Next on the Hit list?

[PJ]

... Dr. Shoe: the responses that you gave hoverfly and PJ were both horrible and absolutely pathetic.

j-turbo2002;

Thank you for your support. However I was not offended by Dr. Shoe's response to my last posting. It might have been the first things that came to his mind and he felt it important to post.

When I posted my comments, I expected it would generate some kind of negative comments or start a controversy. That's what makes discussions interesting.

Now to get back on the subject of North Korea. We all have to remember that the USA (as part of a joint United Nations force) confronted North Korea 50 years ago. And I believe the reason why that "police action" ended in a stalemate is because of the support that China gave to the North Koreans. We have to assume that if we decided to attack North Korea, China may decide to get involved. And they have the world's largest military.

[j-turbo2002]

j-turbo2002;

Thank you for your support. However I was not offended by Dr. Shoe's response to my last posting. It might have been the first things that came to his mind and he felt it important to post.

When I posted my comments, I expected it would generate some kind of negative comments or start a controversy. That's what makes discussions interesting.

Oh, yes! I understand and totally agree with you. My intention was not to offend or hurt anyone (note the smilely faces) but to be sarcastic. The point that I was trying to make was that the responses to the posts were not logically driven, they were emotionally driven.

We have to assume that if we decided to attack North Korea, China may decide to get involved. And they have the world's largest military.

I wouldn't worry about China's military. Most military analysts strongly believe that the purpose of China's military is not to fight a war but rather to keep the rest of the Chinese population under control.

[j-turbo2002]

Moreover, there are more people actually speaking out in support of Al Qaida here than in Iraq.........

It is very interesting that you just mentioned this. A while ago I was reading a document by an author by the name of Thomas L. Friedman, a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for The New York Times. I remember that in one section he had noted the following of the 9/11 hijackers: not one of them (out of the 19) had practiced an extreme, hardcore form of Islam until they trained and studied in England and Europe. The same situation also applied to their view of the U.S.. Before their training in Europe and England, they were relatively tolerative of the U.S., but afterwards, they hated it.

The British shoe bomber Richard Reed (or whatever his name is - the dipshit who thankfully was too stupid to set his shoes on fire) was recruited by Al-Qaida in a British prison.

So it makes you really wonder who the real enemy of the U.S. is.

[Dr. Shoe]

That's my point, these people are all around us, not in Iraq or Korea. In a war on terrorism we should look closer to home. Look at the post 9/11 "Anthrax" attacks, look at the Washington sniper, Richard Reid (the idiot shoe bomber), those moslems that tried to get on an airliner in Sweden with guns (!), the list goes on. These aren't Iraqis. I'm not suggesting any kind of Progrom or internment on the grounds of religion all I'm saying is, is that we should ALL fight the war on terrorism with our eyes and ears the same as we have been doing for years against Repulican and Loyalist Irish terrorism and the Spanish have been doing with ETA. Now Americans have to learn what we have.

[azraelle]

.... the same as we have been doing for years against Repulican and Loyalist Irish terrorism and the Spanish have been doing with ETA. Now Americans have to learn what we have.

e.g. "America's comeuppance" Dr.Shoe??

[j-turbo2002]

That's my point, these people are all around us, not in Iraq or Korea. In a war on terrorism we should look closer to home. Look at the post 9/11 "Anthrax" attacks, look at the Washington sniper, Richard Reid (the idiot shoe bomber), those moslems that tried to get on an airliner in Sweden with guns (!), the list goes on. These aren't Iraqis.

Actually, I was just focusing the attention on Britian and Europe as being the problem. Yes, I agree with you on the closer to home argument. In a war on terrorism, both Iraq and North Korea should be left in the picture. Sitting around and worrying that Iraqis are going to die is nonsense. Iraq has sponsored terrorism for years. Everyone knows that they have built weapons (that they were probably going to sell terrorists) and they have trained the very same people (Al-Qaida - because the price was right I'm sure!) who attacked the U.S. Also, I would hate to see the North Koreans sell a scud armed with a nuclear warhead to a group who hated the British and they used their new purchase to attack London or some other location in the U.K. (scud missiles are not all that accurate of course!).

I'm not suggesting any kind of Progrom or internment on the grounds of religion all I'm saying is, is that we should ALL fight the war on terrorism with our eyes and ears the same as we have been doing for years against Repulican and Loyalist Irish terrorism and the Spanish have been doing with ETA. Now Americans have to learn what we have.

