Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 10Bears on October 01, 2002, 12:52:44 PM
-
Even with the mass media playing the Madelyn ToGood tape over and over of her spanking here child, this story is not going away.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021001/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_bioweapons_6
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.
Oh my God!!! This is ten million times worse than Iran Contra! So now we have to blow up Saddam for the weapons we sold him?.... Good Lord!
Or this story..
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20020923/1048504.asp
WASHINGTON - American research companies, with the approval of two previous presidential administrations, provided Iraq biological cultures that could be used for biological weapons, according to testimony to a U.S. Senate committee eight years ago.
West Nile Virus, E. coli, anthrax and botulism were among the potentially fatal biological cultures that a U.S. company sent under U.S. Commerce Department licenses after 1985, when Ronald Reagan was president, according to the Senate testimony.
Bring on the investigations! How many treaties did this violate?
-
LOL, dig deeper Weaze...er 10bears :)
-
and we made him use them as a weapon on his own people too?
-
Dual use technology is a major problem in enforcing the CWC and BWC. That is nothing new. I will be interested to see what becomes of this however. At this point it looks like a non-story for a slow news day.
-Sikboy
-
That wacky Saddam. One minute he's on our side, then he's threatening us with our own nasty stuff. Aren't there any trustworthy despots anymore?
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm
-
stuff wasn't given to him for "research".
It was to be used on Iran during the war. Back then we hated Iran more then Iraq.
So we're handing out WMD to despots around the world and raise hoopla over a president getting a BJ.
Usual.
-
LOL, dig deeper Weaze...er 10bears 
Yer gonna tell me Clinton gave him West Nile Virus, E. coli, anthrax and botulism too Cabb.. er Ripsnort?
Sikboy, violation of the 1928 chemical non proliferation treaty is a non story?.. Wow! I think it blows Iran-contra out of the water! If their capable of doing this what else are they capable of? This adds a whole new log to the fire.. Is Saddam developing chemical weapons?.. well no he simply buys them from Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.
Unbelievable!
No wonder we spent a week talking about a woman spanking her kid.. They desperately want this story off the front page.
-
Oh man, this is good. Ok first of all, you should probably try to use the most relevent treaty if you want to get pissed about things. I would start with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which enetered into force in 1997. But this isn't a clear violation of that. If you are referening to the aspects of the Geneva protocals that pertain to the use of chemical and biological weapons, this is clearly not a violation, since that document concerns itself only with the USE of these weapons by a nation.
Or were you refering to some other treaty?
Like I said, I'd be interesting to see where the story goes, but at this point, and with the information presented thus far, it is a non story.
-Sikboy
-
More of the non story:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp
-
and we made him use them as a weapon on his own people too?
You guys knew he was a shrecking nutcase, but you happened to hate Iran more, so you didn't give a damn. And besides, who cares about the Kurds when Turkey's support is at stake?
You don't give a serial child molester the keys to the primary school and expect him to behave, do you?
The guy is an admirer of Stalin, for god's sake!
-
Originally posted by popeye
More of the non story:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp
Yep.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Oh man, this is good. Ok first of all, you should probably try to use the most relevent treaty if you want to get pissed about things.
Shouldn't he use the treaty that was in effect at the time of the transgretion?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Shouldn't he use the treaty that was in effect at the time of the transgretion?
He could, but that would leave him without a legal case. Better to leave treaties out of it in that case.
-Sikboy
-
i heard that back in the korean war truman ordered US troops to use machine guns , artillery, and even napalm to stop chinese "human wave" attacks, does anyone have proof of this?
also in WW2 i heard the USA actualy gave england "weapons of war" and england used the "weapons of war" to kill germans, is this true?
-
looks like a real election killer there 10bears :rolleyes:
-
On Sept. 6, 1620 the Pilgrims set sail for the New World on a ship called the Mayflower!
-
that's funny, none of us even noticed that this has more to do with Biological weapons than Chemical weapons. So the Biological Weapons convention (ratified by the US in 1975) is probably the best legal case.
By this treaty, 10bears actually HAS a case! It could be a violation of Article III of that convention which states:
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, directly or indirectly, and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any State, group of States or international organizations to manufacture or otherwise acquire any of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment or means of delivery specified in article I of the Convention.
