Saddam and Weapons of Mass Destruction

[LongCoolMother]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
Most likely if there is no evidence of WOMD found, and he really had destroyed them all in 1991 there should be something happening. The world should put on tiral Mr Bush for war crimes, and assaulting the nation that hadn't the technology as he stated. Starting a war and killing people in the name of democracy. We have more weapons than just about everybody else in the world, and have a lunatic with the hand on the red button. The world should step up and grow a set. Interpol should drop a ship and collect up all the real bad guys, the ones that spin the truth into thier own self serving ideas. The real scumbags in the whitehouse that have filled the general consesus with loads of BS.
There are several reasons that he could have wanted the shroud of secrecy around his weapons, Iran right next door IS developing those same weapons as the world sits back and does nothing.

Wolf, you sound like an idiot. Why would you put Bush on trial for war crimes even if it WERE true that they destroyed all their WMD's in 1991? I'll tell you in no uncertain terms: I don't care if Saddam EVER had WMD's. The FACT of the matter is that he was a brutal dictator with brutal sons running a brutal regime responsible for the MURDER and PERSECUTION of MILLIONS of his own citizens. Ousting Saddam Hussein for these reasons ALONE is all the justification that is needed for this particular war in Iraq.

If you want to deal with overal theory, I'll agree that this war never should have happened: We should have ignored those B@stards at the UN in 1991 and nailed Saddam THEN.

Maybe we wouldn't be digging up mass graves with hundreds of thousands of unidentified corpses today if we had acted in 1991, and maybe those people would be raising the first generation of Free Iraqi People now.

Jason

i agree the crimes saddam hussein has done to his own people are more than enough justification to go to war. HOWEVER, i do not agree that george bush should go to war based on that reason unless he told the americans first. the reason he gave seemed to be MOSTLY based on the fact of WMDs. GWB really should have told the american people he wanted to go to war mainly to free the iraqi people. im sure most people would agree your justification is enough to justify a war, but i do believe the president should have stated that as his main or primary objective. rather than giving a false reason, and in that way, gain more favor for the war.

 

[TubStain]

Originally posted by: Wolfdog
DragonMasterAlex the point of the whole deal is going to war with no world support. If there is in fact no weapons, then why do we have people dying over there every day? To put it in basic terms when we went to war last year it was because Saddam had said weapons. If there are none, then Bush has perpertrated one of the greatest crimes against the nation. When it comes to killing thousands of innocent people we have to look no further than good old America. Most seem to have the basic feeling that if the US does it, it must be just and right. When another country does it, they are wrong and evil. Don't get me wrong, what Saddam did against his own countrymen was wrong. The fact of the matter is though that no one country has the right to overthrow another government without the burden of proof. We have overthrown governments at the drop of a hat, and armed the very terrorists that have struck at us. Whenever it is in the best interest of the US the truth is spun so the public doesn't feel bad about killing off numerous civillians. We were the first and only nation to detonate two nuclear bombs, killing and mortally wonding hundreds of thousands of civillians. Watch the live footage to see what attrocities we have perpetrated in the past. Skin falling off nuclear blast victims, hundreds of thousands dead. Not to mention the fallout which is still there today. Yet the irony in that is America still sees itself as being a righteous nation. There have been many instances that the US military has gone out of thier way in killing innocent people. Vietnam is a good example of that. Decimation of entire villages without remorse war crimes that have gone unpunished. Looking back into our history we have done the exact same thing that Saddam did. Look at the subjigation of a entire nation of Native Americans. We even used bioligical weapons against the native americans. Blankets with diptheria were used to eradicate populations. Killing off most of them before shipping them off to containment camps. There are verifiable accounts of US soldiers wearing the genitalia of native americans as hats. Yet nothing has/was been done about that. We brush the bad news under the rug and move on.

IIRC assasination and the attempt to do so is considered a war crime. Bush has perpetrated the killing of his two sons which were of holding political offices. Which would go against the Geneva convention. It seems like they also went to kill thier leader directly. There is to be no killing off of the elected officials in a time of war. There was no declaration of war from Iraq to us. So in a way we are no better than Germany invating syria when the Arch Duke was assasinated. Iraq couldn't defend itself in any capasity and looks to have no weapons at all. It makes me extra angry to see that we can't pave our own roads, feed our own people, and give affordable healthcare to our citizens, yet we are funding a war based on a lie over there. We can't take care of our own veterans here in the US, yet we are creating more.

Yet we still have thousands in Cuba without trial, which is also skating on the Geneva convention. Not to mention the very same laws that we have in the nation. Watching the interviews of Condeleeza Rice on CBS this evening I have the feeling that they will never have any hard proof that he ever did have the weapons. Nor do they care. To sum it up, if Bush and his comrades lied and falsified reports of WOMD then the war is illegal and he should be punished as such. There is no honor in a war based on half truths and lies. If there are no weapons that violated the UN resolution then the US is in the wrong. There is no room left in the world for wars without merit. If it was about his attrocities against his people then it should have been taken care of along time ago. We should take care of our own attrocities before going outward to other nations when we can. If it were about him helping terrorist groups then it would be different. They have no proof whatsoever than he ever helped Al Queda. Ousting another government just for the sake of war is asanine. The media has just reiterated what the government PR machine has told them to say. So who knows exactly what the real truth really is.

Excellent post.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: wacki
I don't understand people like you, and your "Overdone war on terror". Thankfully only 6,000 people died in the world trade center. I say thankfully, because if the terrorists had been only mildly more competent they could of easily made it 40,000 by hitting the towers within a few minutes of each other and more towards the bottom. But unfortunitally several of my brothers friends lost a parent or even both parents that day. Could you imagine, being in college and realizing some bastard slaughtered both of your parents? Not to mention 6,000 other innocent civilians. Pearl Harbor was bad enough because they killed military targets without a declaration of war. Sept 11th was a whole new breed of evil. And since you obviously don't pay attention to the news, no the war on terror won't be over. It will be easier, but people are still getting blown up almost daily over there because of hatred stemming back to WWII and beyond. And no, it wasn't our fault. France, Germany, Russia and to a limited degree Britain royally screwed up the middle east with false promises. The U.S. stepped in later trying to clean up the mess, but that was it. The U.S. never created the mess. Read about Lawrence of Arabia if you actually want to understand more about the situation, especially about the negotiations he went through.

As far as your comment "I know Bush knew nothing" read the David Kay report before you say something like that again.

"he was cruel to his own people and I am glad for them that he is finally gone." well I'm glad you have enough sense to atleast realize that. If your going to knock Bush atleast do it for a good reason. Say Bush should of pushed this war as a humanitarian effort / war on terror effort and not so much as an immanent threat. But getting rid of Saddam will help stabalize the middle east, which will make it safer for all of us.

(By the way, fewer than 3,000 people died in the WTC. The number could have been much, much higher if they'd waited an hour when everyone was in their offices.)

In my opinion, the war on terror has been "overdone" in the sense that we've made a much bigger show of it than we have actually fighting terrorism. We send a massive invasion force to Iraq -- where the 9/11 terrorists weren't -- and leave only a token force in Afghanistan -- where they were. We do nothing about Saudi Arabia who funded the terrorists; indeed Bush buried the portion of the 9/11 report addressing Saudi Arabia. Bush wants to get to the bottom of 9/11, but not enough to provide information sought by the investigators. We pass oppressive legislation to "get the terrorists", then use it to target a strip club. We ban nail clippers from airplanes and implement intrusive -- but showy -- security screening for passengers, but do nothing about air cargo and try to cut back air marshals. The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs, all politics.

