Forums | MacLife

roughly 12 missiles with empty warheads, which could carry chemical weapons across their border, isn't evidence enough?  Especially with what their 12,000 page document didn't state that they had these weapons?

Oil may be the underlying, and secret reason, and we may be using this as a reason... but that is right now beyond the point, we wanted proof that they have disarmed, and they have not...

...and almost all of those missles had never been filled.  Have we found anything that they could be loaded with?  Say they did have something to load the missle with...would they fire it at us?  Would that missle make it to US mainland (nope).  Would they ever fire them at us...especially when any attack on this country means the absolute and total destruction of the attacking country?

Damn, it's a wonder we didn't just bomb the hell out of the USSR during the cold war...

roughly 12 missiles with empty warheads, which could carry chemical weapons across their border, isn't evidence enough?  Especially with what their 12,000 page document didn't state that they had these weapons?

Oil may be the underlying, and secret reason, and we may be using this as a reason... but that is right now beyond the point, we wanted proof that they have disarmed, and they have not...

...and almost all of those missles had never been filled.  Have we found anything that they could be loaded with?  Say they did have something to load the missle with...would they fire it at us?  Would that missle make it to US mainland (nope).  Would they ever fire them at us...especially when any attack on this country means the absolute and total destruction of the attacking country?

Damn, it's a wonder we did just bomb the hell out of the USSR during the cold war...

Now you are just being foolish...

Would they fire them at us, yes they would, remember the 30,000+ troops that are stationed near the border...?  Could they be filled yes... with what... Anthrax, who knows what else... small pox? 

As for the cold war with Russia, you are being foolish, you know why, and I know why we didn't attack them directly...

BTW, you said almost none of them were filled, what were they filled with them (the ones that were filled)

Cyberpawz

P.S. I am going to bed, if you care to be so stubborn I will be responding tomorrow.

Would they fire them at us, yes they would, remember the 30,000+ troops that are stationed near the border...?  Could they be filled yes... with what... Anthrax, who knows what else... small pox? 

So they would fire at us, in order to insure their immediate deaths.  I understand now...that makes so much sense.   

You must live on these boards, i was hoping to get to sleep before my E-mail program stated you reposted...

They destroy the force, it would make their destruction finalized, but not without a week to two for us to get the forces back into the area...in which they could prepare, and reinforce their arms...

They may not even attack us directly either, but Israel is another option of attack...which still would have the same response.

Cyberpawz

Cyberpawz, your reply to my earlier post isn't an argument.  You're only saying that people don't support the president because they're misinformed.  Don't you see that that exact same argument could be used in reverse?  That is, "people support the president because they're misinformed."  What you said boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong."  That doesn't defeat even the weakest possible evidence, and mine wasn't bad.

Would they fire them at us, yes they would, remember the 30,000+ troops that are stationed near the border...?  Could they be filled yes... with what... Anthrax, who knows what else... small pox?

You (as does anyone else who talks about the warheads) clearly don't understand what they are.  They're pointy hunks of hollowed out metal.  They're not a weapon.  They're the FedEx box for a weapon.  Keep in mind that there's no evidence that Iraq even has missiles to attach these warheads to, much less anything to fill them with.

Anthrax, while relatively easy to get, is next to impossible to distribute through a warhead.  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics tried for over twenty years to figure out how to make anthrax deliverable using a weapon.  They failed, even having a thousand times the resources that Iraq will ever have.  So that checkes anthrax off your list.

Smallpox is the polar opposite of anthrax on the list of probability for Iraq to get its hands on.  It has been irradicated from nature, and there are only two countries on Earth that have samples of the virus.  Russia and the United States.  I don't see either of those two giving it to Iraq or anyone else for that matter.  Furthermore, the type of smallpox that is possible (but still far from easy, and well beyond the reach of Iraqi science) to deliver in a weapon isn't very dangerous.  The strain of smallpox that is referred to when they're talking about it as a terrorist threat has to be delivered in a much higher dose through direct contact.

If Iraq has biological weapons I'll eat my shoe.

Cyberpawz, your reply to my earlier post isn't an argument.  You're only saying that people don't support the president because they're misinformed.  Don't you see that that exact same argument could be used in reverse?  That is, "people support the president because they're misinformed."  What you said boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong."  That doesn't defeat even the weakest possible evidence, and mine wasn't bad.

