|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2003 10:53:29 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by achiral:
wrong there have been many people tried for speaking. double agents that gave secrets to russia for example |
I haven't even seen the "interview" but I haven't heard anyone implying he was passing along any secrets, just speaking the truth to the wrong folks in the wrong place at the wrong time...a lot of people wanted to try Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden for treason as well...then they elected him to office... |
|
|
|
04/01/2003 10:53:43 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by achiral:
bad news lisae the war isn't over and they will find weapons. you've made your decision after 2 weeks of war, but you protested this same kind of logic which started the war. give the inspectors more time, the us is evil, blah blah blah. but now in your expert opinion they haven't found anything yet. i mean cmon, i know you'd like to see the us lose and crumble, but it ain't gonna happen. |
It's not my "expert opinion", it's in the Washington Post. An American newspaper. Did you read the article? |
|
|
|
04/01/2003 10:54:22 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by achiral:
wrong there have been many people tried for speaking. double agents that gave secrets to russia for example |
I haven't even seen the "interview" but I haven't heard anyone implying he was passing along any secrets, just speaking the truth to the wrong folks in the wrong place at the wrong time...a lot of people wanted to try Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden for treason as well...then they elected him to office... |
yeah i wasn't talking about arnett specifically
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 10:55:43 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by achiral:
bad news lisae the war isn't over and they will find weapons. you've made your decision after 2 weeks of war, but you protested this same kind of logic which started the war. give the inspectors more time, the us is evil, blah blah blah. but now in your expert opinion they haven't found anything yet. i mean cmon, i know you'd like to see the us lose and crumble, but it ain't gonna happen. |
It's not my "expert opinion", it's in the Washington Post. An American newspaper. Did you read the article? |
any other sources on the du shells? i mean that sounds serious but the paper did sensationalize the matter a bit
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 10:58:55 AM · #55 |
First of all, we're in their backyard. Think about it, if some country invade the US, wouldn't the population hide the army within it? That's what happened in Vietnam.
The bottom line is there is no "RULES" of war. In the end there is only carnage. You can tell that to the 100,000 Iraqis who will perish from earth that they got their "freedom".
We're betting the war on popular uprising against Saddam, but that hasn't happened and will probably not happen. Most people don't realize, including you, that there is a differnece of NOT liking Saddam and actually wanting Americans to be on their ground. I don't think the Iraqis like Saddam or the Americans, but they'd rather have Saddam. IT's all part of historical reasons of European conquests in the middle-east and we are being seen as invaders.
When you see women and children being blown to bits, we'll see about how the "opinion" will sway to our favor. It will be against it. When you see a child coming up to an American soldier and detonating a grenade, you will see opinions swing the other way. If you don't have popular support, you will have something like Vietnam where the only way to win is to kill everyone.
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Originally posted by paganini:
And once the troops gets mixed in with the civilians, there will be lots of casualties on both American and Iraqi civilians, but mostly on Iraqi civilians. That in turn may lose public support for the war in the U.S. |
Why do you assume there will be only American and Iraqi civilian causualties? If any Iraqi civilians die it's because of the cowardly actions of the Iraqi government, who will hide behind the dresses of their own woman and children. We know that the Iraqi military are cowards and murderous to their own people. THAT will sway opinion IN FAVOR of our efforts, not the other way around.
Originally posted by paganini:
It's that not that simple to capture a city without killinga lot of civilians, and killing civilians with those images on TV will make a profound impact on public opinion in the US alone. |
You're right it won't be easy, but it will get done. In the end the Iraqi people will benefit so there's no debate as to the benefit of this. They will be free and enjoy the benefit of democracy, freedom, and money from THEIR own resources. Saddam will no longer strangle them and keep them poor.
