OT: Pictures of Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Topha]

"5. Why is everybody saying Saddam but not George?"

Because Saddam sounds better and is easier to spell than Hussein. Same with Bush

[Hulk]

With the unyielding talk of this Iraq issue on TV and radio, I've been doing a lot of thinking about it. Unintentionally really, I actually try to get away from it, but it's everywhere.

The dialog in this forum has also helped me to clarify my thoughts on this subject.

I don't like either option we are presented with regarding Iraq at this point in time.

I do not like the option of containment and further inspections. You all know my reasons why I think this plan is ineffectual so I won't go over them.

On the other hand, I don't like the idea of war. I know all of the negative reasons for war, as many of you here have pointed out to me and they also concern me greatly.

I wish that Saddam would simply come completely clean, and step down and stop punishing the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, that is wishful thinking.

So, of the two realistic options above, I regretfully choose the second. I have GREAT concerns about war, but my concerns about the the first option are even greater.

I understand why people who choose the first option. But, I can only review all the available evidence and draw my own conclusions.

I only hope the anti-war protestors have considered the issue fully, and aren't simply following a anti-Bush agenda. The many, many anti-Bush posters and absence of Anti-Hussain posters make me wonder though...

The protestors could get a lot more traction with people who are "on the fence" if they focused their argument on why inspections and containment AND persuading Hussain to disarm and follow 1441 is a good option, rather than to simply bash George W. Bush.

[politeagression]

The issue is considered fully, its like if China wanted to rescue the US from G. Bush, its our own job as American People to do that ourselves. Same with Iraq, and any other place that we feel is running their country into the ground. People are only against Bush in this particular instance cause of WAR, and the way he publicly goes about it. Some people do not feel properly represented. Fact is we will revolt if this becomes an issue to stand on. Just like freedom allows anyone who is capable of killing to do it atleast once. We need to allow them to do something with their threat. How many nukes do we have? Are we a threat to the world? Many reasons are made to go to war defense and revenge being a major ones, and its easy to get support of your people under the guise of destroying a threat. Unless the person has no end of the rope they can reach that would call for war.War is not an option for me never will be. I know you probably can't imagine it, but I would put up with endless pain and sorrow to not have war.
anyways just my oppinion
sorry if i mispelled anything

[Hulk]

Hello politeagression.

"The issue is considered fully, its like if China wanted to rescue the US from G. Bush, its our own job as American People to do that ourselves. "

When Bush gasses us, tortures us, makes our family and relatives disappear, disobeys 17 UN resolutions, stays in power for 30 years, invades Mexico or Canada, and takes away our freedom of speech, then I would sincerely HOPE AND PRAY that China would come and liberate us!!!!



"Same with Iraq, and any other place that we feel is running their country into the ground. People are only against Bush in this particular instance cause of WAR, and the way he publicly goes about it. "

As I've said many times, it's okay to be against war and that policy is Bush's. Just be sure to place blame on this situation where it belongs, Saddam Hussain. Make sure you also protest him. I do not see that and that leads me to believe much of this protesting is simply anti-Bush at heart, and not anti-war. Also, if he did not publicly make the push do you think Saddam would have allowed the inspectors back in. Unfortunately, to get anything done, Bush has to be the "bad" guy. Let's face it the French aren't going to push Saddam to disarm, they are HUGE business contracts with him and are protecting thier interests.



"Some people do not feel properly represented."

I think TV is giving more than fair time to the anti-war position. Every talk show is presenting persons on both sides of the issue, and the final decision on this IS up to the President.



"Fact is we will revolt if this becomes an issue to stand on."

Take it easy buddy. I don't think you mean this, let's keep this discussion peaceful. Direct your anger to the real villan, Saddam Hussain. Think about who started this conflict 12 years ago. I know you don't like Bush, look on the bright side (for you), he may be gone in 4 years. That's what Democracy is all about. Hey, I didn't like Clinton and had to deal with him for 8 years, he was still my Commander and Chief and I would NEVER have thought of revolting against him or my country. I didn't like him lobbing 200+ cruise missiles into Iraq, I thought he was wagging the dog, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt.