This is good because the religion argument does not exist when it comes to terrorism. Also, because I am curious, you mentioned that the Americans have to learn what you have, learn what exactly??? What could this be????

[Dr. Shoe]

Actually, I was just focusing the attention on Britian and Europe as being the problem. Yes, I agree with you on the closer to home argument. In a war on terrorism, both Iraq and North Korea should be left in the picture. Sitting around and worrying that Iraqis are going to die is nonsense. Iraq has sponsored terrorism for years. Everyone knows that they have built weapons (that they were probably going to sell terrorists) and they have trained the very same people (Al-Qaida - because the price was right I'm sure!) who attacked the U.S. Also, I would hate to see the North Koreans sell a scud armed with a nuclear warhead to a group who hated the British and they used their new purchase to attack London or some other location in the U.K. (scud missiles are not all that accurate of course!). /quote]

You are right up to a point, however, firstly, my opinions (that's all they are ) are not motivated by the Iraqis that are going to die but more about the the US and UK servicemen who are going to die conducting a war that is largely pointless and going to do little to disable Al Qaida. We still have Gulf War veterans suffering from "Gulf war syndrome" even now 12 years later.

In actual fact, there is very little evidence that Iraq has ever "sponsored terrorism" and if anyone can find any credible source that I can view in a public library that says otherwise I will post a public apology for saying so.

To say that "everyone knows that they have built weapons (that they were probably going to sell terrorists)" sounds a bit like this so called dossier of evidence that Tony B Liar is hawking around Europe and getting dismissed as a load of B******T. On the contrary, if the UN inspectors had found this evidence you can bet your boots we would be at war right now. Just as a side note, TB and GWB are trying to say that the weapons and the scientists have been smuggled out of the country is a bit like the police failing to find drugs in your home and arresting you anyway saying that you have hidden them in a neighbour's garden shed.

With all all the other places where Al Qaida could train, why would they choose Iraq? It isn't as if they share the same religious principles is it? I mean Iraq is about as far as it is possible to get from being a Moslem Fundamentalist state and remain Moslem. That is precisely what the war with Iran was all about, Al Qaida would be more likely to have been trained in Iran than Iraq but I read somewhere that many were trained in Saudi Arabia!

I too would hate a terrorist group to get hold of a SCUD and launch it at London. But do you know how hard it is to move a missile of that size all the way from North Korea (or wherever) to within range of London without someone hearing about it? It would have to be launched from France, Germany, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium etc. As they only have a range of 500 miles or so, it was only designed to be a battlefield or siege weapon, all it is is a slightly more modern V2. It would be a very bold or stupid terrorist to invest so many resources to try to do it. They would be more likely to bring a bomb in in a suitcase.

This is good because the religion argument does not exist when it comes to terrorism. Also, because I am curious, you mentioned that the Americans have to learn what you have, learn what exactly??? What could this be????

Did you notice that on Sept 12 2001 experts were flown in from Israel and UK?

[j-turbo2002]

You are right up to a point, however, firstly, my opinions (that's all they are ) are not motivated by the Iraqis that are going to die but more about the the US and UK servicemen who are going to die conducting a war that is largely pointless and going to do little to disable Al Qaida. We still have Gulf War veterans suffering from "Gulf war syndrome" even now 12 years later.

First of all the U.S. is not disabling Al-Qaida in Iraq. If the U.S. does attack Iraq it will be toppling the Iraqi regime. If the U.S. does attack Iraq it will be bringing peace, prosperity, and freedom to the oppressed people of Iraq. Something that you are evidently opposed to. I don’t know if you know or not but in a war people die – it is just a plain fact. Yes, there are going to be casualties on both sides. Even the U.S. and U.K. servicemen know this because if they didn’t, they would not be serving their country right now.

In actual fact, there is very little evidence that Iraq has ever "sponsored terrorism" and if anyone can find any credible source that I can view in a public library that says otherwise I will post a public apology for saying so.

Where have you been the past few months? Here in America most of the media (The New York Times, Time, and U.S. News - just to name a few) had dozens of articles on this issue. And I am sure that you could find them on microfilm (or whatever) at your nearest Library.

