Posted on 02/15/2003 10:25:37 AM PST by knak
HELSINKI, Finland (AP) - The Iraqi Embassy in Helsinki sought information about anthrax from the foreign ministry in October, Finnish media reported Saturday.
The query - reportedly lodged about a month before the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Baghdad - sought suitable methods ``for the early detection of anthrax,'' the Ilta-Sanomat newspaper reported.
The request also concerned ``ways of protecting against anthrax, as well as methods, procedures and equipment needed for decontamination,'' the tabloid said.
Ilta-Sanomat said that the head of the foreign ministry's political division, Markus Lyra, confirmed the report.
``We did not answer it (the request) at all, and there have been no further discussions,'' Lyra was quoted as saying. ``It is not our field.''
``One wonders, whether it was intended simply for propaganda or similar purposes,'' he added.
Foreign ministry officials were unavailable for comment Saturday.
To do what?
Since you like to believe Bush spells out everything precisely,
I'd like you to explain this statement:
"The game is over"
What game? When did it end? What was the score?
I must have been watching the wrong game on the wrong channel.
Uh, little stuff like pepper the entire country, and eventually the world, with anthrax detectors, or make enough vaccine to protect everyone in the US and its allies. What is your personal estimate of how long that would take? You have given this a lot of thought, I take it?
About 50 years. Saddam might not be around by then. We might not be either.
Well, I'm not so naive as to believe that Bush really spells everything out. "The first casualty of war..." and all that. However, I do think that his statements mean something.
As for his statement that "the game is over," look at it in context. Here's the Voice of America article on it, from Feb. 6, 2003 (my emphases in boldface):
President Bush wants a second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it does not cooperate with inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction.
President Bush says the "game is over," that it is time for the U.N. Security Council to take action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein because he is violating U.N. resolutions demanding that he disarm.
"Saddam Hussein was given a final chance. He is throwing that chance away. The dictator of Iraq is making his choice. Now the nations of the Security Council must make their own," he said.
Mr. Bush says it is a moment of truth for the United Nations which he says must renew its purpose as a source of stability and demonstrate that it is prepared to meet future challenges to its authority.
"Now the Security Council will show whether its words have any meaning. Having made its demands, the Security Council must not back down when those demands are defied and mocked by a dicator," he said.
The president called for a second resolution restating U.N. demands, but said that resolution will have little meaning without the will to act.
I think the game that is about to be over is the U.N.'s game. Saddam's game won't be over for a while yet, unfortunately.
The problem that this brings up is that Iraq (or anybody else with anthrax) will have a strong incentive to use it before their WMD is essentially neutralized. There's a very unstable period while the civil defenses are being developed and installed.
It's just like the worry that construction of an ABM system by Country A would encourage a first strike against Country A before the system is completed, since it's Country B's last chance (and since B would worry that once the system is completed, A could stage a first strike with impunity).
It is very difficult to see a solution to this interim problem.
And guess what? There's absolutely nothing we can do about that. That's just a fixed, operational constraint, the real-world consequence of Clinton's fecklessness and Annan's duplicity. We can attack now and face the near-certainty of a massive retaliation against which we have no defense, or we can string things out until we have some way to blunt the threat. Guess which option we're going to take.
I hate to bolster your ego but man, your good!
And guess what? There's absolutely nothing we can do about that.
Yep, that's the way it is. So we shouldn't be surprised at further covert attacks, presumably by proxy for Iraq, designed to be very damaging but still below the level that would provoke a strategic response. After all, Iraq would figure that there's nothing we can do about it that isn't in the works anyway, plus they have a strong incentive to use their bioweapons before our civil defense is in place.
Great job GS and thanks for ping GD. Your summary goes well with my tagline, which I ain't changin' till we obliterate Iraq.
No one is more humble than Satan. Absolutely no one.
Perhaps this is why we are going back to the UN for yet ANOTHER exasperating resolution that seems to mirror all the rest. Keep feeding rope to the UN while we prepare ourselves for what lies ahead.
I'm beginning to think that "severe consequences" in UN speak means: "we'll pass yet another resolution if you don't comply with the first."
Sort of like President Bush has been doing to the Democrats. He certainly knows how to do this.
How do you interpret what has happened with Arafat?
Arafat is being eased out so that Hamas can take over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.