north-south agreement, how we support that, the peacekeepers that need to be there, but we don't think we can act on that without taking into account the situation in Darfur and therefore think that Darfur needs to be part of that resolution as well. And that's in the draft that we've been consulting with other governments on..

QUESTION: Earlier today there was a forum discussion at Brookings Institute -- Institution, and the whole question about the war crimes trial, should it be at the ICC or in Tanzania, did come up, and one of the difficulties remains -- or a question -- is China. Have you approached the Chinese Government with respect to what their activities have been in Sudan, and perhaps either jawboned them or leaned heavily on them?

BOUCHER: You guys are always telling me about these interesting meetings I can't go to because I'm preparing for the briefing. But the issue of accountability for the crimes, the atrocities, we would say, the genocide that has been committed in Darfur, is one that's high on our agenda. We have discussed it extensively with other members of the Security Council. We've discussed it quite a bit with key African partners. We've discussed it with the Europeans during, for example, the Secretary's trip to Europe. I don't know at this point whether it came up during the President's trip or not. You'll have to check with the White House on that.

We all agree, I think everybody that we've talked to agrees, horrible things have happened in Darfur. There needs to be accountability for those crimes and atrocities, that most people agree there needs to be international accountability for that, and we're still discussing what's the most appropriate way to put that together to make sure that violations of the international humanitarian and human rights law are punished.

QUESTION: Can I follow up, Richard? U.S. Ambassador Prosper took part from the State Department in that discussion. Will he be given further duties, especially for war crimes trial and/or for other activities in Sudan?

BOUCHER: He's got ongoing duties. He's our Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues and he is actively working this issue.

QUESTION: At the UN, the last I heard was the U.S. had just handed out elements of what it wanted in a resolution. I wondered if you can just bring us up to date on how far along this process has gotten, how close are you to a vote. And secondly --

BOUCHER: Are you talking -- there are actually two resolutions. One's the peacekeeping resolution and it includes Darfur sanctions, and the second would be a further resolution on accountability for Darfur.

QUESTION: I'm talking about the first one, the north-south peacekeeping in Darfur.

BOUCHER: Okay, let me answer that first.

BOUCHER: We circulated a draft Security Council resolution on Monday, February 14th, that would establish the UN peace support operation in Sudan and includes measures to pressure the parties to the Darfur conflict to abide by their commitments under Resolutions 1556, 1564 and 1574. As I mentioned, we're actively discussing the text with others. We're open to constructive comments and suggestions. Experts met last week to review the text and they're meeting again today. As I said, that discussion continues.

Now the second half?

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. The top UN official on peacekeeping is here in town, and I know that he's been talking about this 10,000-strong force for north-south, but I wonder if the Bush Administration is encouraging the UN to get more involved in Darfur in any way, if there's going to be some crossover with these UN -- the peacekeeping mission.

BOUCHER: I think, first, the UN is heavily involved in Darfur and I think you'll remember that a lot of the international attention on Darfur was focused by overlapping visits from Secretary of State Powell and Secretary General Kofi Annan last summer, and that our effort to work the problems of Darfur and try to solve the problems of the people of Darfur has been very closely coordinated with the UN. The Secretary General's representative Jan Pronk reports regularly to the Security Council and we work very closely with him and other UN agencies who are working to monitor the situation, to report on the situation, to pressure the government and the rebels, as well as the UN agency involved in the provision of relief. So the UN, as a whole, is heavily involved in Darfur.

In terms of the military deployments, we do think that implementation of the north-south agreement, including the implementation by the peacekeeping presence that will be sent to Sudan in order to implement the north-south agreement, that that process is stabilizing for the country and contributes to, we would hope, a solution to Darfur as well. But the specific military presence in Darfur at this point is an African Union mission. They're now up to 1,900-and-some forces there. They have traveled extensively, reported extensively. We continue to support them with financial support, with expertise. Many others do as well. But for the moment, that's the way it settles out."

Rakedog is not a better debater as I:

1) Back myself up

2) Provide proper evidence

 

[rakedog]

Lol. Back in 2004 elections.. I was pro-kerry, but I knew he wasn't going to win. I mean, he fucked up early on by focusing on his war-history, and thought he did good on the debates, I didn't honestly think they were going to win. I seriously think both Repblicans and Democrats produces crappy candidates for '04 election.

Job growth really only started in Q4-03, but summer of '03 was bad.

 

[Giancarlo]

Lol. Back in 2004 elections.. I was pro-kerry, but I knew he wasn't going to win. I mean, he fucked up early on by focusing on his war-history, and thought he did good on the debates, I didn't honestly think they were going to win. I seriously think both Repblicans and Democrats produces crappy candidates for '04 election.

Job growth really only started in Q4-03, but summer of '03 was bad.

He did good in debate one, and faltered in debate two.. was there a third debate? Oh yes.. Bush excelled in that one. Cheney had Edwards by the balls. I remember those.. they were amusing.

Kerry just didn't have the ideas, or the charsima to win. Bush was a good candidate I think.

No it started Q3, I believe. If I can remember right, September..

 

[NOFX]

There was pretty decent evidence before the war to indicate that Saddam did have WMDs.

Like those huge reports the UN Weapon Inspectors made, which officially stated that there were no weapons of mass destructions or dirty bombs present in Iraq. Also dont the US use Depleted Uranium, in their tank shells and bombs.
http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=1881&blz=2

So as far as we know the only power actually using dirty bombs is the United States. Wow thats Hypocrasy for you.

