![Biotech Biotech](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/biotech_64.png)
![Science Science](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/science_64.png)
U.S. Continues Biological Warfare Research 945
merryprankster writes "Researchers at Saint Louis University
have engineered a strain of mouse-pox virus which kills 100% of
animals it infects - even when the mice have been treated with vaccination
and anti-virals. The deadliness of the virus is related to the addition of a
protein IL-4 which shuts down cell-mediated immune response. The engineered
virus is not contagious and does not affect humans but the research has drawn
some condemnation as being dangerous and
unnecessary."
Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it was another country's research team we'd probably be invading by now...
Re:Seriously... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe that's true, but assuming there are adequate (and they'd need to be big for something like this) security measures in place, developing biological weapons like this is not necessarily the terrible thing(TM) that it sounds like.
First off, there's a lot that is learned. Virologists may learn how to accurately target certain areas of different entities. Here in
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats the most STUPID SHIT i have read omn slashdot [today]....
Lets "introduce" the virus to the cane toad. Dont you people never learn?
So why did you guys "introduced" the toads in the first place??
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Informative)
For some bizarre reason, the toad wasn't even vaguely interested in eating the grub, but did prove successful at agressively outcompeting fucktons of native species, many of which have since become extinct.
Now, the toad is apparently making inroads on kakadu.
It would be funny, however, if we introduced a virus to kill all the toads and the virus killed something else again, like people.
Then the to
Re:Seriously... (Score:2, Insightful)
And I'm not so sure if it is safer in the US than in Russia. Money greedy people are everywhere.
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
You've never heard of influenza then?
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Informative)
'Flu is ancient and we *think* the Greeks may have suffered from it (we obviously can't tell for sure), but there is no way of knowing what strain they suffered from.
Pay attention here comes the science bit. 'Flu is divided into 3 types, A, B and C. C need not conc
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about the cane toad but I don't think it kills 100% of the beings it comes in contact with
I agree and disagree... (Score:5, Interesting)
But there are other parts of his argument that are very valid:
The deadliness of the virus is related to the addition of a protein IL-4 which shuts down cell-mediated immune response.
It'd be nice to think that they are working on a way to defeat this protein so that when somebody creates a human version, we'll have something to defend against it.
Overall, though, it would be nice to just stop this kind of development anywhere and everywhere, so that we wouldn't have to think that way. But this is reality. I really have mixed feelings about it.
On the one hand, another poster was right in that if we found, for example, Iran doing this, we'd be all over them for it. On the other hand, Iran and other countries are biological research anyway, so we might as well prepare for it.
These are the things that scare me (from the article):
Re:I agree and disagree... (Score:3, Informative)
I think I can safely say that absolutely nothing in Australia eats dead cane toads. Or if they do they only do it once.
By the way I thought an Australian University team had done similar work on a mouse virus a couple of years ago..Anyone know of that research.
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the reason you have cane toads in the first place is they were introduced to combat the cane grub. In the end however they seem to be great for killing just about everything except the cane grub. The moral of the story? While we may have good intentions when introducing something new to an environment to control a pest, we may also be introducing new, even worse problems unintentionally. Are you sure you would want a man-made virus that is capable of wiping out an entire species introduced into your country?
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Informative)
They already exist, but rarely are they capable of killing entire species. They're either too efficient (kill too fast), not efficient enough (one area dies out, and by the time it's moved on uninfected animals move back into the old area), or the animals develop a resistance to it.
See: myxomatosis [google.com], calicivirus [google.com].
-- james
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
Short answer,
FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD. (Score:3, Informative)
Let's have a little more context, shall we?
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
If research was stopped everytime someone asked "why?", there wouldn't be much done at all.
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
Examining one scientific study or result out of context usually misses the point of the overall body of research. For example, several congressmen have been campaigning against studies into sexual deviancy that have been funded with federal money. However, these studies are critical to understanding how diseases like HIV spread.
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
~Ben
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the North Korean and Iranian logic as well: "Let us research nuclear technology so we do not get caught with our pants down, lest the Americans invade." Indeed, having nuclear technology could prevent an American invasion.
This is just one tack. If North Korea, Iran, etc. just wanted to embarrass the crap out of the U.S., they could stop (or never start... whatever) their programs and retort: "We have put down our weapons. Now put down yours."
And of course no one in the major media would pick it up and Americans will continue to wage their "humanitarian wars."
cynical today,
-l
Re:Seriously... (Score:4, Insightful)
Righteousness is relative and in this age no one can argue in favour of "Might is the right".
I see USA's view of "Although I can do these things freely, you can't" as a hypocrisy.
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing the right thing by killing 6,000,000 Jews, it doesn't change the fact that it was just plain wrong.
There always has to be a universal moral ground to fall back on. And killing 6,000,000 people just because you don't like them, or hijacking commercial airliners and crashing them into civilian buildings is universally wrong, despite the fact that the perpetrators thought they were right.
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Seriously... (Score:4, Insightful)
-l
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not much (Score:3, Informative)
The ABM Treaty specified that unilateral withdrawal required 6 months advance notice (which the USA gave, but only after threatening to withdraw for decades); the Non-Proliferation Treaty required only 3 months (which North Korea gave, but only after they'd been repeatedly violating the treaty for years).
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or is it that if the US does it this means it is "good" research, but if someone else does it then it is "bad" research.
After all the US has never used WMDs have they...
You're such a troll.
1) Biological RESEARCH and biological WEAPONS are two different things. It doesn't help you learn how to protect against a vir
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
2)Tut tut tut. You should have a good look at Amnesty International's site. You have a common misconception there. The US sprayed its own soldiers in Vietnam with toxic chemicals because it didn't want to tell them to move out and risk losing land. Those chemicals had
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would the US turn on Israel? The only reason there arn't three to four times as many UN sanctions on Israel is that the US has vetoed every single one they could, ever. And where do you think Israel gets its tanks, its combat bulldozers, its planes, its missiles, and NBC weapons, its submarine launched nuclear missiles? The US and British and Australian peace protesters are getting shot, and crushed to death by guns and bulldozers built in the good old US of A. The US. Of course, that's where ALL the current "bad guys" got them, but oh well...So far the US has given Israel $87 BILLION in foreign aid. It comes up to $150 billon if you factor in the interest payments on that money. Think about that. With the power grid in ruins, highways crumbling, schools crumbling, hospitals closing, maybe the US could have used that many billion dollars? What does a country smaller than New Jersey need with that much money? And that figure doesn't even take into account all of the military supplies. Cruise missiles and helicopters and tanks arn't cheap.
And on the subject of bio-weapons research, the US army has also recreated the Spanish Flu.
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US, used two bombs that ended world war two.
They could have dropped those two bombs, or they could have dropped a thousand normal bombs and had the same result in body count, but not a japanese surrender.
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Informative)
Umm you are kidding that the US has a strong human rights record ? And has not done anything bad on an international scale recently.
Camp X-Ray ?
Chile ?
Iran-Contra ?
Cuba, Bay of Pigs?
Panama ?
Saddam Hussein ?
Grenada ?
Shall I go on ? To say that the US has not commited acts that would result in the condemnation and sanction if commited by a smaller nation is to ignore recent history.
Saddam Hussein was first recruited by the US Goverment to assassinate the democratically elected head of Iraq. The US did deals with Iran to supply arms to terrorists in central america. The US funded a drug running leader of panama until he refused to listen... then invaded the country. In Chile the US backed a coup that overthrew a democratically elected goverment and replaced it with a facist dictator who murdered thousands of his own people.
This is NOT a good record.
And as for why India or Pakistan aren't being invaded... very simple and NOTHING to do with what they do in places like Kashmir, or the funding of terrorism by the Pakistan goverment.
