Very Interesting

**cphilip** · 03-06-2003, 08:10 AM

LOL... Are you asking that in sarcasm or do you realy want me to tell you?

OK just in case... Remember them invading another country and having to be forced out and in order not to continue the attack on them in thier own country and overthrow them at that time they agreed to get rid of all them so that they would not be able to attack anyone ever again? (longest sentance ever!) And have not done so in the 14 years since they agreed to? And instead have built more and bigger ones?

**The Frymarker** · 03-06-2003, 08:19 AM

No not sarcasm, genuinely wanted to know.

I understood that, they being Iraq had to disarm and dismantle bombs under the last Persian Gulf War.

I'm am and just confused as to why some countries are allowed to have them and others are not? That is why I dare say maybe I am nieve about the whole situation?

Also with the U.N. seemingly being devided into two, Germany, France and Russia not supporting the U.S. will this lead to another world war?

**shartley** · 03-06-2003, 08:20 AM

**cphilip** · 03-06-2003, 08:25 AM

Well I cetainly do not thinks so... And sure hope not. I cannot see that as an outcome. In many ways the world is at war as we speak. We were indeed attacked already.

I do think France, Germany and Russia have thier own interests that keep them from supporting it. I know they have the largest investment and are making good money off Iraq and would prefer that that continue. I do not think they have the worlds interest at heart.

I do know that no one but them has an interest in Iraq continuing to do what it does. And I do know the rest of the Gulf region has an interest in stabilazation from the fear of attack again. So do we.

If they had not shown a history of agression things would be different. But at some point its nessicary to back up words with action. Or risk losing all influence ever in preventing agression by countries upon each other.

**The Frymarker** · 03-06-2003, 08:27 AM

Thanks, I was just really wondering? I guess it was a Social Studies moment for me.

So you really don't feel this will lead to a World War? I am just wondering the reprocussions of what is going to happen if we do intiate war.

The news stated this morning that France, Russia, and Germany are worried that we will destroy Iraq and just pick up and leave?

Who takes over?

Really I sincerely appreciate you enlightning me.

**Collegeboy** · 03-06-2003, 08:33 AM

The US is the superpower, as the superpower it can through its wait around to make noise. Now why can't country A have a bomb that the US can have. It would threaten US's interest in that country, normally called security so the public will buy it. Now the US seeing that will use its veto in the UN could block anything that favors country A to the point where country A, has to give up their whatever for the threaten of starvation, medicine shortages, and countless other aide. The US is good at using its veto.

Now in regards to arms, as has been pointed out, Saddam signed the treaty, so he has to follow it.

**cphilip** · 03-06-2003, 08:35 AM

Heather you know I am totaly against the thing if we are not committed to helping them out after its over. That would be inhumain. I think the american people do not want that at all. I am as committed to doing that as I am to protection of the civilians where ever we can. I think the fear of those countries is unfounded and rhetoric. Where will they be in this? They rarely help much in the past with anything but moving in to reap profit from the spoils and misfortune of others. They did it in Iraq the first time! They want thier profits and want nothing of the dirty work. It should be remembered that France in particular did nothing until the very last minute in the Gulf war and then it was token only. And then proceeded to move in and try and make money off those people. And still do. Germany and Russia did little of it as well except stay out of the way too. This is not a whole lot different than last time realy. Except that now those three have more financialy at stake in post gulf war Iraq than they did before.

**cphilip** · 03-06-2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The US is the superpower, as the superpower it can through its wait around to make noise. Now why can't country A have a bomb that the US can have. It would threaten US's interest in that country, normally called security so the public will buy it. Now the US seeing that will use its veto in the UN could block anything that favors country A to the point where country A, has to give up their whatever for the threaten of starvation, medicine shortages, and countless other aide. The US is good at using its veto.

Now in regards to arms, as has been pointed out, Saddam signed the treaty, so he has to follow it.

I have no idea whatsoever what you even said but...

They attacked, lined up people and shot them and raped the women and pillaged an innocent neigbor. They tourched every oil well that country had while retreating. They then gassed thier own countrymen to prevent an uprising...

Gimme a break and deal with the fact that these are ruthless killers and they hate you and want to kill you.