Originally posted by paganini:
We could've won in Vietnam. You know, that's true. But we'd have to kill every Vietnamese in there and we chose not to commit genocide. There was NO public support for the war from the Vietnamese, and until we see public support of the war in Baghdad, it'll be another Vietnam. |
Gee, if you lived in Iraq as a common citizan under the threat of instant death of your family if you voice oposition against Saddam, I don't think you would have much oppisition to him either at this point. Is that so hard for people to see? After he's gone you'll see the differance. |
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 11:04:20 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by paganini:
I don't think the Iraqis like Saddam or the Americans, but they'd rather have Saddam. |
you have got to be kidding
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 11:18:49 AM · #57 |
No I am not. People in the US just don't understand the context of history. That's the problem, you got Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who is good at fighting a conventional force such as the Soviets (face to face) but is clueless when it comes to unconventional warfare (Vietnam type, Lebanon, etc.) or historical context in other parts of the world.
Westerners reminds them of the days of colonists from Britain and France. They'll never allow occupation by those guys and we're associated with them. That's why even the Shiites didn't rise up this time. Last time in 1991 we let them down and thousands of them were killed. BTW, Baghdad is the Suunis, Saddams people, about 5 million of them. The Shiites might not like Saddam and might want the US to go into Baghdad, but rest assured, the Suunis will not support the Americans. You have three ethnic groups in Iraq, Saddam is part of the Suunis and they ahve been terrorizing the other two groups (Kurds and Shiites), however, to win the war, you have to control Baghdad which is predominately Suunis who will not support the US.
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by paganini:
I don't think the Iraqis like Saddam or the Americans, but they'd rather have Saddam. |
you have got to be kidding |
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 11:20:43 AM · #58 |
|
|
|
04/01/2003 11:45:36 AM · #59 |
It's fairly telling that the final paragraph of that report says "If DU dust inhalation resulted in the incorporation of significant amounts of insoluble uranium compounds, long-term patient follow up should include checks for lung tumours".
Gulf war veterans and the people who lived near the fighting have all suffered high rates of cancer, birth defects, etc. Given how many different compounds they were exposed to, no one is certain of what caused it. DU has NOT been ruled out. Its toxicity becomes important if large amounts of DU dust particles are inhaled or ingested. This is because the radiation from DU is low level alpha radiation... the weakest form of nuclear radiation you can get. It won't penetrate through a sheet of paper, but if you get it into your body it WILL damage your lungs and other organs. Also, because Uranium is such a toxic heavy metal, it damages your kidneys and causes other damage if it gets inside your body.
It's pretty obvious that if you use DU armaments, you're going to get a lot of it reduced to dust. How can anyone justify leaving that dust around to pollute the environment and poison children?
This article from the BBC details some of the health risks, and this, more recent article about DU monitoring in Bosnia-Herzegovina shows that DU-contaminated water sources are now being found, which dramatically increases the risk that people will be exposed. |
|
|
|
04/01/2003 12:20:20 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by lisae:
It's fairly telling that the final paragraph of that report says "If DU dust inhalation resulted in the incorporation of significant amounts of insoluble uranium compounds, long-term patient follow up should include checks for lung tumours".
Gulf war veterans and the people who lived near the fighting have all suffered high rates of cancer, birth defects, etc. Given how many different compounds they were exposed to, no one is certain of what caused it. DU has NOT been ruled out. Its toxicity becomes important if large amounts of DU dust particles are inhaled or ingested. This is because the radiation from DU is low level alpha radiation... the weakest form of nuclear radiation you can get. It won't penetrate through a sheet of paper, but if you get it into your body it WILL damage your lungs and other organs. Also, because Uranium is such a toxic heavy metal, it damages your kidneys and causes other damage if it gets inside your body.
It's pretty obvious that if you use DU armaments, you're going to get a lot of it reduced to dust. How can anyone justify leaving that dust around to pollute the environment and poison children?
This article from the BBC details some of the health risks, and this, more recent article about DU monitoring in Bosnia-Herzegovina shows that DU-contaminated water sources are now being found, which dramatically increases the risk that people will be exposed. |
yeah if you cared to quote from the REST of the article they concluded that the chances of someone being exposed to high amount of du were very low and high levels basically occured in impact areas away from city centers. but i guess the who could be wrong and you could be right once again.*sigh*
on another level, this is war, there are a lot of other possible causes of unhealthy conditions, such as getting shot in the head by your captives.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 12:30:17 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
actually the missle itself is banned regardless of whether it has chemicals inside it or not... do you honestly believe saddam has destroyed all of the chemicals? that he stopped his mobile bio-weapon experiments? he has done nothing but prove his disdain and lack of respect for the UN and it's resolutions... you really believe he has none? or that if he is trying to hide and destroy them now so they won't be found? if not, then what on earth are you debating the issue for? surely your not really naive enough to think these missles that have been found are the only banned weapons he has??? |
It's amazing how the rules of the UN can be embraced and ignored in such a polarized fashion to serve the needs of the US administration. On one hand, you villify Saddam on the basis that he hasn't destroyed these WMDs, and that basis is rooted in pure speculation. On the other hand, this pure speculation is enough to flaunt the UN and fight an illegal war to root out these theoretical weapons.
Semantics and rhetoric aside, the Al Sammoud is a very crude weapon with a relatively short range. It can be used as a WMD, but you've only found conventional ones. Where's the proof that he hasn't destroyed them? Hell, he may have them. However, you haven't found proof of it. In the US is it typical to convict someone based on a hunch that there will be evidence found after the guy's put in jail? Huh? That's kooky talk.
Message edited by author 2003-04-01 12:38:36. |
|
|
|
04/01/2003 01:00:03 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
It's amazing how the rules of the UN can be embraced and ignored in such a polarized fashion to serve the needs of the US administration. On one hand, you villify Saddam on the basis that he hasn't destroyed these WMDs, and that basis is rooted in pure speculation. On the other hand, this pure speculation is enough to flaunt the UN and fight an illegal war to root out these theoretical weapons.
Semantics and rhetoric aside, the Al Sammoud is a very crude weapon with a relatively short range. It can be used as a WMD, but you've only found conventional ones. Where's the proof that he hasn't destroyed them? Hell, he may have them. However, you haven't found proof of it. In the US is it typical to convict someone based on a hunch that there will be evidence found after the guy's put in jail? Huh? That's kooky talk. |
kooky is not realizing that you polarize it in the same fashion using pure speculation to form your opinion. proof of iraq having weapons is as simple as looking at the differences in reports of arms iraq said it had at the end of the war, and its records stating the destruction process of the weapons. inspectors did destroy many weapons, but there are still 1000s unaccounted for. logic says that since saddam hasn't even attempted to explain the discrepancies even in light of his imminent destruction, he probably still has them. the burden of proof was never on the world's side, it has always been on iraq's side, and iraq has never complied with any attempts to find out what happened to the mystery missiles. but since you trust saddam so much why dont you go join them, they need some more human shields |
|
|
|
04/01/2003 01:11:32 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
It's amazing how the rules of the UN can be embraced and ignored in such a polarized fashion to serve the needs of the US administration. On one hand, you villify Saddam on the basis that he hasn't destroyed these WMDs, and that basis is rooted in pure speculation. On the other hand, this pure speculation is enough to flaunt the UN and fight an illegal war to root out these theoretical weapons.
Semantics and rhetoric aside, the Al Sammoud is a very crude weapon with a relatively short range. It can be used as a WMD, but you've only found conventional ones. Where's the proof that he hasn't destroyed them? Hell, he may have them. However, you haven't found proof of it. In the US is it typical to convict someone based on a hunch that there will be evidence found after the guy's put in jail? Huh? That's kooky talk. |
kooky is not realizing that you polarize it in the same fashion using pure speculation to form your opinion. proof of iraq having weapons is as simple as looking at the differences in reports of arms iraq said it had at the end of the war, and its records stating the destruction process of the weapons. inspectors did destroy many weapons, but there are still 1000s unaccounted for. logic says that since saddam hasn't even attempted to explain the discrepancies even in light of his imminent destruction, he probably still has them. the burden of proof was never on the world's side, it has always been on iraq's side, and iraq has never complied with any attempts to find out what happened to the mystery missiles. but since you trust saddam so much why dont you go join them, they need some more human shields |
Again, not defending Saddam. Don't you see that the US' disregarding the UN has monstrous impacts that will far outweigh any threat that Iraq offers? I'm looking at the big picture, here. Future impacts of these actions might well be horrific. What if China tomorrow decides that, since the US definitely DOES have WMDs, they are a perceived threat? Under the US model, they'd be within their rights to attack you. I really don't understand using the UN resolutions as the reason...it should be perceived threat. I've never denied that there's a possibility that Saddam has these weapons. The key is that there has been no PROOF. Without a due process, the system breaks down. In essence, you're sinking to his level. If the UN had been involved, it would be different, as no disastrous future precedent would be set. Currently, however, the WMD issue seems like an excuse to go after the real interests in the region.
