If WMD existed, evidence would be widespread

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Tal
Here's another from the BBC. Says hell yes we use Depleted Uranium. And we "kicked the crap out of them." hehe. That's kinda funny. And this article says that even within the WHO that there is a lot of uncertainty about whether or not this causes cancers or anything bad at all. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to claim that it caused all the 3-toed wildabeast monkey rabbits......

BBC

Well that's cool... if hit by a DU projectile and it explodes do not inhale the fine dust particles. There should be health warnings posted on the tanks so interested persons can avoid the heavy metal inhalation.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: prometheusxls

Originally posted by: HJD1
Folks seem to abhor Saddam's crew for using WMD to kill the Kurds... Why isn't just killing them the issue. If he used rocks or .45's or tanks or MOABs would that make it ok... ? Some would argue it was simply Civil War... like our own, I suppose and that would lose the issue into the abyss of 'we did it, so what'. I've seen this argument before on this forum. I just fail to see why the use of one weapon makes it more wrong versus a less wrong wrong.

I just don't understand the difference...

Well, I have to agree with you it makes little difference to a dead man if he was killed with rifle or poison gas or whatever. The reson the WMD are so dangerous is because it allows a small relatively poor country to serriously threaten a large country like the US. This is because WMD are cheap, effective, and easy to use in proportion to the ammount of damage they cause as compared to say conventional troops.

So if for instance we were only say.. thirteen small states and a big bully like say... Mexico attacked us it would be wrong to use WMD we should give up or die. I'd choose to use the WMD because I see little difference. He with the biggest stick often walks softly but, when he don't I want him to regret swinging it at me.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Zrom999

Originally posted by: DukeFan21
What I don't understand is that if Iraq did not have any WMD, why did they have such a tough time allowing the inspectors to do what they wanted to, both a few months ago, and back in 1998?

Same reason you don't want the police searching your place even if you got nothing to hide.

When you are on probation you give up that right. Iraq agreed to the searches and inspections as a condition for ending the war. They broke that agreement numerous times.

True...but why didn't Bush give the so-called "undeniable evidence" of WMD to the inspectors when they were there just prior to the war?

And why did the emphasis change from disarmament of WMD to liberation of the Iraqi people?

 

[prometheusxls]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: prometheusxls

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: prometheusxls

Originally posted by: Lucky
I wont argue the wider issues of whether the war was right or wrong. I'm just arguing the finer points of crowd control chemical agents, which AFAIK have not been used.

Once these weapons are authorized it is fact that they can be used. And it is my assumption that in war time in order to minimize casualties any weapon that can be used will be used. I think the onus is on you to prove that even though they were fully sanctioned to use these "chemical weapons" that our militarty was conservative in this respect and that they never were in fact used.

Now can I prove something that didn't happened? WTF? It's pretty standard etiquette in debating that if (A) says (X) and (B) asks for the source of (X), then (A) should provide (source of X) to (B).

Lucky,

How is this. Our soldiers are allowed to use firearms in combat. No one is going to ask me to prove that they use them. The question of proof is naieve. Now our soldiers are allowed to use these CS Gas and it seems that in the course of the Iraq war and occupation there are a number of situations where a soldier could make use of it as a croud control agent, to save civilan lives. I am sure our soldiers would prefer to send in the gas as opposed to filling a few dozen rioters with bullets. Why do you think the war was so quick and clean? Why grant permission (in viloation of treaty) for a weapon that is not going to be used? The fact that we don't know specificly that it was used doesn't mean we don't know that at some point it must surely have happened given the types of engangemnts and the casualty free nature of the war.

You think the war was "quick and clean" I'd like to drop you in Iraq right now and see if your perceptions change.

We will be mired in this mess for years to come spending hundreds of billions to clean up the mess Bush and Co. made there. In all likelihood there will ultimately be an Islamic state in Iraq unless the US is willing to maintain complete control there indefinitely.

As for the "casualty free nature of the war." Tell that to the thousands of Iraqi civilians - including women and children - who died during the US invasion.

Bobdn,

The war was quick and I think relatively clean and casualty free as wars go, if its as bad as you say with the U238 polution, then I may have to revaluate the clean part. Of course the occupation has been a disaster and It seems that the country is still so unstable that likely we will be involved for sometime, maybe years. My point was that tear gas was used in this war and that it can only reduce civilan casualties, a good thing IMO.

 

[prometheusxls]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: prometheusxls

Originally posted by: HJD1
Folks seem to abhor Saddam's crew for using WMD to kill the Kurds... Why isn't just killing them the issue. If he used rocks or .45's or tanks or MOABs would that make it ok... ? Some would argue it was simply Civil War... like our own, I suppose and that would lose the issue into the abyss of 'we did it, so what'. I've seen this argument before on this forum. I just fail to see why the use of one weapon makes it more wrong versus a less wrong wrong.

I just don't understand the difference...

Well, I have to agree with you it makes little difference to a dead man if he was killed with rifle or poison gas or whatever. The reson the WMD are so dangerous is because it allows a small relatively poor country to serriously threaten a large country like the US. This is because WMD are cheap, effective, and easy to use in proportion to the ammount of damage they cause as compared to say conventional troops.

So if for instance we were only say.. thirteen small states and a big bully like say... Mexico attacked us it would be wrong to use WMD we should give up or die. I'd choose to use the WMD because I see little difference. He with the biggest stick often walks softly but, when he don't I want him to regret swinging it at me.

HJD,

People are always justified to use whatever menas necessary when protecting themselves, even you. My point was to explain why WMD could potentially be such a serious problem. Its all about keeping the weapons from extremeists who seem so eager to use them. This should be pretty obvious.

Of course, I don't think Saddam had WMD, and even if he did, I dont think he woudl have ever sold them to UBL. I don't think the war was jsutified. But I do think that proliferation of WMD is a serious problem.

 

[LunarRay]

Prometh...
But I do think that proliferation of WMD is a serious problem

Sure, I agree with that.

Maybe a few short range nukes for self defense would have been ok... nah.. no one trusted him.

No one liked him either... and ya gotta have lots of threatening weapons to keep your enemies distant. He don't need them now... I hear the Riveria is sunny this time of year.