Womd

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


It is not off in the deep end. Since the dawn of time, terrorism has always existed. Warfare is a term that is used to describe how one side defends or attacks or uses force against another side. In a war your side chooses the best warfare that they can with their available resources. Russia in WWII, had main power so they could afford to take the brunt of the German Army, and to use mass troops and mass battles as victories. The US could not afford it, that is why they chose to allow Russia to take Berlin (along with the rivers in the way and all sort of stuff). Terrorism is simply just another choice a side can take in a battle, if it is the best option you have.

Oh god! Please don't get us into the Russia versus US effort in WWII debate again! Everyone cease and desist. It is covered territory!!!!!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-


They aren't urban myths and legends; I've even seen reports on the news.

When.....where....

That was a joke about the nukes, hence the .

I know. Hence the . It just wasn't too funny!

[-Carnifex-]

I honestly can't recall. I totaly agree with your points though.

Yeah, bad jokes are my strong point.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Terrorism is a valid form of warfare, that is a FACT. Please study up on this before even trying to debate this with me.

Uhm, no it is not. That is why terrorists are prosecuted as CRIMINALS. They are not afforded the protections offered to POWs. The UN and Geneva convention do not recognize terrorism as a valid form of warfare! If your precious UN does not accept it, why should we?

They are treated like dogs. Turn off your blinders and take a look at how they are treated, just for being a Palestinian.

This is your opinion! It is not a fact! This is your view of it. Two sides remember buddy!

Tear Gas can become deadly, a nerve agent can become deadly (in fact it killed like 4 people if I am not mistaking).

Drinking too much water can be fatal! Those are not intended to be fatal. If you can't see the difference between intent and practice, then there is no point debating you. Oh and in the russian terrorist operation almost 100 died from the gas. Again it was unintentional, but it was a risk they took.

DU is very deadly.

Only when they are shooting it at you! Or do you think our government exposes all of our M-1 Tank crews to radiation ?

Explain to me how the Israelis can say they are not deliberately targeting civilians if they drop a bomb on an apartment building,

This never happened! This is a lie you have repeated over and over again! They dropped a bomb on a terrorist target that surrounded himself with civilians!

if the open machine gun fire into a crowd. If they shoot missiles into apartment buildings. If they mow down apartments with their tanks.

If the terrorists would just go and hide in the mountains like the Al Queda. the innocents would not be injured. The Israelis do not TARGET civilians. THe Palestinians DO!

If they are forcing innocent Palestinians to leave in a camp that cockroaches would hate to live, and forcing them to go through in humane checkpoints just to go to work.

Again because the terrorists are hiding in their midst! The Israelis have to be very cautious. After all, you don't see Israeli's sneaking into the west bank blowing up buses full of Palestinian women and children do you!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


It is not off in the deep end. Since the dawn of time, terrorism has always existed. Warfare is a term that is used to describe how one side defends or attacks or uses force against another side. Terrorism is simply just another choice a side can take in a battle, if it is the best option you have.

Then why are terrorists not afforded the protection of the Geneva convention?

It is because they are criminals!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Yeah, bad jokes are my strong point.

Mine too!

[Collegeboy]

So a Palestinian only explodes himself by a male over the age of 18 who has hid himself inside a group of innocents. I mean using your logic; you would have to agree to that.

The Israelis do target civilians if you think the Palestinians target civilians.

No but I see them flying their million dollar airplanes dropping 100,000 dollar bombs on top of apartment complexes to kill one terrorist guy, and forgetting the 200 or so others in the building (of which I think 12 died). I see them shooting their 100,000 dollar missiles into apartment complexes to get one guy and forgetting the others that live there. Look at the number of innocent Palestinians killed compared to the number of Israelis killed, the Palestinians far out weigh the Israelis.

Why does the UN not recognize it, for it is controlled by western style huge armies whose major down fall is to go against a terrorist force. The first thing you do when you go into a battle is to degrade the enemy in the eyes of your public.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
So a Palestinian only explodes himself by a male over the age of 18 who has hid himself inside a group of innocents. I mean using your logic; you would have to agree to that.

If he were attacking a military installation maybe, not a bus or a night club or a Sbarro's.

The Israelis do target civilians if you think the Palestinians target civilians.

Again, how many Israeli's are blowing themselves up in crowded Palestinian areas? That's right NONE!!

No but I see them flying their million dollar airplanes dropping 100,000 dollar bombs on top of apartment complexes to kill one terrorist guy, and forgetting the 200 or so others in the building (of which I think 12 died). I see them shooting their 100,000 dollar missiles into apartment complexes to get one guy and forgetting the others that live there. Look at the number of innocent Palestinians killed compared to the number of Israelis killed, the Palestinians far out weigh the Israelis.