"Just like freedom allows anyone who is capable of killing to do it atleast once."

That doesn't make it right, and that doesn't mean that you don't do everything you can to stop it.


"We need to allow them to do something with their threat. How many nukes do we have? Are we a threat to the world?"

We have A LOT of nukes. Intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, atomic submarines with nuclear missiles, and stealth bomber with nuclear warhead. Yes, we could blow this entire planet up many times over.

No, we're not a threat to the world. Maybe in an economic sense, but that another argument!


"Many reasons are made to go to war defense and revenge being a major ones, and its easy to get support of your people under the guise of destroying a threat."


This has nothing to do with revenge. If I thought that at all, I would be 100% against this.


"Unless the person has no end of the rope they can reach that would call for war.War is not an option for me never will be. I know you probably can't imagine it, but I would put up with endless pain and sorrow to not have war.
anyways just my oppinion
sorry if i mispelled anything"


I have a hard time believing you after your comment about revolting against a leader that isn't 1/10000 as bad as Saddam Hussain. You seem to have a venomous anger toward Bush, extending far beyond this issue. You say you would put up with endless pain and sorrow to avoid war, does that not include revolting against a President who was elected for 4 years? You would fight to remove him rather than wait 4 years, but then you also say you would put up with endless pain and sorrow to avoid war. Which is it?

So, if I read you correctly, you are against our actions in WWII, right? We should have let Nazi Germany finish exterminating the Jews, occupying France, and conquering England?

After that they probably would have developed the atomic bomb and taken care of the USA. Do you really think anything except force would have stopped Adolph Hitler?


I appreciate your point of view, but I think you might want to consider the possibility that your political idealogy is clouding your judgement on this issue.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I didn't like Clinton, didn't vote for him, and disagreed with his policies. But, this issue is bigger than politics, I would rather have Clinton as President for the rest of my life than Saddam Hussain. I wouldn't say that except for these circumstances.


Peace.

Mark

[politeagression]

If sanctions and resolutions by the UN and USA about nuclear threat are a prob then isn't it proven that North Korea poses a greater threat?

Revolting is not war. Revolting would be political, and that is why i pointed out that if things esculated to where a revolt was a neccessity we will.This is not a political thing. Its about war for me period.Its not something I need to calm down about, I'm not built up. Mark I am simply placing my veiw which may be skewed to others into this public forum.
Its not a perfect world and I know this, there will be war. There will be massive orginized death. When I say I would put up with endless pain and sorrow I mean not to go to war. I would also put up with endless pain and sorrow to revolt against a leader like Saddam. I do not support forced liberation.
And we are a threat, as much as anyone else, and the fact that most of us feel like we are not. Well thats a problem for me.

As far as the past goes we were a different people then, no doubt about that, compairing the two has always been misleading. I and many others are not caught up on Bush we are caught up on our nation going to war. period .
Look deeper than that and the point is lost. No War! thats all
When I say some feel like they are not correctly represented I mean by our president. Iam not a patriotic person I'm just a human and I don't like war, and thats the most important thing to me(as far as war is concerned) is not supporting it. I feel misrepresented by a president who publicly says he will hunt out this source of evil and destroy it!

please don't read into this
its easy no war
and I know people don't feel the same
but thats the way I feel valid to you or anyone or not

[Hulk]

"If sanctions and resolutions by the UN and USA about nuclear threat are a prob then isn't it proven that North Korea poses a greater threat?"

We've been through this before. 17 UN resolutions disobeyed by Iraq, violated the surrender conditions. Very different from NK at this point. NK may escalate to the point that Iraq is at, remember we have been negociating, giving chance after chance for peace in Iraq for 12 YEARS! Saddam Hussain will not disarm.

Hopefully we won't get to that point with NK. And, as you point out they have nukes, limiting our options. If we attack NK, they could nuke one of their neighbors. We should never have allowed NK to have the nukes that we helped them acquire since they PROMISED not to develop weapons with it. They fooled us, just as Saddam is trying to fool us now.

Iraq does not have nukes, yet, and we can stop them. Just because NK has nukes doesn't mean we throw our arms up in the air and forget about every rogue nation that defies the UN resolutions.

