Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

War 101 Logistics

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 14>
Author
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
entropy View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Future BTK

Joined: 12 June 2005
Location: Brunei Darussalam
Status: Offline
Points: 336
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote entropy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:08pm

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Our whole basis of law is actually Guilty until proven innocent, cedric.

I'm going to have to go with Cedric here:  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote Why do you think we put people in jail, make them pay bail, or even keep them in jaul before they go to trial?

Flight risk.  Not because they are guilty, but because we might not get a chance to find out.  Entirely different.

Quote You guys say he did have WMD's after First Gulf War, but not before second one.. Where did they go? IF he dismantled them, show me proof.

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.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:10pm

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

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.

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?

Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:17pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

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.


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.
Back to Top
Stormcharger View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 September 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 394
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Stormcharger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:19pm

Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Cedric, again, ignroance is not bliss in your case.

Don't argue the fact that he had WMD's, he did and most of the (educated) forum agrees. Now where they are now, I don't know.


In all actuality, most of the (educated) forum believes he did not have them.

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.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:22pm
Originally posted by Stormcharger Stormcharger wrote:

  If you believe what you reed or hear, and never investigate its veracity, then I pity you and leave you to your ignorance.

Can I extrapolate from this that you personally verified the absence or presence of chemical weapons in Iraq?

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:29pm
Originally posted by mbro mbro wrote:

The United Nations has no right to excersize power over sovereign nations.
And we do, so why argue about it?

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.

Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
entropy View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Future BTK

Joined: 12 June 2005
Location: Brunei Darussalam
Status: Offline
Points: 336
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote entropy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
Hysteria View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - Language, 9/25

Joined: 02 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4364
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hysteria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 1:55pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Sorry, I don't mean to attack anyone hysteria. Sorry for that. 




Originally posted by Killgore Killgore wrote:

The big problem is if the US did find WOMD, they would be labeled "Made in the USA". :) Remember the Iraq and Iran war.


Well really, it would probably say "Made in China".
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 1:55pm
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:


Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Sorry, I don't mean to attack anyone hysteria. Sorry for that.




See, we can be friends

Edited by Linus

Back to Top
Predatorr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Rules 1 and 2

Joined: 28 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Predatorr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 2:36pm
this = my favorite thread ever
Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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...

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 14>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.