Would they fire them at us, yes they would, remember the 30,000+ troops that are stationed near the border...?  Could they be filled yes... with what... Anthrax, who knows what else... small pox?

You (as does anyone else who talks about the warheads) clearly don't understand what they are.  They're pointy hunks of hollowed out metal.  They're not a weapon.  They're the FedEx box for a weapon.  Keep in mind that there's no evidence that Iraq even has missiles to attach these warheads to, much less anything to fill them with.

Anthrax, while relatively easy to get, is next to impossible to distribute through a warhead.  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics tried for over twenty years to figure out how to make anthrax deliverable using a weapon.  They failed, even having a thousand times the resources that Iraq will ever have.  So that checkes anthrax off your list.

Smallpox is the polar opposite of anthrax on the list of probability for Iraq to get its hands on.  It has been irradicated from nature, and there are only two countries on Earth that have samples of the virus.  Russia and the United States.  I don't see either of those two giving it to Iraq or anyone else for that matter.  Furthermore, the type of smallpox that is possible (but still far from easy, and well beyond the reach of Iraqi science) to deliver in a weapon isn't very dangerous.  The strain of smallpox that is referred to when they're talking about it as a terrorist threat has to be delivered in a much higher dose through direct contact.

If Iraq has biological weapons I'll eat my shoe.

OK...

1. They Found misses with empty warheads in an area where there should of been none!  #ell they found missles where there should be none...period!

2. Saddam in his 12,000 page document never stated that he owned them.

3. I was giving examples of what he could use inside the warheads... I picked two possibilities, he has plenty more from the last war...

4. As further on up the post, since I am tired and the mice around here are keeping me awake...The same can be said about people defending the reason for going to war, but if you look at the information that has been handed to us... what would you say...he has missiles with empty heads when he isn't suppose to have any after his final report stated he got rid of them all..if he lied about something so insignificant as that, do you really think he doesn't have biological weapons?

5. If he doesn't have a chemical, or biological weapon, then WTF is he doing with over a dozen scientists that actually specialize in that exact thing????  Oh yeah, he is having them over to his weekly palace tour, and dancing girls right?

Basically it comes down to this... Saddam is acting like a child that is caught red handed with daddy's porn mags...the parents ask if he gave them all back, then they look under his bed, and they find three more... then he states he forgot about those...  He didn't forget, he was hoping they wouldn't look there, or resize that he was lying...

What do you do to a child that misbehaves, you punish them... spanking or grounding preffered...

in this case, with over 30,000 military ground troops, and a few thousand bomb sorties across his palaces, and military, radio, and airports, and remove Saddam from power...(since he is already grounded and already had a spanking less than 20 yrs ago and that seems not of worked)

I'll hold you to that eating your shoe thing, for if we attack, I am going to guess we won't need gas masks then right?  And I will ask for the shoe fed ex

Cyberpawz

1. They Found misses with empty warheads in an area where there should of been none!  #ell they found missles where there should be none...period!

For a handful of not chemical weapons but potential chemical weapons you're willing to start a war which could kill tens of thousands of people, boost recruitment of terrorists by inflaming worldwide hatred of the US and most likely bog down US troops in a decades-long occupation of a foreign country?

First off, get off the liberal express, it's very unbecoming of you...

Secondly, potential my arse, if we attack, I will guarantee chem/bio weapons. I have already proven in other convos he has chemical/bio weapons. 

2. Saddam in his 12,000 page document never stated that he owned them.

Over a technical matter of some paperwork you're willing to start a war which could kill tens of thousands of people, boost recruitment of terrorists by inflaming worldwide hatred of the US and most likely bog down US troops in a decades-long occupation of a foreign country?

I don't care if it is a technicality, when you are talking about a country whom in the past harbored terrorists, and supplied the terrorists for 9-11, and also was found to have connections to have laundering money in the US.  This country has been held under a microscope for a little under 20 yrs.  I expect they have proof they have not shown us, because they are waiting for the "UN" to make it's final inspection in a few days...and to answer your question about would I... the answer is yes... but I would of done it a looong time ago.