Ok, it's a story :p
-Sikboy
-
soooo like if we give/sell say medicine, electricity, fuel oil, or any technology to a country to aid them in healthcare, quality of life, etc..
it's ok for them to use it for attacking the US ?
I think we need to look deeper than the surface statements of "oh my God.. we gave this xxx to them ???"
"It's OUR fault!!!"
puhleaze
it isn't WHAT you have it's HOW you use it...
-
You call that news?
Now THIS is news!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021001/ap_on_hi_te/cell_phones_cancer_15
:eek:
-
I'd simply like to know what Dowding, 10bears, et al think we should do at this point. Since apparently there is nothing being done right, tell us what right would look like.
-
You'll be waiting a very long time, Kieran.
Cobra
-
hehe(sp?).(sp?)
-
Oh, the devil is always in the details, now isn't he?
Dowding:
You guys knew he was a shrecking nutcase, but you happened to hate Iran more, so you didn't give a damn. And besides, who cares about the Kurds when Turkey's support is at stake?
You don't give a serial child molester the keys to the primary school and expect him to behave, do you?
[/b]
From the Buffalo News article posted at the top of this thread:
"Researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said American companies were not the only ones that sent anthrax cultures to Iraq. British firms sold cultures to the University of Baghdad that were transferred to the Iraqi military[/color], the Center for Strategic and International Studies said. The Swiss also sent cultures.
Pays to read it all, Dowding. :p
And would anyone like to bet what we'd have been hearing had we said "NO" when Iraq asked for them?
"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former United Nations biological weapons inspector.
"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."
Almost all of it went to the University of Baghdad which claimed a legitimate public health purpose.
So would all of you making a big deal about it NOW have been squalling back in the '80's if we had denied their request?
I'm thinking you'd have been tearfully pointing out the "legitimate public health purpose" and said how cruel we were for not helping.
Besides all that....... history is absolutely RIFE with examples of a nation helping another "friendly" nation with arms and supplies only to have that "friendly" nation turn into an enemy at a later date. WW2 and the Soviet Union, for example.
-
Cripes, why don't I ever get any WMD. And I'm a nice guy liberal, I probably wouldn't use them or anything! :(
PS: the US and Britain suck.
Edit: I could just it now.
"Holy toejam, George, old sport! We better secure all those WMD we gave Iraq!"
"Gosh! No kidding Tony. How about we tell the media we have to go in to stop Iraq from making WMD."
"...are you bloody stupid?"
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I'd simply like to know what Dowding, 10bears, et al think we should do at this point. Since apparently there is nothing being done right, tell us what right would look like.
What was wrong with the policy of containment and determent?
Has Hussein got out of the box?
If Saddam scares you, better check under the bed and in the closet. Might be a bogeyman in there.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
What was wrong with the policy of containment and determent?
Has Hussein got out of the box?
If Saddam scares you, better check under the bed and in the closet. Might be a bogeyman in there.
time for action, not reaction
-
Originally posted by Eagler
time for action, not reaction
Quick! Jump into a lake!
-
What was wrong with the policy of containment and determent?
Containment as in what? Determent how? Are you suggesting SH doesn't have a history of incursion upon neighbors? Ask someone from Kuwait or Israel. Are you suggesting determent has worked in any way? Educate me.
Am I afraid of SH now? No. Will I be worried about the effect of him having the bomb on the stability in the Middle East? Yup.
I'll spare you the typing- I am worried about India and Pakistan, too. As they are chiefly concerned with blowing one another up, I am not concerned with them the way I would be with SH with the bomb.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
it isn't WHAT you have it's HOW you use it...
You are absolutely correct! Just check out Article X of the BWC!
Article X
(1) The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the use of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins for peaceful purposes. Parties to the Convention in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing individually or together with other States or international organizations to the further development and application of scientific discoveries in the field of bacteriology (biology) for prevention of disease, or for other peaceful purposes.
(2) This Convention shall be implemented in a manner designed to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of States Parties to the Convention or international cooperation in the field of peaceful bacteriological (biological) activities, including the international exchange of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins and equipment for the processing, use or production of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
And that gets us right back to my first post about "dual use." And again, I would be intestersted to see what comes of this. But we're back to being a non-story :p
I'm sorry, I just love arms control treaties.
