OT: Pictures of Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Jkun]

Yeah yeah Hulk, we get your extreme right preference on the political field.

Now, who was it again that was whining about political views being pushed on people and started this whole farce?

Count the number of innocent Iraqi civilians of Gulf War I & the pollution of US weapons still claiming victims, including US soldiers. However tragic and criminal 9-11 was, it's still peanuts compared to those figures.

Are you quite sure _you_ want to be co-responsible for a repeat of that?

J-kun

[thop]

Originally posted by Hulk

Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."

Hulk, see how easy it is to fall for propaganda if it suits your beliefs?

An Internet rumor claims that Mohammed Atta, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against America, was involved in an earlier terrorist bombing of an Israeli bus in 1986.
In fact, the perpetrator of the April 1986 attack was a 33-year-old Jordanian and a naturalized U.S. citizen, who went by the name Mahmoud Atta. The Mohammed Atta behind the 9/11 attacks would have been 18 years old in 1986 (he was born in 1968) and was an Egyptian citizen. The Boston Globe, which was one of the few newspapers that printed this rumor, issued a correction a few days later and said their original report was "a case of mistaken identity."

On November 7, a spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Justice stated: "It's not the same person. It's obviously two different men with similar names."

[Hulk]

Hey, guys it seems you don't take it nearly as well as you give it! Remember, I didn't start this thread. Oh, and don't try to shut me up, in THIS country we have freedom of speech, something a lot of world doesn't have, or only acquired in the last century. Don't preach to me about Democracy, millions of Americans died for it on foreign soil. How quickly we forget.

Jkun,

You just will not understand that Saddam Hussain STARTED the Gulf War by INVADING Kuwait, we LIBERATED Kuwait! Do you u n d e r s t a n d? Yes I want to be responsible for the liberation of Kuwait, France, Germany, etc...

The real question is do you want to be responsible for the actions of Saddam Hussain, as you are constantly defending him.

thop,

The main part of that post is regarding NOT apprehending Osama Bin Ladin and our liberals' shortsightedness. So what, are you saying Atta was a "good" guy! ha ha ha, that's funny

BTW, tell me a little bit about how you feel about WWII and the Americans being involved in that war? I'm curious to hear your perspective.

Do you see ANY parallel between Hitler voiding the treaty of Versailles by moving into the Rhineland in 1936, and then finally invading Poland in 1939 after swearing to Chamberlain he ONLY wanted peace, AND Saddam Hussain invading Kuwait in 1990, surrending, and then voiding the cease fire by throwing out the weapons inspectors in 1998 and refusing to disarm? And now, as if reading Hitler's words to Chamerlain he says he only wants peace.

As I said before, I DO NOT WANT A WAR, but please stop defending this guy, it's only empowers him.


Don't hate America for our properity. Yes, we use far too many natural resources, and are sorely lacking culture, but we generally do the right thing, and have been responsible for far more liberation and freedom creation than opression.
The Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait, we needed UN support for that.

This impending war is for the protection of the American people, that's what our President believes. Whether you believe him or not, we DO NOT need a UN mandate, or the "okay" from any country to protect ourselves.

A hatred of Bush, and the Republicans, and jealosy of America is really what is behind this anti-USA movement. The world is choosing sides . . . if you want to side with Saddam Hussain that's your choice.

[thop]

Hulk it's funny to see how you try to drag me into this and put words in my mouth. I have no intention to get involved into this discussion. I was just pointing out a trap you've fallen into. That's all, take it easy

[Hulk]

thop,

That's a specious argument you're making.

"Hulk, see how easy it is to fall for propaganda if it suits your beliefs?"

Umm, I believe you've taken a side and entered the debate. The fact I was getting across is the liberal denial to see the truth, especially when the US sitting president is a Republican.

I'm not dragging you into anything, you looked at the thread and decided to make a biased opinion regarding my post. YOU DIDN'T just state a fact, YOU MADE an opinion. Now you're backing away from it. Believe me, I'm not upset at all. Hopefully this thread will continue for another few months, I'm really enjoying it.