3. I was giving examples of what he could use inside the warheads... I picked two possibilities, he has plenty more from the last war...

Yeah, Bush and Rumsfeld also say he has plenty of WMD. But based on what proof? What the hell makes you so certain? Have you actually gone over there and seen these weapons? Didn't think so.

Have you gone over there to see they they don't...Didn't think so...

Actually I have family that is over there, and all I can say is what they told me...don't believe everything you hear on the TV, and don't expect everything to be told right out front...

4. As further on up the post, since I am tired and the mice around here are keeping me awake...The same can be said about people defending the reason for going to war, but if you look at the information that has been handed to us... what would you say...he has missiles with empty heads when he isn't suppose to have any after his final report stated he got rid of them all..if he lied about something so insignificant as that, do you really think he doesn't have biological weapons?

So because he has empty warheads he must have WMD? Shouldn't it be the opposite? If someone's cookie jar is empty, doesn't that suggest they're out of cookies?

Not always, I have a cookie jar, that is empty, but I have in my pantry, three bags of cookies...does it mean that I am out of cookies...no, it just means I haven't filled it up...

5. If he doesn't have a chemical, or biological weapon, then WTF is he doing with over a dozen scientists that actually specialize in that exact thing????  Oh yeah, he is having them over to his weekly palace tour, and dancing girls right?

I have news for you: you can't go to university and get a degree in chemical or biological weapons. Every country on the planet has virologists, chemists and the like, and many of them would know how to make these weapons if you asked 'em. If the mere presence of scientists with this know-how is cause for a potentially devastating war, then guess what: you'll have to invade just about every country in the world (including your own). Hell, not just countries; many corporations have the know-how. You gonna nuke Dow Chemical?

I guess the threats he makes on radio, and the brainwashing he does to the public says that the jews and the American's time will come is just a fallacy hmm? How is he going to do that...throw spit-balls at us?  Riiight...

Basically it comes down to this... Saddam is acting like a child that is caught red handed with daddy's porn mags...the parents ask if he gave them all back, then they look under his bed, and they find three more... then he states he forgot about those...  He didn't forget, he was hoping they wouldn't look there, or resize that he was lying...

What do you do to a child that misbehaves, you punish them... spanking or grounding preffered...

Spaking or grounding a child is sure as hell a long way from fighting a war. And who's gonna suffer most? The "misbehaving child", or thousands of innocent civilians who have been brutalized and terrorized by the "kid", and certainly never voted for him, that's who. If it was just a question of killing Saddam, no one would mind. It's the destruction that upsets people.

If these people never voted for him, and are being terrorized and brutalized, don't you think there would of been an uprising years ago? The problem is that the populations overall is not going to do anything...why is that...I don't know...but I have a feeling is that they know more about Saddam's plan that we do.

in this case, with over 30,000 military ground troops, and a few thousand bomb sorties across his palaces, and military, radio, and airports, and remove Saddam from power...(since he is already grounded and already had a spanking less than 20 yrs ago and that seems not of worked)

Actually, no, Saddam got through the last war without a scratch. If anything, he's more powerful than before. The ones who were "spanked" were the civilians and draftee soldiers. About 150,000 people died in the actual war, and about another million civilians, mostly women and children have died in the years since, thanks to the sanctions. Saddam has weathered all this without harm.

Yet Saddam lives in over 20 palaces, and lives quite luxuriously...if he is more powerful than before, then he should be taken from power, it is as simple as that, for he has not changed, nor helped anyone but himself.

He sure doesn't care about his own people, and is clearly to make them pay any price to keep himself in power. But don't try to tell me that Bush (or you) care any more about their suffering tha Saddam does. It's just power politics, that's all. Don't waste my time with talk of WMD and/or morality.

Then don't respond.

Cyberpawz

1. They Found misses with empty warheads in an area where there should of been none!  #ell they found missles where there should be none...period!

2. Saddam in his 12,000 page document never stated that he owned them.

Having warheads isn't proof that they have chemical or biological weapons.  It's very easy to get a hunk of metal and attach a rocket to it.  You can't go to war over a pointy piece of hollowed out metal and a rocket the size of ones that are used in amature rocketry, even if Iraq isn't supposed to have them.  Sure, they defied the U.N., but tons of people (including the United States) has done that.  They are not a big deal.