To say that "everyone knows that they have built weapons (that they were probably going to sell terrorists)" sounds a bit like this so called dossier of evidence that Tony B Liar is hawking around Europe and getting dismissed as a load of B******T.

This was a good try – well, at least you made it sound good but it is a pile of rubbish. Actually, the weapons were there long before and during the first confrontation with Iraq. What they were planning to sell (if any - that is!) was left over from the first war. I remember reading that in The New York Times a ling time ago.

On the contrary, if the UN inspectors had found this evidence you can bet your boots we would be at war right now. Just as a side note, TB and GWB are trying to say that the weapons and the scientists have been smuggled out of the country is a bit like the police failing to find drugs in your home and arresting you anyway saying that you have hidden them in a neighbour's garden shed.

This whole UN inspection is just stupid! They are not going to find anything! I don’t know why Bush went to the UN and asked for these stupid inspections (well, actually I do know!) because they are a complete waste of time. The truth of the matter is that legally Bush did not have to go to the UN at all, but he did.

I too would hate a terrorist group to get hold of a SCUD and launch it at London. But do you know how hard it is to move a missile of that size all the way from North Korea (or wherever) to within range of London without someone hearing about it?

It can be a lot easier than you think depending on the type of SCUD that you are using. As mentioned previously, depending on the type of SCUD that you are using it could easily be taken apart and shipped anywhere without anyone knowing it. This is the beauty of SCUD missiles. They are also hard to track as both the US and Israel both found out during the first Iraqi conflict.

It would have to be launched from France, Germany, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium etc. As they only have a range of 500 miles or so, it was only designed to be a battlefield or siege weapon, all it is is a slightly more modern V2.

The range depends on the type of SCUD that they are using. The range could be anywhere from 200 km to 2,500 km (the longest range of SCUD that North Korea has successfully developed). If they wanted to, they could easily fire it from a train boxcar. Here is a little history of the Russian SCUD for everyone:

According to the Federation of American Scientists:

R-11 / SS-1B SCUD-A

R-300 9K72 Elbrus / SS-1C SCUD-B

The Scud is a mobile, Russian-made, short-range, tactical ballistic surface-to-surface (hence the nomenclature abbreviation SS) missile system. The SCUD-series guided missiles are single-stage, short-range ballistic missiles using storable liquid propellants. The Scud is derived from the World War II-era German V-2 rocket. Unlike the FROG series of unguided missiles, the SCUDs have movable fins. Warheads can be HE, chemical, or nuclear, and the missile, launched vertically from a small platform, has a range of 300 km. Unsophisticated gyroscopes guided the missile only during powered flight - which lasts about 80 seconds. Once the rocket motor shut down, the entire missile with the warhead attached coasted unguided to the target area. Consequently, Scuds had notoriously poor accuracy, and the farther they flew, the more inaccurate they became. SCUD missiles are found in SSM (SCUD) brigades at front/army level. The SCUD series of missiles gave the Soviet front and army commanders an integral nuclear weapons capability. Non-nuclear variants of the SCUD missiles have been exported to both Warsaw Pact and non-Warsaw Pact nations.

· The SCUD-A is also known as SS-1b. The SCUD-B replaced the JS-3-mounted SCUD-A, which had been in service since the mid-1950s.

· The longer range SCUD B, also known as SS-1c, can be distinguished by the one meter greater length of the missile and the presence of two air bottles on the side of the superstructure in place of the single bottle used for the "SCUD A" missile. The SCUD B used unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH), a more powerful (and toxic) fuel than the kerosene used on the SCUD A, which required an engine redesign. They were transported originally on a heavy-tracked vehicle based on the JS heavy-tank chassis. This vehicle serves also as an erector and launcher for the missiles. The SCUD-B was introduced on the JS-3 tracked chassis in 1961 and appeared on the MAZ-543 wheeled chassis in 1965. The "SCUD B" missile has appeared on a new transporter-erector-launcher based on the MAZ-543 (8x8) truck. The introduction of this new powerful cross-country wheeled vehicle gave this missile system greater road mobility, reduces the number of support vehicles required, and still preserves a great choice in selecting off-road firing positions. The same basic chassis also has been used for the transporter-erector-launcher for the "SCALEBOARD" surface-to-surface guided missile. In the early 1980s, the SCUD-B was replaced by the SS-23, which has greatly improved range (500 km), increased accuracy, and reduced reaction and refire times.