 

[Giancarlo]

Those huge reports never stated anything like that. And depleted uranium is used in some shells. And it isn't dirty bombs. Foolish people. Again, there was evidence that Saddam did in fact seek uranium from Niger (the little flap about that one former ambassador visitng there wasn't true, as it was later proved he never did).

I'm sorry NOFX. But your strawman attacks don't hold up. You are one sorry debater.

 

[NOFX]

I thought like the most important rule of debating was not to use personal insults as part of your argument. Actually the fact that on contact with the air the DU shells begin to instantly shed uranium, and leave it in the air, until it settles, i think that that is a pretty dirty bomb. Also the fact that MPs are contracting cancer from the depleted uranium and are usually posted among the civilian population also goes to show that the DU bombs that are being dropped on the cities are having direct effects among untold thousands of civilians. I would say dropping that stuff among civilians constitutes a direct attack using Dirty Bombs.

 

[Giancarlo]

Oh come on dude.. you were doing this all last night and what do you expect me to do? Just forget about it? You have been up to my face the whole time I have been here and you have been trying to challenge me. You fall flat on your face. Uranium tipped shells aren't dirty bombs. I'm sorry. But that's false. In fact what you claim has little evidence (as most cancers were caused by burned oil during the gulf war). Again learn your stuff.

 

[NOFX]

“A flying rod of solid uranium 18-inches long and three-quarters of an inch in diameter,” is what becomes of a DU tank round after it is fired, Rokke said. Because Uranium-238 is pyrophoric, meaning it burns on contact with air, DU rounds are burning as they fly.

When the DU penetrator hits an object it breaks up and causes secondary explosions, Rokke said. “It's way beyond a dirty bomb,” Rokke said, referring to the terror weapon that uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material.

Some of the uranium used with DU weapons vaporizes into extremely small particles, which are dispersed into the atmosphere where they remain until they fall to the ground with the rain. As a gas, the chemically toxic and radioactive uranium can easily enter the body through the skin or the lungs and be carried around the world until it falls to earth with the rain.

AFP asked Marion Falk, a retired chemical physicist who built nuclear bombs for more than 20 years at Lawrence Livermore lab, if he thought that DU weapons operate in a similar manner as a dirty bomb. “That's exactly what they are,” Falk said. “They fit the description of a dirty bomb in every way.”

According to Falk, more than 30 percent of the DU fired from the cannons of U.S. tanks is reduced to particles one-tenth of a micron (one millionth of a meter) in size or smaller on impact.

“The larger the bang” the greater the amount of DU that is dispersed into the atmosphere, Falk said. With the larger missiles and bombs, nearly 100 percent of the DU is reduced to radioactive dust particles of the “micron size” or smaller, he said.

While the Pentagon officially denies the dangers of DU weapons, since at least 1943 the military has been aware of the extreme toxicity of uranium dispersed as a gas. A declassified memo written by James B. Conant and two other physicists working on the U.S. nuclear project during the Second World War, and sent to Brig. Gen. L.R. Groves on October 30, 1943, provides the evidence:

“As a gas warfare instrument the [radioactive] material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs,” the 1943 memo reads. “In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulation in a person's body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty.”

The use of radioactive materials “as a terrain contaminant” to “deny terrain to either side except at the expense of exposing personnel to harmful radiations” is also discussed in the Groves memo of 1943.

“Anybody, civilian or soldier, who breathes these particles has a permanent dose, and it's not going to decrease very much over time,” Leonard Dietz, a retired nuclear physicist with 33 years experience told the New York Daily News. “In the long run … veterans exposed to ceramic uranium oxide have a major problem.”

Inhaled particles of radioactive uranium oxide dust will either lodge in the lungs or travel through the body, depending on their size. The smallest particles can be carried through cell walls and “affect the master code - the _expression of the DNA,” Falk told AFP.

Inhaled DU can “fool around with the keys” and do damage to “practically anything,” Falk said. “It affects the body in so many ways and there are so many different symptoms that they want to give it different names,” Falk said about the wide variety of ailments afflicting Gulf War veterans.

Today, more than one out of every three veterans from the first Gulf War are permanently disabled. Terry Jemison of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs said that of the 592,561 discharged veterans from the 1991 war in Iraq, 179,310 are receiving disability compensation and another 24,763 cases are pending.

The “epigenetic damage” done by DU has resulted in many grossly deformed children born in areas such as southern Iraq where tons of DU have contaminated the environment and local population. An untold number of Americans have also been born with severe birth defects as a result of DU contamination.

The New York Daily News conducted a study on nine recently returned soldiers from the New York National Guard. Four of the nine were found to have “almost certainly” inhaled radioactive dust from exploded DU shells.

Laboratory tests revealed two manmade forms of uranium in urine samples from four of the 9 soldiers. The four soldiers are the first confirmed cases of inhaled DU from the current Iraq war.

“These are amazing results, especially since these soldiers were military police not exposed to the heat of battle,” said Dr. Asaf Duracovic, who examined the soldiers and performed the testing. “Other American soldiers who were in combat must have more DU exposure,” Duracovic said. Duracovic is a colonel in the Army reserves and served in the 1991 Gulf War.

The test results showing that four of nine New York guardsmen test positive for DU “suggest the potential for more extensive radiation exposure among coalition troops and Iraqi civilians,” the Daily News reported.

“A large number of American soldiers [in Iraq] may have had significant exposure to uranium oxide dust,” Dr. Thomas Fasey, a pathologist at Mount Sinai Medical Center and an expert on depleted uranium said, “And the health impact is worrisome for the future."

I wouldnt consider that a clean bomb then again I wouldnt call any bomb a clean bomb. Do you want some pictures of what affect that has had on the Iraqi civilian population?