The US doesn't want a war in India because there are far too many people in India, and India has a well equipped army who would inflict massive casulties. This is the same reason China is never going to be a target.
The reason the US gets to act this way is the same reason the UK acted this way in the 19Century...
Who the hell was going to stop them ?
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
"what does this part do"
*smash*
"oh, it doesn't work, what does this part do?"
*Smash*
"oh, that doesn't work, ok. what happens if I take out this capaciter"
*sizzle*
Accept it's more like:
"What does this strand do if I add it here?"
*wipes out all the rats it infects, even for antibiotics*
"What happens if I add this protien on here?"
*all the rats develope smallpox and die*
"Ok, so what if I induce
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Funny)
I am so happy to hear this, there is such huge problem of runaway mice around here!
Next project: Create virus to kill all morons
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
clearly it can -only- be used to kill people.
it couldn't posibly have -any- benefit to the furtherance of understanding of the science, the basic forces at work, defenses, peaceful applications, etc.
-- sarcasm is the order of the day
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of IL-4 for the inhibition of powerful cell-mediated immune reactions and suggest strategies potentially useful for the control of deleterious immune responses, such as autoimmune reactions.
These studies show that IL-4 plays a huge role in moderating the immune cascade. Diseases from rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, sepsis... and even probably cancer and heart di
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
If Slarti Bardfast was right... (Score:5, Funny)
Finally, we can destroy our mice overlords!
Re:If Slarti Bardfast was right... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If Slarti Bardfast was right... (Score:2)
Re:If Slarti Bardfast was right... (Score:2)
Fortunately there's still considerable work to be done on a delivery mechanism, but I'm sure the mice are working on it.
Re:If Slarti Bardfast was right... (Score:2)
"That's not a mouse turd, it's a caper."
"If it's a caper, eat it."
Invasion of the Body Snatchers [imdb.com]
Re:If Slarti Bardfast was right... (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our new viral scientist overlor ---
Oh hell. Which way to the glue factory with this dead horse?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry... (Score:3, Interesting)
wow, and i graduated from SLU med (Score:5, Interesting)
The interesting thing about this, according to the article, is the IL-4 gene gives the virus its potency, but at the same time keeps it from being contagious. Apparently, they are not sure why. Sounds like the real scary part will be once they figure that out and someone figures out a work around.
Re:wow, and i graduated from SLU med (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
Don't accept the media's spin on things!
Re:wow, and i graduated from SLU med (Score:2)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd = Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7685412&dopt=Abstract [nih.gov]
Gamma interferon is shown to be critical in recovery of C57BL/6 mice from mousepox. Anti-gamma interferon treatment of mice infected in the footpad with ectromelia virus resulted in enhanced spread to and efficient virus replication in the spleen, lungs
Re:wow, and i graduated from SLU med (Score:2)
Well, think of it this way: the world is basically a huge biological laboratory, with viruses being created by mutation and experimented with by natural selection. A mutation leading to a work around would be a huge advantage, yet in hundreds of millions of years of animal virus evolution, none has been discovered. Likely there is something fundamental that prevents such a deadly strain from occurring
Re:wow, and i graduated from SLU med (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know--sounds like it might be really useful to know what tricks can be used to decrease the infectiousness of diseases. What biochemical pathway does IL-4 screw up that limits transmission? Can we make
Re:wow, and i graduated from SLU med (Score:3, Interesting)
mice != rats !=? SCO (Score:5, Funny)
hrmm? (Score:3, Interesting)
Did someone slip some in some poor guy's drink?
Re:hrmm? (Score:3, Funny)
Or, more seriously, they probably tried using it on human cell cultures to see what happened. Maybe.
It's not like viruses ever mutate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not like viruses ever mutate (Score:2)
Re:It's not like viruses ever mutate (Score:2)
Why do we do this? (Score:2, Insightful)
We've use two nuclear weapons in the course of history, and we've never needed to use them again. I don't want us to use so
Bad Idea (Score:2)
To say nothing of the fact that we're practically giving North Korea the ability to wipe out our entire mouse population in one fell swoop. What will we do without the mice, dammit?
Don't touch... (Score:2, Funny)
with RAGE....
We have continuing this work for decades (Score:5, Interesting)
Disney (Score:2, Funny)
I guess Disney needs to buy some SARS masks for Mickey and Minnie . . .
Why do we do this? (Score:2)
This is like having an argument with Russians when they say, "Aaaah, but we've got more nukes than you have." Seriously, what's the point?
Level 3 Lab (Score:2, Informative)
Please get educated befo
Re:Level 3 Lab (Score:4, Funny)
So the mice are steamed before being exposed to the virus. This could explain the 100% mortality rate
Hello? Cynicism calling. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sadly, since this is papa US with the research, nothing can go wrong. This will only be used for catching nasty evil TERRORISTS intent on stealing your FREE
Viruses are not always bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, just wow! I can't believe people don't realize how useful this is, and how off base the news poster really is. It was not developed to become a means to kill people. Being able to deactivate the entire immune system with a virus is such a huge leap forward. Now we can see how various biological processes work in the absence of the immune system. We have never been able to supress the immune system on this level. We can learn what functions definately need the immune system, gain new insight into autoimmune disease, and so on. Science always advances by altering or eliminating a variable and observing what happens to the others. I'm sure this sounds awfully familiar to all you CS people who spend hours debugging. Next time think before jumping to the OMG DEY R TEH Ev1L!!!11 conclusion.
Moral Implications (Score:2)
I don't t
fark (Score:2)
God save us! (Score:5, Funny)
Who's policing the police? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article (Score:4, Insightful)
What has 9/11 to do with this? Could this virus have prevented the attack? Or any biological/chemical weapon for that matter?
9/11 has been used as an excuse for too long now to have any real meaning.
Americans have given up alot of privacy for nothing (as most allready know). The rest of the world has been ordered by the USA to change identification documents or face economical consequences, hand over flight information (including information which has nothing to do with the possibility of being a terrorist), Iraq have been invaded with this as an excuse whil everyone and their mother know right now that there has been no evidence of Iraq being involved with 9/11 and people are still being bombarded with laws and organisations that are supposedly to stop another attack.
Re:From the article (Score:3, Insightful)
No no no... 9/11 is the excuse for everything..
Have a poor economy at home, need to invade... 9/11. Need a "bogeyman"
The US remains the nation that has deployed WMDs against the most civilians. It remains the nation that refused to sign the chemical and biological non-proliferation treaty.
9/11 justifies everything. In the same was as Oklahoma didn't justify cracking down on the far-right.
Re:From the article (Score:4, Insightful)
These kinds of things need to be researched. Mainly because the cost of creating these is becoming lower and lower. Would you rather have no research done on how to protect against these? For those of you thinking the US would actually weaponize this stuff, I suggest a full body tinfoil suit.
Re:From the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:From the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Or so I imagine.
Original Mousepox/IL4 paper (Score:5, Informative)
is available for your enjoyment [asm.org].
Failure = Research ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ramshaw's team made its initial discovery while developing contraceptive vaccines for sterilising mice and rabbits without killing them. The researchers modified the mousepox virus by adding a gene for a natural immunosuppressant called IL-4, expecting this would boost antibody production.
Instead, the modified mousepox virus was far more lethal, killing 60 per cent of vaccinated mice. The addition of IL-4 seems to switch off a key part of the immune system called the cell-mediated response.
Okay. For all of you going on and on about how useful this research for preventing bioterrorism, keep in mind that this is not at all the original intent of the researchers.
They were trying to make an contagious but non-lethal virus whose sole function was to serve as a contraceptive. Instead, they ended up creating a highly lethal, non contagious virus.
Granted, it is difficult to know exactly what the effect of mutating or altering viruses will be on the animals they're introduced into, but this is sort of my point.