· The SCUD-C SS-1d achieved an initial operational capability with Soviet forces around 1965. It had a longer range, though lower accuracy, than the SCUD B, and was deployed in smaller numbers. As of the late 1990s some remained in service in Russian ground forces.

· The SCUD-D SS-1e featured an improved guidance system, possibly incorporating active radar terminal homing, and a wider choice of warheads than its predecessors. This missile has a range of about 700 km. Initially operational in the 1980s, it may not have been deployed by former Soviet ground forces.

At launch, a basic Scud contains about 3,500 kilograms (7,700 pounds) of IRFNA and about 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) of fuel. Most of the IRFNA and fuel is used within the first 80 seconds of flight when the missile is gaining enough speed to reach its target. When this speed is reached, the Scud is designed to shut off its engine by shutting off the propellant tanks (a fuel tank and an oxidizer tank). The unused propellants—roughly 150 kilograms (330 pounds) of RFNA and 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of fuel—remain on board for the remainder of the flight.

In the early 1970s, the Soviet Army sought a replacement for the 9K72 Elbrus (SS-1C `Scud B') system, which had a very slow reaction time [around 90 minutes to prepare and fire] and its poor accuracy when using conventional warheads. The replacement system, codename 9K714 Oka [sS-23 Spider], was developed by KB Mashinostroyenia (Machine Industry Design Bureau) in Kolomna. This system was phased out in compliance with the INF Treaty in the late 1980s. Russia’s TBM inventory is limited to thousands of SS-1c/Scud B and SS-21/Scarab SRBMs as a result of the Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty, which required the elimination of the FSU’s extensive stocks of MRBMs.

A second SCUD-followon effort began in the form of the SS-26, which apparently entered service by 1999. The SS-26 SRBM is expected to be both a replacement for the SS-1c/Scud B and an export. By the early 1990s, the `Scud' system was unquestionably obsolete and many of the 9P117 launcher vehicles were retired due to age.

It would be a very bold or stupid terrorist to invest so many resources to try to do it.

I agree.

Did you notice that on Sept 12 2001 experts were flown in from Israel and UK?

Honestly, no I did not. But this all goes back to my first question of which you did not answer. You mentioned that the Americans have to learn what you have, learn what exactly???

[j-turbo2002]

While I was at FAS (Federation of American Scientists), a website that I had not been to in quite some time, I decided to bookmark some more information about the various weapons programs that Iraq has. Just for some fun light reading for some of you. A lot of the topics are very interesting

The Iraq Special Weapons Guide

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html

Nuclear Weapons

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/index.html

Iraqi Chemical Weapons

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/index.html

Iraqi Biological Weapons

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/bw/index.html

Iraqi Missiles

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/index.html

[j-turbo2002]

Where have you been the past few months? Here in America most of the media (The New York Times, Time, and U.S. News - just to name a few) had dozens of articles on this issue. And I am sure that you could find them on microfilm (or whatever) at your nearest Library.

I just want to add The Wall Street Journal to the list above. Also, here in America both PBS and The History Channel aired some wanderful documentaries about this issue also. They started with an introduction to how the Iraqis were trained (by the East German Stazi of course) all the way up to Iraqi defector testamonies of Iraq sponsoring and training various terrorists groups.

It can be a lot easier than you think depending on the type of SCUD that you are using. As mentioned previously, depending on the type of SCUD that you are using it could easily be taken apart and shipped anywhere without anyone knowing it.

I got this tid bit of information from a Jane's Defence Weekly publication that someone had given me years ago.

Website:

http://www.janes.com/

This was a good try – well, at least you made it sound good but it is a pile of rubbish. Actually, the weapons were there long before and during the first confrontation with Iraq. What they were planning to sell (if any - that is!) was left over from the first war. I remember reading that in The New York Times a ling time ago.

I don't know if you know but various agents, depending on what they are, can sit around for a long period of time and still be in good condition. So, if the Iraqis developed something in the late 80's it could still be here today in hiding. ?

[Dr. Shoe]

[

Where have you been the past few months? Here in America most of the media (The New York Times, Time, and U.S. News - just to name a few) had dozens of articles on this issue. And I am sure that you could find them on microfilm (or whatever) at your nearest Library.