I'm sorry if you took my asking you about Germany and WWII the wrong way, I sincerely meant no harm, I was only looking for your opinion on that chain of events, and my opinion that they parallel what is transpiring currently. I have a German friend who spends his summers in the US and I know that period is "touchy." I'm sorry I delved into that area.


Now, back to the matter at hand.

I am hearing reports that Iraq is going to release another report that will tell us what happened to some of the chemical weapons.

Hello? Wasn't that supposed to be in the 12,000 comprehensive report submitted in December.

This is just a game for Saddam Hussain and he will do whatever is necessary, short of coming clean, until the US troops pull out of the area, or something else happens to take the heat off of him. He WILL continue to develop weapons of mass destruction AND he will develop a nuclear bomb.

I'm actually doing a video project right now where I'm interviewing WWII vets. If there is one message they are giving me, it is this:

"Don't let the embers of evil grow into a roaring inferno like we did during WWII. Remember."

No amount of appeasement or illogic is going to sway us from putting blame for violating the terms of the 1990 surrender directly where it should be aimed, at Saddam Hussain. If the Iraqi people cannot stop him, just as the German people couldn't stop Hitler, then we will.

After WWI, Germany was not allowed to have an air force. What did they do, they built the largest and most advanced fleet of gliders the world had yet seen. Yet another step in preparation for revenge for WWI. This same progression was seen throughout the '90's as Iraq become more and more hostile to the UN inspectors until finally throwing them out in 1998. Again, the same progression can be seen.

The world did not have the stomach to stop Germany in the 1930's as they began to violate the treaty of Versailles, the French actually asked the world community for help, but much of the world was mired in the Great Depression and didn't feel the need to get involved with a Policing action in Europe. The US has a isolationism policy in effect, we didn't think events in Europe affected us, we were wrong.

What if Germany or Japan had voilated the cease fire after WWII? Do you think we would have allowed that to happen? No, the failure to enforce the surrender of WWI was "fresh" on our minds.

Alas, but now, after 60 years, we are beginning to forget the progression a mad dictator and his regime take on thier way to terrorizing the world.

If you look back through history you will see that dictatorship are responsible for MOST of the conflicts, not democracy's. Here again we have another despotic dictator threatening world peace, and a world divided with appeasers and those who will once again fight for freedom and a safe world.

Okay, gotta go now, sorry for the short post, more later...

PS thop - The Germans make the BEST automobiles, no doubt about that! BMW M3 baby!

[Chief_Inspector]

This ones for Thop

I think this is the first time in history where most of the world are actually standing up to the Americans. Turkey flat out stated that after you screwed them in 1991, they don't trust you and that all the $$ has to be paid up front.

Israel goes against UN sanctions but the US shuts up.

Saddam has to go, no question about it. However, the way Bush and Rumsfeld are talking is what is making the world go against the US. Even the US is divided about going to war, according to CNN.

It's very obvious that no matter what Saddam does, US will invade. This was proven with the latest statements from Bush right after Saddam started to buldoze his missiles.

Curious though, what you are Americans going to do once you invade and find no WMP?

If you guys can pin point a truck filled with terrorists and bomb it, how in the world can you not find all the weapons?

On a similar note, can anyone tell me what country the US stuck their nose into, directly and in-directly and NOT destroy that country?

" If you look back through history you will see that dictatorship are responsible for MOST of the conflicts, not democracy's. Here again we have another despotic dictator threatening world peace,"

How is he threatening world peace? He's killing his own people, let the Arabs and his people deal with him. Till now, no one has asked the states to help overthrow the madman. If anyone is threatening world peace, it's the Saudi's.

CI

[Marshmallowman]

Ray I thought the original post was funny...

But I think it would be a good idea if your locked or deleted this thread

[Hulk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chief_Inspector
[B]This ones for Thop

Hello and welcome Chief Inspector!

"I think this is the first time in history where most of the world are actually standing up to the Americans. Turkey flat out stated that after you screwed them in 1991, they don't trust you and that all the $$ has to be paid up front."