Do you really think that the stuff that Saddam might have is a threat to your country? It was shown in the 80s that the administration didn't even care if they gassed the Kurds, and now it's a huge issue that he has WMDs.
This argument could go on forever...we clearly don't agree on anything. |
|
|
|
04/01/2003 02:14:37 PM · #64 |
12 years isn't due process? he violated 17 resolutions? why keep prolonging things?
and you ARE siding with saddam. even if you disagree with the war it is impossible in my mind to put the burden of proof on the US or the UN considering it was SADDAM'S responsibility to present evidence that he destroyed weapons and he no longer has them. inspectors were only supposed to go in with material iraq had given them to destroy weapons that Iraq would admit to having. but instead as usual it was a wild goose chase. the inspectors didn't even know about the facility found by troops that was claimed at first to be a chemical weapons factory but later correctly identified as a 100 acre abandoned chemical factory. but the point is the inspectors admitted after the finding that they had no clue it even existed. and that is definitely a site worth looking around in if you are an inspector i would think. so the point is there is far less evidence that saddam doesn't have any weapons than there is evidence that he does. and by claiming that there is no proof, saddam has achieved his objective of fooling you.
Message edited by author 2003-04-01 14:34:20.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 02:20:18 PM · #65 |
things will come out to disprove your beliefs, but after 9/11, how could Saddam be ruled out? no one was expecting bin laden to send people from halfway around the world to fly planes into the WTC but it happened.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 06:28:27 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by achiral:
wrong there have been many people tried for speaking. double agents that gave secrets to russia for example |
I haven't even seen the "interview" but I haven't heard anyone implying he was passing along any secrets, just speaking the truth to the wrong folks in the wrong place at the wrong time...a lot of people wanted to try Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden for treason as well...then they elected him to office... |
actually he wasnt speaking the truth. he even apologized and admitted he was wrong... the war is going fine... we are kicking ass.. who cares if it is 100% perfect.. nothing ever is
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 06:29:58 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Bad news Anachronite.... no chemical or biological weapons have been found despite the fact that several of the US's top intelligence leads have been captured and searched now:
From the Washington Post:
At the same time, U.S. forces have tested 10 of their best intelligence leads, four that first day and another half-dozen since, without result. There are nearly 300 sites in the top tier of a much larger list that the Defense Intelligence Agency updated in the run-up to war, officials said. The 10 sites reached by Friday were among the most urgent. If equipped as suspected, they would have posed an immediate threat to U.S. forces. "All the searches have turned up negative," said a Joint Staff officer who is following field reports. "The munitions that have been found have all been conventional."
On the other hand, the coalition forces HAVE themselves used weapons of mass destruction that are forbidden by a UN resolution - shells carrying depleted uranium:
From this article:
BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.
DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children.
Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.
Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.' |
who cares if they found chemical or bio agents with the missles.. so what? sheesh.. the fact is the weapons were never supposed to have been made in the first place...
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 06:36:13 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
actually the missle itself is banned regardless of whether it has chemicals inside it or not... do you honestly believe saddam has destroyed all of the chemicals? that he stopped his mobile bio-weapon experiments? he has done nothing but prove his disdain and lack of respect for the UN and it's resolutions... you really believe he has none? or that if he is trying to hide and destroy them now so they won't be found? if not, then what on earth are you debating the issue for? surely your not really naive enough to think these missles that have been found are the only banned weapons he has??? |
It's amazing how the rules of the UN can be embraced and ignored in such a polarized fashion to serve the needs of the US administration. On one hand, you villify Saddam on the basis that he hasn't destroyed these WMDs, and that basis is rooted in pure speculation. On the other hand, this pure speculation is enough to flaunt the UN and fight an illegal war to root out these theoretical weapons.
