Saddam fails UN checks
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
Talking about Iraq possesing weapons of mass destruction ...
New fuel air and thermobaric weapons being deployed by the US and Russia, and a new, 30,000 lb US `bunker buster' mega-bomb, are almost mini-nukes. Napalm, a favored US weapon, is just as hideous and deadly as mustard gas.
Compared to such devastating weapons, the old Scuds held by the Arabs and Iran look pretty pathetic, they are innacurate and
cannot support nuclear warheads ..which the Iraqis do not have
in the first place.
The US are regularly using the above mentioned weapons, their leaders need their bullocks to be examined by inspectors from the rest of the world ...
New fuel air and thermobaric weapons being deployed by the US and Russia, and a new, 30,000 lb US `bunker buster' mega-bomb, are almost mini-nukes. Napalm, a favored US weapon, is just as hideous and deadly as mustard gas.
Compared to such devastating weapons, the old Scuds held by the Arabs and Iran look pretty pathetic, they are innacurate and
cannot support nuclear warheads ..which the Iraqis do not have
in the first place.
The US are regularly using the above mentioned weapons, their leaders need their bullocks to be examined by inspectors from the rest of the world ...
Last edited:
Oh geez.. do we have another developing muscleman/whatsup here?
It's really simple. The USA has provided no evidence to support its claims. Some apparently think that's okay, however, and approve of the good old might is right philosophy.
Now to list a couple of logical points, again, for the slow of wit:
1)
Once again:
1) USA accuses Iraq.
2) Iraq has no evidence to disprove the accusations, because they concern non-entities.
3) USA assumes Iraq is giulty.
Which is exactly the same as:
1) I accuse Bush of shagging goats.
2) Bush has no evidence to prove he has never shagged goats.
3) I declare Bush guilty of being a goat-shagger.
My accusation against Bush is 100% as valid as his accusations against Iraq.
2)
If you use past performance as a measure of weather a nation today deserves to be attacked or not, then apply the measure equally. If you mention Iraq killing 4,000 Kurds, you must also mention the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by US bombs. Euther you compare the two by the same measure, or you admit that the US does not in any way have the high moral ground, does not in any way have any moral right to attack Iraq.
Either:
1) The USA has done much worse than Iraq has; or
2) The past is not to be considered when judging Iraq today.
Now to list a couple of logical points, again, for the slow of wit:
1)
Once again:
1) USA accuses Iraq.
2) Iraq has no evidence to disprove the accusations, because they concern non-entities.
3) USA assumes Iraq is giulty.
Which is exactly the same as:
1) I accuse Bush of shagging goats.
2) Bush has no evidence to prove he has never shagged goats.
3) I declare Bush guilty of being a goat-shagger.
My accusation against Bush is 100% as valid as his accusations against Iraq.
2)
If you use past performance as a measure of weather a nation today deserves to be attacked or not, then apply the measure equally. If you mention Iraq killing 4,000 Kurds, you must also mention the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by US bombs. Euther you compare the two by the same measure, or you admit that the US does not in any way have the high moral ground, does not in any way have any moral right to attack Iraq.
Either:
1) The USA has done much worse than Iraq has; or
2) The past is not to be considered when judging Iraq today.
Mr G.:
<i>A generalization that US Americans can only think irrationally. I'm willing to allow you to re-judge the merit of such an assumption.</i>
I'm not assuming that Americans are irrational (not all of them, anyway
).
While I deplore the actions of the 9/11 terrorists, the event itself did not have any personal repercussions for me in the same way that it had for all US citizens. I have not gone from a state of feeling safe at home to one of uncertainty, as has happened in the US. Whilst the threat of terrorists attacks on Australia are higher than they used to be, the threat is probably not as great as to the US.
From all this, I conclude that I have less of a vested issue in the Iraq thing than US citizens do. I think it is a fair assumption.
<i>(BTW: my/our condolensces on your unfortunate loss.) Because the idiots responsible couldn't tell Australians apart form US Americans. I suggest y'all start wearing Candian maple leafs.</i>
Tourism in Bali has always been largely an Australian affair. The targeted club was known to be patronised largely by Australians. The perpetrators of the bombing knew that. They did not mistake Australians for Americans. Australia was a target, probably because of our support of the United States.
<i>Runmor has it that the US Government knows where 90% of Iraq's undeclared WMD are located. Further, that to reveal to the world at this time what the US knows would permit Hussein to move his WMD from the very sites we're targeting for destruction on the first night of our attack.
The requisite 'smoking gun' is more likely to be at the bottom of a bunch of bomb craters that in an Iraqi WMD declaration to the UNSC/UNMOVIC.</i>
That's convenient, isn't it? The US goes in and bombs Iraq, then says: "Well, guys, you know there <b>used</b> to be evidence of Iraq building WMD, but we bombed it." If, in fact, Iraq has no WMD squirrelled away, it gives the US a nice cover story - don't you think?