Re. the Kay report, read it yourself. In spite of the YABA's spin, it mostly documents all the stuff we did NOT find. We found labs that might be used for WMD, but NO evidence they ever were. We found factories that might have dual-use capabilities, but not one shred of evidence even one factory had been. We found trailers that might be used for WMDs, but no evidence they were. The more likely explanation is they were used to produce hydrogen, a fact Kay acknowledges in his report. We found one, twenty-year old vial of botulinum bacteria -- not the toxin -- purchased from a U.S. lab. It is a less virulent strain that has NEVER been successfully weaponized. Yes, Kay found that Hussein still wanted WMDs someday. Duh. That's hardly newsworthy.

I am glad we captured Hussein. I do not accept that removing him from power will stabilize the Middle East. It might. I hope it does. But I also recognize that the initial effect was pouring gas on a fire, inflaming anti-U.S. sentiment and opening the door for other, unfriendly forces to vie for control of Iraq. Much of Bush's legacy will rest on his success -- or failure -- in installing a stable and progressive democracy in Iraq. Our mission isn't accomplished yet.

Is it just my imagination, or do certain people disappear every time I point out a few facts about the Kay report? It sure looks like they like to make bogus claims, counting on the hope that we haven't read it. They probably haven't read it themselves, just repeating the ditto-facts they heard on the radio.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: wacki
I don't understand people like you, and your "Overdone war on terror". Thankfully only 6,000 people died in the world trade center. I say thankfully, because if the terrorists had been only mildly more competent they could of easily made it 40,000 by hitting the towers within a few minutes of each other and more towards the bottom. But unfortunitally several of my brothers friends lost a parent or even both parents that day. Could you imagine, being in college and realizing some bastard slaughtered both of your parents? Not to mention 6,000 other innocent civilians. Pearl Harbor was bad enough because they killed military targets without a declaration of war. Sept 11th was a whole new breed of evil. And since you obviously don't pay attention to the news, no the war on terror won't be over. It will be easier, but people are still getting blown up almost daily over there because of hatred stemming back to WWII and beyond. And no, it wasn't our fault. France, Germany, Russia and to a limited degree Britain royally screwed up the middle east with false promises. The U.S. stepped in later trying to clean up the mess, but that was it. The U.S. never created the mess. Read about Lawrence of Arabia if you actually want to understand more about the situation, especially about the negotiations he went through.

As far as your comment "I know Bush knew nothing" read the David Kay report before you say something like that again.

"he was cruel to his own people and I am glad for them that he is finally gone." well I'm glad you have enough sense to atleast realize that. If your going to knock Bush atleast do it for a good reason. Say Bush should of pushed this war as a humanitarian effort / war on terror effort and not so much as an immanent threat. But getting rid of Saddam will help stabalize the middle east, which will make it safer for all of us.

(By the way, fewer than 3,000 people died in the WTC. The number could have been much, much higher if they'd waited an hour when everyone was in their offices.)

In my opinion, the war on terror has been "overdone" in the sense that we've made a much bigger show of it than we have actually fighting terrorism. We send a massive invasion force to Iraq -- where the 9/11 terrorists weren't -- and leave only a token force in Afghanistan -- where they were. We do nothing about Saudi Arabia who funded the terrorists; indeed Bush buried the portion of the 9/11 report addressing Saudi Arabia. Bush wants to get to the bottom of 9/11, but not enough to provide information sought by the investigators. We pass oppressive legislation to "get the terrorists", then use it to target a strip club. We ban nail clippers from airplanes and implement intrusive -- but showy -- security screening for passengers, but do nothing about air cargo and try to cut back air marshals. The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs, all politics.

Re. the Kay report, read it yourself. In spite of the YABA's spin, it mostly documents all the stuff we did NOT find. We found labs that might be used for WMD, but NO evidence they ever were. We found factories that might have dual-use capabilities, but not one shred of evidence even one factory had been. We found trailers that might be used for WMDs, but no evidence they were. The more likely explanation is they were used to produce hydrogen, a fact Kay acknowledges in his report. We found one, twenty-year old vial of botulinum bacteria -- not the toxin -- purchased from a U.S. lab. It is a less virulent strain that has NEVER been successfully weaponized. Yes, Kay found that Hussein still wanted WMDs someday. Duh. That's hardly newsworthy.