90 Countries are with the US. That's fact. Also remember that the vote in Turkey was a majority FOR, it's the abstentions that prevented it in the final analysis. Turkey must look out for it's own best interest, and that's what they should do, can't fault them for that. Just as you can't fault the US for doing the same. I don't want to give Turkey the $312 dollars out of my pocket anyway. We can do it without a Northern offensive, we'll use the 101st and/or 82nd airborne, yes, those are the guys that liberated France, FYI.


"Israel goes against UN sanctions but the US shuts up."

I'll need some more specifics here, what are you implying?


"Saddam has to go, no question about it. However, the way Bush and Rumsfeld are talking is what is making the world go against the US. Even the US is divided about going to war, according to CNN."

No, not the world, just some outspoken America dislikers. As I said above, we are going into Iraq to protect ourselves from Weapons of Mass Destruction. Actually, through intermediate parties, the US receives oil from Iraq (a bad thing), Bush would actually be hurting US interests if he and his cabinet really didn't believe there is a threat to the US. Think about it.


"It's very obvious that no matter what Saddam does, US will invade. This was proven with the latest statements from Bush right after Saddam started to buldoze his missiles."

No, not no matter what he does. No matter what he does AS LONG AS HE CONTINUES TO STRING US ALONG! If he told us where the antrox, vx gas, serin gas, mobile chemical and biologica facilities etc... are and came COMPLETELY CLEAN this would be over quickly. Bush is refusing to have the wool pulled over his eyes. Remember Hussain is a master of deception, his regime is built on it. I'm sure he has a long list of things he can provide the inspectors with without really giving up what he needs to cause mass destruction and death, or needed to keep his strangle hold on the Iraqi people. Come on, you're smarter than that.

"Curious though, what you are Americans going to do once you invade and find no WMP?"

We will find them.


"If you guys can pin point a truck filled with terrorists and bomb it, how in the world can you not find all the weapons?"

Come on, Iraq is as large as Texas. They could hide 100 gallons of Anthrax in in an area of 100 square miles and you'd never find it.

Okay, let's go through the purpose of inspectors. Say you're an auditor. You go into a business to VERIFY their books, you ask questions they answer, they show you all of the book and records. Now imagine you had to search for all of the information! You would take an already hard job of performing a a complicated audit and make it impossible!
Remember, this is not hide and seek. The inspectors are not supposed to be looking for anything, they are INSPECTING. Show us the nerve agent or evidence of how it was destroyed. And yes, we know they have this stuff the previous inspectors documented it.

Not our job to find the weapons. Please get that straight for the last time!


"On a similar note, can anyone tell me what country the US stuck their nose into, directly and in-directly and NOT destroy that country?"

Let's see Germany is doing pretty well today, so is France, Normandy, Poland, Canada, etc... Oh yeah, remember Haiti? Look, the US gives more economic, social, humanitarian, medical, food, etc and other types of aid to other countries THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD!!! Just for once a little, tiny, itty-bitty, "thanks" would be so nice.

" If you look back through history you will see that dictatorship are responsible for MOST of the conflicts, not democracy's. Here again we have another despotic dictator threatening world peace,"

"How is he threatening world peace? He's killing his own people, let the Arabs and his people deal with him. Till now, no one has asked the states to help overthrow the madman. If anyone is threatening world peace, it's the Saudi's."

Invading Kuwait for one, read closely, HE INVADED KUWAIT. What would you be saying if the US invaded Kuwait!!!!! Oh my god, this is so hypocritical.

He has weapons of mass destruction and was on his way TO DEVELOPING A NUCLEAR BOMB!! And he has shown the will to use such weapons on his OWN PEOPLE! If he would use them on his own people, surely he would use them on others.



Thanks for the debate!

[Hulk]

Originally posted by Jkun
Yeah yeah Hulk, we get your extreme right preference on the political field.

Now, who was it again that was whining about political views being pushed on people and started this whole farce?

Count the number of innocent Iraqi civilians of Gulf War I & the pollution of US weapons still claiming victims, including US soldiers. However tragic and criminal 9-11 was, it's still peanuts compared to those figures.

Are you quite sure _you_ want to be co-responsible for a repeat of that?

J-kun

J-kun,

I'm pro-choice, pro environment, if that's extreme right to you than I suggest you do some reading on the democratic and republican talking points.