Oh, so you mean the missing 2,000 lbs of chemical component to make Sarin, that happens to not be on the 12,000 pages...and we know he has it, for he used it against us in the last conflict we were in with him...

The difference between the US defying the UN, and Iraq doing it, is that the US is the major force behind the UN armed forces, and is a permanent member of the UN security team...(and it is the US's solders blood that is spilled when the UN in many cases has to go into a hot spot...we are asked to go in because they can't handle the problem they started... you really think the UN forces that they are designing now won't have a vast majority of it of US soldiers...) you tell me what does Iraq do to warrant an excuse to "excuse" them for misplacing nearly a ton of a chemical component of Sarin?

Next I guess when a Sarin bomb goes off in Jerusalem, or the middle of the US HQ in Saudi Arabia, that won't be a problem now will it?

3. I was giving examples of what he could use inside the warheads... I picked two possibilities, he has plenty more from the last war...

Saddam may have chemical weapons, but there is no evidence that he has or ever has had biological weapons.  There's a big difference.  I could make what the U.S. considers chemical weapons in my AP Chemistry class.  Chemical weapons aren't one one hundredth as dangerous as biological.

Bull$hit! We used gas masks for the hell of it when we attacked him the last time I take it, for show...Gulf War Syndrome is just a fallacy too right? 

4. As further on up the post, since I am tired and the mice around here are keeping me awake...The same can be said about people defending the reason for going to war, but if you look at the information that has been handed to us... what would you say...he has missiles with empty heads when he isn't suppose to have any after his final report stated he got rid of them all..if he lied about something so insignificant as that, do you really think he doesn't have biological weapons?

What information has been given to us?  And yes, I don't think he has biological weapons.  Chemical, maybe, but not biological.  And again, he can't possibly hurt us with them.

Of so in other-words, toting napalm around is fine?

5. If he doesn't have a chemical, or biological weapon, then WTF is he doing with over a dozen scientists that actually specialize in that exact thing????  Oh yeah, he is having them over to his weekly palace tour, and dancing girls right?

Uh..  trying to get them?  There's no doubt that Saddam is trying to get weapons, but trying to get them and having them is a pretty freaking huge difference.  And it's not like he's trying to get them for the purpose of attacking the United States.  He wants them to defend himself against US.

Right, and the last time he defended himself against the US he happened to mistakenly send a few missiles towards Israel as well right?

What do you do to a child that misbehaves, you punish them... spanking or grounding preffered...

Oh, you punish other people's kids now?  Saddam is not our responsiblity, nor is he any threat to us.  Bush want his oil, he blows his tyranny and threat out of proportion. 

Actually he is our responsibility, we put him in power. (if I remeber correctly it was Ronald Regain)

I'll hold you to that eating your shoe thing, for if we attack, I am going to guess we won't need gas masks then right?  And I will ask for the shoe fed ex

Gas masks will be used to protect against chemical weapons.  I said he doesn't have biological weapons, and I'll keep saying it until the day they discover some.

And I still expect you to fed ex the remains of your shoe after you are proven wrong.

Answer me this: if we are truly attacking Saddam because he is dangerous and tyrannical, why are we doing nothing about North Korea?  North Korea's government is as bad as Nazi Germany and has nuclear bombs, and is rapidly getting more of them.

NK already said they won't create any more, and under the surcumstances NK holds less of a problem towards our needs than Iraq does since they are close to the main source of our oil, and he already has shown he can attack and take over that country readily enough.

Don't think Bush won't do something after the fact, but for now, NK in the Fegesus scale, is a 2 while Iraq is a 5. (5 being as high as you can go)

Cyberpawz

NK already said they won't create any more, and under the surcumstances NK holds less of a problem towards our needs than Iraq does since they are close to the main source of our oil, and he already has shown he can attack and take over that country readily enough.

Don't think Bush won't do something after the fact, but for now, NK in the Fegesus scale, is a 2 while Iraq is a 5. (5 being as high as you can go)

What makes you believe North Korea when you don't Iraq?  Kim Jong II has done thing many times worse than what Saddam has ever.  Any political dissident is instantly executed, and people are thrown into work-camps for life for things like petty theft.

