Printable View
Quote:
No, Iran must pursue nuclear weapons if they are to stand any chance of stopping the US attacking.
Hmmm why wouldnt Libya continue their nuclear weapon program to defend themselves against the US?Quote:
(Libya was also part of this whole thing until they got busted, they have since decided to give up nuclear weapons)
X
even countries that do develop civilian nuclear power still need to be careful.. just look at chernobyl. They say the enclosure they built around the reactor could crumble at any time, and there is still a ton of radioactive material in there that could leak out.
Nuclear technology for peacful or weapons purposes still needs to be done carefully and properly.
Untrue. Just read Resolution 1441 that was passed before the Iraq war which stated there were WMD’s and how if Iraq didn’t give them up there would be serious consequences. Also if you look at all of the major countries intelligence information (US, UK, France, Russia…etc) all stated Saddam had these weapons. Couple this with Saddam’s unwillingness to fully cooperate with inspectors leads to the logical conclusion that Saddam had these weapons. Inspectors were sent into Iraq to disarm the country, why would the UN and the world community send in those inspectors to remove non-existent weapons if it was known there was no WMD?Quote:
That approach didn't exactly work for Saddam did it. No WMD, repeated analysis stating that there was no evidence of WMD, and still he gets attacked.
X
Because the average US voter has forgotten where they are :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
*The above statement was tounge in cheek before you take it too seriously :)
I can't believe you still believe this. There were no WMD. The country has been searched high and low for 3 years.... they don't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
Really. Most of the intelligence that seemed to justify the war came from the US and consisted of Colin Powell telling the world that the picture of an ice-cream truck was clearly a chemical weapons facility. Remember that evidence getting laughed out of the UN? No one took it seriously except Bush and Blair. Soooooo. We have most of the world saying there aren't WMD. We have Iraq saying there aren't WMD. We have Bush and Blair using dubious inteligence to say that there are WMD. And you justify the invasion based on the fact that a UN resolution stated there would be serious consequences if Iraq didn't give up developing WMD..... which they did. Rewriting history is a very dangerous game. May a point out a few of your "re-writes"
No. It states that Iraq has not fulfilled it's commitment to prove that they were destroyed. This is completely different from it saying that Iraq has WMD.Quote:
Just read Resolution 1441 that was passed before the Iraq war which stated there were WMD’s and how if Iraq didn’t give them up there would be serious consequences.
Also, yes it does state serious consequences, which as pointed out by the security council at the time are up to the UN to decide, not for individual states to decide. If this was the case, every little country on the planet would be attacking each other claiming some UN resolution or other.
The only people arguing that they did was the US and UK.Quote:
Also if you look at all of the major countries intelligence information (US, UK, France, Russia…etc) all stated Saddam had these weapons.
All logical analysis at the time pointed to Saddam not having weapons of mass destruction. His unwillingness to co-operate was to stop Iran stomping all over them in revenge for the Iran-Iraq war.Quote:
Couple this with Saddam’s unwillingness to fully cooperate with inspectors leads to the logical conclusion that Saddam had these weapons.
The UN wasn't sent to remove WMD. They were sent to verify that there were none left?Quote:
why would the UN and the world community send in those inspectors to remove non-existent weapons if it was known there was no WMD?
Look, it's very simple. This point is no longer even worth arguing over.
Bush and Blair ,made a very stupid mistake. There is no going back from that, and we have to live with the mess they made. But it is very dangerous to justify mistakes by re-writing the history books.
you might want to rephrase that to "There probably were no WMDs" and "they probably didn't exist" We shot any chance of ever knowing the answer to that in the foot by giving Saddam a year and a half notice that we were coming to take them away. :( I know I sound like a broken record on this but "no exit strategy" was not the biggest blunder of this war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Also the US is not going to invade Iran. If they were they would have done so already. The daily death toll in Iraq isn't going up magically by itself. Instead of coffee cans full of gunpowder and nails on the side of the road, Iranian trained insurgents are using Iranian anti tank explosives now. The US could eaisally justify launching rockets and bombs into Iran.
simple, they are in syria .. thats next!Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
After all .. there WERE WMDs .. whether they were there when they "finally" went back in 10 years late or not .. there is a simple fact, they did exist ....
Where they went is another question ... I say blame the french .. :wave:
Some are too young to remember is all. It should have been finished 10 years before and finally someone had the guts to deal with it .. all the cry babys are too young or too lame to remember (or live) what happened back in the early 90's is all. Lamers ... thats all they are and they are PWND .. :D
True, but when one is debating going to war I can't help feeling the burden of proof should be a little heavier than "well they probaby don't... but they might".Quote:
"There probably were no WMDs" and "they probably didn't exist"
Thanks, Ex-FB, for a good debunking of the 'All nations were saying he had WMD' argument. I've been waiting a while for someone to do that. Yes, several major nations had some intelligence that suggested he might but there was just as much inteligence indicating that he didn't. Ultimately, its the purpose of governments, in such cases, to interpret the whole body of intelligence and evidence (including Blix's reports stating that he could find no evidence of a current program or capability) to arrive at a balanced conclusion. I believe that the US and UK governments failed in that purpose. And we still seem to have such
Every country that has them. Which also defines the group of countries that, previously, have been determined to aquire them. I fail to see the distinction on this point. Do I trust Iran with them? about as far as I trust US, Isreal or any other nation with them. Including my own. And DEFINITELY including the French. A stable regime today does not equate to a stable regime tomorrow - history has proved that countless times.Quote:
which group of countries have not used them in any of the conflicts in which they've been involved for the past 60 years?
