• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Who's the biggest threat to international security?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Mark
I voted for the USA, because "disarming Saddam" is the stupidest excuse I've ever heard of for going to war. How many WMD's have been found again?

at least 50 BANNED BY THE UN MISSILLES have been launched at a soveriegn nation, Kuwait...

link? also, no chemical or biological weapons found as of yet. we'll see what we find when we get to baghdad.
 
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Mark
I voted for the USA, because "disarming Saddam" is the stupidest excuse I've ever heard of for going to war. How many WMD's have been found again?

at least 50 BANNED BY THE UN MISSILLES have been launched at a soveriegn nation, Kuwait...

Are you talking about the missiles they discovered earlier this year whose only property which made them 'illegal' (By the USA) was that their range was deemed to be 2 or 3 percent greater than what what stated? First of all, the poster said WMD, not conventional weapons. Second there is a lot of controversy around the conditions in which they deemed these missiles can go that far (by removing heavy guidance systems from within the missile, so you basically make it a totally inaccurate weapon if you want to achieve that range).

Anyway, the biggest atrocity so far is done by the USA: Uranium tipped shells and bombs. This actually falls into the realm of WMDs. Using nuclear radiation as a weapon is not something to be overlooked. I'm glad though the truth about these weapons are becoming more and more widespread now, in the first gulf war, either no one cared, were to ignorant to realize their devastating effects, or were too pacified by propaganda. Bout time people woke up to this.
 
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch
austro-hungary declared war on serbia on 28. july 1914. since the assasination of franz ferdinand is considered to have triggered (not caused) the war, i guess that is when the war started.

I'm well aware of that, but, history denotes Aug. 1st 1914 as the begining of WWI when it became more than a regional conflict, thus, Germany officially started WWI by declaring war on Russia.

This is way wrong... This is just one source that shows, and if you're not satisified, here's another from PBS. I can just keep them coming, and if you want I can even show non-Internet sources. World War I, as history denotes it, started with the shooting of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914. Maybe your textbooks are old, I dunno, but whatever. The Austria-Hungarian Empire started it; Germany was just begging to get involved, but didn't start it.
 
Back
Top