So are you saying you're FOR war with Iraq? But only AFTER we go to war with NK?

Again, it comes to our fundamental difference of how to handle Iraq. I respect your position on giving the UN more time, but I also disagree, respectfully.


"Revolting is not war. Revolting would be political, and that is why i pointed out that if things esculated to where a revolt was a neccessity we will.This is not a political thing. Its about war for me period.Its not something I need to calm down about, I'm not built up. Mark I am simply placing my veiw which may be skewed to others into this public forum.
Its not a perfect world and I know this, there will be war. There will be massive orginized death. When I say I would put up with endless pain and sorrow I mean not to go to war. I would also put up with endless pain and sorrow to revolt against a leader like Saddam. I do not support forced liberation.
And we are a threat, as much as anyone else, and the fact that most of us feel like we are not. Well thats a problem for me."


I misread you, I apologize. I thought you meant revolution, as in violent revolution, not through our voting process. Sure, I agree 100%, if things go badly then we get rid of this administration. THat's the beauty of our system.


"As far as the past goes we were a different people then, no doubt about that, compairing the two has always been misleading. I and many others are not caught up on Bush we are caught up on our nation going to war. period .
Look deeper than that and the point is lost. No War! thats all
When I say some feel like they are not correctly represented I mean by our president. Iam not a patriotic person I'm just a human and I don't like war, and thats the most important thing to me(as far as war is concerned) is not supporting it. I feel misrepresented by a president who publicly says he will hunt out this source of evil and destroy it!"


Okay, Bush's words seem harsh and a bit arrogant today. I'll give you that. But at the time they were spoken the country was hurting and needed to know that HE would do something to bring those responsible for 911 to justice. There is nothing wrong with hunting out evil, but one better be VERY sure of just what evil is. I agree with you there.

That simple sentiment, the right thing to make most of the country feel good at the time, is coming back to bite him now. I am a little more apt to see less shades of good and evil than you are perhaps. Not a good or bad thing for either of us, just something that makes us different.

I pray for peace.

-Mark

[politeagression]

Agreed

I just don't want us to be so right about everything so glorified in our reasons, that we forget that WAR seriously handicaps whole civs.

Its really important to understand the scope of what WAR brings especially apon the loser.

Those people are no different than us and probably much like us are supportive of their gov. not wanting to be liberated.

agreed it is very bad lving sittuation over there

Bush has also said that No matter how many people speak out about the WAR he will continue no matter what!

Also he has said
If your not with us then your against us.
=complete misrepresentation

Hundreds of thousands of people have spoken out and much like my ideas will fall on def ears focused on one thing.

and many my friends died on 911
I needed to hear the truth not we are going to kick some ass, and other revenge colored cover ups
a friends family lost a father a son and a daughter
the problem is none of us have the real important facts(the truth)
like why would someone do that in the first place?
thats why I stick to my guns
NO WAR!
No facts good enough\
thanx so much for being considerate of me in your posts
I truly appreaciate it
thanx Mark

[Hulk]

"Agreed

I just don't want us to be so right about everything so glorified in our reasons, that we forget that WAR seriously handicaps whole civs."

I agree, but I also recognize the fact that at least twice in the past century war was unfortunately necessary. I would also argue that the Korean war was necessary.


"Its really important to understand the scope of what WAR brings especially apon the loser."

True, but this also depends on the loser. Let's look at WWII. If Nazi Germany had won instead of the Allies, do you think the Nazi's would have treated England as well as they treated the Germans. Seeing that Germany still exists I would say not.



"Those people are no different than us and probably much like us are supportive of their gov. not wanting to be liberated.

agreed it is very bad lving sittuation over there"

We do not know what the Iraqi's think of their government, they cannot speak freely for fear of their lives, thier family's and relative's live, etc... We do hear some truth from Iraqi's in this country and from the one's I've heard they PLEAD with the US to liberate Iraq, very compelling I think.

If there was A LOT of pro Saddam and SOME negative Saddam Iraqi's in the streets, I would say they are a free society and should be left alone. But alas, that is not the case. Free Iraqi's in this country have told us that they are INSTRUCTED to protest the US in the streets.


"Bush has also said that No matter how many people speak out about the WAR he will continue no matter what!"

He believes he is protecting me and my family, I believe him. He also said that Saddam can stop this by simply coming clean. Let us interview the scientists out of Iraq, they will be free to speak and TELL us where the WPD are located. Sadly, Saddam allows this and won't allow it to happen.


"Also he has said
If your not with us then your against us.
=complete misrepresentation"

Like I said in my last post, I have less shades of gray in my world and believe in MANY cases you can distinguish good from evil. Other countries have nothing to fear from the US. We are fighting a war on terrorism for our very existance and way of life=freedom, I have no problem stating that is no uncertain terms. I find Bush's straight talk, albeit sometimes overly simplistic refreshing. We disagree here, I respect your position though.


"Hundreds of thousands of people have spoken out and much like my ideas will fall on def ears focused on one thing."

My ears are not deaf, I hear my brothers and sisters around the world who disagree with my point of view. We need both sides, just because the President isn't doing what the other side wants doesn't mean it doesn't matter, that is part of democracy. I disagreed with many things Clinton did, and spoke out against it, and ultimately voted (and lost), I did what I could in the bounds of our system. That's all I could do.


"and many my friends died on 911
I needed to hear the truth not we are going to kick some ass, and other revenge colored cover ups
a friends family lost a father a son and a daughter
the problem is none of us have the real important facts(the truth)
like why would someone do that in the first place?
thats why I stick to my guns
NO WAR!
No facts good enough\
thanx so much for being considerate of me in your posts
I truly appreaciate it
thanx Mark"


This absolutelyl isn't about revenge. No way, no how. Mr Bush doesn't want to do this but is resolved to protect the USA from WPD. He will not be responsible for a horrendous act commited by a weapon originated from or financed by Iraq's current regime.


Bush is having a "stare down" with Hussain. Neither is blinking. Saddam has survived for 30 years by watching the other side blink. He's like a little kid who runs out, punches somebody and then runs home and hides inside saying, "I won't do it again." Then after some time and things cool down he does it again. Bush is going to end this reign of terror.

Weapons of Mass Destruction change the face of warfare. 30 years ago I wouldn't be behind a pre-emptive strike, I wouldn't be afraid of conventional weapons, I would in that case wait him out. But, things are different now, these WPD are too dangerous to allow things to occur on Saddam's timetable.


Thanks for the brain workout!

And I still hope there is another way out of this.

-Mark

[Chief_Inspector]

Onto a similar note, after Bush's address, there was a live talk show on a Canadian channel where they interviewed quite a few iraqi's that fled here. Every single one of them want to see this war asap and they want Saddam's head on a platter. They all claim that no matter what the civilian loss would be from this war, it is worth it compared to all the killings Saddam has been doing over the years.

I guess at this stage, the iraqi's that fled Iraq would be the best judge since they witnessed the atrocities 1st hand.

"And I still hope there is another way out of this."

Some democrats are supposed to be urging Bush to take a close look at our latest proposal. UK is apparently considering it as is Russia.

@Hulk - please try to reply with less than a million words

CI

[Hulk]

Sorry for the long posts. I blame my high school typing instructor, she did a good job. Being a fast typist, paired with my inabilty to "cut to the point" makes for some quite long posts.

In the immortal words of Roberto Duran,


"NO MAS!"

[politeagression]

war

saddam?

kids

a perspective

these are informative

[Ted222]

I really don't think we wanna wait for 9/11 part II if it can be prevented.

Who would be first in line to criticize others for NOT taking action after some terrorist opens a canister of (pick your own substance from Iraq's arsenal here) in a major population center?

These folks in other parts of the world DO NOT have the same value for human life as FREE societies.

Kick back, surf the web on your computer, watch TV, and have a glass of wine.......you are a minority in this world.......can you try to imagine that MOST of the people in the world do not live in the same environment, nor even have the same values as you?????

gee, this is fun...

Ted

[Hacker]

Hi again,
New questions, not directly related to previous ones.

1. Why are Iraq's WMD so much more important than the WMDs of others? I am certain other countries have a much larger arsenal than Iraq. Explain to me why Iraq is a threat worth a war and the others are not. Kuwait?

2. Could you please post a link to 1441? Could you please post a link to some material about the 17 breaches? I would like to assess that information myself.


Liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator who has invaded his neighbor and gassed and tortured his own people.

If possible, I'd like to read about this, too.


3. China - cannot Tibet be seen as an invaded "country" (let's say territory) which has not been freed yet? What about Kashmir and India/Pakistan? Why not help there, too?

4. You are wondering about that "war with Iraq is ok if ther is a war with NK" attitude. It's about that it really seems the US somehow targeted Iraq and nobody knows why only Iraq. You are saying you are trying to help the people - what about Palestine and Israel for instance? The first one has been promised its own state (country?), the second one is an ally. They keep on killing each other's people without any intervention from the US (except for the diplomatic one that failed).

5. WWII - the US wouldn't ahve lifted a finger if it wasn't for Pearl Harbor. Not that I wouldn't be grateful, it's just it wasn't the US' idea to liberate us, it was rather a side-effect of winning the war they have been pulled into (at least in my eyes).

6. Terrorism
a) Does anyone else see a parallel between the words "communist" in Carter's era and "terrorist" in Bush jr.'s era?
b) Why only Al Qaeda? Why not ETA, IRA, or the Chechen groups for instance?

7. What format do you use to compress audio in AVIs?

TIA
Roman

[politeagression]

That was funny yet serious did you read those links I put up a perspective is a good one for it gives and oddly balanced veiw. If you want info go to google and search with" should we go to war?" and you can read for days find out everything

[Hulk]

"Hi again,
New questions, not directly related to previous ones.

1. Why are Iraq's WMD so much more important than the WMDs of others? I am certain other countries have a much larger arsenal than Iraq. Explain to me why Iraq is a threat worth a war and the others are not. Kuwait?"


Really been over this about 5 times here. 17 failed UN resolutions, willingness to use these WMD on his own people, invading his neighbor, etc.. Name another country that has this record.


"2. Could you please post a link to 1441? Could you please post a link to some material about the 17 breaches? I would like to assess that information myself."

Do a search. There have been 17 failed Resolution since the Iraqi surrender 12 years ago.


Liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator who has invaded his neighbor and gassed and tortured his own people.

"If possible, I'd like to read about this, too."

I don't know what kind of TV you get, but these are established facts that NO ONE doubts. Just last night two Iraqi women on TV (in USA) in the "women for a free Iraq" society talking about how Hussain gassed their town, and the horrendous conditions in Iraq. I have seen many such interview of free Iraqi's.


"3. China - cannot Tibet be seen as an invaded "country" (let's say territory) which has not been freed yet? What about Kashmir and India/Pakistan? Why not help there, too?"

17 UN Resolutions, failing to comply with surrender. Specious argument and you know it.



"4. You are wondering about that "war with Iraq is ok if ther is a war with NK" attitude. It's about that it really seems the US somehow targeted Iraq and nobody knows why only Iraq. You are saying you are trying to help the people - what about Palestine and Israel for instance? The first one has been promised its own state (country?), the second one is an ally. They keep on killing each other's people without any intervention from the US (except for the diplomatic one that failed)."


Sorry, can't help you, you just have to open your eyes and ears. Read this thread fully.


"5. WWII - the US wouldn't ahve lifted a finger if it wasn't for Pearl Harbor. Not that I wouldn't be grateful, it's just it wasn't the US' idea to liberate us, it was rather a side-effect of winning the war they have been pulled into (at least in my eyes)."

So we shouldn't receive credit for doing it? We were fighting evil, Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany. If that evil wasn't there we would have limited our confrontation with Japan. I've spoken to WWII vets about this, they KNEW they were fighting evil, fighting for FREEDOM. You are dead wrong here.


"6. Terrorism
a) Does anyone else see a parallel between the words "communist" in Carter's era and "terrorist" in Bush jr.'s era?
b) Why only Al Qaeda? Why not ETA, IRA, or the Chechen groups for instance?"

9/11



7. What format do you use to compress audio in AVIs?

MPEG layer II 224kbps stereo in TMPGENc.