If you try modifying a virus to make it non-lethal, and it turns out to be lethal for most of your test subjects, it is not a good idea to to say, "Wow! Let's see what happens when we try that in *another* virus!"
Since they don't know why the introduction of IL-4 made the viruses non-transferable, they probably don't know enough about this virus modification to assume that other strains won't be contagious when it's introduced.
Re:Failure = Research ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I keep wondering of we are at the same point with bio-engineering today that we were with chemistry in the last 19th century. People were doing some amazing things, that turned out to be deadly things in the next century. Look at Nobel and TNT.
I see (Score:3, Interesting)
100% DEATH RATE?????? WHAT YOU THINKING YOU INHUMAN BASTARDS.
Gimme a break. It's all evil.
The scariest part of this story... (Score:5, Interesting)
What is scary is how powerful this is and how easy it is to do.
It is powerful because it engineers a new virus or bacterium by mixing genes/DNA from other species to magnify it's effect. It's easy because, although the article doesn't mention it, it can be accomplished by someone with a University level of Biochem knowledge and a $100 USD kit that is sold to undergraduate students. Previouslyu this was ignored because it was thought that to get a really powerful pathogen was difficult so this technique could not be used to make really nasty weapons.
Then they began realizing that not all of the Smallpox stockpile could be acounted for. Then they realized that viruses like AIDS (originally only infected Chimps and other primates)and Ebola (Ebola Zaire, the most deadly strain, mutated to become airborne - but the strain only infected monkeys this time - a strain called Ebola Reston) could mutate and jump the species barrier. Same with prions like BSE (becomes CJD in humans).
Suddenly "mousepox" or "cowpox" seem like they could be very dangerous, if mutated naturally and enhanced artificially. It could become a serious weapon because it is transformed into a Chimera - natural pathogen DNA and DNA from a spoecies it would not normally mix with.
Back in the cold war, the Russians made such a Chimera that as a weapon could have devastaing results. According to Frontline, a Russian bioweapons scientist (who now works for us, thank god...not all of them do) combined Legionella (the bacteria in air conditioners that causes the pnuemonia-like Legionaires Disease) with Myolin. The result was a flu that went away after a few days. You seemed well but then die extremely quickly when your own immune system attacks and destroys the myolinear sheath around you neurons...and because it is in a common bacteria, it is undetectable by a doctor.
Imagine someone creating that combination with a more virulent/contagious pathogen?
That being said, if this is what we are hearing about - a non-contagious, 100% lethal virus at a university - imagine what is being done in secret for "national security" reasons....
All that to say that while I think this kind of research is good if used for treatment and research to prevent them being used as weapons, I also think that it should be done under the auspices of WHO, not the US government or any other government. Have Universities do the reasearch, but do it openly with funding and supervision of scientists and authorities from all over the world. The UN is perfect for this. That way everyone can have warning and everyone can benefit from the research.
Otherwise we risk the start of a biological arms race...and then the whole planet could lose.
Shit happens... (Score:3, Insightful)
My first reply was to those who scream about the US violating this or that law, etc. It is NOT illegal to do bioweapon research for the purpose of defense (protective vaccines, treatment drugs, protective clothing). Weaponization and largescale production would be a violation. That said, this particular research was happenstance. Sheer good/bad luck. Trying something totally unrelated to bioweapons research and simply in the realm of bioremediation to try to control populations of rodents. Piff! A rather logical argument for adding IL-4 to increase antibody production instead leads to making the minor virus about as deadly (for rodents) as Marburg virus is for humans (60% fatality rate). Wasn't intended for weapons, wasn't even predicted. Shit happens and it is interesting.
Re:Disturbing - but I support it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Disturbing - but I support it (Score:2)
Re:Disturbing - but I support it (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm seriously curious: at what point do you think Christianity magically made this transition you're saying it underwent -- from the old, whacked-out ideas about good and evil to our supposed modern enlightened ones?
I have relatives in Oklahoma whose southern Baptist faith qualifies in all the areas you're laying into Islam about.