I just want to add The Wall Street Journal to the list above. Also, here in America both PBS and The History Channel aired some wanderful documentaries about this issue also. They started with an introduction to how the Iraqis were trained (by the East German Stazi of course) all the way up to Iraqi defector testamonies of Iraq sponsoring and training various terrorists groups.

[j-turbo2002]

I don't live in the US do I? I have yet to see any articles in the UK press though I have to admit that I don't read everything. Could you give actual dates and issue numbers of the NY Times, US News and Wall Street journal articles please? Or even a URL.

This didn't say anything at all about SCUDs that I could see.

No you don't live in the U.S. but that does not matter at all. If I can get most of the British stuff here in America you should have no problem whatsoever getting American stuff there in England. It is funny how this is coming from the man who wanted to go to the library to do some research. Yes Dr. Shoe, this is what is called research. I can give you hints as to where to look however I am not going to do your homework for you. I have done mine but it is time for you to do yours. Besides, I am not your mother (or Mummy) who follows you around wiping you "rear-end" (or bum) every two minutes. Or am I perhaps?

It's true to say that individual components can be taken out and smuggled, you cannot dismantle the airframe itself because it's spot-welded...

I totally agree with you here. This is a true statement however not all SCUD airframes are built/manufactured in this manner.

I would like to point out that everything in the paragraph below is false:

The kind of agents that Iraq are allegedly producing have a shelf-life of no more than six months which is why the UN inspectors are looking for factories. Moreover, they didn't use them against Iran either. Granted they were used against the Kurds but that was said at the time to be a batch purchased from the Soviets.

To this very day at the Johnston Atoll south of Hawaii the U.S. Government is still destroying many chemical agents that were manufatured during WWII that were said to have a shelf-life of six months. And these weapons were manufactured 50+ years ago.

Now I wasted my time posting all of those interesting links to some very useful information on Iraq and it is very obvious to me that you read none of it. Instead you came on here with your own twisted agenda and let loose with out doing any homework. Come on Dr. Shoe, you can do better than this. I hate to tell you this but they truly did use chemical agents during the Iran-Iraq war. Since you don't like to read everything and do a little research here is a little timeline for you. How kind of me to do such a thing for you.

According to The Federation of American Scientists:

1) 1983 to 1986--used in a defensive role; typically to deflect Iranian human-wave assaults. In 1984 Iraq became the first nation to use a nerve agent on the battlefield when it deployed Tabun-filled aerial bombs during the Iran-Iraq war. Some 5,500 Iranians were killed by the nerve agent between March 1984 and March 1985. Tabun kills within minutes. Some 16,000 Iranians were reported killed by the toxic blister agent mustard gas between August 1983 and February 1986.

2) 1986 to early 1988--iraq adapts use against Iran to disrupt Iranian offensive preparations.

3) early 1988 to conclusion of the war-- Iraq integrated large nerve agent strikes into its overall offensive during the spring and summer of 1988 leading to the ceasefire.

I hate to do this to you but I am going to need all of the references that you used to write the above statement right down to the page number. I have been kind enough to post some of my references and I have even given you some hints as to where to look for others. But where are all of yours? I wonder? It is going to take a lot to convince me that any of what you wrote in the above paragraph is true. Especially that part about the Soviets since I am big on Russian history- down to the page number. Yes, I am afraid that your bucket of water better hold some water this time my friend.

Once again, out of the kindness of my heart those links are:

The Iraq Special Weapons Guide

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html

Nuclear Weapons

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/index.html

Iraqi Chemical Weapons

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/index.html

Iraqi Biological Weapons

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/bw/index.html

Iraqi Missiles

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/index.html

Also, I want an answer to my question:

You mentioned that the Americans have to learn what you have, learn what exactly???

[j-turbo2002]

Very Interesting!

Today I received an email from two anonymous lurkers on this board who had, as they said, "Sniffed the Doctor out" also. The kind anonymous lurkers both pointed me to a post by the Doctor in a forum about how 9/11 affected them. Excerpts from the post are as follows:

Speaking of the subject of nuclear bombs.

It is surprisingly easy to obtain one. It is believed that the Russian Mafia would have access to around half a dozen TNW. We are talking mines or depth charges of around 1 kilotonne. Strip off the outer casings so that you are just left with the plutonium and detonator and you could (just) fit it into a large suitcase. The person carrying it would die from radiation sickness in a matter of hours but in a suicide attack, would that matter?

