Originally posted by methane47 What do you think the U.N. would find if they did an inspection of the USA?
you think america would hide some of their technology/weapons?
Not the greatest argument considering the USA hasnt invaded its niehbors, Canada or Mexico. Iraq after the gulf war had to submit to UN inspectors but defied it for years. Only when faced with total anialation by the USA did they allow inspectors back in.
It was basically like telling a child not to do something over and over and over. Once you got the belt out....the child is a little more cooperative. But by then it was too much too late. Does the USA have super secret technology? yes. Is some of it possibly illegal? probably. Other countries do as well but none of them are under UN sanctions either.
Originally posted by methane47 What do you think the U.N. would find if they did an inspection of the USA?
you think america would hide some of their technology/weapons?
Not the greatest argument considering the USA hasnt invaded its niehbors, Canada or Mexico. Iraq after the gulf war had to submit to UN inspectors but defied it for years. Only when faced with total anialation by the USA did they allow inspectors back in. It was basically like telling a child not to do something over and over and over. Once you got the belt out....the child is a little more cooperative. But by then it was too much too late. Does the USA have super secret technology? yes. Is some of it possibly illegal? probably. Other countries do as well but none of them are under UN sanctions either.
Not according to the U.N. it didn't.
Who went on to find nothing. (Easy to say with the benefit of hind sight, but true nonetheless).
Originally posted by baff Should they wear bulletproof jackets in case the insurgents have guns? Of course our troops should wear gasmasks if the enemy is using Sarin gas on them. Are you seriously suggesting they shouldn't? . The questions here is not whether or not our troops should wear their protective clothing, it's why aren't they? So either the Pentagon wants it's troops to die, they don't have any protective clothing, or they don't believe there is any threat. Which is it? You choose.
Rofl, are you serious? They aren't going to run around in bio/chem equipment while on patrol because a sarin aritllery shell was accidently found (most likely) by insurgents. It would take some kind of reasonable suspicion that they were presently going to come under an immediate bio/chem attack. Note the first Gulf war, where it's not disputed that Saddam had wmd munitions. However, the troops did not run around 24/7 wearing the protective gear. It's way too impractical.
Originally posted by jdun1 Originally posted by Nihilanth Originally posted by jdun1 Tell me how rich are you? Can't be that rich when you are tax over 50% of your work. Are you even working or living in welfare?
What do you call success? Does success means that their entire population can’t even get decent general goods? Does success means that everyone is poor and a drunk? Does success means that their ideology is no more?
Do you have any idea how stupid that statement was? Are you trying to suggest that everyone in the U.K. and other European countries is a poor drunk person who can't afford to buy the weekly groceries? Because that sure as hell is what it sounds like you're trying to say.
My guess is that you've never even been to Europe. You really should go some time. I think you'd be completely amazed at how happy and technologically advanced those "poor drunks" over in Europe actually are.
Saying that socialist practices don't work and leave people in perpetual poverty is completely stupid and uninformed.
You’re close. They can buy food and a few luxury goods but that’s about it. Yes they are dunks, they riot, they burn cars, or on strike. One in ten is without a job. Three in ten under thirty is without a job. What those young kids do in their free time? Drink, burn cars, riot, and breaking the law. Haha. You haven't been over here have you? Probably not outside the USA either. You gotta love totally uninformed and ignorant people. Funny that the country I live in is ranked as the best country to live in eh? And that European countries top the top 10 list over the best countries to live in?
Originally posted by jdun1 Originally posted by Phoenixs Many "UN haters" seem to forget why the UN was created in the first place. It was created to prevent the worst massacre and slaughtering in human history from happening again. There is no political institution in the world today that is more important. A control organ upon all nations by all nations. It can probably be organized better, done in another way, but it should never be removed.
"To prevent the worst massacre and slaughtering in human history from happening again".
That's a joke right? Do you want me to post a list of all the genocide that has happen on the UN watch and still happening? They have not stopped genocide from happening. They have in fact prolonged wars. They have inadvertently help started wars. They have helped tyrants stay in power. They have stop democracy from taking roots in nations. They pocked money that was supposed to go to the needy. They are a corrupt. They did nothing to help humanity.
So you mean that WW2 wasn't the worst massacre in human history? There hasn't been anything comparable to it since 1945.
Did you read my other post? I have said that UN isn't perfect and that it highly depends on it's members, specially the big ones like USA.
Yes there are genocides happening today. Many wich the western world doesn't care about. When we don't care the UN can't do anything either.
The UN is no active military power. They can't go in and stop wars. They are mostly a peace keeping force.
We have helped to start wars. We have helped tyrants stay in power. We have stopped democracy from taking roots in nations. And so on.
The UN is us. The UN is like the name says, United Nations. What the UN does is based on the decisions of the countries, specially the ones in the security council. If the UN "ignores" a conflict it's because it's members ignore the conflict. A example: "Failure to prevent the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which resulted in the killings of nearly a million people, due to the refusal of the security council members to approve any necessary military action"
Like I asked in my previous post, what is the alternative to the UN? USA? HAHAHAHA
Originally posted by lardmouth Rofl, are you serious? They aren't going to run around in bio/chem equipment while on patrol because a sarin aritllery shell was accidently found (most likely) by insurgents. It would take some kind o. Note the first Gulf war, where it's not disputed that Saddam had wmd munitions. However, the troops did not run around 24/7 wearing the protective gear. It's way too impractical.
So now you are trying to tell me there is no reasonable suspicion that they were presently going to come under an immediate bio/chem attack.
Which is it?
They either have them or they don't?
In the first Gulf war they carried their chemsuits on them at all times.
Originally posted by Phoenixs So you mean that WW2 wasn't the worst massacre in human history? There hasn't been anything comparable to it since 1945.
Did you read my other post? I have said that UN isn't perfect and that it highly depends on it's members, specially the big ones like USA.
Yes there are genocides happening today. Many wich the western world doesn't care about. When we don't care the UN can't do anything either.
The UN is no active military power. They can't go in and stop wars. They are mostly a peace keeping force.
We have helped to start wars. We have helped tyrants stay in power. We have stopped democracy from taking roots in nations. And so on.
The UN is us. The UN is like the name says, United Nations. What the UN does is based on the decisions of the countries, specially the ones in the security council. If the UN "ignores" a conflict it's because it's members ignore the conflict. A example: "Failure to prevent the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which resulted in the killings of nearly a million people, due to the refusal of the security council members to approve any necessary military action"
Like I asked in my previous post, what is the alternative to the UN? USA? HAHAHAHA
The U.N. isn't a military power at all, it's a diplomatic institution. It has no troops, peace keeping or otherwise.
There have been plenty of genocides on par with those in WW2 since. Rwanda and Ethiopia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia (as usual).
Tyrant does not = evil person. There are plenty of benevolent Tyrants, both currently (Jerry Rawlings in Ghana) and throughout history. Tyranny is a form of government not the rule of the devil over innocent people. Democracy may be well suited to our own countries, but there are as many forms of government as their are ways of life. When you hear the words "democracy" try not to stroke your own penis but instead realise that it loosely referes to a system of government and nothing more. Hitler was democraticly elected.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by lardmouth Rofl, are you serious? They aren't going to run around in bio/chem equipment while on patrol because a sarin aritllery shell was accidently found (most likely) by insurgents. It would take some kind o. Note the first Gulf war, where it's not disputed that Saddam had wmd munitions. However, the troops did not run around 24/7 wearing the protective gear. It's way too impractical.
So now you are trying to tell me there is no reasonable suspicion that they were presently going to come under an immediate bio/chem attack.