Semantics and rhetoric aside, the Al Sammoud is a very crude weapon with a relatively short range. It can be used as a WMD, but you've only found conventional ones. Where's the proof that he hasn't destroyed them? Hell, he may have them. However, you haven't found proof of it. In the US is it typical to convict someone based on a hunch that there will be evidence found after the guy's put in jail? Huh? That's kooky talk. |
proof? it was just broadcast this morning on live TV the missles themselves, yes even the conventional ones were never supposed to have been built or designed, in their hiding places... and the war is not illegal... he is in violation of the gulf war cease fire, and 17 UN resolutions... it's time someone took a stand against a regime that has killed over 500,000 people... I can't believe any of you would even try to defend him
|
|
|
|
04/01/2003 06:47:20 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
It's amazing how the rules of the UN can be embraced and ignored in such a polarized fashion to serve the needs of the US administration. On one hand, you villify Saddam on the basis that he hasn't destroyed these WMDs, and that basis is rooted in pure speculation. On the other hand, this pure speculation is enough to flaunt the UN and fight an illegal war to root out these theoretical weapons.
Semantics and rhetoric aside, the Al Sammoud is a very crude weapon with a relatively short range. It can be used as a WMD, but you've only found conventional ones. Where's the proof that he hasn't destroyed them? Hell, he may have them. However, you haven't found proof of it. In the US is it typical to convict someone based on a hunch that there will be evidence found after the guy's put in jail? Huh? That's kooky talk. |
kooky is not realizing that you polarize it in the same fashion using pure speculation to form your opinion. proof of iraq having weapons is as simple as looking at the differences in reports of arms iraq said it had at the end of the war, and its records stating the destruction process of the weapons. inspectors did destroy many weapons, but there are still 1000s unaccounted for. logic says that since saddam hasn't even attempted to explain the discrepancies even in light of his imminent destruction, he probably still has them. the burden of proof was never on the world's side, it has always been on iraq's side, and iraq has never complied with any attempts to find out what happened to the mystery missiles. but since you trust saddam so much why dont you go join them, they need some more human shields |
Again, not defending Saddam. Don't you see that the US' disregarding the UN has monstrous impacts that will far outweigh any threat that Iraq offers? I'm looking at the big picture, here. Future impacts of these actions might well be horrific. What if China tomorrow decides that, since the US definitely DOES have WMDs, they are a perceived threat? Under the US model, they'd be within their rights to attack you. I really don't understand using the UN resolutions as the reason...it should be perceived threat. I've never denied that there's a possibility that Saddam has these weapons. The key is that there has been no PROOF. Without a due process, the system breaks down. In essence, you're sinking to his level. If the UN had been involved, it would be different, as no disastrous future precedent would be set. Currently, however, the WMD issue seems like an excuse to go after the real interests in the region.
Do you really think that the stuff that Saddam might have is a threat to your country? It was shown in the 80s that the administration didn't even care if they gassed the Kurds, and now it's a huge issue that he has WMDs.
This argument could go on forever...we clearly don't agree on anything. |
first off we did not do the things saddam did to get UN sanctions against him.. china has no claim there... saddam WMD were not an issue until he showed a callous disregard for his neighbors and launched an unporvolked attack on kuwait... also, yes, part of this is about oil, SO WHAT? I drive a car to work everyday.. oil keeps the world going... once we free the country, Iraq will have their oil to give them a viable economy... we won;t have to spend the same amount of our own money as we are doing in Afgan... we may not be perfect... sure we have made mistakes, everyone has, but we spend more giving aid to the world than any other country... we are the most just country in the world and we have done more to aid the world than any other country in history... we have given more and done more to free millions and millions of people from facisism and communism, paying the price with thousands of lives of our own people... there are people that brave shark infested waters in an innertube to get here... people cram themselves into containers and risk life and limb to get here.... HOW DARE YOU EVEN TRY TO VILLIFY US! Be thankful we are your friendly neighbor, and not the kind of neighbor saddam is.. if so we would stop paying for all of your oil and just take it as we please.. but we don't.. why? because we are the freaking good guys... for pete's sake wake up and stop siding with those that would like to kill you if given the chance....
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 10:19:30 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 10:19:30 AM EDT.
|
