I won't give my opinion here, on whether or not there was WMD found, but I have no problem with people trying to voice their opinion and ressurecting an old debate. It is healthy and entertaining. And you are right. No one will necessarily change their opinion because the debate continues. I hope that people giving their opinions here aren't hated for their opinions. We all have one and I respect each person for it. So, have fun. Debate away.
I agree.
For the record, although I disagree with JMJSelect on this one, I respect the fact that he's standing up for his beliefs. I'm learning something at the same time and hopefully everyone does too :)
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
strap a stick of dynamit to some low-enriched uranium and you've got a dirty bomb.
You guys can keep living in your fantasy world, appaise appaise appaise, but in the real world but the US kicked saddam out(which your happy about but wished we never went in cause it was illegal, kind of a contridiction huh?) found wmds, liberated millions,.....
look folks we found wmds and i'm happy saddam is no longer in power.
why the mainstream media didn't report on (keyword) uranium (emphasis on the word uranium) ????????? you figure that out
We didn't find WMD's. Let's gt it straight. Oh wait....
The sky is falling, the sky is falling............
strap a stick of dynamit to some low-enriched uranium and you've got a dirty bomb.
That's a MASSIVE distance away from weapons-grade uranium I'm afraid. Night and day. There is a huge amount of work to be done to go from uranium to weapons-grade uranium.
You can strap a stick of dynamite to ANY radioactive material and make a dirty bomb. Even naturally occurring radioactive material.
There are not WMDs. Maybe there were, maybe they're in Syria or somewhere else.
They didn't report on the finding of weapons-grade uranium because it did not exist. Simple.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
The Mig-25s are 20 or more years old. Regardless I'm not sure that they constitute WMDs somehow.
The mainstream media didn't seem to pick up on any Sarin or Mustard Gas findings this year. If there had been significant findings I would have expected that they might.
no no no howard, those MIGS they found burried were Russias latest stuff. Latest Avonics, latest Weapons systems.
also you are thinking for a Atomic Bomb, that uranium would be perfect to build something like a dirty bomb
Here are a few facts that anyone can look up.
There were buried Mig 25s in the sand of Iraq with Current technology, yet the planes were 20 years old. Just like our F-15s.
Uranium is a key aspect of making dirty bombs and was found.
Shells, pipes, and other items were found to either contain, or potentially contain wmd.
Syria imported much of Iraq’s hardrives, and other material that is difficult to trace.
Iraq has in the past and is currently hosting terrorist activities.
Iraq had one of the largest Armies in the world.
Iraq has routinely used WMD on it's own people.
So can anyone say with certainty that Iraq had WMD, the answer is no. Can we apply common sense and say that they did yes. It does not matter that I believe the media is slanted and pushes its own political agenda. But the facts remain, we live in a world were people want to harm us. We live in a world where we feel somewhat safe in our own borders. How long can this go on? Should we fear for our children?
My theory is simple; our leaders should all serve in the military at one point in their lives. There is too much politics and not enough action. We need a leader that will fight people away from our borders, but with support of the world. I like Europeans, but on many occasions I disagree with their government's logics on issues of the world. The debates will go on and harm will continue to pear us in the face. Until France is struck by terror, it is doubtful that they will take further action of a global war on terror. There will always be terrorist, but I would much rather fight them overseas, and then risk my children dying due to someone's radical beliefs. I don't believe many people should be allowed to persuade others if they are not willing to take the fight on themselves, and I do not mean this disrespectfully to anyone. I am only saying if you believe there are terrorist that may cause potential harm to the US in the future, you must be willing to fight and not sit on the couch hoping others will do it for you. I would gladly cease to exist if my children may go on, and I can say this, as I am a member of the military, even if only part-time now days.
Why were the MIGs not up and flying to repel the attacks? Is it because they were in such shoddy condition and so far outclassed by the US jets that they were not viable "competition"? I'd speculate that it is. From what I've read, you're right. They are old MIG-25s with "new" avionics. Far outclassed by the US jets but there we go. I think it's moot though. Iraq was not prohibited from having an airforce was it? If it turns out that the avionics had been shipped in breach of the sanctions then clearly that's not good. But it's still hardly proof of WMDs.
I don't mean to belabour the point about the uranium. But a dirty bomb is a conventional weapon that distributes radioactive material. I don't know this for fact, but I'm sure it's a point worth arguing - they could make one with DU if they wanted to.
When we talk about Weapons-Grade uranium - there is a complex process to turn "ordinary" uranium into weapons-grade uranium and then ultimately on to U-235. If we'd found something like an enrichment facility then it might be more damning.
The invasion of Iraq was supposedly about removing the imminent thread of Saddam's WMDs. What WMDs? Without a doubt he had them in the past. But if they were there in such numbers and posed such a threat did they just vanish? I don't think we invaded because of a single shell with Sarin in it.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
I cant remember all the details on it but due to sancations saddam wasnt supposed to have that. Probably because the pilots got out of there pretty quick, and Our Stealths had probably already dropped there ordaniance and were on there way back to base when the first alarms started go off.
[QUOTE=Howard2k] The existence of one shell that accidentally contained Sarin is not proof that Iraq had WMDs. The very same article even insinuates that the insurgents did not even know what it was.
