Report: Iraq Asked Finland About Anthrax

guardian ^ | 2/15/03

[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.

[Wolfstar]

"Satan," I remain deeply impressed by your intellect and your fearless willingness to urge others to think. However, I would urge you to not overlook this fact: Even the incredible Bush team cannot control all events. There are plenty of independent actors in this drama, each with their own agendas and publics to feed. Public relations is a nasty beast that can easily devour the best-laid plans of the best-intentioned people. The PR beast has taken an extremely tricky and worrisome turn in this cold month of February. What I am hoping for is a good old-fashioned massive backlash against all the rabid anti-Americanism coming from the Left. But I am not optimistic, because most people aren't informed enough to understand that it is, in fact, ideologically driven.

[The Great Satan]

I remember the same thing in London before Desert Storm. What we have on our hands now is Gulf War II: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut.

[cicero's_son]

If TGS' theory is correct (and, I'm sorry to say, I'm beginning to believe that it might be), then the anti-Americanism you cite serves our immediate purpose: to delay without acknowledging that we are being blackmailed by Iraq.

In due time, this antipathy will disappear. I personally expect Bush and Powell to use the next few months to prove their multilateralist and diplomatic bona fides, which should please our European "allies."

[The Great Satan]

What you have to understand is, people don't want to be killed with anthrax. Therefore, we aren't getting into a shooting match with Saddam just yet. But, to quote my alter ego in The Exorcist: "In time. In time."

[ConservativeLawyer]

Click on my profile to get Dick Cheney's rationale. See if you can gainsay it.

If I'm reading you correctly, you disagree with the premise of my question: i.e. we are ready to do something about the state sponsored anthrax.

Do you think we are not ready on the warfront or not ready of the homefront?

[The Great Satan]

Do you think we are not ready on the warfront or not ready of the homefront?

On the homefront. The war front will be a piece of p***. And, by the time we're ready on the homefront, it will be a piece of p*** squared.

[Wolfstar]

I hate the UN and remain sorry that the President chose to go that route. I, like many others on the Right side of the politial spectrum, do not believe our foreign policy should be held hostage to phony global governance institutions. However, since the President did choose that route, he's stuck with having to continue to play it out. I think if that latest UN deadline (3/14) passes, and we are all still be playing this year's great guessing game, the President will begin to be in serious trouble here at home. I do not want to see that happen.

[Nogbad]

Ping

[section9]

I don't know whether the Schroeder and Chirac personally fall into the useful-idiot category, or the knowing-shill category. I tend to suspect the former at this point -- I think they're the Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Nic Kristof of the big strategy. But it doesn't matter, so long as they do what we need them to do. And right now, what we need them to do is to make it look like Bush is fearless and gung-ho for war, while giving him the cover he needs to postpone this thing until we are good and ready.

This is baby vomit. We will be good and ready by the end of the month. We will be even more ready by the middle of March, when I believe this thing is scheduled to jump off.

Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. This is all about logistics. It really never had anything to do with anthrax; it has to do getting all the men, equipment, arms, and POL in position to engage in a fast moving blitz operation.

The object of that operation is to actually put us in Baghdad by D+4 at the latest, to take advantage of the speed of our mechanized units and the confusion that will reign among Saddam's command.

The United States will have upwards to 200,000 men in and around Iraq by the end of the month. No amount of anthrax can alter this fact, nor can it remove the political imperitive to undo Saddam Hussein's regime. Military buildups take on a life and momentum of their own, and this one is no different.

We attack by the middle of the March.

Convoluted scenarios cannot explain away an obvious military buildup. The military is not designed to remain at a high state of readiness for an extended period of time. There's a lot of talk going 'round that the United States could attack in the fall. People who believe that have no idea what it takes to keep an army in the field, fed, and its morale up.

Great Powers do not take risks like this without being willing to act. We are willing to act, and we will.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

In response to your question: "Why Sadaam in particular? What precisely is it about Sadaam---who has been pinned down by the Anglo/Saxon airforce for 12 years--that makes him a greater threat than the North Korean dictator? Than the government of Pakistan? Or India? How about the big moo shu porker--China?"

