does Canada get any gas from America? cause maybe you're increase is because of us.
*edit:
@eric
people here were pretty calm, just dumbstrickin by the lines and price.
oh I just learned this today, By georiga law(i Think its just georgia's, it might be different for other states) when gas stations get inspections the inspectors measure out 5 gallons to see if the measurements are correct, Some stations get alittle off above that hint hint
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
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?
It mentions everything from WMD, to enforcing UN resolutions, to repatriating citizens, to promoting democracy, to halting the harboring of terrorists, to stabilizing the Gulf, to deterring and preventing international terrorism.....
__________________
Outside of a dog -- a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
:icon_rofl
i have heard that statesboro is totaly tapped out, but i had a 1/4 of a tank so i got half a tank yesterday at 2.74 and when i heard what was going on today i went and filled it the rest of the way up, i also poured a thing of stp fuel additive and a bottle of Fuel Injector Cleaner in my gas tank, figured why not. I talked to my mom today and she said it was above 3 dollars down south in fitzgerald, so i figured get a full tank now and hopefully get home and back here to the boro on one tank and home that fuel has gone down some. i was planning a side trip to douglas to visit friends and teachers at my old college but now, i think it is going to be home and back.
I typed "weapons grade dictionary" in google and it gave out a couple, I clicked the first three and all three had the same definition, plus a concentrated one that you are talking about.
The one I provided is an accepted definition too.
I'm not sure what "-" in weapons grade means? weapons-grade? if it has "-", does it have more u-235?
The accepted definition of weapons grade uranium is uranium which has been enriched to the point where it is usable in a fission weapon such as an Atomic bomb. By your definition you could have weapons grade nails if you wanted to put them in an explosive device.
It mentions everything from WMD, to enforcing UN resolutions, to repatriating citizens, to promoting democracy, to halting the harboring of terrorists, to stabilizing the Gulf, to deterring and preventing international terrorism.....
The legal basis for the war was attempted to be based on Iraq's failure to confirm to UN resolution 1441. They can write their own documents and throw everything they like against the wall and see what sticks. But that document you cited, although it addresses many valid points, does not clearly outline the objectives of the war. Interestingly enough, it does request authorization to use force to enforce 1441 and to act in self defense. I'm not sure that it can be called 'self defense' when we're talking about a single shell of improperly used Sarin.
I speculate that the intent of the clauses was self defense agains WMDs, which clearly have not been found. So it actually supports what I said, that the decision to go to war was based on the fact that there was a clear an imminent threat from Saddam's WMDs. The reason that the US asked the UN for permission to go to war was to enforce 1441 due to the imminent threat. Not to oust Saddam.
Other reasons were thrown around such as implementing a democratic government, removing a tyrant etc. But the key reason for the war was in response to Iraq not complying with 1441 and the imminent threat posed by the WMDs that he had and was producing.
WMDs that it appears did not exist.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
The accepted definition of weapons grade uranium is uranium which has been enriched to the point where it is usable in a fission weapon such as an Atomic bomb. By your definition you could have weapons grade nails if you wanted to put them in an explosive device.
If you look in a dictionary or an online one you'll get that one "PLUS" the one I provided, it is an keyword "ACCEPTED" emphasis on the word ACCEPTED. if it wasn't it wouldn't be in the dict next to the def you provided.
Quote:
I'm not sure that it can be called 'self defense' when we're talking about a single shell of improperly used Sarin.
you have to remember that before the invasion the world thought, really thought, that saddam had stock piles of wmds. well after we went in we found 1 working wmd. YYYEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, anyways ummmm...... before hand saddam posed a serious threat to the world, just think back to those days, it was a very different time. we found evidence of wmds but we didn't find stockpiles.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Fine, then almost every home in America has weapons grade smoke detectors in there homes which usually contain Americium, a transuranic element created by high energy helium bombardment of uranium and plutonium.
I'm finished with this thread, you can argue semantics all you want but the materials while suitable for dirty bombs where not weapons grade nuclear materials and you are deliberately trying to mislead the public by characterizing them as such.
The legal basis for the war was attempted to be based on Iraq's failure to confirm to UN resolution 1441. They can write their own documents and throw everything they like against the wall and see what sticks. But that document you cited, although it addresses many valid points, does not clearly outline the objectives of the war. Interestingly enough, it does request authorization to use force to enforce 1441 and to act in self defense. I'm not sure that it can be called 'self defense' when we're talking about a single shell of improperly used Sarin.
I speculate that the intent of the clauses was self defense agains WMDs, which clearly have not been found. So it actually supports what I said, that the decision to go to war was based on the fact that there was a clear an imminent threat from Saddam's WMDs. The reason that the US asked the UN for permission to go to war was to enforce 1441 due to the imminent threat. Not to oust Saddam.
Other reasons were thrown around such as implementing a democratic government, removing a tyrant etc. But the key reason for the war was in response to Iraq not complying with 1441 and the imminent threat posed by the WMDs that he had and was producing.
WMDs that it appears did not exist.
Don't you get tired of being wrong?
:)
The US didn't ask the UN for permission to go to war.
The US asked the UN to enforce consequences for Iraq's non-compliance of resolution 1441. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/spr...ll.transcript/
And was resolution 1441 about disarming Iraq of its WMDs?
No it was not.
Resolution 1441 was about Iraq proving that it had already disarmed itself of its WMDs. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
That 'single shell' of Sarin is proof-positive that Iraq had not complied.
The resolution also encompassed about 9 prior resolutions and therefore also included all of the topics included in the US resolution that I posted above: removing WMDs, proving that they had removed WMDs, repatriating citizens, ending human rights violations, cutting ties to terrorism,.... it's all there.
Hardly throwing stuff against the wall unless you want to accuse the UN of the same.
__________________
Outside of a dog -- a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
:icon_rofl
Don't you get tired of being wrong?
:)
The US didn't ask the UN for permission to go to war.
The US asked the UN to enforce consequences for Iraq's non-compliance of resolution 1441. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/spr...ll.transcript/
And was resolution 1441 about disarming Iraq of its WMDs?
No it was not.
Resolution 1441 was about Iraq proving that it had already disarmed itself of its WMDs. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
That 'single shell' of Sarin is proof-positive that Iraq had not complied.
The resolution also encompassed about 9 prior resolutions and therefore also included all of the topics included in the US resolution that I posted above: removing WMDs, proving that they had removed WMDs, repatriating citizens, ending human rights violations, cutting ties to terrorism,.... it's all there.
Hardly throwing stuff against the wall unless you want to accuse the UN of the same.
I think there is a distinction between your argument and the one Howard is making: you are citing "US intent", whereas Howard is interested in the legal basis for the Iraq war. As is well known, the points listed above, which are an accumulation of old Security Council Resolutions, do not constitute a legal justification for war.
__________________
Newest To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think this debate is really a waste of time . I think you should debate why the U.S.A. was sneaking this stuff out of Iraq? If they were caught sneaking it out then they knew what they were doing was wrong. But then again maybe the U.S. sneaked it in.....
Boy the $200+ billion we've spent on Iraq sure could come in handy right now for Louisianna, Mississippi and Alabama since Katrina.
It could also help ease this gas burden.
Tuesday it was $2.52/gallon. Yesterday I filled up in the AM @ $2.65, by the end of work it was $2.71. By 9PM last night it was $2.99/gallon with lines out of the stations.
$0.47 increase in price for the same gas still in the tanks in the ground. Price gouging....party of one!
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