-Sikboy
-
"intestersted"
Using GWB's dictionary again?
:)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Containment as in what? Determent how? Are you suggesting SH doesn't have a history of incursion upon neighbors? Ask someone from Kuwait or Israel. Are you suggesting determent has worked in any way? Educate me.
Determent seemed to work with those nasty Soviets. Hussein isn't even in the same league.
So SH has a history of incursion. So what. We pushed him out and he's doesn't have a build up of troops at the Kuwaiti or Iranian borders, nor does he have any reason to do so now. To do so would just make it that much easier for the U.S. to convince the Europeans to join in our next round of weapons testing. He is effectively contained.
As for Kuwait, it's just a pissant medieval monarchy with human rights violations every bit as extensive as Iraq's. I don't care to shed a single U.S. drop of blood defending them again. They're not worth it.
Here's what will happen... U.S. will invade Iraq and if Hussein has a nuke, he'll hit Israel with it as a parting shot. Israel will retaliate in turn and in kind and then you can kiss this dream of middle eastern stability goodbye. Gas prices will skyrocket. Canadians will observe smugly that we started the whole mess and the car manufacturers will begin to think very seriously about hydrogen powered cars.
-
lol Toad. I am completely aware of how Saddam came into possession of his Bio-weapons program. Particularly, Britain's (as well as Germany's) involvement in it. Just look at the Super-Gun affair.
But here's my point of contention. You might (naively) argue they were given for legitimate reasons, but I think you are deliberately overlooking the context within which many of the transfers were made - and also exactly what accompanied them. The chemical weapons also transferred were part of the desire to support a sympathetic (though despotic) Middle Eastern leader against Iran and the Soviets. Of course the transfers were made under a 'cloak of legitimacy' - it negates any difficult questions for the body politic at that time.
But let's not pretend this is a case of 'we trusted him, and he turned on us'. The Western governments knew exactly what kind of man he was and the nature of the regime he built around him.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
"intestersted"
Using GWB's dictionary again?
:)
I was just looking at it, and the word "is" is in it!
This just in.... Evil scientists have taken botulism cultures obtained from the CDC and injected same into the faces of numerous actresses and socialites. Update to follow.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
lol Toad. I am completely aware of how Saddam came into possession of his Bio-weapons program.....
But let's not pretend this is a case of 'we trusted him, and he turned on us'. The Western governments knew exactly what kind of man he was and the nature of the regime he built around him.
Well then, now that we have that first part sorted out, do you feel the need to go back and edit your first post? Perhaps you might want to substitute "we" for the "you" that I underlined? :)
As to the second part above, the same could be said about Stalin, right? Yet Britain and the US cheerfully helped him and his regime as well. Politics (and war) make strange bedfellows, don't they?
-
Like I said before, the detail of the Iraqi WMD export programme is not new to me.
I don't edit posts after they've been challenged, even if they need it - and that one doesn't. :) It was directed at your compadre Rude, who seemed to be washing 'his' hands of the whole affair. Obviously, I don't mean him personally.
"I just sold 'em, gov. Nuthin' to do with me."
It's all about personal responsibility Toad. Taking the flak for your actions, no matter what your motive was/is. I could tell you about it if you want...
As to the second part above, the same could be said about Stalin, right? Yet Britain and the US cheerfully helped him and his regime as well. Politics (and war) make strange bedfellows, don't they?
Following your line of thinking regarding arms sales, you agree the Western democracies knew full well how biological weapons would be developed and (in the case of chemical weapons) deployed?
Was it a cheerful arrangement with Stalin? I don't think so. In the last few years of the war, when Germany's defeat looked ever more likely, you can bet they were making contingency plans to go to war with the Soviet Union. Truman was even committed to using nukes to push back the Soviets out of Germany and the Eastern Bloc - it was only British advice and intervention that post-poned this (eventually the idea was abandoned when Stalin got hold of his first nuclear devices).
So, in conclusion, there was no 'happy exchange' of technology - only cold hearted political expediency. And that does not allow us to wash our hands of the affair.
-
Well, the way I read it, the "you" was a generic finger-pointing, collectively aimed at the United States in general. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it read to me.