That is because the terrorists are hiding amoungst the Palestinians! The Israelis can only strike them in those confines. The Israeli's did not choose this battlefield, the Palestinians did. The Israelis are forcing them to lay in the bed they made for themselves though!

Why does the UN not recognize it, for it is controlled by western style huge armies whose major down fall is to go against a terrorist force. The first thing you do when you go into a battle is to degrade the enemy in the eyes of your public.

WTF??

You are kidding right?

The general assembly is controlled by the third world US haters!

Terrorism has always been a crime! It is a crime because it target's CIVILIANS YOU TOOL! When they target military targets as in Iraq now, they are called Guerilla Fighters, not terrorists. Do you understand the difference?

Oh by the way asshat, nice job justifying terrorism in your post. I guess your next one will justify 9/11 as a legitimate attack by an enemy force, eh?

ALSO, Where TF does the bible tell the Israelis to kill all palestinians? Also the Israeli's call it the torah, not the bible.

You are making more and more of an assclown out of yourself!

[Army]

Any refference to Depleted Uranium munitions is moot. There is no longer ANY dangerous amount of radioactivity left in the metal....why do you think they call it DEPLETED?

Before you say it, and sound really stupid doing so...I work with DU munitions on a monthly basis. REM readings at the end of the day, are usually LOWER than when I started in the morning.

Uranium Hexaflouride (DU) is 60+% LESS radioactive than natural Uranium...which also isn't very dangerous at all. U238 is created when U234 and U235 are seperated from natural Uranium. DU is the leftovers from the process. DU is NOT fissionable, but very heavy for it's relative density, that's why it makes a perfect kinetic energy projectile. Because it is much less "hot" than mined Uranium ore, it does not reach even the most liberal interpretation of the radiation guidlines of the UN.

Tear gas (HS or HC)also does not meet any level of UN criteria as a weapon. We don't use it because both of those are too persistant, meaning it sticks around too long to be useful. If we gas an area, we can't move into it until the crystals and oils dissipate, which can take wayyyy too long.

Palestine has never existed as a state or country. Israel has always been a country. But until 1947-48, a recognised border was never established. Israel builds and designs it's own munitions and weapon systems, and very good ones at that, but some items are cheaper to buy than make, ie; F16's. Israel has been attacked many times by its neighbors, and has succesfully repelled all invaders. The land it has aqquired from these battles is legally theirs by international recognition of warfare. It's the same reason we own Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Marshall Islands, etc..

9/11 was the result of evil people hating for a cause. The US just happens to be that cause. Evil people should be aware that we do not take kindly to getting kicked in the head, and we will set out to destroy those evil people so that the rest of the world won't have to....including France. That destruction has begun, and will not end until all the bad people have been killed. We haven't stopped with Iraq, only ended that place of being bad. We will now show it how to be good, like we did in Germany, Japan, Soviet Union, Italy.......and France:)

[SyntaxError]

Re: Womd

Originally posted by ERut
Just curious... 1) Why do people think that Bush intentionally lied about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? 2) And if he did, don't you think he'd be smart enough to plant some WOMD to justify the war?

Obviously the only reason for this is because the UN morons wouldn't approve a war to kill the absolute center of the area where most of the terrorists are operating. Look at the middle east, Iraq is central, once America has a hand in it the other countries follow.

[Collegeboy]

If these DU weapons are so harmless, then why the growing amounts of a posining of the body to the people who it is fired near but never hit. Why the growing signs of esposure to nuclear materials to those around it. The military might due all it can to convince the world that these weapons are harmless and safe (well as safe as a weapon can be), but the facts speak against it.

Palestine was a country, it was called Palestine when the British ran it, it was called Palestine before that.

The difference between the US acquisition of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippians (and Florida for that matter), is that they gained the land through a foreign country giving to them in a treaty. That is not the same with Israel and their expansion outside of their boarders. The occupied the land after a war and have yet to move from that, that is clearly against UN resolutions.

If you are out to kill those responsible for 911, when are you going to start? If you are out to kill those who are evil in this world, what definition are you going to use for evil. What is evil, and why not take out N. Korea (that is right, because you can not)

The lighthouse beacon to the world did not work in Vietnam and it will not work here. Iraq is far different from Germany, far different from Japan, etc... You are setting yourself up for failure, yet can not realize it. I just hope people realize this before to many innocent 18 year olds die.

SE, why is Iraq the center of terrorism? Talk about falling for propaganda.

1DE. What is it about terrorism that makes you think it is not a standard matter of warfare?

How many Palestinians fly jets and drop bombs on the houses of Israeli children. NONE

How many Palestinians shoot missiles into the homes of innocent Israelis.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
So you are saying that it is ok to use the deaths of 2,000 people on 9/11, to justify the invasion of another country. I mean if it is true that you are doing it to prevent future 9/11's (doubtful), why Iraq?

Because it was a supporter of terrorism under Saddam Hussein, violated a cease fire, and had weapons that must not fall into the hands of Terrorists.

{b]Why not N. Korea (the only country proven to pose a threat to us (yet we gave into their demands))[/b]

Percisely because they can log a nuke into Japan (thanx CLinton). And we have not caved it one bit to North Korea since Clinton left office. They insisted on unilateral talks and we refused. North Korea is on the list, but because we did not proactivly neutralize their threat prior to them acquiring nuclear arms we have to show a degree of pause that we normally wouldn't have to. If we were to attack they would almost certainly not launch on us (we're pretty far away, and their rockets basically suck) but they could hit Japan, an ally that we do not want to get nuked (again I should add).

why not China

In my wildest dreams do we do something about China.

why not Saudi Arabia (I mean the majority of the 9/11 people were Saudis)

Because they are basically the only Oil producing nation that has the quantity of reserves that we need to remain functional. Do to our inability to acquire domestic oil production (thanx envirnmentalists) we require their assistance. It frankly has been deemed that the threat they pose is not significant enough to jeopardize our energy requirements. I don't like it, but it's the way it is, for now.

why not Israel (For if they don't stop they will cause an end to this world in the coming centuries, if that long)?

Um, huh? Oh yeah, a couple million people under constant attack by barbarians are causing the problem. Not the folks that keep attacking them. Israel, for better or worse, is a democratically elected and governed nation and as such is our ally. They share our pricipals and we will stand by them. We may occasionally differ of opinion (Bush has rebuked Sharon quite often) but we remain allies.

So why Iraq, the country that posed no threat to us, had no delivery system, no WOMD, nothing that could be considered to even pose a threat to the US.

Just like North Korea wasn't a threat until we let them become one. I find it so ironic that people complain that we don't do anything to stop North Korea now, but still fail to see the value in preventing similiar minded states to become exactly the same problem North Korea is.

Yet you are using the deaths of the people on 9/11 to justify yours and others blood lust. Thank you for trivializing and ruining the deaths of over 2,000 innocent citizens.

Trvializing? CB, it's called learning from history. 9/11 was one of our nation's most terrible tragedies and one of our nation's most important lesson teachers. We must never be caught unprepared again. The cost is too high. I would rather be a war mongerer that doesn't have to bury thousands of innocents that live 15 miles from my home then a "morally superior" anti war zealot that has to live through that nightmare again and again because I projected weakness.


If you really are worried about stopping another 9/11, push for alternative fuel sources, push for a stronger US/Russia alliance (for if Russia starts to sell oil in Euros instead of dollars, watch our dollar hit rock bottom,

I do. I would like to see Russia and America move closer. Now if only Russia would stop selling nuclear technology to problem states and would stop selling weapons and military equipment (like the jammming and night vision gear it sold to Iraq). Russia has a part to play in easiing of the relationship as well. Which frankly, the signal on Kyoto is a big step in the right direction.

push for the ending of the US support of Israel

Yes CB. Once we stop supporting Israel the Arab world will love us, as it is rightly so. Keep dreaming. So long as we are the United States the fundamentalists, and those they educate, will hate us. Supporting Israel isn't the reason for their hatred of us, although it's s nice fairy tale.

and a peace between the two

Every day I wish for that, and every day some psycho with a bomb strapped to his chest makes that dream less and less a reality.

push for a separation of the treaty that Russia and China has for each other (if one is attacked by another country the other will come to their aid).

That treaty is relic from yester-year, and frankly I doubt we will ever see it used. It's not impossible, but I doubt Russia would honor it. Especially since if ther ever really is a war concerning China chances are it was because China was the aggressor against Taiwan (which I think is very unlikely to happen)

All are these are helpful in preventing another 9/11. Attacking a foreign country that poses no threat to you only increases the chances for another 9/11 to take place.

The first 9/11 already took place, so I think the chances are already pretty good. The people that want to destroy us are already attempting to do so. I don't think there's any way to make them hate us more. They're already maxed out.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
Lets discuss this rationally. You guys always say the same thing which is "you are putting your head in the sand". Can it not be true that there is a middle ground here and both sides are sticking their heads in the sand?

