- 12,993
- USA! USA!
However true that may be, it holds no meaning in this thread. RVD, or RVD's mom?
- Klos's embryo
- Klos's embryo
I don't think Iraq has any banned weapons.
- Thread starter 1X83Z
- 180 comments
- 4,683 views
- 12,993
- USA! USA!
No.
- 2,970
Even if they do . . . why shouldn't they? The USA has killed more people with weapons of mass destruction than Iraq. Maybe we shouldn't be allowed to have them
Furthermore . . . when Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran in the 80's, guess who was supplying the coordinates to hit!? The USA, with our surveillance satellites. And that's not just liberal anti-war garbage, either, it's a well known fact. Look it up.
- 1,125
Osama's not Iraqi, he's Afghani.
I'll one-up ya: Guess who supplied the weapons themselves?Originally posted by Stealth Viper
Furthermore . . . when Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran in the 80's, guess who was supplying the coordinates to hit!? The USA, with our surveillance satellites. And that's not just liberal anti-war garbage, either, it's a well known fact. Look it up.
That's right, the good ol' US of A. Not intentionally, of course - the weapons had medical purposes - but how could you trust Iraq? Saddam developed them into terror weapons.
Do people actually think they can get away with making dumb statements like this? Osama bin Laden was born and raised in Saudi Arabia; he was kicked out of the country for his radical views and, in search of a government that would allow him to continue living how he did, went to various northern African countries before finally settling on Afghanistan.
- 10,081
- WFG9
He's a Saudi exile who claims Yemen as his ancestral home.
- 1,125
Originally posted by M5Power
Do people actually think they can get away with making dumb statements like this? Osama bin Laden was born and raised in Saudi Arabia; he was kicked out of the country for his radical views and, in search of a government that would allow him to continue living how he did, went to various northern African countries before finally settling on Afghanistan.
So what? I don't care much about Middle Eastern countries
And no, I am not making dumb statements, M5, so quit it.
- 10,081
- WFG9
Why post in this thread if you are uninterested in the principal players?
- 2,970
Even if they do . . . why shouldn't they? The USA has killed more people with weapons of mass destruction than Iraq. Maybe we shouldn't be allowed to have them
Furthermore . . . when Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran in the 80's, guess who was supplying the coordinates to hit!? The USA, with our surveillance satellites. And that's not just liberal anti-war garbage, either, it's a well known fact. Look it up.
Furthermore . . . when Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran in the 80's, guess who was supplying the coordinates to hit!? The USA, with our surveillance satellites. And that's not just liberal anti-war garbage, either, it's a well known fact. Look it up.
The war will be Feb-March.
Who knows what the truth is, and, is it really relevant anyway?
You know what really gets me with all this? All the posturing and rhetoric, from both sides. As a specific example, Blair releases this dossier of human rights abuses in Iraq a couple of weeks ago that dated back to 1998 and had already been released.
Fine - have the damn war. Who cares anyway? It just means a whole new set of problems to deal with in another 10 years time.
Who knows what the truth is, and, is it really relevant anyway?
You know what really gets me with all this? All the posturing and rhetoric, from both sides. As a specific example, Blair releases this dossier of human rights abuses in Iraq a couple of weeks ago that dated back to 1998 and had already been released.
Fine - have the damn war. Who cares anyway? It just means a whole new set of problems to deal with in another 10 years time.
Ignoring milefile's little chest-thumper, the concern over Iraq holding weapons of mass destruction is that both currently and in the event of regime collapse the weapons could potentially fall into the hands of terror groups.
Although I'm coming at the issue from the pacifist side, I don't actually have an issue with that line of argument - one need only look at the flow of arms from the collapsed Soviet Union to see that in practice.
No! That's just what the Bush administration wants you to think. President Bush's concern with Iraq has, as much as he says otherwise, absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. He thinks Saddam is evil (and you'd have to be really stupid to disagree) and he also thinks Saddam will use his biological weapons (but the President's main concern is for Israel). Bush shows his generalising when he makes the connection between terrorist Arab nation Afghanistan and law-abiding Arab nation Irack.
Should have this clearer - I'm talking from the UN's point of view - and I would also point out that I think there are more deserving candidates of attention in this area - as an example, what on earth are Yemen doing with Scuds??
I concur totally on the perception of the Israel threat, and I think they're actually the most dangerous unknown in this whole equation as they're nuclear armed - if Iraq put anything their way it could be on for young and old over there.
OK...But you don't see them as a threat to the US but as a threat to world safety.
I can't really blame them for taking a hard stand on this issue though. They are surrounded by enimies on almost all sides and haven't had peace since they became a nation.
Actually I am suprised they haven't just gone in and taken back all the land they gave to Palastine. If it was up to me that's what I would have done. I know I'm going to get flack for that but that's ok. You probably don't want to know what I would really want to do if I were them.
I can't really blame them for taking a hard stand on this issue though. They are surrounded by enimies on almost all sides and haven't had peace since they became a nation.
Actually I am suprised they haven't just gone in and taken back all the land they gave to Palastine. If it was up to me that's what I would have done. I know I'm going to get flack for that but that's ok. You probably don't want to know what I would really want to do if I were them.
Well, Yemen may deserve a little extra looking in to, (so may the UAE, Egypt, etc.) but since they're our allies in the war, it's never going to happen, simply because we need all the help in the area we can get. President Bush is so over-concerned about help in the Mid East that he downplayed the entire SCUD situation, basically dodging the issue through his intelligent press secretary who simply pointed out that they weren't banned, long-range, or a threat, and that's good enough for most Americans, especially when it could've very easily have turned into an international incident, since Spain had no grounds to stop that SCUD-carrying ship in the first place.
Yes, and according to Israel, this wouldn't have been the first time they've acted 'appropriately.' Usually, when Israel sees a threat, they don't ask the UN, the US, or care about the rest of the countries in the area (after all, all neigboring countries hate Israel), but instead they do what's necessary to get rid of it. Frankly, there's both a pro and a con to this strategy. The pro comes by assuring your life tomorrow, but the con is the consequences for such a decision. No other country acts just like Israel in this regard.
Similar threads
- Poll