Are you purposefully trolling? When have I ever said the soldiers are under an immediate threat? Did you even read my response? "They aren't going to run around in bio/chem equipment while on patrol because a sarin artillery was accidently found (most likely) by insurgents." Meaning, it's doubtful they (the insurgents who found the shell) even knew what they had. Or, that they had found other rounds to use. Alot of these munitions have been found buried/hid amongst conventional munitions. More than likely it was the case with the Sarin round.
Which is it?
Lol, I love the "gotcha" implied here. Try reading and not interjecting more than I've said. The question is already answered by my other posts.
They either have them or they don't?
What? Who?
In the first Gulf war they carried their chemsuits on them at all times.
And they did this time around too, till they toppled the regime. I'm not sure how much longer after that. But, I remember the many interviews demonstrating the injector stick and suit. What's your point?
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by Phoenixs So you mean that WW2 wasn't the worst massacre in human history? There hasn't been anything comparable to it since 1945.
Did you read my other post? I have said that UN isn't perfect and that it highly depends on it's members, specially the big ones like USA.
Yes there are genocides happening today. Many wich the western world doesn't care about. When we don't care the UN can't do anything either.
The UN is no active military power. They can't go in and stop wars. They are mostly a peace keeping force.
We have helped to start wars. We have helped tyrants stay in power. We have stopped democracy from taking roots in nations. And so on.
The UN is us. The UN is like the name says, United Nations. What the UN does is based on the decisions of the countries, specially the ones in the security council. If the UN "ignores" a conflict it's because it's members ignore the conflict. A example: "Failure to prevent the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which resulted in the killings of nearly a million people, due to the refusal of the security council members to approve any necessary military action"
Like I asked in my previous post, what is the alternative to the UN? USA? HAHAHAHA
The U.N. isn't a military power at all, it's a diplomatic institution. It has no troops, peace keeping or otherwise.
There have been plenty of genocides on par with those in WW2 since. Rwanda and Ethiopia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia (as usual).
Tyrant does not = evil person. There are plenty of benevolent Tyrants, both currently (Jerry Rawlings in Ghana) and throughout history. Tyranny is a form of government not the rule of the devil over innocent people. Democracy may be well suited to our own countries, but there are as many forms of government as their are ways of life. When you hear the words "democracy" try not to stroke your own penis but instead realise that it loosely referes to a system of government and nothing more. Hitler was democraticly elected.
Aren't you kinda saying what I said all over again? I find you post abit weird.
Yes, the UN is not a military power. It uses the military power of it's member nations as peace keeping forces. But when it does these forces will be under the UN flag. It's a diplomatic power like you said. A very important one. Wich shouldn't be removed.
Yes, there have been more than enough wars and genocides since 1945. If you count everything over 50 million people have died in the period between 1945 and 2000. But the UN is not a independent organisation that can act like it feels fit. It is a diplomatic power that is controlled by all nations. So the ability of the UN to act depends on it's member nations. That these wars and genocides have happened is because the member nations didn't act. So when a person wants to abolish the UN because they are incompetent, he is infact blaming his and other countries. Specially the big nations like USA in the security council.
Again I find you post weird. Are you blaming me for the Tyrant = evil person? Reads to me like you are accusing me to be an american all high on democracy, wich I'm not, at all. Or where you following up on my post? If that is the case, I'm sorry that I got you wrong.
In the first Gulf war they carried their chemsuits on them at all times. And they did this time around too, till they toppled the regime. I'm not sure how much longer after that. But, I remember the many interviews demonstrating the injector stick and suit. What's your point?
The point is simple, if the military thought there were any WMD in Iraq, the troops would be issued with chem suits. They aren't.
You say there are, but the military clearly don't agree.
By it's very nature a WMD must be a weapon of mass destruction. Trace elements of chemicals not capable of mass destruction or an old empty chemical warhead shell, is not a weapon of mass destruction. It's an old empty chemical warhead.
A WMD goes off next to some soldiers but no one is hurt. You are really clutching at straws here. Isn't that called a Weapon of No Destruction? Where is the ten thousand dead? The devastated city?
