If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Smith wrote:
> The depleted-uranium claim is specious, AFAIK. We have only one weap that > uses it: the 30mm Gatling gun on the nose of the A-10 "Warthog" tank buster. > Note that altho we used A-10s in Gulf War I (against the Repub Guard's > T-72s), we never deployed them during Op Iraq Freedom. Moreover, DU isn't > radioactive, so it's unlikely to cause cancer. This happened in the Gulf War, and well over 300 tons were fired, both by A-10s and by tanks. An A-10 round was 300g of solid U-238, and a tank round was 4,500g. There is no need for something to be radioactive in order to cause cancer. In any case, as you know the warheads use Uranium-238 which is a "fertile" isotope, converting readily to (radioactive) plutonium, or to (radioactive) uranium oxide (the problem in Iraq) |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Byron Forbes wrote:
> To me, this is complete bull****. NATO is in IRAQ to remove a madman in > the name of self defence - this is a legitimate reason anyway. Unfortunately > probably most of the reason NATO is there is for U.S. retaliation for 911 - > and Iraq fundamentaly had nothing to do with 911. > > The message is simple - allow yourself to be represented by a madman > (Hussein) and this is what will happen. Unfortunately this message is > polluted with political agendas and the complete bull**** notion that NATO > is in Iraq to do the Iraqis a big favour - utter bull****. - NATO didn't go into Iraq, the so-called "coalition" did - The Iraqi people didn't allow themselves to be represented by the Ba'ath party - the CIA put them there and the people had no choice. Now the US took him away and put someone else there - if I was an Iraqi I ight be more than a little concerned that he would also upset them, and a load of us would get slaughtered again in the sake of our own freedom. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Mitch_A wrote:
> Just about ANY country you post to the internet from can almost > directly thank the US for its freedom. Why then is the US so universally despised? What the US sees as "help" helps only the US. Read about George Kennan, read about Zbigniew Brzezinski. If you don't understand the people to whom your government listens, how can their actions be interpreted? |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
David G Fisher wrote:
> > A fantastic reminder of the lies. > > http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus/ > > "They have weapons of mass destruction......that is what this war was > about.....is about." A good reminder - looks like the media are our Pavlov. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
So youre telling me people dont want freedom? You dont see how absurd that
sounds? Of course the oppressive regime doesnt want freedom for its people but to say the people dont want freedom is a giant leap adn to me ridiculous.. Mitch "John Wallace" > wrote in > Mitch, this slaughter has NOTHING to do with a so-called freedom that > these countries did not wish for. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
So if the oppressed people of the world want freedom from the previously
American supported dictator, they'll just have to accept the death and destruction that the American military will impose...to make them free. Marty http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0705-05.htm Mitch_A wrote: > So youre telling me people dont want freedom? You dont see how absurd that > sounds? Of course the oppressive regime doesnt want freedom for its people > but to say the people dont want freedom is a giant leap adn to me > ridiculous.. > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" > wrote in > Mitch, this slaughter has > NOTHING to do with a so-called freedom that > >>these countries did not wish for. > > > |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
The "freedom" that you talk about is (as these people will see it) an US
installed regime, with a US installed puppet president, in search of oil for the benefit of the US. They've been bombed by the US, starved by the US, then bombed again by the US. They were told a pack of lies about needing to die because they had WMDs, they had WMDs used against them and are dying of cancer, and we expect them to be happy when we say "trust us, it'll all be okay". As for the freedom, it comes with strings - embrace also the US free-market economics. Aka, drop your pants and bend over. Look what it did to Indonesia, look at Argentina and Brazil, look at Russia - these countries were financially raped by us when their markets were opened. Is it any wonder they question the desirability of our "freedom". Let's be clear, Saddam was a monster, but if we're getting all misty eyed about the "choice" we're giving the Iraqis, let's actually give THEM the choice. Mitch_A wrote: > So youre telling me people dont want freedom? You dont see how absurd that > sounds? Of course the oppressive regime doesnt want freedom for its people > but to say the people dont want freedom is a giant leap adn to me > ridiculous.. > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" > wrote in > Mitch, this slaughter has > NOTHING to do with a so-called freedom that > >>these countries did not wish for. > > > |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
