Thanks alot Clinton, thanks for your shortsighted vision

[CPA]

Non-lethal chemical weapons are banned due to a treaty signed by Clinton in 97..

This is similar to the gun debate. Take the weapons out of those who would most likely use them properly, but still nothing to protect against those (read: Iraq/criminals) who would use them regardless. Notice even some of the 150 member UN Chemical Weapons Convention didn't sign this thing. They were smart enough not to tie there own hands.

 

[LeeTJ]

but but but but

clinton had a better academic pedigree than bush. he couldn't have possibly made a bad move.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
but but but but

clinton had a better academic pedigree than bush. he couldn't have possibly made a bad move.

😀

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CPA
Non-lethal chemical weapons are banned due to a treaty signed by Clinton in 97..

This is similar to the gun debate. Take the weapons out of those who would most likely use them properly, but still nothing to protect against those (read: Iraq/criminals) who would use them regardless. Notice even some of the 150 member UN Chemical Weapons Convention didn't sign this thing. They were smart enough not to tie there own hands.

LOL, fair and balanced strikes again.
Did you miss the "absent a presidential waiver" part? I don't see a problem with use of these weapons having to be authorised by the president.
You don't want people casually using chemical weapons, because as we see from the Moscow theatre raid, the line between Lethal and Non-Lethal chem weapons is blurry.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CPA
Non-lethal chemical weapons are banned due to a treaty signed by Clinton in 97..

This is similar to the gun debate. Take the weapons out of those who would most likely use them properly, but still nothing to protect against those (read: Iraq/criminals) who would use them regardless. Notice even some of the 150 member UN Chemical Weapons Convention didn't sign this thing. They were smart enough not to tie there own hands.

LOL, fair and balanced strikes again.
Did you miss the "absent a presidential waiver" part? I don't see a problem with use of these weapons having to be authorised by the president.
You don't want people casually using chemical weapons, because as we see from the Moscow theatre raid, the line between Lethal and Non-Lethal chem weapons is blurry.

Hey if you can dish out the fair and balance reporting, so can I. 😀

 

[Red Dawn]

This is an outrage I tell you!!!

 

[ElFenix]

woot?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
woot?

no woot

 

[Fausto]

There should be a fill-in-the-blank template for Foxnews posts: 😉



<<begin foxnews.com post>>

Foxnews link to something! Moral outrage over this issue at an all-time high!

Short diatribe about how this issue is completely insane and the fault lies squarely with liberals....especially that bastard Clinton!

Sarcastic comment questioning why, in light of the above outrageous story, liberals still support and defend the Clinton Administration.

<<end foxnews.com post>>

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
There should be a fill-in-the-blank template for Foxnews posts: 😉



<<begin foxnews.com post>>

Foxnews link to something! Moral outrage over this issue at an all-time high!

Short diatribe about how this issue is completely insane and the fault lies squarely with liberals....especially that bastard Clinton!

Sarcastic comment questioning why, in light of the above outrageous story, liberals still support and defend the Clinton Administration.

<<end foxnews.com post>>

😀

 

[classy]

Hmmm we have taken a stand against the use of Chemical Weapons. Even to the point we are now looking to kill again over it. And yet you clowns blame Clinton for signing a treaty that says we won't use them either? Oh I get it, you guys are looking through your belly buttons again.

 

[yakko]

Non-lethal chemical weapons are banned? What the hell am I supposed to do when I go to Taco Bell then?

 

[Deeko]

oh god....everything is Clinton's fault, isn't it

 

[C'DaleRider]

Originally posted by: Deeko
oh god....everything is Clinton's fault, isn't it

Exactly!!! Who do you think sold Hussein all those chemical and bio weapons in the first place?


Edit........MY Bad! It seems it was the Reagan regime.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider

Originally posted by: Deeko
oh god....everything is Clinton's fault, isn't it

Exactly!!! Who do you think sold Hussein all those chemical and bio weapons in the first place?


Edit........MY Bad! It seems it was the Reagan regime.

Not all, Germany was responsible for about half of them, the US for about 10% with other nations such as France and others also about 10% each.

 

[B00ne]

not at all, Germany did not sell any Chemical weapons!!! - we dont have such weapons - besides we pretty much have the strongest weapons sales controls in the world.
But it is true that Saddam used most of the Chemical industry equipment bought in Germany for his weapons programs and it is true that german companies didnt "wonder" why Saddam would needed so many(or grand scale) fertilizer plants. If u are Chemist u will agree that it is very easy to produce chemical and biol. weapons with legal civil equipment....

But the only country providing him and encouring him to use chemical weapons were the USA in the beginning of the 80's

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: B00ne
not at all, Germany did not sell any Chemical weapons!!! - we dont have such weapons - besides we pretty much have the strongest weapons sales controls in the world.
But it is true that Saddam used most of the Chemical industry equipment bought in Germany for his weapons programs and it is true that german companies didnt "wonder" why Saddam would needed so many(or grand scale) fertilizer plants. If u are Chemist u will agree that it is very easy to produce chemical and biol. weapons with legal civil equipment....

But the only country providing him and encouring him to use chemical weapons were the USA in the beginning of the 80's

You will have to prove to me that the US encouraged Saddam to use chemical weapons. I doubt that you can.

As for the German connection - Germany's leading role in arming Iraq

France, Germany protect Iraq ties

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Like the Bush government cares about agreements and treaties.

 

[0roo0roo]

SUCK IT!



Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein


"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.
bill passed in 98 pushing for regiem change.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/607rkunu.asp


funny how bush was all about "not being the worlds police man" when he was trying to get elected. he kept stating that he was against "nation building" like those bad democrats. seems like he's back tracked on most everything.


u think the repubs would have been behind clinton if he went after saddam? no, they sabotaged him at every turn, kinda like france is doing with us now.


short sighted are republicans who spent their time on a witch hunt, tyinig up the government when they should have been going about business. their neglect of everything to tear down the president could have led to 9/11 and all else that we have suffered.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: B00ne
not at all, Germany did not sell any Chemical weapons!!! - we dont have such weapons - besides we pretty much have the strongest weapons sales controls in the world.
But it is true that Saddam used most of the Chemical industry equipment bought in Germany for his weapons programs and it is true that german companies didnt "wonder" why Saddam would needed so many(or grand scale) fertilizer plants. If u are Chemist u will agree that it is very easy to produce chemical and biol. weapons with legal civil equipment....

But the only country providing him and encouring him to use chemical weapons were the USA in the beginning of the 80's

You will have to prove to me that the US encouraged Saddam to use chemical weapons. I doubt that you can.

As for the German connection - Germany's leading role in arming Iraq

France, Germany protect Iraq ties

Encourage, no. The Reagan Admin did downplay and protect Saddam from International condemnation though.

 

[Alistar7]

Both Bush and Clinton had a similar experience with Saddam while in power, Bush Sr. sat and did nothing as Iraqi troops moved towrds Kuwait, Saddam took advantage of this and attacked.

In 1998 he again began troop movements in an almost identical pattern, Clinton dispatched a rather large deterrent force. Saddam began pulling back before they even arrived.

These right wing Rush butt smelling morons still claim Clinton tried to "start a war" in order to distract attention from his vast left wing consipracy to not have his private affairs dragged through the media.
Have they stopped since we now know that attack was really an attempted assasination of Bin Looney? nope, saw some idiot spouting off about that just yesterday in here...

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Both Bush and Clinton had a similar experience with Saddam while in power, Bush Sr. sat and did nothing as Iraqi troops moved towrds Kuwait, Saddam took advantage of this and attacked.

In 1998 he again began troop movements in an almost identical pattern, Clinton dispatched a rather large deterrent force. Saddam began pulling back before they even arrived.

These right wing Rush butt smelling morons still claim Clinton tried to "start a war" in order to distract attention from his vast left wing consipracy to not have his private affairs dragged through the media.

Have they stopped since we now know that attack was really an attempted assasination of Bin Looney? nope, saw some idiot spouting off about that just yesterday in here...

Same people that freak if someone says that Bush might be trying to distract from large domestic problems with this war...can dish it out but can't receive it I guess.

 

[GLudlow]

Hey, according to Republicans everything is Clinton's fault. It doesn't matter what the facts are, or if they do the exact same things! Hasn't Rush Limbaugh taught you anything?

 

[Fencer128]

Sit down. Write 2 letters......

Anyone remember that anecdote from an ex Soviet premier? Very pertinent I think.

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Sit down. Write 2 letters......

Anyone remember that anecdote from an ex Soviet premier? Very pertinent I think.

Andy

LMAO, yes thats actually very funny, unless you're the one getting those 2 letters....