After all, it was "you" the US that "You guys knew he was a shrecking nutcase, but you happened to hate Iran more, so you didn't give a damn." wasn't it?
Doesn't seem aimed just at Rude to me.
Given that, it would seem to me that you (dowding) were doing the hand-washing for Great Britain. Or were "you" the collective Great Britain, involved? Of course "you" were.. collectively.
So I guess you (Dowding) are really chiding the US AND GB there right? ;)
Now to the deeper discussions.
Following your line of thinking regarding arms sales, you agree the Western democracies knew full well how biological weapons would be developed and (in the case of chemical weapons) deployed?
I'd agree if you changed the "would" to "could". That's a very large difference in my opinion.
Was it a cheerful arrangement with Stalin?
Was it a cheerful arrangement with Hussein? I don't think so. As I mentioned, politics makes strange bedfellows. I doubt the US or GB ever saw Hussein as anything more than an expedient means to an end... just like Stalin, and many others throughout history. In short, there's nothing at all new here.
So, in conclusion, there was no 'happy exchange' of technology - only cold hearted political expediency. And that does not allow us to wash our hands of the affair.
I think you agree with me. Are we saying that sometimes it is in your interest to deal with certified bastages and do it knowing that you may well regret it later?
-
A question of semantics. I think that you can single out an individual entity from within a collective, and in terms of responsibility, it must share that burden. That was the gist of my point.
Given that, it would seem to me that you (dowding) were doing the hand-washing for Great Britain. Or were "you" the collective Great Britain, involved? Of course "you" were.. collectively.
I don't think that is a given. Even as I wrote that first post, I almost mentioned Britain's involvement with Saddam - but I thought it spoilt the sound of my post, so I didn't. :D
Anyway, I am chiding GB and the US if they think that simply think they bare no responsibility for this mess. "We gave him the stuff, we didn't make him use it" is just plain stupid, to me. We, as democratic supposedly civilised nations have a duty of care over these technologies. We must shoulder that responsibility. How else can we claim the moral high ground over communism and the SU (as was)?
Ok. I see the distinction you are making with 'would' or 'could'. I do think there was intention on the behalf of the US and UK to supply Saddam with the means to conduct a bio-chemical war against Iran. I'm not saying it was a 'crystal-ball' kind of a scenario - but the intention to provide the capability was there. Who knows, perhaps a mini-arms race was developing between Soviet backed Iran and NATO backed Iraq (for want of a better description of the US/UK alliance)?
Was it a cheerful arrangement with Hussein? I don't think so.
Hey, you brought the 'cheerful' aspect to this discussion! ;) I agree, involvement with Saddam was probably anything but cheerful. But it was lucrative as well being a good defensive move. Very lucrative for the British arms industry.
I think you agree with me. Are we saying that sometimes it is in your interest to deal with certified bastages and do it knowing that you may well regret it later?
My point is not that political expediency is a concept to be shunned, but that the aftermath should be recognised and responsibility duly assigned to the protagonists. Duty of care. Duty of care.
-
My point is not that political expediency is a concept to be shunned, but that the aftermath should be recognised and responsibility duly assigned to the protagonists. Duty of care. Duty of care.
20/20 hindsight then?
It seems that nations "do what they have to do" at the time and as they percieve it.
Obviously, it was beneficial to have the Soviet Union fighting the Germans at the same time.
So, to which protagonists did we assign the responsibilty in the aftermath? What punishment did they deserve, merit or for that matter receive? What is the "duty of care" in this instance?
So Iraq, after claiming a "legitimate public health purpose" got a lot of nasty stuff sent to the University of Baghdad. Did or did not the nations that sent it do so with the intent of helping with "public health" or was it a transfer of the makings of WMD?
Does anyone really know?
So, IN THIS CASE, to which protagonists did we assign the responsibilty in the aftermath? What punishment did they deserve, merit? What is the "duty of care" in this instance?
Be just lovely if all were black and white with no gray, wouldn't it?
I'll say again, I personally think those howling now would have lambasted us back then for NOT sending that stuff to help Iraq with it's "legitimate public health purpose".
In short, this is just another "stir the soup" and "bash 'em" thread.
There's nothing here but politically-colored assumptions, turned into partisan "truth".
Here's a basic underlying truth: What's done is done and now we have to deal with the situation as best we can.