Your news story is either total sensationalism or just propaganda. You must really desperately want this to be true in order to believe it.
@ Phoeniks 99% agreeing with you/ranting the same rant. Just clarifying some points that intrest me.
If I had to take issue with anything it would be the parts about the U.N. not acting.
The U.N. acted in a number of those genocides (though not in all). But U.N. action is just a diplomatic go ahead for people who wish to take military action to do so. It can pass a ruling saying no one minds if you invade, but that's all it can do. It's a talking shop nothing more.
A place were many nations can get together and find out if they can go to war without starting WW3.
For example, I want to invade Iran. But if Iran signs a mutual defence pact with Russia or China or India or France or Israel the U.S., that would be war that would likely result in the total destruction of my nation (and theirs). Since all the representatives of those countries are sitting in the same room, I can find out whether or not they will join in all at the same time. So can Iran.
This is the purpose of the U.N. It's a diplomatic institution that enables governments to communicate with each other faster. It doesn't in itself hold any power or ability to act.
On the subject of your nationalty and Democracy, I like everyone from all countries I like you if you are an American, I like you if you are not. I do see that word "Democracy" has become a propaganda word. It's an Americanism and one that I find distasteful.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by lardmouth
In the first Gulf war they carried their chemsuits on them at all times. And they did this time around too, till they toppled the regime. I'm not sure how much longer after that. But, I remember the many interviews demonstrating the injector stick and suit. What's your point?
The point is simple, if the military thought there were any WMD in Iraq, the troops would be issued with chem suits. They aren't.
You say there are, but the military clearly don't agree.
By it's very nature a WMD must be a weapon of mass destruction. Trace elements of chemicals not capable of mass destruction or an old empty chemical warhead shell, is not a weapon of mass destruction. It's an old empty chemical warhead.
A WMD goes off next to some soldiers but no one is hurt. You are really clutching at straws here. Isn't that called a Weapon of No Destruction? Where is the ten thousand dead? The devastated city?
Your news story is either total sensationalism or just propaganda. You must really desperately want this to be true in order to believe it.
Have you even read my posts? What sensationalism? My responses in this very topic, have stated the the shells were not evidence of ongoing production...................................The only thing I've speculated that these finds could indicate, is that Saddam had failed to destroy all muntitions, as required. It all goes back to his "unilateral destruction" of his programs and wmds. Which, then caused the UN to have a hell of a time verifying what had been destroyed or not. The UN's last report still notes wmd stockpiles that it can't account for. Smuggled, buried, lost, actually destroyed? I have no idea. Neither do they do. What I've haven't done is attempt to use the old munitions as proof of onging production after the gulf war. Please, before you continue to respond to me, read what I've wrote.....
Originally posted by baff @ Phoeniks 99% agreeing with you/ranting the same rant. Just clarifying some points that intrest me. If I had to take issue with anything it would be the parts about the U.N. not acting. The U.N. acted in a number of those genocides (though not in all). But U.N. action is just a diplomatic go ahead for people who wish to take military action to do so. It can pass a ruling saying no one minds if you invade, but that's all it can do. It's a talking shop nothing more. A place were many nations can get together and find out if they can go to war without starting WW3. For example, I want to invade Iran. But if Iran signs a mutual defence pact with Russia or China or India or France or Israel the U.S., that would be war that would likely result in the total destruction of my nation (and theirs). Since all the representatives of those countries are sitting in the same room, I can find out whether or not they will join in all at the same time. So can Iran. This is the purpose of the U.N. It's a diplomatic institution that enables governments to communicate with each other faster. It doesn't in itself hold any power or ability to act. On the subject of your nationalty and Democracy, I like everyone from all countries I like you if you are an American, I like you if you are not. I do see that word "Democracy" has become a propaganda word. It's an Americanism and one that I find distasteful.
/agree Thanks for clearing that up, and sorry for being "harsh" against you.