John Wallace wrote:
> Randy Magruder wrote: > > Sorry dude, as of yesterday, I'm done with this useless discussion. > > I'm staying on sims from today on. > > Or, "crap, I have no argument to that so I'll sprint for the moral > high ground" I'll be happy to take this conversation with you to private e-mail or anywhere else. Don't assume that just because I choose to try to get back to talking racing sims here (I know, the horror!). You know my e-mail address. If you actually want to debate this you know where to reach me. Randy |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
John Wallace wrote:
> Randy Magruder wrote: > > > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you > > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the > > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. > > The legal right to go to war is nothing to do with Bush's SOU > address. It is solely to do with the UN resolutions, and whether or > not Iraq possessed WMD. It doesn't matter if Bush is ****ed off that > Saddam drives a Japanese car, or prefers Pepsi over Coke, no WMD = > illegal war. > > Bush can practice all the revisionist history he wants and cite a > bajillion other reasons - that doesn't give them meaning. John, while you're looking up my private e-mail address to continue this, you might also read the definition of "Ceasefire agreement". Later. I won't answer any more of your posts HERE Randy |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
> no WMD = illegal war. > Rather, no WMD = umpopular war. The violation of the Cease Fire agreements signed after the first Gulf war were all the justification the USA needed to launch an attack. In addition, the failure to comply with a whole mess of UN resolutions also gave grounds for war. Finally did not the UN itself authorize force with numerous security council resolutions <what does "serious consequences" mean? Spanking Sadam?>? Granted the so- called final authority was never voted on, but prior votes and resolutions more than authorized the assault. I find it curious that the supposedly bankrupt state of Iraq, cruelly suffering at the hands of UN and thus US sanctions since we all know the USA runs the UN thus the US could ask and receive the final vote at any time and the result would be a unanimous result, could not feed it's people, yet could build dozens of gold lavatoried castles for Sadam. I also find it curious that the countries opposed to the 'final authorization' vote also were countries that seemed to be on the receiving end of the oil for food bribes. I find it odd that close to 10BILLION $$ managed to end up, not in the mouths of starving Iraqi children, but the pockets of French, Russian, & German & Iraqi businessmen and diplomats (strangely enough, Haliburton seems to have not enjoyed that windfall). I find it curious that despite UN weapons sanctions, French and Russian weapons of recent purchase were found inside Iraq. I find it odd that Momar Kadafi suddenly became a scaredy-cat. I find it confusing that the people of Lebannon found their voice after years of Syrian occupation or Egypt allowing democratic voting or even the real enemy, Saudi Arabi agreeing to <Shudder> local elections!! . I find it merely convienant that the country located next to Iraq during the years and years of hide and seek between the Iraqi goverment and the UN weapons inspectors, also shared a similar Bathist goverment. I find it downright odd how many Iraqis are still being killed by those who are neither American nor Iraqi themselves. I further find it confusing that of close to 2 dozen armed conflicts currently simmering around the globe...nearly all include Muslims as one of the armed combatants. Surely the Muslims of Khasmir do not fight for the Palestinians? Do the Muslims of Sri Lanka kidnap children to breed fighters so they can liberate Palestine? Do the Muslim Arabs of Sudan practice genocide upon Black Sudanese for the defense of Islam or the aquistion of the Sudanese oil fields? Do the Muslim fighters of the Phillipines care one whit about Israel's continued existance? Do the Muslim extremists bombing in Malaysia take an oath to defend the Palestinians? Do the Muslim Chechans stand and fight and bomb and kill and stab Russian school children merely to call attention to the suffering of the poor poor Palestinians? Did the Palestinian leaders and widow of Arafat fight over the estate of poor ol Yasser for the few mere pennies he accrued leading one of the poorest non-states in the world, or was he rich beyond the wealth of all his people combined? See John...I told ya I can be paranoid... dave henrie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|