<i>What I mean about the rest is that being a super-power makes us think and act different from those who aren't--those who can afford to act non-super-powerish. Life is simpler for non-US Americans.</i>
Other countries can't trample willy-nilly over other nations with little fear of reprisals (military or economic). The US can and does. Life is simple for the US - it does what it wants.
<i>A generalization that US Americans can only think irrationally. I'm willing to allow you to re-judge the merit of such an assumption.</i>
I'm not assuming that Americans are irrational (not all of them, anyway
).While I deplore the actions of the 9/11 terrorists, the event itself did not have any personal repercussions for me in the same way that it had for all US citizens. I have not gone from a state of feeling safe at home to one of uncertainty, as has happened in the US. Whilst the threat of terrorists attacks on Australia are higher than they used to be, the threat is probably not as great as to the US.
From all this, I conclude that I have less of a vested issue in the Iraq thing than US citizens do. I think it is a fair assumption.
<i>(BTW: my/our condolensces on your unfortunate loss.) Because the idiots responsible couldn't tell Australians apart form US Americans. I suggest y'all start wearing Candian maple leafs.
</i>Tourism in Bali has always been largely an Australian affair. The targeted club was known to be patronised largely by Australians. The perpetrators of the bombing knew that. They did not mistake Australians for Americans. Australia was a target, probably because of our support of the United States.
<i>Runmor has it that the US Government knows where 90% of Iraq's undeclared WMD are located. Further, that to reveal to the world at this time what the US knows would permit Hussein to move his WMD from the very sites we're targeting for destruction on the first night of our attack.
The requisite 'smoking gun' is more likely to be at the bottom of a bunch of bomb craters that in an Iraqi WMD declaration to the UNSC/UNMOVIC.</i>
That's convenient, isn't it? The US goes in and bombs Iraq, then says: "Well, guys, you know there <b>used</b> to be evidence of Iraq building WMD, but we bombed it." If, in fact, Iraq has no WMD squirrelled away, it gives the US a nice cover story - don't you think?
<i>What I mean about the rest is that being a super-power makes us think and act different from those who aren't--those who can afford to act non-super-powerish. Life is simpler for non-US Americans.</i>
Other countries can't trample willy-nilly over other nations with little fear of reprisals (military or economic). The US can and does. Life is simple for the US - it does what it wants.
James R.:
More youthful folks may have original angst over the 'at any time, at any place, by anonymous means' methods of the Islamist terrorists but it's really not a new potentiality for us older farts. All along, nukes, contagens and poisons could be smuggled into the US under protection of diplomatic pouch or across unguarded borders with no direct fingerprint of the actual perpetrator left behind their eventual use. So I tend to think of current events as being just more of the same--except that the list of usual suspects is growing ominously.
The court of world opinion would like to have the proof, and Hussein would love to see it too. But the US has only to show it to the Security Council in closed session to obtain the support it needs for taking Hussein off the 'usual suspect' list. No need tipping off Hussein before he takes whatever he may or may not have and scatters it on the four winds before he's c-listed.
There is little difference between the presumptions that Hussin has no WMD and that the US has no evidence and the presumptions that Hussein has WMD and that the US has evidence. Both sets of presumptions have yet to be substantiated for our purposes--allowing us all still to be able to choose which set of presumptions best suits our current conversational purposes.
Having lived through such events as the '62 cuban missle crisis and all the 50's/60's "Soviet nukes raining doen from the sky" scenarios played out in the news and movies of the time, I personally don't feel any less safe and certain now as I did pre-9/11; I'm not hiding under the bed at night with the dust bunnies.
More youthful folks may have original angst over the 'at any time, at any place, by anonymous means' methods of the Islamist terrorists but it's really not a new potentiality for us older farts. All along, nukes, contagens and poisons could be smuggled into the US under protection of diplomatic pouch or across unguarded borders with no direct fingerprint of the actual perpetrator left behind their eventual use. So I tend to think of current events as being just more of the same--except that the list of usual suspects is growing ominously.
That presumes all evidences would be destroyed--components, residues, documents, personnel, etc.--by an attack. I recall at least one instance of a 9/11 hijacker's passport being found in the WTC rubble.
The court of world opinion would like to have the proof, and Hussein would love to see it too. But the US has only to show it to the Security Council in closed session to obtain the support it needs for taking Hussein off the 'usual suspect' list. No need tipping off Hussein before he takes whatever he may or may not have and scatters it on the four winds before he's c-listed.
There is little difference between the presumptions that Hussin has no WMD and that the US has no evidence and the presumptions that Hussein has WMD and that the US has evidence. Both sets of presumptions have yet to be substantiated for our purposes--allowing us all still to be able to choose which set of presumptions best suits our current conversational purposes.
Originally posted by *stRgrL*
Ya, kinda like you are like this: USA = evil lazy twofaced bastards: the good guys = Anyone that isnt American
No, my policy is more like:
- All governments = evil lazy two-faced bastards.
- Many sciforums members incapable of logic = the reason governments can remain as they are.
- Those who can logically compare all factors = the good guys.