No, it cannot. For I have already stipulated that A) Saddam did not have a major (if any role) in 9/11, B) that the terrorist in question did also operate in North Eastern Iraq, and C) that the current brand of terrorists in Iraq are most likely not connected in any but the most indirect way with Saddam. The other side has contended that despite the capture of several terrorists in Baghdad, prior to the pouring in of foreign terrorists, that there was no terrorists prescence in Iraq, zero connection to Saddam, and despite ample evidence of illegal weapons programs that there never was any kind of WMD anywhere. I stipulate that no physical weapons have been found to date but clarify by stating that we have searched about 5% of the known depots and it is too soon to be sure what is in the 95% we haven't searched. The other side contends that there is no way that 95% could have WMD and that it was all a lie.

Who is failing to see middle ground? It certainly isn't me.

His points are that your four links are a bunch of BS propaganda to gather support for the war and I have to say that he is right.

Then I'm dissappointed in you, you're usually the one ray of thoughtfull sunshine in an otherwise bleak lefty universe.

Your own link talks about how Rice did not want to "push the 9/11 link too far".

Stipulated. Saddam did not have a direct role in 9/11

Just accept the fact that the terrorist link to Saddam is bogus.

Do you mean to tell me that the standard for associating with terrorists now is planning the 9.11 attacks? That all other terrorists don't count?

There is no doubt that he was a bad man and evil man. There is no doubt that the Iraqi people are BETTER without him. Where we disagree is if he was a threat to the citizens of the U.S. That war was not about the U.S. "War on Terror".

He most certainly was a threat to the world and the war was about terror. Now it is you that cannot accept what is. He was a dangereous madman who had violated a cease fire, resolutions, had contacts to groups that want to destroy our country and way of life, and the means to assist them. I for one do not want to wait until he's actually arranged a strike before we do something about him.


That being said it does NOT mean that the war in Iraq was wrong. It depends on your beliefs. If you believe that Saddam had to be ousted for middle east stability and peace which would serve the long range interests of the U.S. then it was a bold move that may pay off big time. I don't necessarily agree but it may happen. Just don't give me the line of Saddam representing an imminent threat to the American people.....

For the record, nobody EVER gave the line that Saddam threatened imminent threat. Bush never once said it. In fact, in his state of the union he said that we must not wait until it is imminent, because then it's too late.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by paintballguy429
Over a decade ago, even before the Gulf War

So what? So what? I Don't care that he hasn't used them in a decade. I car that he used them. Hell, up until the first time he used them he had never employed them before. Why take the risk with a madman equipped with such weapons?

The difference between the Israelis and the terrorists is that we give the Israelis millions of dollars to conduct their thuggish raids in which they have absolutely no regard for life-innocent or guilty. Not to mention that Sharon has a history of war crimes.

We also give the Palestinians money as well. And the Israelis have a prfound respect for human life. The problem is the terrorists force them into a corner. IF they don't act innoncent Israelis will die. IF they do act innocent Palestinians may die. Maybe if ther terrorists would knock it off nobody will have to die.

And before you start. During the initial phase of the roadmap to peace Sharon didn't retaliate against a number of suicide bombings in a row, and still the violence continued. The Israelis ceasing their fire had no effect on the violence, it still continued even though Israel did not retaliate. It was only after the attacks kept growing in scale did Sharon begin to retaliate again.

And Sharon's bigget problem was that he was the one that started the settlements in the first place and is being very stubborn about removing them. For this reason Sharon may not be the ideal candidate to iniate peace in the region, as he simply refuses to understand what the problem with the settlements is.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
COULD use them on the U.S. is different than WAS going to use them or had intent to use them. There are plenty of people who COULD use them on us. Also the feared WMD have not been found yet.

I still beleive they will be. They might not, but we have a long way to go before being able to be certain about anything. And I'm not going to wait until they are USED before we do something about them. Why must some people have to be attacked (again) to think it's worthwhile to disarm these kinds of people?

Now lets not forget why countries do not use WMD on us. They fear an armed response and being toppled from power. Who better than Saddam knew the power of the U.S. (having experienced it in the first Gulf War when he broke down into tears because he thought the U.S. was going to going to oust him after destroying his army). As I said in my post above argue that it was good foriegn diplomacy because it will "stabilize the middle east" etc. It may even be true I will admit I cannot see all of the ramifications (none of us can). Do not, however, try to sell it as needed for the immediate defense of the American people. Any fool can see that was not the case.

Exactly. People don't use WMD against us because they fear we'll retaliate against their country and level it.

Which is why we have to terrified of terrorists, that don't have country to take away, using those kinds of weapons against us. They are exactly the kinds of people that are immune to the mutually assured destruction scenarion, because they A) have nothing to be destroyed and B) wouldn't care if they did,