Before 9/11, the worst act of terror on US soil was by a couple of right-wing radical white guys. My Oklahoma relations were all for what Tim McVeigh stood for -- though they had some misgivings about his methods. Afterward they seemed rather torn about what had happened. They liked that it was a blow against the government, and had vague ideas about scoring points against Clinton somehow. But seeing the child in that firefighter's arms, that caused just a note of cognitive dissonance for them. Just a note.
Walk back a step. U.S. post-civil-war reconstruction was torn apart by the KKK's acts of political violence. The KKK was and is almost exclusively made up of white Christians. They think of their religion as one of the buttresses of their movement, and cite the Bible in defense of their ideas. Your shift can't have happened before 1870, then.
but the famine isn't going to visit destruction upon foreign countries.
No, our right-wing, avowedly Christian President will take care of that.
wow, not only did you not RTFA... (Score:2, Insightful)
even so..... lets say we did not work on this stuff at all.... sooner or later Osama or some Osama wannabe will get around to making something like this. I would rather we research it before he or anyone else does, so we might be able to counteract the effects. You create anti-venom from venom you know... same with vaccines against things like this.
Re:wow, not only did you not RTFA... (Score:2)
As distasteful as it is, it has to be done.
Re:wow, not only did you not RTFA... (Score:2)
Aren't we all in deep shit then?
Re:wow, not only did you not RTFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that this research has value, lets not underestimate the danger involved. This is why we have containment procedures, etc. What would make me more comfortable with the international treaties on defensive research would be:
Isn't that essentially how the IAEA Additional Protocol treaty works? The IAEA gets to monitor and you fully disclose what you are doing? Iran is signing on [cnn.com] to that I believe.
Demon in the Freezer (Score:3, Informative)
For a more comprehensive discusson of the IL-4 inclusion, and of the threat of Smallpox in general, The Demon in the Freezer [amazon.com] by Richard Preston (the same guy who wrote The Hot Zone, and, yeah - gimme my Amazon $.50...) talks about the history of smallpox, it's spread and eventual U.N. "eradication" (essentially
Re:Hello, Pot? (Score:2)
Re:We need this (Score:2, Insightful)
The US does continue to do development for defense. The reason that they would do such research is to see what is possible and to try to develop was to stop it.
Good grief people the US has been a world leader in trying to outlaw germ warfare and was one of the first to ban it. Give at least a little credit.
Re:We need this (Score:5, Informative)
Yup. We develop the weapons and refuse to stop because of the pharmaceutical industry and the KILLING they make off of germ warfare (and its side products, vaccines and medicine). Welcome to America.
Very, very few Americans understand the facts. (Score:5, Insightful)
By some measures, the U.S. government is the most violent that has ever existed in the world.
The writer of this is an American who is very concerned about his government's participation in violence. In his opinion, a person doesn't really love his or her country unless he or she is willing to look at and understand areas where the country needs improvement. The same principle applies elsewhere. A man doesn't really love his wife if he turns his back when she is having serious, difficult-to-understand problems. And, a person doesn't really love himself or herself unless he or she tries to understand and resolve his or her own inner conflict.
Strictly speaking, it is the U.S. government that is responsible for the violence, not the people of the United States. Very, very few Americans understand the facts presented here. There are many Americans who support violence, and who angrily reject these facts, but even those probably would not want their money being spent on violence if they fully understood the financial and social impact on their lives.
The U.S. government has directly killed about 3,000,000 people since the beginning of the Vietnam war. Most of those, an estimated more than 2,000,000, were in Vietnam, a very poor country that did not threaten the United States.
Historians say that the number of people indirectly killed by the U.S. government is at least another 3,000,000, for a total of 6,000,000. For example, U.S. bombing of Cambodia left that country destabilized, and the forces of violence controlled Cambodia for years after the U.S. bombing.