Like I said before, I didn't start this thread, it's topic wasn't funny to me, so I'm exercising my right to voice my opinion on what was politics, not humor to me. Or are you against anybody refuting your wild left, socialist agenda?

Oh, and your last statement is pure demagoguery. Look it up.

[Chief_Inspector]

"I'll need some more specifics here, what are you implying?"

The UN ordered Israel to stop expanding on the settlements. I don't exactly remember when this was but it was at least a year ago. Till now, they are still popping up settlements.

No one is doing anything about it. Why?

"No, not the world, just some outspoken America dislikers"

This is arogance. Just becuase people are against war doesn't mean they are anti american. Seeing that is what Bush is preaching, it must be true. Be with us or you are against us.

"Invading Kuwait for one, read closely, HE INVADED KUWAIT. What would you be saying if the US invaded Kuwait!!!!! Oh my god, this is so hypocritical."

No hypocracy here buddy. He invaded Kuwait and Kuwait asked for help. There's nothing wrong with this.

Out of curiosity, if Kuwait had no oil, would the world have jumped in that quickly to save them from Saddam? I only ask because no one is helping Palestine since they are getting invaded everyday but have no oil.

"Bush would actually be hurting US interests if he and his cabinet really didn't believe there is a threat to the US. Think about it. "

Don't be naive. Once you invade and kill Saddam, you will establish a base their and have some kind of control over the oil. You are doing this till today with Kuwait.

"Just for once a little, tiny, itty-bitty, "thanks" would be so nice."

Yeah, thanks for all the Canada bashing your CNN and Fox news are giving to us Canadians. Just becuase someone called Bush a Moron.

But when someone in your senate calls our PM a Dino, that's all ok and not 1 word was mentioned in your news networks. That's hypocritical don't you think?

CI

[Hulk]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chief_Inspector
[B]"I'll need some more specifics here, what are you implying?"

The UN ordered Israel to stop expanding on the settlements. I don't exactly remember when this was but it was at least a year ago. Till now, they are still popping up settlements.

No one is doing anything about it. Why?

I'm still not sure what you're getting at. The Israel Palestine conflict is on-going, both sides have legitimate gripes. If what you are saying is true, then something should be done. But, using the argument that, "why enforce one resolution if you won't enforce another is not sound for many reasons, here are a few:

1. Bush and his cabinet and a majority of America have decided that the current regime in Iraq is a threat to America. No one has the right to not allow us to act on that threat. We don't have to ask France if we can protect ourselves from a rogue dictator.

2. Of course we are going to push to enforce resolutions that we feel more strongly affect our national security. Let's be realistic here, and not too idealistic.

3. Two wrongs don't make a right.




"No, not the world, just some outspoken America dislikers"

This is arogance. Just becuase people are against war doesn't mean they are anti american. Seeing that is what Bush is preaching, it must be true. Be with us or you are against us.



I don't mean to come off as arrogent. I really don't want to offend anyone or make personal accusations. I'm just trying to debate the issue. You are right, informed people who are against the war aren't anti-American, but as I said before many of the organizers of the rallies are anti-America socialists. The protestor are being used in many cases. Everyone has a right to voice thier opinion and still be American. That being said, I still feel many protestors are really just anti Bush. For example, Sherly Crow actually played for the troops when Clinton was in office, now she is a big anti-war activist. Where were ALL of the protestors when Clinton launched his missiles into Iraq, or went into Bosnia? I hear the libs say that was different. Okay, but was it SO different that there were NO protestors. I simply don't buy that there aren't strong political motivations. I like it when people can step away from their idealogy and do what it right and not always tow the party line. For example, I'm a conservative, but I step away from the party on matter like the environment and being pro choice.


"Invading Kuwait for one, read closely, HE INVADED KUWAIT. What would you be saying if the US invaded Kuwait!!!!! Oh my god, this is so hypocritical."

No hypocracy here buddy. He invaded Kuwait and Kuwait asked for help. There's nothing wrong with this.

Out of curiosity, if Kuwait had no oil, would the world have jumped in that quickly to save them from Saddam? I only ask because no one is helping Palestine since they are getting invaded everyday but have no oil.