[QUOTE]
oops!! I accidently put the extremely dangerous nerve agent in the warhead! How did that happen?
please note that the insurgents are not the same as Saddam's original weapons makers who certainly what it was
i've been on the fence on this subject...but come on. A dirty bomb is a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" as well as Sarin. Both are at least biochemical/radiologic weapons which were certainly outlawed. But wait if you have the delivery mechanism and the material but you keep it separate it doesn't count right?
please excuse me while I go put my head in the sand.
It is very hard to argue Saddam didn't have to go...but it seems to me we are just going to replace the minority which had been in power under Saddam with the majority who take their lead from the Ayotollahs in Iran (the leaders of the majority muslim sect in Iraq). I don't see actual democracy coming out of this. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.......
Why were the MIGs not up and flying to repel the attacks? Is it because they were in such shoddy condition and so far outclassed by the US jets that they were not viable "competition"? I'd speculate that it is.
And you'd be wrong.
The jets were flying and engaging us Drones only months before the invasion.
Competition against US jets, maybe not.
But a threat to our forces and the region and dangerous if sold to the wrong organizations definitely.
Originally Posted by Howard2k
The invasion of Iraq was supposedly about removing the imminent thread of Saddam's WMDs.
No it wasn't.
You can repeat the lie as many times as you like but it's still a lie.
That was only one of many reasons and someone as intelligent as yourself should know that.
Originally Posted by Howard2k
I don't think we invaded because of a single shell with Sarin in it.
Completely beside the point but one drop of Sarin is fatal and that shell had a lot more than one drop.
How many people have to die before you consider it "mass"?
__________________
Outside of a dog -- a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
:icon_rofl
Iraq in 4000 years of existance in some form or fashion has had multiple types of governments, but never a democracy. We are asking for history to not repeat itself. We are asking a great deal, when compared to other countries. Though we see today the difficulties to protect tomorrow, it will be interesting to see what tomorrow brings.
And you'd be wrong.
The jets were flying and engaging us Drones only months before the invasion.
Competition against US jets, maybe not.
But a threat to our forces and the region and dangerous if sold to the wrong organizations definitely.
Of course, but the general consensus is that the air force was in a shoddy state. I'm not saying that NONE of them were in flyable condition.
Originally Posted by gjw
No it wasn't.
You can repeat the lie as many times as you like but it's still a lie.
That was only one of many reasons and someone as intelligent as yourself should know that.
Thanks for the back-handed compliment. I think... I'm totally open to being corrected on that, but if I'm wrong then what WAS the original intent of the invasion? And do you have anything to back it up?
Originally Posted by gjw
Completely beside the point but one drop of Sarin is fatal and that shell had a lot more than one drop.
How many people have to die before you consider it "mass"?
Why is it irrelevant? There are multitudes of dangerous chemicals in the world. Where do we draw the line? Are you suggesting that we invade any country that has any dangerous chemical weapons in any quantity? I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers, but I don't think a single drop of Sarin (which again, was not deployed correctly) is justification. I don't know how many drops it would take to be "justified" but I'd suggest that it's more than one shell :)
Anyway - please correct me on my understanding of the invasion. I'm not the one that made the decision so I'm just going on the information that was presented.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
Hope you keep that bayonette and not ebay it. too many memories for you. haha just try not to wave it around near me messmerizer. lol
@howard I disagree with you and hate you. JK JK JK lol I respect your opinions and beliefs and encourage thoughtfull debate from everyone. It makes life more interesting, seeing how other people think and react to the same world i'm in.
as for the weapons-grade uranium. if you strap a stick of dynamite to some uranium, could you call that(dynamite+uranium) a weapon? so then why couldn't you then say that the dirty bomb(dynamtie+uranium) contains weapons-grade uranium
here's a definition:
weapons-grade - of a quality adequate for use in weapons (especially in weapons of mass destruction); "weapons-grade plutonium"; "weapons-grade anthrax"
low-enriched uranium is of enough quality adequate for use in weapons.
-sarin shells.
I doesn't matter how many cough drops you have in your pocket. be it 1 to 1000, If you have "a" cough drop in your pocket you are in pocession of a cough drop. We found a shell containing sarin, that's a wmd.
We didn't find any stockpiles like everyone thought beforehand though. This fact I won't try and dodge, We didn't find any stockpiles. but we did find wmds.
Quote:
Iraq in 4000 years of existance in some form or fashion has had multiple types of governments, but never a democracy. We are asking for history to not repeat itself. We are asking a great deal, when compared to other countries. Though we see today the difficulties to protect tomorrow, it will be interesting to see what tomorrow brings.
In all of South koread's history there hasn't been a democracy and look how it turned out.
-as for why we went into iraq, because saddam didn't follow UN resolutions.
Quote:
Why is it irrelevant? There are multitudes of dangerous chemicals in the world. Where do we draw the line? Are you suggesting that we invade any country that has any dangerous chemical weapons in any quantity? I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers, but I don't think a single drop of Sarin (which again, was not deployed correctly) is justification. I don't know how many drops it would take to be "justified" but I'd suggest that it's more than one shell
I don't know the exact answer to that but if a chemical has more positives then negatives? but I don't know that much about the scientific aspect to chemicals and other potentionaly dangerous substances.
@Howard. What is this "moot"? is it like um...... "irrelivant"?
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Addicted Member