Have you even read my posts? What sensationalism? My responses in this very topic, have stated the the shells were not evidence of ongoing production...................................The only thing I've speculated that these finds could indicate, is that Saddam had failed to destroy all muntitions, as required. It all goes back to his "unilateral destruction" of his programs and wmds. Which, then caused the UN to have a hell of a time verifying what had been destroyed or not. The UN's last report still notes wmd stockpiles that it can't account for. Smuggled, buried, lost, actually destroyed? I have no idea. Neither do they do. What I've haven't done is attempt to use the old munitions as proof of onging production after the gulf war. Please, before you continue to respond to me, read what I've wrote.....
Speculate away, there isn't any evidence. Or rather there is an extremely large amount of evidence to the contrary. Reams and reams and reams of it.
And with the benefit of hindisght, we know Saddam was in compliance, just as the inspectors suspected all along but couldn't 100% definitively prove (to a load of warmongers who didn't want it proven because they wanted an electable excuse to invade). Since then all we've had is a load of very powerful people trying to lie their way out of being caught lying. Tough. They lied, they got caught. The end. More lies doesn't help their position at all.
OK, here we go to the brainwashed liberial idiots.
1. Saddam himself thought he had WMD. He didn't let the inspectors do their job because of this. This led us, and many other countries, to beleive he had weapons. We do know he broke UN sanctions (good job of the UN holding them to those). We do know he was looking to stockpile materials.
2. Lying, I want you to prove the Bush intentiolaly lied to the public. I know you can't, because he didn't. Now I can point to another time someone lied, but we won't go there. "I will tell you once more time, I did not point to a president who lied to the nation and obstructed justice."
3. You lost the election, now quit crying and look at facts instead of your, "I hate Bush." You are children.
Anyone who is unaware that Foxnews is one of the most reknowned, right-wing biased news organizations out there has either been living in a closet the laste decade, or is completely ignorant. What other 'news' organization constantly puts words into people's mouths who disagree with them, as well as attacking guests on their show¿ Oh, Crossfire, with Bill O'reilly...see also loudmouthed-ignorant jackass.
You always have to take everything Foxnews says with a grain of salt. They have an agenda, and they make it know. Constanly.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
Anyone who is unaware that Foxnews is one of the most reknowned, right-wing biased news organizations out there has either been living in a closet the laste decade, or is completely ignorant. What other 'news' organization constantly puts words into people's mouths who disagree with them, as well as attacking guests on their show¿ Oh, Crossfire, with Bill O'reilly...see also loudmouthed-ignorant jackass.
You always have to take everything Foxnews says with a grain of salt. They have an agenda, and they make it know. Constanly.
This is the mind-numbing crap coming out of the liberial cult. Fox news seems right because it is the only news that tries to be in the center. Bill, if you actually listened to him and not repeat what your superiors say, picks on anyone he seems as doing wrong (whcih has been right and left people).
As for more biased news...New York Times might be looking at legal issues that accuse them of treason
Fox news tries to be in the center? Wow, that is the worst case of beer goggles I've ever heard of. I admit there are alot of news organizations that tend to lean in one direction or another but to completely fool yourself that Foxnews is unbiased and impartial is out of this world delusional.
Originally posted by lardmouth Have you even read my posts? What sensationalism? My responses in this very topic, have stated the the shells were not evidence of ongoing production...................................The only thing I've speculated that these finds could indicate, is that Saddam had failed to destroy all muntitions, as required. It all goes back to his "unilateral destruction" of his programs and wmds. Which, then caused the UN to have a hell of a time verifying what had been destroyed or not. The UN's last report still notes wmd stockpiles that it can't account for. Smuggled, buried, lost, actually destroyed? I have no idea. Neither do they do. What I've haven't done is attempt to use the old munitions as proof of onging production after the gulf war. Please, before you continue to respond to me, read what I've wrote.....