You have a point here, I'll give you that. On the other hand, Iraq is a concern of American security, Kuwait was not, that's a big diffference. Whether you agree with him or not, Bush really does believe Iraq is a threat to the US. As I said above we'll be giving up Iraqi oil we are now getting. I think if Kuwait did not have oil we still would have gone in. Look at the bloodbath that occurred in Ruwanda, we went in there as soon as we found out what was going on. Sadly, we and the rest of the world were very late.


"Bush would actually be hurting US interests if he and his cabinet really didn't believe there is a threat to the US. Think about it. "

Don't be naive. Once you invade and kill Saddam, you will establish a base their and have some kind of control over the oil. You are doing this till today with Kuwait.

Okay, we trade blows here, I think you're being naive by thinking this is about oil. There are far easier ways to procure oil and this. Bush couldn't bring this much heat on himself if he drilled in LA (if there were oil there)!

If we wanted to be Imperialistic we would have taken control of Kuwait's oil, we did not. We buy it like everyone else. We really don't need Iraqi oil.



"Just for once a little, tiny, itty-bitty, "thanks" would be so nice."

Yeah, thanks for all the Canada bashing your CNN and Fox news are giving to us Canadians. Just becuase someone called Bush a Moron.

I am not down on the Canadians, I know we have been and will continue to be great allies. If they called Bush a moron do they not deserve to take a shot in return? Canada is not immune to react to a insult to our President, are they? In general, I find personal insults in matter of politics childish, they serve no purpose except to anger the other side and cause a greater rift.



But when someone in your senate calls our PM a Dino, that's all ok and not 1 word was mentioned in your news networks. That's hypocritical don't you think?

Yes, that is hypocritical, I do not condone it, nor will I try to defend it. Like I said, I'm not party-centric, I try to call them as I see them. I also do not condone all of the US owned businesses in Canada. Canadian businesses should stay Canadian. Sometimes the USA's grasp does exceed it's grasp, especially in matters of business.

[grizzlybear65]

Here's my 2 cents...

If it's OK for GWBush to decide who the hell gets to be the president of this or that country.. what makes him any different from the those that he seeks to have replaced..

he's got no regards for the UN. What the hell is the UN there for if he's not willing to listen to it. what would the world come to if every Tom, Dick & Harry or Bush out there decides that they should have a pre-emptive strike on another country because they fear that sometime in the next 300 yrs. they might have the technology and weaponry that could reach half way across the sea to only fizzle and flop somewhere in the ocean.

for God's sake.. Korea is not ONLY a threat to the US, but has defied the UN and the US by withdrawing from the agreement to curtail the production/advancement of nuclear development. Korea also has the means/resources to get to the weapons of mass destruction a lot faster than IRAQ or even all the Arab states put together.
But you don't see the US going after them.. NO NO... that would be too darn right logical.

India has more nuclear power/potential than the arab world put together, you don't see him going after them either

Just as much as Saddam is defying the UN by continuing to produce these so called weapons of mass destructions, GW Bush is defying the UN by going ahead with this war. But of course, the US is regarded as God's gift to mankind whereas the other.. well..

The American government body pretty much regards Syria, Saudi Arabia (House of Saoud), Iraq, Iran, Libya, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, etc.. (and whatever Arab countries I've left out) as countries that are either supporting/abetting or giving birth to terrorist groups and terrorist activities.

It regards Korea as a threat because of its Nuclear capabilities and they have vowed to deal with them after the whole "IRAQ: Showdown" thing.

It threatened to war with Pakistan when it went after Osama Bin Laden and talibans.

By France and Germany not standing by or supporting the decision to blow up IRAQ to kingdom come, they were branded as cowards, and are possibly looked at as part of the problem (since they're not part of GWB's solution) etc.. .

You see the pattern here. Every country or regime that doesn't see it his (GW's) way, is an axis of evil - or will soon be.

This, IMO, was never about IRAQ invading Kuwait, it is not about IRAQ having weapons of mass destruction - it's not even FULLY about the oil there (though it plays a big role). To me, it seems that this is just another cheap, back-channel way for the american governement to secure a full military base somewhere on the arabian gulf/land - somewhere close to the oils and also on the arab soil - something much larger than the strip of desert space now occupied on the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border.

