Wow! The new Fusetalk has given the mods the ability to make people just dissappear. I actually just got up and locked all my doors.
no i rather feel pity for you.
most people in the world would probably behave the same way given their country would be turned into a fascist/fundamentalist dictatorship step by step, their civil rights would be taken away bit by bit, and the TV would broadcast "militainment" day by day.
i feel a lot of admiration for those in your country who still try to defend your freedoms, and who still have an opinion of their own. i hope they will be successful in the end.
most people in the world would probably behave the same way given their country would be turned into a fascist/fundamentalist dictatorship step by step, their civil rights would be taken away bit by bit, and the TV would broadcast "militainment" day by day.
i feel a lot of admiration for those in your country who still try to defend your freedoms, and who still have an opinion of their own. i hope they will be successful in the end.
Did a search for his name and he had the 78th reply to this topic (he had the last reply at 5:02). He was only listed on 3 topics total for everything not archived.
Interesting, I bet if you told him that any WMD they do find and they will release him into the streets of Iraq, he would change his tune.
He'd be singing like a canary. I was amazed at the canisters of low level radio-active material that the weapons inspectors let them keep, just put seals on them.
What's with that ?
All that stuff should have been confiscated. Blix and his cronies had 12 years to find stuff, Saddam was playing the shell game with them.
This stuff is buried in underground bunkers. WE WILL FIND IT
lol 
Sorry. I'm just watching the Portland/Lakers game and Portland called timeout just as I was reading your post...which sounds amazingly like a rallying the team speech.
WE WILL FIND IT! NOW GO OUT THERE AND PLAY SOME DEFENSE!
Sorry. I'm just watching the Portland/Lakers game and Portland called timeout just as I was reading your post...which sounds amazingly like a rallying the team speech.
WE WILL FIND IT! NOW GO OUT THERE AND PLAY SOME DEFENSE!
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
According to the story I read, it was low level uranium not suited for weapons production. The U.N. sealed it and inventoried it, then just checked back every six months to make sure Iraq hadn't tampered with it. Practically speaking, I doubt the U.N. had the resources to transport it safely for disposal, not even sure where they'd take it. We kind of have the same problem here trying to figure out what to do with our nuclear waste.
There are several factors to consider which may make it less inconsistent with "the mind set of the former Saddamites". Had Saddam ordered chem use at the very beginning of the war, the speed of which came as a surprise to everyone except those in CENTCOM, there would still have been time, theoretically, for other countries such as France to jump on board and contribute forces, even if just airpower. So, it's entirely possible that Saddam decided to keep them in reserve in case the war was going badly for the latter period of the war. Unfortunately for him, the war went very badly very quickly. It's also been pontificated that Saddam may have actually thought his military could stand up to the Coalition and that the use of chemical weapons was not necessary at first, primarily because it would seriously damage the world's opinion of him and the legitimacy of the war.
Perhaps they didn't have the time to get the warheads to subordinate units for use before those units were isolated or destroyed, or even those units which had ready access to the weapons had their delivery systems (howitzers, etc.) destoyed before they could be used. Or, perhaps the Coalition attacks on communications made it impossible to issue orders for the use of chemical weapons, or at least delayed them. Who knows how badly Saddam may have been wounded on the opening night?
Also, the subordinate commanders may have already sensed the writing on the wall with the rapid advance of Coalition forces and may have simply disobeyed orders to use chemical weapons even when the Coalition crossed the mythical "red line". Or even, perhaps the commanders tasked with using the weapons didn't want to endanger themselves with the chems -- something I'd consider depending on how the wind was blowing.
My point is that there could be a variety of reasons why no chemical weapons have been used to date. I do not in any circumstance believe that one of those reasons is the lack of chemical weapons.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Quote by AndrewR
There are several factors to consider which may make it less inconsistent with "the mind set of the former Saddamites". Had Saddam ordered chem use at the very beginning of the war, the speed of which came as a surprise to everyone except those in CENTCOM, there would still have been time, theoretically, for other countries such as France to jump on board and contribute forces, even if just airpower. So, it's entirely possible that Saddam decided to keep them in reserve in case the war was going badly for the latter period of the war. Unfortunately for him, the war went very badly very quickly. It's also been pontificated that Saddam may have actually thought his military could stand up to the Coalition and that the use of chemical weapons was not necessary at first, primarily because it would seriously damage the world's opinion of him and the legitimacy of the war.
Perhaps they didn't have the time to get the warheads to subordinate units for use before those units were isolated or destroyed, or even those units which had ready access to the weapons had their delivery systems (howitzers, etc.) destoyed before they could be used. Or, perhaps the Coalition attacks on communications made it impossible to issue orders for the use of chemical weapons, or at least delayed them. Who knows how badly Saddam may have been wounded on the opening night?
Also, the subordinate commanders may have already sensed the writing on the wall with the rapid advance of Coalition forces and may have simply disobeyed orders to use chemical weapons even when the Coalition crossed the mythical "red line". Or even, perhaps the commanders tasked with using the weapons didn't want to endanger themselves with the chems -- something I'd consider depending on how the wind was blowing.
My point is that there could be a variety of reasons why no chemical weapons have been used to date. I do not in any circumstance believe that one of those reasons is the lack of chemical weapons.[/quote]
Excellent Points. My immediate comment refers to your last para. I don't think Saddam destroyed what he had. I do think what he had is now else where. What he had, however, is open to all sorts of speculation.
The other points raised are all possible scenerios that time will validate I hope and there by lead us to another quest, hopefully in Iraq.
There are several factors to consider which may make it less inconsistent with "the mind set of the former Saddamites". Had Saddam ordered chem use at the very beginning of the war, the speed of which came as a surprise to everyone except those in CENTCOM, there would still have been time, theoretically, for other countries such as France to jump on board and contribute forces, even if just airpower. So, it's entirely possible that Saddam decided to keep them in reserve in case the war was going badly for the latter period of the war. Unfortunately for him, the war went very badly very quickly. It's also been pontificated that Saddam may have actually thought his military could stand up to the Coalition and that the use of chemical weapons was not necessary at first, primarily because it would seriously damage the world's opinion of him and the legitimacy of the war.
Perhaps they didn't have the time to get the warheads to subordinate units for use before those units were isolated or destroyed, or even those units which had ready access to the weapons had their delivery systems (howitzers, etc.) destoyed before they could be used. Or, perhaps the Coalition attacks on communications made it impossible to issue orders for the use of chemical weapons, or at least delayed them. Who knows how badly Saddam may have been wounded on the opening night?
Also, the subordinate commanders may have already sensed the writing on the wall with the rapid advance of Coalition forces and may have simply disobeyed orders to use chemical weapons even when the Coalition crossed the mythical "red line". Or even, perhaps the commanders tasked with using the weapons didn't want to endanger themselves with the chems -- something I'd consider depending on how the wind was blowing.
My point is that there could be a variety of reasons why no chemical weapons have been used to date. I do not in any circumstance believe that one of those reasons is the lack of chemical weapons.[/quote]
Excellent Points. My immediate comment refers to your last para. I don't think Saddam destroyed what he had. I do think what he had is now else where. What he had, however, is open to all sorts of speculation.
The other points raised are all possible scenerios that time will validate I hope and there by lead us to another quest, hopefully in Iraq.
Before you quote 1441, you should probably read it at least once over. I agree that force would probably have to be used eventually. But the point against war is that diplomacy wasn't played out. France, Germany and those who were going to veto didn't fold; we never gave them the chance to fold. We declared war before the inspections set forth in 1441 were completely.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Quote in part by Machfive
The United States isn't stupid. It knows how to play poker, and it layed down the line. In not so few words it declared, "We weren't f*cking around. Disarm or we go in." Once again, Saddam guessed bluff. He didn't believe we were willing to wage a war without the approval or backing of a majority of the UN nationstates.
But when we play, we play to win. "You have 48 hours." It must be a bluff, yes?
Bam.
We're going to find WMD. We're going to find shite we weren't even expecting to find. We're going to get back whatever POWs haven't been executed against the explicit rules of the Geneva convetion. We're going to turn Iraq into an example for other Middle Eastern nations ruled by despots.
And we're going to make f*cktarded bipeds like Chirac, Cretien, Flavio, Morph, and their wily band of uninformed, ignorant scallywags look like the Short Bus rejects.[/quote]
Dr. Blix spent most of his professional life with the UN in various duties among which is the development of treaties and such. He is an International Lawyer by profession. He does not agree that a legal right to invade Iraq exists. Precedent by the US in other nations was or is the strongest argument to support the action failing a resolution authorizing invasion. Such a resolution may have passed in time but not at this time. This is the jist of what he said on cspan friday. Iraq was a sovereign nation.
Now then, being a "scallywag" nom de plume Lunar Ray, I say that I'm feel somewhat ill at ease with the invasion for legal reasons. Notwithstanding all the human rights issues, WMD and etc. I say regardless of all of that the rule of law must prevail..... We did sign off on the treaty and therefore, it is the law of this land too.
The United States isn't stupid. It knows how to play poker, and it layed down the line. In not so few words it declared, "We weren't f*cking around. Disarm or we go in." Once again, Saddam guessed bluff. He didn't believe we were willing to wage a war without the approval or backing of a majority of the UN nationstates.
But when we play, we play to win. "You have 48 hours." It must be a bluff, yes?
Bam.
We're going to find WMD. We're going to find shite we weren't even expecting to find. We're going to get back whatever POWs haven't been executed against the explicit rules of the Geneva convetion. We're going to turn Iraq into an example for other Middle Eastern nations ruled by despots.
And we're going to make f*cktarded bipeds like Chirac, Cretien, Flavio, Morph, and their wily band of uninformed, ignorant scallywags look like the Short Bus rejects.[/quote]
Dr. Blix spent most of his professional life with the UN in various duties among which is the development of treaties and such. He is an International Lawyer by profession. He does not agree that a legal right to invade Iraq exists. Precedent by the US in other nations was or is the strongest argument to support the action failing a resolution authorizing invasion. Such a resolution may have passed in time but not at this time. This is the jist of what he said on cspan friday. Iraq was a sovereign nation.
Now then, being a "scallywag" nom de plume Lunar Ray, I say that I'm feel somewhat ill at ease with the invasion for legal reasons. Notwithstanding all the human rights issues, WMD and etc. I say regardless of all of that the rule of law must prevail..... We did sign off on the treaty and therefore, it is the law of this land too.
Dr. Blix spent most of his professional life with the UN in various duties among which is the development of treaties and such. He is an International Lawyer by profession. He does not agree that a legal right to invade Iraq exists. Precedent by the US in other nations was or is the strongest argument to support the action failing a resolution authorizing invasion. Such a resolution may have passed in time but not at this time. This is the jist of what he said on cspan friday. Iraq was a sovereign nation.
Now then, being a "scallywag" nom de plume Lunar Ray, I say that I'm feel somewhat ill at ease with the invasion for legal reasons. Notwithstanding all the human rights issues, WMD and etc. I say regardless of all of that the rule of law must prevail..... We did sign off on the treaty and therefore, it is the law of this land too.
The fact that Blix has been in the UN for a long time makes him less credible to me, rather than more so. Further, simply because that international lawyer does not believe there is justification for the war, does not make the war unjustifiable since there are other scholars who feel differently. Given his position prior to the war and his avowed pacifism, his conclusion on the legality is suspect in any case.
Lastly, international treaty obligations will never trump national action that is in the security interests of the state. The Constitution is stronger law than any international treaty.
Now then, being a "scallywag" nom de plume Lunar Ray, I say that I'm feel somewhat ill at ease with the invasion for legal reasons. Notwithstanding all the human rights issues, WMD and etc. I say regardless of all of that the rule of law must prevail..... We did sign off on the treaty and therefore, it is the law of this land too.
The fact that Blix has been in the UN for a long time makes him less credible to me, rather than more so. Further, simply because that international lawyer does not believe there is justification for the war, does not make the war unjustifiable since there are other scholars who feel differently. Given his position prior to the war and his avowed pacifism, his conclusion on the legality is suspect in any case.
Lastly, international treaty obligations will never trump national action that is in the security interests of the state. The Constitution is stronger law than any international treaty.
The Constitution is stronger law than any international treaty.
----------------------------
Not internationally.
----------------------------
Not internationally.
"The Constitution is stronger law than any international treaty. "
I disagree, not with Bush as pres
I disagree, not with Bush as pres
I had no idea that quarters were banned WMDs. How the hell am I to make a phone call without getting the crap bombed out of me?
seawolf21
I have actually read 1441. It does not have a time limit on inspections. It does not say that the inspectors are to go running around Iraq on a hunt for weapons.
It says that Iraq has one final chance for full and complete cooperation. Iraq didn't.
I have actually read 1441. It does not have a time limit on inspections. It does not say that the inspectors are to go running around Iraq on a hunt for weapons.
It says that Iraq has one final chance for full and complete cooperation. Iraq didn't.
Which of these represents the will of the people better:
The Constitution ratified by the State legislatures, or
A treaty which is ratified by the Senate?
International law is a joke because it has no teeth. The best example of that is the United Nations, which is one of the most historically ineffective organizations ever created. You have to look no further than Saddam Hussein to prove that one.
The Constitution ratified by the State legislatures, or
A treaty which is ratified by the Senate?
International law is a joke because it has no teeth. The best example of that is the United Nations, which is one of the most historically ineffective organizations ever created. You have to look no further than Saddam Hussein to prove that one.
Would all the morons who still are claiming there is no proof Saddam still had WMD please at least go learn the history of what is happening and the facts involed. Saddam PROVIDED a list of his WMD to the UN, he was also required to prove they were destroyed.
How did Blix miss an underground nuclear facility anyway?
Proof that Saddam has WMD and compliance with the cease fire agreement are two entirely different things. If someone claims that Saddam was in compliance then they are wrong. He needed to prove he destroyed the weapons to be in compliance. If someone claims that we have proof of WMD, that is also wrong. We need to actually find some in order to have proof. Until we find some proof, there is nothing moronic about stating the truth.
As far as the underground facility, this is the last I have heard of it. From that, we don't know for sure that it was missed yet. Has there been an update to this situation that I haven't heard about?
Nitemare
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
Hans Blix can suck it, he'll get no apology from me nor does anyone owe an apology to him.
In case you have not been watching the news, the last 3 weeks has been spent fighting a war and dodging pregnant women suicide bombing diversions as well as take over the military of a country the size of California.
We will be condemned because innocent Iraqi's will die ( most of which will come from the barrel of an Iraqi AK-47 or an Iraqi mortar, but those don't count since it is all america's fault)
We will be condemned because we shoot back at people hiding in mosques, hospitals and schools instead of letting them shoot us.
We will be condemned because we are proud of our flag and even brought the one from the Pentagon to rub on the polished head of a large statue devoted to Saddam worship which has been aired on all the liberal news media as well as Arab tv with absolutely no inclusion as to the flags origin.
We will be condemned because we don't shoot looters who try and steal food and clothing that their government has robbed them of for the last 25 years. We would be condemned if we did shoot them too, but that is because everyone loves to hate us.
We will be condemned because we do not hook up the power and distribute food and water fast enough while we are still being shot at.
We will be condemned because we don't walk across diesel covered areas to further assist the innocent Iraqi's and don't get set on fire.
We will be condemned because we don't leave right now and let the current regime recover and take control of the country once more with a ruler that would make saddam look sane.
We will be condemned because we have been too busy fighting, securing cities, rescueing our POW's, killing war criminals, and distributing food and water to starving Iraqi's so that they don't die(in case you did not figure it out....yes we would be condemned for that as well) rather than search for WMD in remote areas of the country.
We will be condemned because it has become common accepted policy to condemn the US of A for all the world's ills as well as any action that we take, be it good or bad. Fvck Saddam, Fvck Blix...and Fvck everybody that loves to condemn us so much.
In case you have not been watching the news, the last 3 weeks has been spent fighting a war and dodging pregnant women suicide bombing diversions as well as take over the military of a country the size of California.
We will be condemned because innocent Iraqi's will die ( most of which will come from the barrel of an Iraqi AK-47 or an Iraqi mortar, but those don't count since it is all america's fault)
We will be condemned because we shoot back at people hiding in mosques, hospitals and schools instead of letting them shoot us.
We will be condemned because we are proud of our flag and even brought the one from the Pentagon to rub on the polished head of a large statue devoted to Saddam worship which has been aired on all the liberal news media as well as Arab tv with absolutely no inclusion as to the flags origin.
We will be condemned because we don't shoot looters who try and steal food and clothing that their government has robbed them of for the last 25 years. We would be condemned if we did shoot them too, but that is because everyone loves to hate us.
We will be condemned because we do not hook up the power and distribute food and water fast enough while we are still being shot at.
We will be condemned because we don't walk across diesel covered areas to further assist the innocent Iraqi's and don't get set on fire.
We will be condemned because we don't leave right now and let the current regime recover and take control of the country once more with a ruler that would make saddam look sane.
We will be condemned because we have been too busy fighting, securing cities, rescueing our POW's, killing war criminals, and distributing food and water to starving Iraqi's so that they don't die(in case you did not figure it out....yes we would be condemned for that as well) rather than search for WMD in remote areas of the country.
We will be condemned because it has become common accepted policy to condemn the US of A for all the world's ills as well as any action that we take, be it good or bad. Fvck Saddam, Fvck Blix...and Fvck everybody that loves to condemn us so much.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter