Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Rubbish. Israel is a parliamentary democracy not a theocracy. That's just anti-Israel propaganda you are spewing. Now, why would we want to attack Israel? They pose no threat to us, they wouldn't cut themselves off from their primary benefactor and face total destruction.Originally posted by: Infohawk
Alas, there is nothing funny about Israel having WMDs. They are a theocracy armed with nuclear weapons. The US should be doing something about it instead of giving Israel more money.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well I wish they would find them for Christ Sakes so I won't feel like I was such a tool for supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq. My only excuse now is that I was caught up with the Patriotic fervor that followed 9/11 and that I could never imagine any Administration being as incompetent as it seems the Dub's Administration has been. Frankly I would love to have my faith in him/them restored.
I think the UN saction bit is irrelevent, as we would just veto any attempt to lift the sanctions anyway.
he was proven guilty recently of what? he was a menace in the past, no doubt. The things he did in Kuwait and to the Kurds he paid for with the 1991 Gulf War. We had almost the whole world on our side, it was a just cause, so the UN had no problem backing us. If our current invasion into Iraq was so just, why didn;t we get UN approval?
But that is a bit of a double standard, don't you think? And there is a little discreptancy here in that you say it's too late to do anything to North Korea because we know they have WMDs, yet we went into Iraq not necessarily to prevent him building WMDs, but on the grounds that he already has them and is ready to use them on us (in 45 minutes ) If you read Powell's speech to the UN, he implies Iraq has WMDs and is ready to use them.
Originally posted by: Genx87
This kind of hypothetical rhetoric for war is the biggest threat to the world right now. Saddam didn't threaten us and his WMDs were at best "unaccounted for" for 12 years. He claimed he destroyed them, he has the support of numerous UN Weapons Investigation which could not find them.
Not finding them and not accounting for them are two different things. He had known stockpiles but he could or would not tell the UN where they were. If he was such a non-threat then why didnt the UN lift their sanctions on him?
So if he had know stock piles of WMD why didn't bush secure them instead of giving them to terrorist to use on our troops
Originally posted by: Genx87
So if he had know stock piles of WMD why didn't bush secure them instead of giving them to terrorist to use on our troops
And Bush could have done this how?
Well you said he had know stock piles so just have troops I don't know gaurd the stocks piles?
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well you said he had know stock piles so just have troops I don't know gaurd the stocks piles?
He had known stockpiles, as in, we knew he has this much of VX, Sarin, and Mustard gas. That doesnt mean we know where they are as shown by the fact we arent finding them in Iraq even a year after the war and are now seeing them used as roadside bombs.
Originally posted by: Genx87
We did. Resolution 1441 relates to Resolutions 687 and 678. Both of which call for the use of force and both of which Iraq was in violation of. As for the what he has done lately? You mean kicking out the UN in 1998 wasnt enough?
A double standard yes, but I dont know if North Korea has many ties to organizations in the Middle east that slamed aircraft into our skyscrapers. Thus at that time Saddam was our biggest target.
On a side note North Korea has said they have Nuke capability. This makes the situation much more dire as they can hit Seoul with a nuke tipped artiliery shell. If we would have dealth is N. Korea during the Clinton administration like we should have Al Queda then maybe we would not be in the position we are in now. We also have a little help with two large nations bordering No korea who do have a vested interest in making sure no nukes are detonated or get out of N korea. Iraq as we have seen has pretty loose borders with nations who dont care or have the capability to seal them off.
You are correct, I did assume too much, but you are as well. To call a country a religious state because of their leader's beliefs is ludicrous. Israel follows an election process, and doesn't appoint it's leaders by divine right so you can call them religous states because of your personal beliefs/perceptions, but that doesn't make it the reality.Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Rubbish. Israel is a parliamentary democracy not a theocracy. That's just anti-Israel propaganda you are spewing. Now, why would we want to attack Israel? They pose no threat to us, they wouldn't cut themselves off from their primary benefactor and face total destruction.Originally posted by: Infohawk
Alas, there is nothing funny about Israel having WMDs. They are a theocracy armed with nuclear weapons. The US should be doing something about it instead of giving Israel more money.
Who said I think we should attack Israel? Try to avoid making assumptions. The US should embargo Israel until it gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Same goes for North Korea and Pakistan.
Israel is a state built around one religion. It's purpose is to serve the jewish people. It's a religious state. Sorry. I have a problems with all regilious states, be in the US under GWB or Israel or Iran.
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Genx87
This kind of hypothetical rhetoric for war is the biggest threat to the world right now. Saddam didn't threaten us and his WMDs were at best "unaccounted for" for 12 years. He claimed he destroyed them, he has the support of numerous UN Weapons Investigation which could not find them.
Not finding them and not accounting for them are two different things. He had known stockpiles but he could or would not tell the UN where they were. If he was such a non-threat then why didnt the UN lift their sanctions on him?
So if he had know stock piles of WMD why didn't bush secure them instead of giving them to terrorist to use on our troops.
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
an binary artillery shell containing Sarin Nerve gas was detonated today in Iraq in a terrorist attack on U.S. troops. Two G.I.'s were exposed and treated.
gee....i thought all you liberals claimed they didn't exist..
i already know what you're going to claim..
"they only found one?...that doesn't count.."
well, does any rational person believe they produced only one Sarin Gas artillery shell?
no WMD?
Ha.
You do realize you're making a mockery of yourself by trying to justify a war in Iraq killing hudreds of our own men and women and thousands of Iraqis for one (1) artillery shell containing Sarin Nerve gas which was allegedly found, right?