Secondly, give me 10 kg of weapons grade plutonium, 3kg of semtex and access to a machine shop and you will soon have a fairly reliable nuke (if I was that way inclined). You could pack it into a 205 litre oil drum among a truck load of similar driven slowly through the major city of your choice and the rest would be an atrocity. Any reasonably clued-up person with A-level physics could do it.

This is my point on nuclear bombs. In order to deliver one, he would have to send a minimum of 3, probably 4 or 5. The Russian Mafia are asking around $1 billion for a TNW or a warhead, they would also sell the information to US intelligence for several million. Therefore, Bin Laden would have to pay $5 billion and then attempt to get them near their target without getting caught. He might be very wealthy, but I don't think he has that amount of money to spend on an operation that is almost certainly doomed to failure, always assuming that those assets are not frozen.

Any other terrorist organisation wouldn't go to the bother.

Now the facts:

There are more holes in this story than there are in the Doctor's underwear (or knickers or whatever the Brits say)!

Where are all of the technical references that back this story up? Doctor? You have a wanderful way of mixing a lot of true fact with fiction!I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that someone had complemented the Doctor on how well he did his homework! - what rubbish!

I hate to say this (because I was having a very good time indeed! ) but I am afraid that this discussion has to end here. Don't get me wrong Doctor, I think that you are a good debater indeed! But honestly you need to start doing your homework (I will give you hints as to where to look but I am not going to do it for you!) and think logically about things when you have a debate with me. As I had mentioned before, your bucket of water needs to be able to really hold some water.

Oh well, Monday a'cometh, and my Christmas vacation will be over and it will be back to work again. Unfortunately, I will not have time to keep up with this forum on a daily basis.

Well Doctor- good luck to you!

[hoverfly]

Oh for crying out loud!!!! How would you know about doc's qualifications? Like he said any one with a knowledge of basic physics can build a nuke. The explosives must surround the core and explode equally around it to obtain critical mass. I my self could build one my self if I put my mind to it. Basic knowledge of machine tool, electronics and physics would make it possible. But it would be very hard for me to obtain nuclear grade weapons material. But I am not going to even seriously think of building one. People out side any government has built nuclear bomb devices, it’s just they were short of having the weapons grade material core. What makes you think that nobody in a terrorist cell has all ready made one? They properly have, they are short one key ingredient. Basic technology for nuclear weapons have been around for over 60 years. Primitive beginnings of this technology still have modern day, end results.

[j-turbo2002]

Oh for crying out loud!!!! How would you know about doc's qualifications?

Very good question. I don't. But let's just say that I know my stuff. We do not need to go snooping around in Doc's personal life. That is none of our business.

Some links:

How Nuclear Bombs work:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm

Terrorism Questions and Answers:

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/weapons/making.html

[hoverfly]

A good reply to cover your butt.

[j-turbo2002]

A good reply to cover your butt.

Thank you very much - I guess. I didn't know that I had anything to cover to begin with.

[azraelle]

According to The Federation of American Scientists:

1) 1983 to 1986--used in a defensive role; typically to deflect Iranian human-wave assaults. In 1984 Iraq became the first nation to use a nerve agent on the battlefield when it deployed Tabun-filled aerial bombs during the Iran-Iraq war. Some 5,500 Iranians were killed by the nerve agent between March 1984 and March 1985. Tabun kills within minutes. Some 16,000 Iranians were reported killed by the toxic blister agent mustard gas between August 1983 and February 1986.

2) 1986 to early 1988--iraq adapts use against Iran to disrupt Iranian offensive preparations.

3) early 1988 to conclusion of the war-- Iraq integrated large nerve agent strikes into its overall offensive during the spring and summer of 1988 leading to the ceasefire.

Additionally, Soldier Of Fortune magazine correspondents covered much of this in their magazine issues during the time that this was going on, if memory serves me correctly (as well as documenting Russian use of "Yellow Rain" mycotoxin in Afghanistan, and Vietnamese use of it in Kampuchea).

[j-turbo2002]

Additionally, Soldier Of Fortune magazine correspondents covered much of this in their magazine issues during the time that this was going on, if memory serves me correctly (as well as documenting Russian use of "Yellow Rain" mycotoxin in Afghanistan, and Vietnamese use of it in Kampuchea).

Nice! I don't read Soldier of Fortune magazine but I am definitely going to start. It sounds like some interesting stuff.