[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 158

Phoenix-D · #**1571** June 4th, 2003, 02:41 AM

"And BTW I never understood why it's claimed that Saddam was willing to use the WMDs while other countries that have WMDs are not."

Because he used gas during the Iranian war perhaps?

tesco samoa · #**1572** June 4th, 2003, 02:50 AM

i believe that a cluster bomb is a greater 'wmd' than gas.

Also the depleted uraniam casings that are cast aside are a 'wmd'.

Tell me why it is ok for one nation to cluster bomb cities this year and why it very bad for a gas attack in 89. Is 89 the year we draw the line on when one was good and when one was bad. I never quite understood that ?

when do we invade congo ? that country needs help.

Narrew · #**1573** June 4th, 2003, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
lets look at the Coalition's countries that have clean human rights records

Afghanistan , Albania , Angola , Azerbaijan , Colombia, Dominican Republic ,El Salvador , Eritrea ,Ethiopia ,Georgia ,Honduras ,Kuwait ,Nicaragua , Philippines ,Rwanda ,Turkey ,Uganda ,Uzbekistan

Bah

, when people think of the Coalition they think of 3 countries, US, UK and Spain. True these hanger on countries have alot of problems. I could debate you on Afghanistan (US forces are still there and there is yet a stable goverment, we can flip a coin), Turkey? bah, they shouldn't be considered since they didn't allow US forces through their country. African countries? Well, there is alot of issues there. Former Soviet Union countries, I would think they are trying to right wrongs, but then again it will take time. The other countries, yea they have issues.

As you can see when you said Coliation, the first thing I think of is those 3 (main) countries. Those are the 3 countries put their kahunas on the chopping block, the other countries have no vested interest either way. When we read all the negative stories in the media, we see things that start with "Bush and his coliation of evil doers", we do not read "Ethiopian troops march on the defensless Iraqis".

Quote:

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
You did read me wrong. I believe they should have removed him in 90 when he was doing these mass killings..

That we can agree with, we should have been there for the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south. But we didn't, we screwed up then. But, Saddam had over 12 years, how many more years would you have us wait?

Quote:

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The french asked for 3 more weeks....

The French? Oh, there is a great example of moral superiority

(yes, that is sarcasim), why did they want 3 more weeks? It sure as heck wasn't for 3 more weeks of WMD search, even if that is what was said. 12 years waiting for Saddam should have been enough. So what did the French want the 3 weeks for? Maybe they wanted more time for making false documents? Or perhaps they wanted 3 more weeks of skimming off more money from the Food for Oil? How about 3 more weeks helping get Iraqi officials fake passports? And finally, how about 3 more weeks to give Saddam time to get the WMDs out of the country?

I saw a report tonight that the UN thinks that Saddam had 7k to 20k liters of Anthrax. How easy would it be to get some of it out of the country in 1 or 2 liter bottles? Now I don't know what 1 liter of anthrax could do, but I doubt that it would be good.

Quote:

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Time will tell if this was correct.

Ok, I swear I am not picking on you. But I got a chuckle on that Last comment (hopefully your chuckling at me also). Because I read your comment like this..."Time will tell if I was correct, and if I am proved wrong, well I sure as heck ain't going to admit it, because all that info was planted by the evil doers or aliens".

Hopefully I have got accross the point that I admit I am BIASED, I know that. And if after the 6 months we find no more WMDs than we have so far, I will admit that there was an intelligence failure, and as I said before I think Bush will take full accountability for that failure, he will not pass the buck. I will also be worried about where the WMDs went to, because I don't know of any agency that says there NEVER were any WMDs, just whether or not were they still around in his control.

Ok, group hug time...

geoschmo · #**1574** June 4th, 2003, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The french asked for 3 more weeks....

No no no. I am not sure where you are getting this information but it is patently false. If the price for Franch joining the coalition had been three more weeks then three more weeks would have been gladly given. The fact is the French flatly and unequivically refused to accept ANY deadline that had the threat of military action at the end of it, period.

You can debate whether that was the correct course or not in retrospect. But don't try to say they simply wanted a little more time.

EDIT: I think you might be getting confused over a suggestion floated by the British during the effort to get another UN resolution at the end. It was shot down by the French.

Geoschmo

[ June 04, 2003, 02:10: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Phoenix-D · #**1575** June 4th, 2003, 07:25 AM

"i believe that a cluster bomb is a greater 'wmd' than gas."

Cluster bombs are no different than regular bombs, except they're more OF them per bomber. Gas is considered different.

"Also the depleted uraniam casings that are cast aside are a 'wmd'."

Bzzt. Just based on the levels of radioactivity they might have, it would take years to kill anyone. Leftover mines, unexploded ordinance and such are a bigger hazard than uranium dust that probably settles quickly after being ejected, uranium being dense.

"Tell me why it is ok for one nation to cluster bomb cities this year and why it very bad for a gas attack in 89. Is 89 the year we draw the line on when one was good and when one was bad. I never quite understood that ?"

Two different weapons, for one. And you make it sound like we carpet bombed Bagdad; we didn't. If we had there wouldn't have been a museum for the Iraqis to loot, for one.

tbontob · #**1576** June 4th, 2003, 07:50 AM

Narrew, I agree with you when the dictator is a half-way sane individual.

I shudder to think what a insane dictator would do with WMD.

Many writers say that Hitler was not in his right mind at the end of the war. He blamed the German people for failing him in winning the war and was apparently so enraged by it that he didn't care if Germany was completely destroyed.

The reason given for Hitler not using mustard gas and other gases is that he was apparently gassed as a soldier (corporal?) in WWI. He found the experience so unpleasant, that he didn't amass any great amount of it in WW2.

But suppose he did amass a lot of mustard gas or had access to large quantities of WMD, would he have refrained from using them? We can only guess. He certainly didn't love the German people in the end because if he did, he would have surrendered months earlier in December when it became obvious the Battle of the Bulge would not succeed and he had little resources left to take the offensive.

In not surrending, he exposed the German people to untold privations. Only the intervention of the allies prevented a complete collapse. Later, the Marshall plan sponsored by the U.S. was instrumental in the economic recovery of Germany and other devastated countries.

It is scary when a person is so full of hate. When a person no longer cares, he is capable of anything.