How about one question for you? What ruler in current times is known for having used WMD intentionally against people? And not once but multiple times.

North Korea?...No
Pakistan?...No
India?...No
China...No

Iraq?...Yes, something like 20 times he has used WMD against his people and possibly some people of Iran as his troops were pulling out at the end of that war. Iran is not even known for that. Combine that with such weapons as chemical, or biological that can be stored and moved in small packages and the 12 years of overflights have not stopped his ability to have these weapons. The means which he could use them are through others. He could not do much himself, but he could cause a huge number of deaths simply by getting someone else who was willing to do his bidding for him. Are you willing to bet the lives of the ones you love that he would not do that? Or do you think that our planes can detect 1-2 ounce bottles, jars etc of Smallpox, or anthrax etc. and stop them from several thousand feet? I am not willing to risk the lives of those I love just so that you can sing your Kumbaya.

[blam]

"What Iraq wanted Finland to do...was explain how you would go about detecting the stuff. They want the technology and means to prevent UN detection in Iraq of Anthrax spores. If you can buy the technology...my guess is $10 mil or less...then you can effectively hide all of the equipment and never worry about some bumbling idiot stumbling upon it."

Bingo!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the article!

[The Great Satan]

Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. This is all about logistics. It really never had anything to do with anthrax; it has to do getting all the men, equipment, arms, and POL in position to engage in a fast moving blitz operation.

ROFL!

[Fred Mertz]

It really never had anything to do with anthrax; it has to do getting all the men, equipment, arms, and POL in position to engage in a fast moving blitz operation.

LOL

[The Great Satan]

I was just looking at goodnesswins' thread, The New United Nations, and I had a rather interesting thought. I've been wondering what the gambit is going to be to keep forward momentum going and avoid losing face as we string this out over summer and probably beyond. There has to be a game plan. I think I see a nifty possibility here. Bush could make the failure of the UN the immediate issue, and leverage the situation to replace it. This would make sense from so many different angles, it's not even funny. It would allow us to put Saddam on the back-burner (but still warming up) while we haggle over the ending of the UN and the establishment of the new "Liberty Alliance" -- we could kill a year on that without looking weak. It would allow us to kiss Kofi Annan goodbye -- and he, more than anyone outside of Iraq, is responsible for the current crisis in world security. We could blow off all the crap, all the losers, all the sadists and psychos on the world stage, and leave them to stew in their own muck. And then, sometime next year, when the realignment is complete and we have our defenses together, we could go in there and kick Saddam's ass. Look, I've only had a few minutes to think about this scenario, but wouldn't this just be classic George W. Bush?

[The Great Satan]

I should have addressed the last post to you, too.

[bonfire]

"Have you ever looked around you? Do you think anyone besides a couple hundred freepers and a few thousand left wing agitators really even have a clue what is going on or what is a stake? As long as Joe Millionare keeps running, Wal Mart is still open and stocked and the Circle K is still selling beer and lottery tickets it will be but a blip in the continuum"


Couldn't have said it better! And besides not having a clue, no one even wants one for free! Have you ever tried to talk to someone, other that on FR, about this? The average Joe doesn't pay attention.

[bonfire]

Good heavens....pull your head out.

[The Great Satan]

Bumping you on my earlier post. Basically, what I'm suggesting is that the next phase in the campaign will be the final Arafatization of the UN, and the assembly of a new "Liberty Alliance" to replace it. I have had some more time to think about it and I'm increasingly convinced that (a) this is what Bush is going to do and (b) it's an insanely great plan. There are so many angles to it, I don't know where to begin. To be continued...

[Mitchell]

Bush could make the failure of the UN the immediate issue, and leverage the situation to replace it.

What a delightful idea. I don't know how likely this is, but if Pres. Bush is looking for a bold step that would take us in the right direction, one that would at the same time strengthen our international position, explain yet another delay in the war, and bolster the support of his conservative base, that would do it.