I am glad we captured Hussein. I do not accept that removing him from power will stabilize the Middle East. It might. I hope it does. But I also recognize that the initial effect was pouring gas on a fire, inflaming anti-U.S. sentiment and opening the door for other, unfriendly forces to vie for control of Iraq. Much of Bush's legacy will rest on his success -- or failure -- in installing a stable and progressive democracy in Iraq. Our mission isn't accomplished yet.

Is it just my imagination, or do certain people disappear every time I point out a few facts about the Kay report? It sure looks like they like to make bogus claims, counting on the hope that we haven't read it. They probably haven't read it themselves, just repeating the ditto-facts they heard on the radio.

That's the typical MO of the BNZ (Bush NeoCon Zombies) in here.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: calbear2000

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: wacki
Ok my number was of, current toll is 2,801. 6,000 body bags were requested on september 12th. So sue me I got my numbers a little off. And don't even try to claim 2,800 innocents is a trivial number.

Oh wait I was wrong again, it's 2,801 innocents.

It is NOT a trivial number. It is also a much, much smaller number than the 10,000 or so innocent Iraqis we killed.

links to this claim please. and make sure it was US soldiers/weaponry that killed the civilians and not insurgent suicide bombers and the likes.

There are no hard numbers. The US deliberately does not count casualties.

Is your estimate that the number of Iraqis killed by the US and Co from the beginning of the war is less that that of the WTC?

Are you claiming that "insurgent" suicide bombers killed more Iraqis than the entire US armed forced during the war?

i cannot make a claim one way or the other, but exaggerating like that is total crap.

and keep in mind we are talking about Iraqi civilians, not Iraqi military or Iraqi resistance fighters.

Yeah I think its crap too when death numbers are exaggerated... where were your complaints when 2800 American deaths were turned into 6000?

But its total crap if conservative estimates of nearly 8000 get turned to "10,000 or so"

well, the reason i didnt get outraged by the 2800 to 6000 deaths is because i knew the real numbers. i knew the guy that posted that was either forgetful or ignorant so i let it go because i was secure in my knowledge.

thats an interesting site you posted there. i think the project is valid, but seeing as how i didnt keep up with the bodycount myself, i cannot and will not stake any arguments on those results nor will i attack their validity.

 

[wacki]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

If this had been Bin Laden, and not Saddam, and I had my POV you would have a point.

If Bin Laden had done that and been the leader if Iraq, you would have a point.

If Saddam had been the terrorist that struck, and not Bin Laden, you would have a point.

Since you cannot separate the two, you do not.

Article

The first line in the article is:
"Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist."

The rest of the article gets real interesting.

Also do a google on "greenpeace barrel yellow cake". It's kind of sad because alot of people are going to die because they dumped out barrels that held yellow cake so they could have something to store water. For those of you that don't know what yellow cake is, it's what you make nuclear bombs out of.

 

[wacki]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
Originally posted by: wacki
Ok my number was of, current toll is 2,801. 6,000 body bags were requested on september 12th. So sue me I got my numbers a little off. And don't even try to claim 2,800 innocents is a trivial number.

Oh wait I was wrong again, it's 2,801 innocents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is NOT a trivial number. It is also a much, much smaller number than the 10,000 or so innocent Iraqis we killed.

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith


I would agree that we did not set out to deliberately shoot Iraqi civilians. In the course of managing the country, and the consequent collateral damage (which I understand was made as minimal as possible consistent with military goals) was still substantial.

Also, it is curious that no numbers of casualties are available, no?

Yes casualty numbers are out, just incomplete. Last number I heard was 10,000 Iraqi's died and thats from my brother who is in military intelligence. Saddam killed over a million people during his rule, and averaged well over 50,000 a year. And no, most of those weren't innocent at all. The ones that were innocent ussually had their families hostage and did suicide runs to prevent Saddam's thugs from slaughtering their family. I could go on, but I'm tired and I need sleep, I have a lot of work to do this week.

 

[wacki]

For those that don't think we had world support

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

those countries supported us.

Russia -- violated UN treaties from 1991 by selling weapons to Iraq, buying cheap Iraq oil under the radar, and much more

Germany -- Built that Billion dollar bunker under baghdad against UN treaty, and violated the food for oil program.

France --- I don't even want to get started on them. They sold Saddam nuclear reactors, weapons, violated food for oil program, ........

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: wacki
For those that don't think we had world support

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

those countries supported us.

Russia -- violated UN treaties from 1991 by selling weapons to Iraq, buying cheap Iraq oil under the radar, and much more

Germany -- Built that Billion dollar bunker under baghdad against UN treaty, and violated the food for oil program.

France --- I don't even want to get started on them. They sold Saddam nuclear reactors, weapons, violated food for oil program, ........

US----sold delivery systems for chem/bio weapons then protected Saddam after he used them on the Kurds

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

US----sold delivery systems for chem/bio weapons then protected Saddam after he used them on the Kurds

Technicality.

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Afghanistan? So the government installed by the US supported the US war in Iraq? No way!

I will skip over the former Eastern bloc since they are laughable . . . except for Poland. We paid a lot of money for their support.

El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, and Ethiopia combined couldn't take the Rhode Island National Guard.

Australia has pulled almost all of their troops out of Iraq and Spain is following suit.

Turkey didn't take the first bribe. But they went for the 2nd . . . and still haven't delivered.

What do Nicaragua and the Philippines have in common? The US supporte? dictators . . . then we changed our mind and told them to go . . . sound familiar?

 

[Gravity]

Sadaam WAS the weapon of mass destruction. Remember the mass graves? The ones that they are still sifting through? Regardless of whether or not they discover chemicals, they just found the largest WMD since Hitler.

 

[Ldir]

Originally bleated by: wacki
For those that don't think we had world support

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

those countries supported us.

Russia -- violated UN treaties from 1991 by selling weapons to Iraq, buying cheap Iraq oil under the radar, and much more

Germany -- Built that Billion dollar bunker under baghdad against UN treaty, and violated the food for oil program.

France --- I don't even want to get started on them. They sold Saddam nuclear reactors, weapons, violated food for oil program, ........

Thank you Mr. President. When you are a pipsqueak, you do what the bully tells you to do. Does Uncle Dick know you are playing on his computer?

Be sure to add the US and Israel to the countries violating UN resolutions. Add Israel again.


--------------------
Bush Apologistists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: Gravity
Sadaam WAS the weapon of mass destruction. Remember the mass graves? The ones that they are still sifting through? Regardless of whether or not they discover chemicals, they just found the largest WMD since Hitler.

Bullsh!t, he was a just a dictator that treated his own people like sh*t, same as Pinochet.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Gravity
Sadaam WAS the weapon of mass destruction. Remember the mass graves? The ones that they are still sifting through? Regardless of whether or not they discover chemicals, they just found the largest WMD since Hitler.

Then why didn't the Dub use that argument to sell the war to the American Public instead of WMD's, Direct ties to Al Qaeda and an Advanced Nuclear Weapons Program? I'll tell you why, because the American Public wouldn't have supported the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq if he did!

 

[boran]

man, when ali gassed half the kurd populace in the north (I think it was north, might be wrong)
nobody even lifted a finger.

so dont gimme any of that ideologic crap about he being a weapon of mass destruction and needing to be removed, lets face it, if this would have been a country without oil, and if yer gouvernment would not have shouted WMD WMD all over the place, just squat would have happened (only time will tell wether they were right or wrong), and you'd have finished the job in afghanistan. after 9/11 US was punching like a blind boxer to whatever enemies they could find. (and could take on, I dont see N-korea getting attacked anytime soon)

 

[heartsurgeon]

Saddam was a "weapon of mass destruction"
we have found him....
ergo, we have found a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq...as predicted..

i am being entirely serious about this.
try and prove me wrong.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

try and prove me wrong.

Ohh..

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Saddam was a "weapon of mass destruction"
we have found him....
ergo, we have found a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq...as predicted..

i am being entirely serious about this.
try and prove me wrong.

easy
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gcdixon/courses/pol365/pol365s03_d14.html

What are weapons of mass destruction?

Weapons that kill without discriminating between combatants and non-combatants

3 general types:

Chemical Weapons
Biological Weapons
Nuclear Weapons

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Saddam was a "weapon of mass destruction"
we have found him....
ergo, we have found a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq...as predicted..

i am being entirely serious about this.
try and prove me wrong.

easy
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gcdixon/courses/pol365/pol365s03_d14.html

What are weapons of mass destruction?

Weapons that kill without discriminating between combatants and non-combatants

3 general types:

Chemical Weapons
Biological Weapons
Nuclear Weapons

Apparently he's some type of biological weapon

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Saddam was a "weapon of mass destruction"
we have found him....
ergo, we have found a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq...as predicted..

i am being entirely serious about this.
try and prove me wrong.

Relax Dude, now that we have Hussien in Custody the answer about the WMD's, the Direct Links to Al Qaeda and their supposedly Advanced Nuclear Weapons program will come to light. Maybe all of those reasons for going to War with Iraq will be borne out. If so then us who said it looks like it was BS will have to admit that we were wrong..or right and you won't have to make up new meanings for the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Gravity
Sadaam WAS the weapon of mass destruction. Remember the mass graves? The ones that they are still sifting through? Regardless of whether or not they discover chemicals, they just found the largest WMD since Hitler.

The mass graves don't count to people who hate Bush. It's not sexy enough. Estimates range from 300,000 dead Iraqis on the low end to over a million on the upper end. One link, you can find more if you care to look

Saddam also financed terrorism. Payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers qualifies as financial support. Saddam was not a positive influence. And despite whatever reason they said for starting this war action in Iraq the simple fact remains that we are now committed and continuing to say "Where are the WMD's?" over and over does nothing to change this. We cannot leave now with no government in place or perhaps we should leave and allow Iran or even Osama Bin Laden to take over the job of finding a suitable replacement government? This obviously is not acceptable.

I'm just glad we finally have a leader that has the balls to take on a dirty little dictator like this. As Lieberman put it about Dean... if it was up to Dean, Saddam would still be in power and the world would be a less safe place. It's not even a Republican versus Democrat issue anymore you squawking Bush-hating "What about WMD?" parrots.

Hitler came to power with this whole "It's not our business" philosophy and the world still got dragged into it. State sponsored terrorism cannot be allowed to exist in the modern world.

 

[kandarp]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Saddam was a "weapon of mass destruction"
we have found him....
ergo, we have found a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq...as predicted..

i am being entirely serious about this.
try and prove me wrong.

That's called the fallacy of ambiguity. Misinterpreting the word from what it was meant when the argument was put forth to something else. In this case, when GWB said WMD he meant real weapons (ie missles, shells, etc) not people as WMD. Read about it here

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Czar

What are weapons of mass destruction?

Weapons that kill without discriminating between combatants and non-combatants

3 general types:

Chemical Weapons
Biological Weapons
Nuclear Weapons

Or any kind of explosive. I don't think a tomahawk looks at the people around and aborts if there are any civilians.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I agree . . . bullets have never been very discriminating. Of course cluster bombs are even worse but we don't use such weapons.

In fact, I bet the US will lead an effort to remove all landmines as well.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Czar

What are weapons of mass destruction?

Weapons that kill without discriminating between combatants and non-combatants

3 general types:

Chemical Weapons
Biological Weapons
Nuclear Weapons

Or any kind of explosive. I don't think a tomahawk looks at the people around and aborts if there are any civilians.

this is the world wide definition, WMD's are chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, nothing more