Author Topic: Absolutely brilliant writing on the current war: A MUST READ! (Read 1642 times)

Rude · « **Reply #30 on:** March 14, 2003, 04:56:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 10Bears
I’ve got a question, Are Conservatives FOR One World Government?

I'm conservative and I'm not:)

crabofix · « **Reply #31 on:** March 14, 2003, 04:57:22 PM »

Yep, you sure know how to use em. Infact you are the only ones (besides Iraq) that used them, so sure: we trust you guys.

Crabofix

Rude · « **Reply #32 on:** March 14, 2003, 05:00:16 PM »

Slo.....

Can I ask a couple of quick questions for my own clarification?

Are you a natural born Canadian?

Are you of French descent?

What's with the US Seals slogan in your sig?

Thanks!

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #33 on:** March 14, 2003, 05:01:58 PM »

Yep, you sure know how to use em. Infact you are the only ones (besides Iraq) that used them, so sure: we trust you guys.

Hmmm, also Germany, France and Britain. Oh! But you didn't know mustard gas, or nerve gas, counts as a WMD, didya?

Lets ignore the fact that an invasion of Japan (the only way the war with Japan would of ended) would of cost Japan and America many more million lives than the two nuclear bombs cost the Japanese.

So, yes, we do know how to use them. Thank you for your trust.
-SW

AKIron · « **Reply #34 on:** March 14, 2003, 05:34:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eaglecz
Will US disarm WMD as well ?

Fat chance. There may be a few libs in the US that think the world would a safer place if we did but the wiser among us realize we can't trust anyone to look after our interests but us.

crabofix · « **Reply #35 on:** March 14, 2003, 06:00:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yep, you sure know how to use em. Infact you are the only ones (besides Iraq) that used them, so sure: we trust you guys.

Hmmm, also Germany, France and Britain. Oh! But you didn't know mustard gas, or nerve gas, counts as a WMD, didya?

So, yes, we do know how to use them. Thank you for your trust.
-SW

Use of gas was´nt banned during ww I. It was kinda a new invention. The word WMD was a unknown thing.

(Still: some gas was used by the Germans, during WW II, in a antitank round, But I think it was teargas. It had no effect.)

crabofix

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #36 on:** March 14, 2003, 06:19:39 PM »

Uhm, yeah okay. That has nothing to do with what you initially put forth.

Also, lets not forget nuclear weapons themselves were new in WWII. Lets not forget the use of them was neither banned, or investigated. WWII saw the first use of nuclear weapons, much the same way WWI saw the first use of mustard gas in trench warfare.

WMDs is a new term- it actually didn't come 'bout till the 60s, so using your argument that gas wasn't banned, neither were nuclear weapons, and they were not WMDs either. They were just big bombs.

Tear gas does indeed have an effect, but nevertheless, the Germans did indeed use mustard gas in WWII. And it did indeed have an effect.

I did like how you immediately jumped to apology mode for what the Germans did though, shows your true colors.

Sieg heil!
-SW

crabofix · « **Reply #37 on:** March 14, 2003, 06:26:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Uhm, yeah okay. That has nothing to do with what you initially put forth.

Tear gas does indeed have an effect, but nevertheless, the Germans did indeed use mustard gas in WWII. And it did indeed have an effect.

I did like how you immediately jumped to apology mode for what the Germans did though, shows your true colors.

Sieg heil!
-SW

Mustard gas? In battle? or are you refearing to the gaschambers?
I think that was another substance.
But, I will edit (besides, germany and Iraq).

Crabofix

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #38 on:** March 14, 2003, 06:32:57 PM »

Yes, in battle.

However, like I said, France and Britain also used Mustard Gas in WWI.

It doesn't matter whether or not it was new. As I said, nuclear weapons were new in WWII. They weren't tested in battle. The usage of them was not banned either.

The "WMD" classification didn't come about until the '60s, and nuclear weapon bans didn't pass until well after WWII.

So edit all you want, your argument is as faulty as a Ford Pinto.
-SW

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #39 on:** March 14, 2003, 06:34:41 PM »

And use on nuclear weapons wasnt banned in WW2...

If you guys seriously dont recognize the difference between a serious nation state like the USA or Russia possesing nuclear weapons and a country like Iraq having them, then there is nothing else to be said by anyone on the issue.

I for one feel that you are only using this example of the USA having nuclear weapons, so why shouldn't Iraq, as a cheap distraction from the problem of Iraq trying madly to get them and you having no real opinion or thought of how to realitically prevent that country and its genocidal leader from obtaining them. I say "realistically" because even a child knows that 12 years of on/off inspections have been an utter failure. Yet you still insist on further, endless inspections saying that war or the threat of war is not an option, while completly ignoring the reason the inspectors are back in iraq in the first place - the realistic threat of "unilatteral" US force.

Also I have yet to see one argument on how Saddam Hussein would be prevented from restarting his WMD programs at some later date if he managed to fool the inspectors and the UN in dropping sanctions. More inspections? More UN babbling and more UN deadlines? New sanctions? I dont think the world would be up for that again. With his oil income restored and a grudge to settle with the world for the 1991 war and the sanctions why wouldnt he resume his WMD program? Why wouldn't he resume his fantasy? And please dont insult my intelligence by saying that saddam would be happy to just get his oil income back and grow his wealth instead of risking the pursuit of WMD again. We allready understand his preference in this matter. The past 12 years have afforded him countless opportunities to choose between the lifing of sanctions and resumption of oil revenues and his quest for WMD - again even a child knows how he chose.
And we know he is willing to risk, even risk directly challenging the USA as in the Kuwait attack and planned Saudi Arabia invasion.

And that is why we have to get rid of him, and get rid of him now.

crabofix · « **Reply #40 on:** March 14, 2003, 06:36:42 PM »

Never the less, US is the only nation that ever used the nuclear bomb. But as I said: Sure I trust you to have it.

crabofix

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #41 on:** March 14, 2003, 06:40:26 PM »

Yet, you ignore the premise for it's use. And you ignore that we went through a several decade long nuclear stand off with Russia without either side setting one off.

I will repeat myself, your argument is as faulty as a Ford Pinto.
-SW

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #42 on:** March 14, 2003, 06:41:00 PM »

So what? Does French use of poison gas in WW1 mean that Brazil has the right to gas Paris next week?

crabofix · « **Reply #43 on:** March 14, 2003, 06:43:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ

And that is why we have to get rid of him, and get rid of him now.

I agree. (Its a good thing if its sanctioned by UN though)
But why did you wait 12 years to be doin this?

crabofix

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #44 on:** March 14, 2003, 06:46:49 PM »

The real question is: Why did the UN play with their dick's for 12 years, and not do anything about it?

And we did do things about it, but 12 years is enough. Now we are going to do something about it, and you are questioning why we didn't act?

Sweet jebus, the idiocy in those type of statements stun me with dumbfoundedness.
-SW