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
an binary artillery shell containing Sarin Nerve gas was detonated today in Iraq in a terrorist attack on U.S. troops. Two G.I.'s were exposed and treated.
gee....i thought all you liberals claimed they didn't exist..
i already know what you're going to claim..
"they only found one?...that doesn't count.."
well, does any rational person believe they produced only one Sarin Gas artillery shell?
no WMD?
Ha.
Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Genx87
This kind of hypothetical rhetoric for war is the biggest threat to the world right now. Saddam didn't threaten us and his WMDs were at best "unaccounted for" for 12 years. He claimed he destroyed them, he has the support of numerous UN Weapons Investigation which could not find them.
Not finding them and not accounting for them are two different things. He had known stockpiles but he could or would not tell the UN where they were. If he was such a non-threat then why didnt the UN lift their sanctions on him?
So if he had know stock piles of WMD why didn't bush secure them instead of giving them to terrorist to use on our troops.
If Saddam meant no one any harm and had no plans or uses for WMDs, then why didn't he just turn over every single WMD that he had to the cleanup teams? Why did he repeatedly kick out inspectors if he had nothing to hide? Why would he go through all of this trouble to make sure the sanctions placed on Iraq stayed in place when it did nothing but hurt the people of Iraq in just about every way possible?
I don't think Saddam gave a damn about the welfare of Iraqie people and having the sanctions gave Saddam a scap-coat to blame all the problems in Iraq on
For the weapons that were known to exist and were unacounted for by inspectors, why didn't Saddam know where they were? As the leader of the country, he should have had access to the information where all the weapons were stored.
I have no idea where the weapons are stored or if they where ever manufactured.
Also, if Saddam's word in saying he destroyed everything is good enough for you, why isn't the President of the United State's word good enough for you saying there still are WMDs that Saddam didn't destroy?
Until you can answer every one of these questions truthfully, accurately and factually, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on in saying there are no WMDs and Saddam didn't have any when there is so much proof that he did have them and they have somehow turned up missing. That is not proof that he had nothing. It just means that they weren't found. I do not see the logic in saying there was something there and there was proof of it, there is no evidence it was destroyed, but it hasn't been found so it doesn't exist anymore and Saddam must have destroyed it.
I guess the car keys so may people have misplaced no longer exist since they weren't found.
Originally posted by: ViciouS
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
an binary artillery shell containing Sarin Nerve gas was detonated today in Iraq in a terrorist attack on U.S. troops. Two G.I.'s were exposed and treated.
gee....i thought all you liberals claimed they didn't exist..
i already know what you're going to claim..
"they only found one?...that doesn't count.."
well, does any rational person believe they produced only one Sarin Gas artillery shell?
no WMD?
Ha.
You do realize you're making a mockery of yourself by trying to justify a war in Iraq killing hudreds of our own men and women and thousands of Iraqis for one (1) artillery shell containing Sarin Nerve gas which was allegedly found, right?
You find one roach in your kitchen, there are a 100 more that you can't see. If you think this is just one isolated WMD your fooling yourself.
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well you said he had know stock piles so just have troops I don't know gaurd the stocks piles?
He had known stockpiles, as in, we knew he has this much of VX, Sarin, and Mustard gas. That doesnt mean we know where they are as shown by the fact we arent finding them in Iraq even a year after the war and are now seeing them used as roadside bombs.
How do you know they have stock piles but not know the location of even one stock pile. Sounds like your pulling the claim that we knew/know Saddam has WMD out of your ass.
Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Genx87
Well you said he had know stock piles so just have troops I don't know gaurd the stocks piles?
He had known stockpiles, as in, we knew he has this much of VX, Sarin, and Mustard gas. That doesnt mean we know where they are as shown by the fact we arent finding them in Iraq even a year after the war and are now seeing them used as roadside bombs.
How do you know they have stock piles but not know the location of even one stock pile. Sounds like your pulling the claim that we knew/know Saddam has WMD out of your ass.
I guess the UN was wrong when it said Saddam had these stockpiles and located many of them, yet were kicked out of Iraq before they could safely destroy them. You do know that the UN documented what Saddam had, at least what they could find to begin with after the Gulf War don't you? Or did the UN just "pull that out of it's ass"?
I personally can't stand the UN, but considering that I believe every country agreed with the findings on Saddam's WMDs that the UN reported on, that there is a good chance Saddam actually had what they said he had. It just turns out later, some of the stuff was "unaccounted for". I find it rather convenient that people prefer to ignore that fact.
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: conjur
$20 we'll find this to have been brought in from outside of Iraq or to be some leftover shell that the U.S. supplied Saddam with 20 years ago.
I WILL TAKE THAT BET.
We can wait for more information but so far....
1) It appears to be from Saddam's stockpile.
2) In all of the research I have done I have never found any reference to the US sending chemical artillery shells to Iraq. I don't believe that you have either, but prove me wrong. Provide the source of that "information". We can even make that a side bet. I bet you, Conjur, $20 that you cannot find a reputable source that states the US gave Saddam chemical weapon artillery shells.
Basically I think you are lying and am willing to put my money on the line to prove you wrong. Are you willing to actually back up what you post?
WASHINGTON (AP) ? Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research. (Related story: A look at U.S. shipments of pathogens to Iraq)
The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.
The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.
The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.
"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.
"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
May not have given them the actual shell found today but certainly gave them ammunition, chemical agents, biological agents, and intelligence on how to use them.March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]