Think about it for a second.. If America is so fr..king bent on saving the world, why not send less than half the military power it sent now to IRAQ over to Somalia, Columbia, West Africa, etc.. to push the rebels away and restore order - why?? that's cause the Americans get no tangible benefit from these countries.

It ONLY sticks it's nose into other people's business when it can claim the spoils - regardless of the wake of destruction it leaves in its path.

[Chief_Inspector]

"why enforce one resolution if you won't enforce another is not sound for many reasons, here are a few:"

This basically makes the UN a joke. If the UN gives the OK to invade Iraq on the reason "They are violating UN sanctions", then the same should be done towards everyone else that are against their sanctions. Picking and choosing as you please will just create alot of bad blood between many nations.

Since the UN have Khadafi and Arrafat on their comittee, I personally think they are a joke.

"On the other hand, Iraq is a concern of American security,"

I don't think your goverment has conveyed this message properly. They still haven't stated as to why Iraq is a threat. I only watch CNN from time to time so that said, all I see is that Iraq has missiles that can go 150 miles or so. That being said, people are under the impression that this is to protect Israel, hence, the old arguement "this is all becuase of the Israel/Palestine conflict" comes up every time.

"If they called Bush a moron do they not deserve to take a shot in return?"

Yep, you guys do, but that isn't how it actually happened. The term Dino came out from day 1 that Bush got into power. No one here made a big deal out of it, in fact, many had a good laugh. Last year, some women in our PM's party was overheard by a reporter calling Bush a moron. Your news took it to the extreme for 1 week and they actually demanded for her resignation. I don't know what was said between both goverments but she did resign.

For everyone's sake in the States, I just hope you guys find the WMP. If you don't, lord knows what kind of a revenge trip these sleeper sells are going to be on. Hopefully, the new prisoner you have will start talking.

CI

[OasisPlaces]

Itersting topic.. I'll add my nickel..

Palestine/Israel..
The US doesn't come down on Israel anymore.. mainly because..
it happened to them.. on sept. 11th they got a taste of nut case
Islamists.. and the US is about to set off and do what Israel
has been blamed for doing for many years.. pre-emptive elimination of a threat.. attacking Iraq..
Side Note: The arabs always complain the palestinians
need a country.. but I never seen them give the Kurds back
their country... hippocrytical..


Noth Korea.. is not a threat at all.. Since the americans cut handouts to them..
they have no other choice but to fire up the
reactors.. Nasa had a Night shot of north korea..
it was pitch black, no signs of any light anywhere.. so they're just trying to
pressure the US into giving back the handouts..
and if they
want to make nukes.. why not.. it's their right.. the US has
tons of them.. so what if they make a few... it's not like they're
going to fire it at anyone..

Iraq..
For all intents the USA has the worst track record in the middle
east.. The Shaw of Iran dealt with the russians.. so the US funded
the Khamenie to overthrow the secular (non psycho religious) king.
well it worked.. and then a new enemy was borne..
so they gave money to saddam to overthow Khamenie.. well strike 2..
let's add afganistan to the list.. of funding your own demise..
The crap that's there today is partially US's fault. it's about time
they fix it..
But attacking Iraq right now makes no sense..
Hesbollah has killed more americans than al-qeida and Iraq put together..
so why isn't Syria the target? they a much larger threat,
it's predicted they will have a nuclear weapon in the next
4 years.. they might already have it.. same goes for Iran
they just about to get a nuke..

Don't get me wrong.. I'm far from some tree hugging peace
whimp.. I'd like to see Saddam's head on a pike
but he's not an immeadiate threat..

[thop]

I'm not dragging you into anything, you looked at the thread and decided to make a biased opinion regarding my post. YOU DIDN'T just state a fact, YOU MADE an opinion. Now you're backing away from it.

You're right, i made an opinion and i'm sort of backing away from it.
I have decided to stay out of political discussions here after the Soap Box was closed. You can read up my opinion in every thread about the iraq thing there, it has all been said already.
It appears i couldn't hold myself back though when i posted the Atta thing, sorry won't happen again