-
"Anyway, I am chiding GB and the US if they think that simply think they bare no responsibility for this mess."
Chiding is one thing and likely deserved here. However, it seems to me that you Dowding would have them bow out of the mess rather than clean it up?
-
I don't think that is a given. Even as I wrote that first post, I almost mentioned Britain's involvement with Saddam - but I thought it spoilt the sound of my post, so I didn't.
Is this a Freudian slip, or what? Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument, I always say...
-
So, to which protagonists did we assign the responsibilty in the aftermath? What punishment did they deserve, merit or for that matter receive? What is the "duty of care" in this instance?
Let me re-iterate my previous comments. My argument is a counter-point to the statement "It's nothing to do with me, we just gave him the goods - whatever action he took with them is not our fault or responsibility."
In modern industry that will not get you out of the courtroom should your company be sued because waste you produced was disposed of by a third party, improperly. I think that particular analogy is a useful one.
That is Duty of Care.
There's no 'punishment' here, however, just the apportioning of responsibility.
Political expediency is no defence, Toad. We must clear this mess up.
AKIron - see above answer.
-
Care to explain what you mean, Kieran. I don't quite follow.
-
I don't offer "political expediency" as a defense.
Merely as a fact.
That's the way it happens, usually. From the earliest days of International Relations. You could go back earlier than the Roman Empire and find examples of "political expediency" that was later regretted.
Is there a better way? Well, unless you have perfect foresight and can devine the future in a way better than looking at goat's entrails...... there will most likely always be errors.
Now, as to cleaning it up.
There was obviously an error here. They have things that many people and nations feel a bit uncomfortable with them having.
But they have them.
Now, how to either remove that capability or negate the threat somehow.
That's where we're at.
And all the "finger-pointing" in the world won't accomplish one step towards that goal.
Beyond the fact that one can "finger-point" at just about any world situation in history and say "this is probably the mistake that caused the irrevocable part of the problem".
And that can be made into a politically partisan attack point. Of no real value, but it can be done.
-
Damn.. this is better than 'Point <> Counterpoint" from SNL.
"EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG!!"
"squeak!!"
"potato!!"
hehehehhe.
-
the point of the thread is what exactly?
what difference does it make?
that was yesterday - we need to worry about today and tomorrow
the world is in a different place than it was 20 years ago - aren't you?
-
Easy- You purposely biased your comment to sound as though America alone was at fault for handing banned material to SH. To mention that Britain had a hand in doing the same thing would have gotten in the way of the typical "you Americans are hell-bent on blowing up the world" line of comments, and would have also gotten in the way of any British complicity (and therefore responsibility to do something about it) in the same act. As you say, to mention this little fact would have "spoilt the sound" of your post.
-
No, Kieran. You see this >>>>> :D I take it as meaning a J.O.K.E. You seemed to overlook it and miss it in your quote of me. Check my post - there's one right at the end of that paragraph. I was taking the piss, out of myself. So chill. Or go and continue your 'little' discussion over some dire, pointless computer game. Either way, I'm not interested.
Toad - no-one is denying it is a fact of life. I've not said it's unneccessary. But responsibility is the key. You have to take responsibility for your actions. It's the downside of the policy - but part of it nonetheless. I don't know how I can re-state my case any clearer than that. :)
Like I said it's our mess to clean up. Get the inspectors in with unrestricted access. If there's obstacles or restrictions of any unreasonable kind, then conflict it is.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Like I said it's our mess to clean up. Get the inspectors in with unrestricted access. If there's obstacles or restrictions of any unreasonable kind, then conflict it is.
I agree 100%.
-
Like I said it's our mess to clean up. Get the inspectors in with unrestricted access. If there's obstacles or restrictions of any unreasonable kind, then conflict it is.
that's all Bush has been trying to do from the beginning
just had to threaten to blow up bighead & half his country to get this far, few more threats and the inspectors should be in <- if the dumbacrats and other limp wrists around the world don't screw it up
then it'll get real interesting
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Like I said it's our mess to clean up. Get the inspectors in with unrestricted access. If there's obstacles or restrictions of any unreasonable kind, then conflict it is.
that's all Bush has been trying to do from the beginning
Bush doens't have any right to demand any action on the part of Iraq that is not covered by UN resolution.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Bush doens't have any right to demand any action on the part of Iraq that is not covered by UN resolution.
