 |
War 101 Logistics |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345 14> |
| Author | |||
Linus 
Platinum Member 
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10 Joined: 10 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7908 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:06pm |
||
|
What about the Iraq/Iran war? We never gave them WMD's.
The thing with the world is only a few couintries can be trusted with WMD's. And the countries that are not trusted, basically all except for the USA, Canada, England, and Russia, are mad about that. And I like it like that. We know the destructive power of nukes, thats why we try and keep it out of other peopls hands. Killgore... proof is in the books. He had them. France sold him illegal muntions to hold them. He never proved he got rid of them. He banned the inspectors form doing their jobs. IF that isn't enough proof.. I don't know what is, short of showing a nuke to your PM. |
|||
|
|||
 |
|||
|
Dune
Platinum Member
<placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:08pm |
||
|
We've sold illegal munitions to plenty of terrorist groups ourselves, even help to set up a few, and turned our eyes on the creation of a few too. No country is deserving enough to have nukes, not even the US. We can't be trusted more or less than anyone else. |
|||
|
|||
|
entropy
Member 
Future BTK Joined: 12 June 2005 Location: Brunei Darussalam Status: Offline Points: 336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:08pm |
||
|
Is it just me, or is WMD a purely sensationalized term brought about by
the media? Honestly, I can't recall ever hearing that term before Iraq
and/or 9/11. I'm sure it existed, just not in mainstream usage. Someone
fill me in.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clark Kent
Platinum Member
Joined: 02 July 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:08pm |
||
|
I'm going to have to go with Cedric here: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Flight risk. Not because they are guilty, but because we might not get a chance to find out. Entirely different.
First - my main point is that you are muddling issues. Just because people agree that he had chemical weapons in the early 90s doesn't mean that people agree that he had them in '02. Second - just because he had chemical weapons in the early 90s does not mean that he had them in '02. There are a variety of reasons why he may have abandonded them. Third - even if nobody can prove that Saddam didn't have chemical or nuclear weapons in '02, that doesn't mean that he had them. That does not logically follow. This may hold as evidence of Saddam's bad faith, but it is nowhere near conclusive as to the reality of actual weapons. |
|||
|
|||
|
Clark Kent
Platinum Member
Joined: 02 July 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:10pm |
||
|
Pop quiz - which country is the ONLY country ever to use nuclear weapons? And let me get this straight - you would rather trust Russia with nukes than, say, Sweden? |
|||
|
|||
|
mbro
Platinum Member
Original Forum Gangster Joined: 11 June 2002 Location: Isle Of Man Status: Offline Points: 10728 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:17pm |
||
He didn't have to show the inspectors anything, the UN has no power. Show me the UN's army. Show me the UN's land. The UN is not sovereign. The Iraqi goverment was. The United Nations has no right to excersize power over sovereign nations. |
|||
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
|||
|
|||
|
Stormcharger
Member
Joined: 10 September 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 394 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:19pm |
||
|
According to the 'how old are you' post recently, very few people on this forum can even vote. Belief without proof is called faith. Just how faithful are you? If you believe what you reed or hear, and never investigate its veracity, then I pity you and leave you to your ignorance. |
|||
|
|||
|
Clark Kent
Platinum Member
Joined: 02 July 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:22pm |
||
Can I extrapolate from this that you personally verified the absence or presence of chemical weapons in Iraq? |
|||
|
|||
|
Linus
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10 Joined: 10 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7908 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:29pm |
||
Clark, yes we were the only ones to use a nuke DURING wartime. And yes, I trust Russia, becasue they had it for over 50 years and only used it for test, never in active service. Only thingthat worries me is their lack of security messures around old nukes... Clark, flight risk is right, becasue we don't trust suspect. They are suspect for a reason.. guilty till proven innocent. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dune
Platinum Member
<placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:30pm |
||
|
It is not guilty until proven innocent, although many defendents do not get the benefit of the doubt sometimes. We should not be trusted like any other country. |
|||
|
|||
|
Linus
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10 Joined: 10 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7908 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:34pm |
||
|
although many defendents do not get the benefit of the doubt sometimes.
Exactly, which is why I say it's guilty until proven innocent. If your rights are suspeded, you are guilty. Your right are suspended away when you are arrested. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dune
Platinum Member
<placeholder> Joined: 05 February 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4347 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:37pm |
||
|
It's for your own protection and the protection of those around you. You're rights are never suspended, as even those arrested have their rights. If they are compromised then it is not their fault it is that of the department handling them and does not prove guilt, nor does it **edited**ume it for anyone that knows anything about the system.
|
|||
|
|||
|
entropy
Member
Future BTK Joined: 12 June 2005 Location: Brunei Darussalam Status: Offline Points: 336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:53pm |
||
|
Our country goes by innocent until proven guilty for a reason, Linus.
The courts reason that it is better for a guilty man to walk than an
innocent man to hang. Checks and balances are what keep democracy
afloat, let's not have the whole thing come tumbling down so a few
suspected terrorists can get what's coming to them.
Being arrested means that you are under suspicion of guilt. It does not mean that you are guilty unless otherwise noted. |
|||
|
|||
|
Linus
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10 Joined: 10 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7908 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 1:39pm |
||
|
Entropy.. let me rephrase
IT seems like we go under guilty until proven inncoent because of what we do to keep suspected people from doing harm to others or running. Both sides are true, becasue if you were innocent, they would not jail you, even if it was just so you wouldn't run. Drunk drivers, they go to jail for the night then are released until their hearing. They ARE guitly and it's proven, yet they walk the next day. Edited by Linus |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hysteria
Platinum Member
Strike 2 - Language, 9/25 Joined: 02 February 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4364 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 1:55pm |
||
Well really, it would probably say "Made in China".  |
|||
|
|||
|
Linus
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10 Joined: 10 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7908 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 1:55pm |
||
See, we can be friends  Edited by Linus |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Predatorr
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - Rules 1 and 2 Joined: 28 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 2:36pm |
||
|
this = my favorite thread ever
|
|||
|
|||
|
DBibeau855
Platinum Member
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK Joined: 26 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 11662 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 2:46pm |
||
|
Please, ive seen people go to jail for things i KNOW they didnt do. The justice system of the US is so screwed there is absolutly no point in bringing in the US justice system in this debate.
Saddam used his chemicle weapons. A ceasefire was signed. We wanted to see his WMD in acordence with the cease-fire. We have been trying to inspect everything for nearly a decade. I know from personal experience, half an hour with the right machine, and what you want to hide will never be found. Iraq is roughly the size of california. What if i told you that me and my family are going to go dig a whole and sit there for 4 months and i want you to find us. You will not find us. And people keep saying the word "Logic" it is not logical that barels of chemicles just disapear! These things just dont up and disapear. |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clark Kent
Platinum Member
Joined: 02 July 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 2:56pm |
||
|
Let's see... Maybe Saddam: 1. Used up all his chemical weapons to kill Kurds and didn't make more. 2. Sold his chemicals to terrorists. 3. Gave his chemicals to his girlfriend. 4. Disposed of them as requested by the UN, but failed to take good notes. 5. Dumped them in the ocean. 6. Gave them to visiting Russian scientists. 7. Lost the chemical weapons in an industrial accident. 8. Killed all the scientists for fun. 9. Failed to close the lid on the Tupperware, and the chemicals all went bad.
I can think of a zillion things that may have happened to the chemical weapons. Some are more likely than others, but most could easily happen without significant evidence. Now couple that with the many people we have captured (people who should know this type of thing) who have independantly said that there hasn't been a chemical weapons program in years. Is it possible that there are chemical weapons hidden in Iraq? Sure. But the simple absence of evidence that there are none is not evidence of their presence. |
|||
|
|||
|
Linus
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10 Joined: 10 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7908 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 3:19pm |
||
|
Well, he should have some how proven that he didn't have them, no matter hwat he did.
If he did sell them to terrorist, all the more reason to go in... |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
Topic Options
Linus wrote:|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345 14> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.