Always a good policy :thumb:Quote:
I say blame the french
The problem is that I don't put it past some crazy islamic radical to feel that nuking the US and Isreal off the face of the planet, even at the cost of their own country being erradicated. They think they are going to Heaven with 37 virgins waiting for them. They are more than glad to play exterminator, even at their own expense. Versus a country like the US, or even Russia for that matter, that wouldn't be so quick to push the button.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I think it's very unlikely. Like I said before, all the fear and hatred is just sabre rattling for the benefit of domestic populations.
I think Zaza was right that the much greater threat is from a dirty bomb being smuggled in. And there's so much available material for that floating round the world in the wake of the USSR colapse that Iran, Korea or any other nation aquiring a nuclear capacity doesn't significantly raise the threat.
I would also say I'm equally concerned about the US using nuclear weapons. Why would the US government persue a very expensive development project to create battlefield nuclear weapons if they had absolutely no intention of using them?
I am equally concerned with North Korea selling a nuclear weapon to the first group of people to pony up the money (and this group then sailing into NY harbour with it).
But to be honest, in many cases mis-information would probably serve their purposes as well as a dirty bomb (and be a damn sight cheaper). Let's look at the terrorists goals here. They want to hurt the US. Strangely this does not equate directly to killing off as many Americans as possible. 3,000 people died in the World Trade Centre attacks, terrible yes, but hardly devestating in it's own right (How many Americans die every day from cancer, car accidents, heart attacks etc.). But look, the repurcussions from the attack within the US where massive, purely and simply because thye frightened the average voter into believeing they were under daily threat.
Where am I going with this? Well, there are plenty of low level radioactive sources out there (hospitals, coal mines etc.) that could be planted in a dirty bomb and set off somewhere important (what's the big shopping street in Hollywood? or some big shopping street in NY). At the same time they would announce that they are going to detonate a dirty bomb (and give an obscure location roughly in the vicinity of the actual bomb). There's an initial stampede to get away (some people running towards the bomb given the obscurity of the warning). Bang. Bomb goes off, with a minimal amount of radioactive material in it (not enough to really harm anyone). But the panic and stampede that would follow such an attack would cause mayhem. Also, once the government investigates and declares there was only low (safe) levels of radioactive material present in the explosion, how many people will scream that it's a cover up, and start suing the government for evey cough, wheeze and dose of cancer for years to come. Aforementioned shopping street would also be stigmatised sufficiently that sales would plummet, thus costing those companies money. People would be concerned about other similair attacks in other cities, thus causing a drop in sales nationwide.
That is one of the scenarios which I think actually poses a more realistic threat to the US economy, politics and society.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
We are talking about the same government that spent $500,000.00 on a toilet, right?
If we stopped nuclear weapons research, then we would fall behind in nuclear technology. You have to hand it to the US military that often times things they come up with for war and destruction often become useful in civilian life. GPS, CDMA cellular phone technology, and nuclear technology are good examples of military applications that can have broad positive impacts on civilian life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
At least most (if not all) US nuclear testing is done on computer simulations to curb the effect nuclear testing has on the planet. Versus countries like pakistan that simply fire them off inside a mountain. I know we used to do full on tests, but that was a long time ago.
the intent of nuclear weapons by the US is not to use them, but to have them. If the reverse was true, we have enough nukes to level the entire planet, by your logic we would be planning to do such a thing.
I heard it was $640.00Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Before taxes it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
on another note Congrats to Canada kicking arse!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc...nce/index.html
Quote:
The troops "came under heavy small arms fire from a known enemy compound" and "close air support was used to suppress the position, The Canadian airforce dropped 20,000 pounds of frozen corn and mad cows from 10 hot air balloons" an ISAF news release said.
come on man.. Canadians are dying over there just like Americans, Brits, and other nations soldiers.
Why diss them? They are actually on our side
That was an actual serious congrats on a jorb well done. (gotta read the entire article to get that) Unfortunatly I am incapable of completing an entire post about canadians without throwing one jab in. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
see the canadians here in action .. :)
http://militaryvideos.net/
Vote for me in 2008 for President and I will promise I will Terminate all commie nations! :thumb:
i tink dey is votin foe jesse ventura ..Quote:
Originally Posted by ArnoldSchwarzenegger