Yawn!!
which one?
the resolution signed at the end of the war or one of the modifications btwn then and 98 when the non-inspecting inspectors left?
At least Bush is holding Saddams feet to the fire. More than can be said about our previous admin and the rest of the world..
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Yawn!!
Jeesus, it's on 3:45 pm. Grab a coffee will ya.
which one?
the resolution signed at the end of the war or one of the modifications btwn then and 98 when the non-inspecting inspectors left?
Whichever resolutions are currently in effect.
At least Bush is holding Saddams feet to the fire. More than can be said about our previous admin and the rest of the world..
Like Clinton or not. He was still the leader of the US. And could have vetoed any changes to security council resolutions.
-
Agreed, Dowding. I wouldn't want to get in the way of you wagging your finger in our faces. ;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Like I said it's our mess to clean up. Get the inspectors in with unrestricted access. If there's obstacles or restrictions of any unreasonable kind, then conflict it is.
Duck and cover!
Dowding and Toad agree!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Bush doens't have any right to demand any action on the part of Iraq that is not covered by UN resolution.
True.
But if the inspections are hindered, nothing truly gets done and the UN lets Iraq get away with that behavior.........
.....and the US later takes a WMD strike that's even remotely traceable to Iraq......
I think the entire world is going to wish they had backed Bush to the hilt when they had the chance.. which is now.
Because what is a relatively small "conventional arms" problem right now may later turn out to be something much closer to Armageddon.
-
Originally posted by Toad
True.
But if the inspections are hindered, nothing truly gets done and the UN lets Iraq get away with that behavior.........
.....and the US later takes a WMD strike that's even remotely traceable to Iraq......
I think the entire world is going to wish they had backed Bush to the hilt when they had the chance.. which is now.
Because what is a relatively small "conventional arms" problem right now may later turn out to be something much closer to Armageddon.
I think we are, more or less, in agreement. If the inspector's are hindered from doing thier duty, as laid out in UN resolutions, then invade an replace the govenment.
However, you can't justifiably attack a country for what they MAY do, IF they get WMD.
-
However, you can't justifiably attack a country for what they MAY do, IF they get WMD.
why not? if a country has a rap sheet as long as the one in question why would anyone wait?
It took a a good President to shame a un into action and scare the pants off a dictator. We have a history if we forget it we're bound to repeat it.
What should be done? All I've read is complaints, pissin' and moanin' from self rightous ninnys.
Try building the barn this time
-
Originally posted by Mr. Blonde
why not? if a country has a rap sheet as long as the one in question why would anyone wait?
Can you please list some items on the rap sheet.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I think we are, more or less, in agreement....
However, you can't justifiably attack a country for what they MAY do, IF they get WMD.
Yeah, we're in agreement.
I just think the entire world may wish the UN had acted forcibly now for "what they might have done" after they've actually done it.
There'll be no mercy in that event.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I just think the entire world may wish the UN had acted forcibly now for "what they might have done" after they've actually done it.
There'll be no mercy in that event.
I think that if a nuke goes off in the US...well I think it would be the worst thing possible for the world as a whole. I could see the US attacking just about whoever they wanted to and quickly becoming a facist state. I could see Canada losing just about every bit of soverignty we have. I think it would be truely a dark age for most of the world. Although I bet China would do just fine.
-
Read this: Text of the proposed House Iraq resolution (http://msnbc.com/news/816034.asp)
Apparently it's not just about what they might have, or what they might get...
-SW
-
It will absolutely change the nature of the average American citizen. It will pull this country together as never before.
Therein lies the danger; because I feel certain I know what the common attitude will be.
-
SW,
Well, that's about as close to proposing a declaration of war as you can get without proposing to declare war.
Still think the Reps are just being chickendroppings. Might as well "can" the BS and put it right out on the table.
It'd probably do more to get the attention of Iraq and the world community that way.
Still, it'll be interesting to watch this make it's way through the House and then see what the Senate does.
Interesting times.
-
I read that during class, pulled it out of this article:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/812825.asp?0bl=-0
Seems to me it's already going to pass in the House... could of read it wrong tho.
-SW