The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries in the 58 years since the Second World War. The list below includes only countries bombed, not countries in which the U.S. government was responsible for other violence. The list includes only violence since the Second World War, not the extensive violence before the war. Most U.S. citizens are surprised and skeptical when they see the list, so a few links have been provided to supporting information. For more information, try the Google [google.com] search engine or see the links below.
Very few people understand statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
While I as an American certainly do not want to let my government and my society (including myself) off the hook, laying the guilt of 3,000,000 or 6,000,000 deaths soley on the heads of America is an abuse of the facts. Violence is a global failure, not a localized one. Aggressors should be identified and appropriately dealt with (US included) -- but to excuse all other parties is to participate in a witch hunt.
I leave you with one question: Suppose the US had not killed all those people. Suppose the US had never gotten involved anywhere. Can you confidently conclude that the gross level of violence and death in the world would be any less?
There is more than one player in the world. And we ALL share in these iniquities. The violence of the US, Rwanda, Palestinians and Jews is violence of humanity and we each share in the failure.
Re:US is the only world power (Score:5, Insightful)
We are now guilty of illegally invading a foreign country without any direct threat of war or attack or in assistance to another country, but simply based on political agenda, public ignorance, public fear mongering, and propoganda about WMD.
Wow. First, there is no such thing as an illegal war. Frankly, there's hardly such a thing as a civilized war. Who has the athority to say "war is legal" and "war is illegal"? Last I looked on earth the highest authority is a soverign government. There is NO INTERNATIONAL GOVERNEMENT - although some would like there to be one.
The public was not ignorant about the war in Iraq. I seem to recall almost endless debate over the need for the war. It came to a vote and people with access to even better information than you and I (congress) authorized the president to take action. WMD as justification aside, there were four other pillars to the decision: democratization of the region, oil, terrorism and the plight of the Iraqi people.
The US is not a world democracy, but a world hypocrisy. We can do it, but NOBODY else can. And there is NOTHING you can do about it.
Why whould you ever think the US was trying in any way to represent the world? Last I looked only US citizens had the right to vote here. We are not a world democracy. Our government was not founded protect the world, it was founded to to protect the people who have entrusted it with the power to do so. Based on the fact we are prosperous, don't have wars inside our borders and enjoy a life where we are free to pursue our own interests, our government is a success.
As for hypocrisy, why does that even matter? Last I looked, hypocrisy wasn't a crime. Regardless, the US is not hypocritical. We are simply pursuing policy that is in our interest. What you seem to fail to grasp is that policies in the interest of other nations are often contrary to what is best for your own nation.
Do we need ANOTHER WMD? The answer is, we don't.
That's fine if you want to be bullied around by other nations. But I think I can speek for anyone who values freedom here: I'd rather have the next WMD in our arsenal than anyone else have it. Better my country be able to threaten a foreign power than be threatened by one.
Re:US is the only world power (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if you consider the UN charter a treaty that the US has agreed to, then you look at that charter, especially where it says "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members" and "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Then you can easily draw a conclusion that the new policy of premption is in contradiction with existing US treaty obligations.
We are simply pursuing policy that is in our interest. What you seem to fail to grasp is that policies in the interest of other nations are often contrary to what is best for your own nation.
This can be true, but international relations is not a zero-sum game. What goes around comes around.
And it will come around...
Re:US is the only world power (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose this is why over two thirds of Americans believe that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. I suppose this is why most Americans believed the administration's rhetoric about massive stockpiles of "ultimate weapons" in Iraq. I suppose this is why 48% of Americans believed that there were close ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and why 25% believe that we have found WMD in Iraq and that world opinion was strongly behind the Bush administration in the days leading up to the war.
Perhaps "ignorant" is not the right word. "Gullible" might be more like it. After all, most of the folks who held (and continue to hold) any of the above misconceptions were just believing what they were being told by the administration and the media. As the days go by and more and more of this material is revealed to be misleading, incomplete, or outright untrue, it will be interesting to see what the reaction is.
We are simply pursuing policy that is in our interest.
Oh, how I wish that were true.