**edweird** · 03-06-2003, 08:40 AM

Lets let the Military Munitions Expert chime in here

It all basicly comes down to the Geneva Conventions and other long standing treaties. The primary reason (other than oil) is that Iraq has had to sign disarmament and arms restrictions treaties as part of their cease fire agreement. As we all know they have been developing weapons systems that streach WAY beyond these treaties and shooting at collition forces patroling the No-Fly zones in north and south iraq as per the cease fire agreement.

Anyhow to get to why we are allowed this munition... Basicly according to the Geneva Conventions, international SALT 1,2 and other weapons related treaties certain types of munitions have been restricted and deemed a crime against humanity to use. Most of these weapons include Manportable Nuclear weapons, Blinding lasers, Nondetectable Fragment laced Munitions, Incendiary weapons vs personell, among many more rules.

The weapon you describe in that like is no diffrent than the standard GP High Explosive bomb other than in size. This munition is simply a new look at old technology, Made it larger for better use vs entrenched bunkers and gave it a GPS guidance section that will allow our C-130 crews to drop them from a far safer altitude.

As for their comment about being "similar to a small nuclear weapon." Conider that a interjection from an uninformed reporter. This munition when used in its intended role will be far from indescriminate and will pack ONE HELL OF A WALLOP!

Expect this weapon to be used vs isolated SCUD and SAM sites in all weather and at minimial risk of our aircrews. The notion that this weapon would be used against areas with a close civilian population is laughable at best and I hope that everyone will understand that.

**Collegeboy** · 03-06-2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by The Frymarker
Thanks, I was just really wondering? I guess it was a Social Studies moment for me.

So you really don't feel this will lead to a World War? I am just wondering the reprocussions of what is going to happen if we do intiate war.

The news stated this morning that France, Russia, and Germany are worried that we will destroy Iraq and just pick up and leave?

Who takes over?

Really I sincerely appreciate you enlightning me.

Very interesting question and I am glad that someone is thinking about this.

No matter what anyone tries to say, the US has a habit of dropping bombs and letting Canada clean it up (A generalized statement).

But I am afraid that in this instance they will stick around and try to establish a "democratic" government. Now the problem is how do you think the Iraqi people and the people like Bin laden, haven't heard his name on the news in a while, will feel like when this happens.

Iraq will turn into a terrorist breeding ground. Anything that the new government does, the terrorist will say look they are following and are a puppet of the US. They are not looking out for your rights, just the US's. How long do you think the people will listen to this? Not long. There will be mass uprisings which will over throw the government. Now who do you think will be "elected" the new rulers. That is right a pro terrorist government.

Which in the end will make those US soldiers deaths in vain, for they died for nothing but to create more hostility in the world.

**The Frymarker** · 03-06-2003, 08:41 AM

So will we take over that country? Will Iraq be essentially owned by the US? Or will they just find another Sadam to take over?

**edweird** · 03-06-2003, 08:45 AM

Ok to clear up another thing... this munition is HARDLY anything close to a Nuclear weapon, and will not spark any international controversy/war on its own. (well unless its dropped on a civilian population whitch MARK MY WORDS it will not)

**Collegeboy** · 03-06-2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by cphilip

I have no idea whatsoever what you even said but...

They attacked, lined up people and shot them and raped the women and pillaged an innocent neigbor. They tourched every oil well that country had while retreating. They then gassed thier own countrymen to prevent an uprising...

Gimme a break and deal with the fact that these are ruthless killers and they hate you and want to kill you.

The first one is not to Iraq, but to answer heathers question of why can the US have something while the other countries can't.

**shartley** · 03-06-2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The US is the superpower, as the superpower it can through its wait around to make noise. Now why can't country A have a bomb that the US can have. It would threaten US's interest in that country, normally called security so the public will buy it. Now the US seeing that will use its veto in the UN could block anything that favors country A to the point where country A, has to give up their whatever for the threaten of starvation, medicine shortages, and countless other aide. The US is good at using its veto.

Now in regards to arms, as has been pointed out, Saddam signed the treaty, so he has to follow it.

Very Interesting

Very Interesting

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment