• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

U.S. Retains The Option Of A Nuclear Response

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dashwood said:
Empty warheads ? The bastards !!!
Click to expand...
Yeah, there were ELEVEN of 'em. The really evil bastards! I bet Saddam's got guns to fire 'em too!
 
Chemical weapons found

Weapons inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads in Iraq. How could anyone have thought otherwise? The burden of proof is on Saddam not the Bush adminstration.:eek!!!!: :eek!!!!: :eek!!!!: www.drudgereport.com
 
Re: Chemical weapons found

glurm said:
Weapons inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads in Iraq. How could anyone have thought otherwise? The burden of proof is on Saddam not the Bush adminstration.:eek!!!!: :eek!!!!: :eek!!!!: www.drudgereport.com
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah. Wind it up. Roll, wagons, roll...

:hmm:
 
Re: Chemical weapons found

glurm said:
Weapons inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads in Iraq.
Click to expand...

er, they were empty though? Now if they find some full ones it'd help :)

edit - just heard - Saddam Hussein has said the Amercans will be defeated at the gates of Bagdhad - is he presuming there will be any gates left after the USAF have finished their job? / edit
 
Let's go to war!

No, realy I'm fealing a bit low. Killing some 'towel heads' would defenetly help.
 
Imperturbable said:
James

Is your last post ironic or ignorant?
Click to expand...



what's the line from Three Kings again? Something along the lines of '"Cammel jockies" is derogitry, we should call them "Towel Heads"'

Have a look at my posts on the Iraq thread and you'll see just how oposed to the war i am.

Ironic mate.

Sorry if you thought otherwise.

:(
 
Apology very gratefully accepted James. Sorry I didn't check your posting history.
:)
 
Imperturbable said:
Apology very gratefully accepted James. Sorry I didn't check your posting history.
:)
Click to expand...

I suffer from heavy irony, industrial weight cinicism and planet sized pacivism.
 
What they found were 12 unused warhead casings, bought in 1986 and still in the shipping crate.

Yes they could have been used for chemical weapons but they're basically designed to carry white phosporus or smoke.

It's all getting a bit silly now.
 
I wouldn't worry, If the US don't find something by the 27th I'm sure they'll be able to plant something. I be very suprised if they "found" nothing before then. The prelude to war has already cost millions, why pull out now??

(I wish they would!)
 
JMcKeith said:
I wouldn't worry, If the US don't find something by the 27th I'm sure they'll be able to plant something. I be very suprised if they "found" nothing before then. The prelude to war has already cost millions, why pull out now??
Click to expand...
Ello, Ello, Ello! Detective Inspector Bulstrode 'ere! What's this underneath your lovely, gold coloured, thick pile Axminster, Mr Hussein?

Take this down DC Snodgrass: 'A black glove; a slip on shoe (also black, with traces of dust, possibly radioactive) and what I believe will be the 'clincher' a small, re-sealable, plastic bag containing a white substance, possibly ritalin.'

"Riacin, Sir"

"Thank you, DC Snodgrass, possibly riacin. I believe we've got you bang to rights, Sir."

Right DC Snodgrass, book chummy, and get him down to the station, sharpish.
 
Perhaps we could petition the Pope to beatify Saddam, since he is free from the taint of sin.

Oh, right--the pope's more evil than Saddam!

:rolleyes:

This seems to be the consensus:

~Iraq has mended its ways and dispensed with all WMD instead of hiding them. Who they've gassed in the past is their own business.

~Evil entities like the US and UK cannot take action because of their own inherent compromise. Since no country is free from evil acts, multilateral action is obviated.

~The UN will find nothing, so the US will "plant" a weapon. This presupposes that the UN inspectors are a sham--stooges for the US. Since US is belligerent and evil, unilaterism should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

~UN resolutions are only tolerable if unenforced. Otherwise, the US has to be involved in carrying out the punishment. See above re: futility of multilateralism.

That's about it. Everyone go home now and wait for the next attack. If we're lucky, it will take place in America, and we can expiate our collective sins vicariously.
 
Minor Drag said:
That's about it. Everyone go home now and wait for the next attack. If we're lucky, it will take place in America, and we can expiate our collective sins vicariously.
Click to expand...
Please, what is the connection between 9/11 and Iraq? I and several billion people around the globe would like to know.

We know about Saddam Hussein and his regime. This is about the appropriate use of force.

When the biggest stick of all time is being wielded, have we no right to ask if all other avenues have been explored first?

There is not, nor has ever been, a greater power in all the World than the US of A. If it really let rip, where would we all be? Where doe all this vague 'War Against Terrorism' stuff end? These are questions all sorts of Gov.'s and individuals are beginning to ask.

That is why pipsqueaks and munchkins like S. Hussein and Kim Il Sung II are not as scary, or as important, as an US Prez. that stops talking quietly and starts to throw his country's immense weight about.

"The whole World's out of step but thee and mee. And even thee's a bit peculiar sometimes."
 
AndroMan said:
When the biggest stick of all time is being wielded, have we no right to ask if all other avenues have been explored first?
Click to expand...

Certainly. Isn't that happening now? It's only UN resolutions that are being implemented.

Look, if the US rolls into Iraq alone, then we will suffer the consequences--politically and militarily. We haven't done that yet. We (through troop buildup and saber-rattling) can be seen as providing the "stick" to the UN's "carrot."

Personally, I see only the vaguest connection between Iraq and the War On Terrorism (tm). I see it as an "ignore the man behind the curtain" distraction. Likewise, I think invasion will provoke Saddam into turning chem/bio weapons over to the terrorists, so if we're in it for a penny we're in it for a pound. Such sad irony.

Bear witness to the massive anti-war demonstrations that will take place in DC and San Francisco this weekend. Notice that the city of Chicago has just declared itself against war in Iraq. It's starting to tear this country apart.

My point is this: are UN resolutions meaningless pronouncements or should they be enforced? If the US has to bear the lion's share of such enforcement, are we always to be condemned?
 
A lot of things suck, Ghost Dog.

The administration took it's political capital from the 9/11 attack and transferred it to the Iraq situation. For a while it worked, as this country will "circle the wagons" in time of threat/emergency. Now people are rightly starting to question motives.

All the US has done is move some troops around. Again, this can be seen as furthering peaceable enforcement of UN policy--the "carrot and stick" analogy.
 
Minor Drag:

My point is this: are UN resolutions meaningless pronouncements or should they be enforced? If the US has to bear the lion's share of such enforcement, are we always to be condemned?
Click to expand...

I think the point is that the UN is in danger of being taken out of the Equation...

Of course the UN should have some 'bite' to back up its 'Bark' , but it should be exactly what it says on the tin. 'United Nations' that is an international coalition of nations with the excplicit backing of the Security Council. i don't think you'd get many arguments if the UN felt force was absolutley necassary. But we have to ask, why are the Broken resolutions of Iraq, so much more important than, say, the broken resolutions of Isreal, whicjh remain ignored, when clearly, the Isreal/Palestine issue is by far the most dangerous to the stability of the region.

I think the UNSCOM inspectors should be given the time & Space to do their job effectively, and if force becomes necassary for them to do this, then the UN can Authorise it. And while theor at it, the UK & US respectively could help the process by handing over this 'Evidence' of Iraqs WMD

Shouldn't we have a merger of this and the 'Nuclear Response' thread, and call it 'The Iraq Problem' or something?
 
I'm in almost total agreement, 4imix.

I would just like to again point out that perceived hypocrisy should not lead to diplomatic paralysis. Because some resolutions go unheeded or unenforced doesn't mean all should.
 
Minor Drag said:
My point is this: are UN resolutions meaningless pronouncements or should they be enforced? If the US has to bear the lion's share of such enforcement, are we always to be condemned?
Click to expand...

The US government (not the people of America) will continue to be condemned in many quarters so long as it acts selectively against some countries but not others and so long as it confuses issues under the banner of the 'war on terrorism'.

But perhaps the real clincher - which rightly or wrongly - will dog the US government's efforts (and to a degree Blair's efforts) to gain the international trust and support it so badly wants in dealing with Iraq and others, is its history of funding and arming the very groups and individuals it now wants to attack.

People have long memories - especially the people in regions ripped apart by dictators, civil wars and the "now we'll help you, now we'll bomb you" policy of the West.
 
WOW!

The thread was merged as I was replying!

Anyway. The Cold War was a bitch. As they say around here, there are some chickens that have come home to roost. But wrong action in the past should not prohibit right action in the present.
 
I would just like to say, regardless of what they find, even if it be big jars marked 'nasty killer bugs' in Arabic, that, under international law, aggressive military actionof any kind is illegal. Military force is to be used only in self defence from actual threats, rather than possible threats, and certainly not for economic gain, as in this case.
The British armed forces should not stoop to become war criminals just to make Bush and his oil baron buddies a tidy profit. We're not a nation of mercenaries.
 
So if Blair and Bush go ahead without UN approval, could they be tried for war crimes? Oh please please say yes!
 
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...7/ap_wo_en_po/eu_gen_france_saddam_s_health_1


Report: Saddam's French doctor says Iraqi leader was treated for cancer
Fri Jan 17, 8:40 AM ET


PARIS - A leading French newspaper reported Friday on the state of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s health, saying the Iraqi leader had been treated for cancer, suffered from a bad back and exercised to keep his weight down.



Le Figaro newspaper cited an unnamed doctor, who reportedly traveled to Baghdad on different occasions to treat Saddam.


The report quoted the doctor as saying Saddam was diagnosed in 1998 with early-stage lymphatic cancer and a team of French doctors flew to Baghdad to install a radiotherapy machine in one of his palace's.


They had trouble getting the machine to work, however, because it required cobalt, which was one of the materials banned by the U.N. embargo on Iraq, the report said.


The report suggested that Saddam's cancer was now in remission.


Reports crop up often on Saddam's health, mentioning cancer among other ailments, but have never officially been confirmed or denied.


The article in Le Figaro also said that Saddam suffers from back pain from an old herniated disk, and that he exercises daily to stay in shape. The doctor, who reportedly last saw Saddam in July 2002, was quoted as saying that Saddam does not give the impression of a sick man.
-----------------------------------------------------
DAMNIT! he's ok...:headbutt:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top