North Korea has withdrawn from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty -- the only country in the entire world to do so.  They are actively researching nuclear weapons, funded by money diverted from humanitarian aid meant to feed the starving millions.  (North Korea receives more food than any country in the world, yet two million people have starved under Kim Jong.)  They currently have the ability to attack Japan, China, and South Korea with nuclear weapons.  Not only do they have warheads, but they have real missiles and "weapons of mass destruction" to go with them.

You admit it yourself: the conflict in Iraq is about oil.  Bush and his oil-based cabinet wants oil for their oil cronies.  You honestly think that oil is worth the lives of our soldiers, the resources of our military, and the reputation of our country?

Does anyone else here see the incongruence in the arguments oft repeated by many of the pacifists?  On the one hand they keep sayng that we cannot trust anyone in the Bush administration to tell us the truth about Iraq, and yet they want us all to sit pat and let the UN inspectors do their thing, as if they are anymore trustworthy. (Not to mention that they tend to swallow every bit of pablum spewed by the mainstream media on this subject as well.)

The UN inspectors have no motive for deception.  The Bush Administration has every reason.  For one example, look no further than Bush's poll numbers right after September 11th.  People like a leader who they think is protecting them.  Another is obviously oil.  Did you know the administration has already started talking with oil companies, namely Haliburton (Cheney was CEO of it previous to being nominated), as to who gets oil rights in Iraq?

And it should be noted that even if the United Nations finds weapons in Iraq, I will still not support military action.

The UN inspectors have no motive for deception. 

*cough*Scott Ritter*cough*

NK already said they won't create any more, and under the surcumstances NK holds less of a problem towards our needs than Iraq does since they are close to the main source of our oil, and he already has shown he can attack and take over that country readily enough.

Don't think Bush won't do something after the fact, but for now, NK in the Fegesus scale, is a 2 while Iraq is a 5. (5 being as high as you can go)

What makes you believe North Korea when you don't Iraq?  Kim Jong II has done thing many times worse than what Saddam has ever.  Any political dissident is instantly executed, and people are thrown into work-camps for life for things like petty theft.

North Korea has withdrawn from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty -- the only country in the entire world to do so.  They are actively researching nuclear weapons, funded by money diverted from humanitarian aid meant to feed the starving millions.  (North Korea receives more food than any country in the world, yet two million people have starved under Kim Jong.)  They currently have the ability to attack Japan, China, and South Korea with nuclear weapons.  Not only do they have warheads, but they have real missiles and "weapons of mass destruction" to go with them.

You admit it yourself: the conflict in Iraq is about oil.  Bush and his oil-based cabinet wants oil for their oil cronies.  You honestly think that oil is worth the lives of our soldiers, the resources of our military, and the reputation of our country?

I don't believe NK, trust me I don't... but in the grand scale of schemes NK is not much of a threat to US safty right now as Saddam is...

And do you know why they have these WMD?

Clinton's regime...I've already been through this already with too many people actually I don't know if it is was in this section or not, I forget now. Long story short, Clinton reduced the security of several key places, and some how our secrets were leaked out of the country...

And as Bush takes office, not even 2 yrs in, NK starts up their nuclear weapons research again, and not even a few months after they have their first nuke... I can almost guarantee you where those secrets went.

As for the oil business, even the democrats and republicans agree that the whole underlining factor of this is oil, but because someone was smart enough to point the direction in that it is now, where to say Saddam has weapons he should not have... and so far as proved that right. So even though the underlining truth is about oil, and it can't be said we don't need it...until we get cars that need another form of energy we are going to be dependent of that oil...we can go in because of the fact he has shown he owns weapons he should not be having...which in it's own right is valid...

So if I were to say yes to this, I would have to say yes to disarming, and dethroning Saddam, and replacing the entire regime with a new standing government. In doing so we would be helping the people, by allowing them to be fed, educating them, and housing them, and keeping them away from fear... that sound good to you...

Cyberpawz

The UN inspectors have no motive for deception. 

*cough*Scott Ritter*cough*

Please don't get me started on that guy...

he really pisses me off, almost as much as Hanz Blixz...

Cyberpawz