Speculate away, there isn't any evidence. Or rather there is an extremely large amount of evidence to the contrary. Reams and reams and reams of it.
And with the benefit of hindisght, we know Saddam was in compliance, just as the inspectors suspected all along but couldn't 100% definitively prove (to a load of warmongers who didn't want it proven because they wanted an electable excuse to invade). Since then all we've had is a load of very powerful people trying to lie their way out of being caught lying. Tough. They lied, they got caught. The end. More lies doesn't help their position at all.
Originally posted by J0kerr1 Originally posted by Cymdai Ok, come on now...
Anyone who is unaware that Foxnews is one of the most reknowned, right-wing biased news organizations out there has either been living in a closet the laste decade, or is completely ignorant. What other 'news' organization constantly puts words into people's mouths who disagree with them, as well as attacking guests on their show¿ Oh, Crossfire, with Bill O'reilly...see also loudmouthed-ignorant jackass.
You always have to take everything Foxnews says with a grain of salt. They have an agenda, and they make it know. Constanly.
This is the mind-numbing crap coming out of the liberial cult. Fox news seems right because it is the only news that tries to be in the center. Bill, if you actually listened to him and not repeat what your superiors say, picks on anyone he seems as doing wrong (whcih has been right and left people).
As for more biased news...New York Times might be looking at legal issues that accuse them of treason
You consider Fox News to be center?!?!?!?!
That's pretty funny.
Name one big name liberal on the channel to make up for big name neo-con talking heads like Sean Hannity or John Gibson. You can't.
Originally posted by J0kerr1 OK, here we go to the brainwashed liberial idiots. 1. Saddam himself thought he had WMD. He didn't let the inspectors do their job because of this. This led us, and many other countries, to beleive he had weapons. We do know he broke UN sanctions (good job of the UN holding them to those). We do know he was looking to stockpile materials. 2. Lying, I want you to prove the Bush intentiolaly lied to the public. I know you can't, because he didn't. Now I can point to another time someone lied, but we won't go there. "I will tell you once more time, I did not point to a president who lied to the nation and obstructed justice." 3. You lost the election, now quit crying and look at facts instead of your, "I hate Bush." You are children.
If liberals are so brain dead then how come they've ended being correct about the outcome of every event that Bush has gotten us into so far? This man is stupid. He has no foresight on foreign policy, has no respect for domestic law and the Constitution, and doesn't give a damn about the things that matter like our borders. I'm sorry, but I love my country and I think he is absolutely the worse President we have ever had.
And how has Bush lied? .... Bush lied about the major part of this war being over. Bush lied about the oil fields in Iraq paying for us going to war over there. Bush lied when he said we have found banned weapons. Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons Bush lied in his campaign when he said he was not interested in "nation building".
Do you want me to keep going, cuz I promise I can. Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure a quick Google search will bring up plenty of his lies.
Its more center than lets say the New York Times. Treason for them.
By the way..here is your list of liberial talk show hosts - Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Kevin McDonald, Kim Miller, Marcus O'Crotty, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Howard Stern, Lynn Samuels, Peter B. Collins.
Want more. There is an army of them. You don't consider Fox balanced becaue you are a far left wack job who only repeats what you have been told to say. I bet none of you have even watched more than one or any of Bills shows. You just repeat what the superiors tell you. They controll you and you are the drones.
These are the pupper masters, now I want to know the come-back your superiors have told you for this.
The reason given for invading Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein was actively developing WMD's circa 2003. There is still not a shred of evidence supporting this claim. The entire justification for the invasion for Iraq is still non-existant.
In this discovery of chemical weapons, these were developed before Desert Storm in 1990-91. We and the enitre world knew Saddam's regime had developed chemical weapons before Desert Storm. After all, he used them in the conflict. Did the U.N. demand that he stop producing and reveal all stocks of WMD's? Yeah, they did. Did Saddam stop developing them? Right now, there's no evidence that he did try to start developing them again. Did he possibley have some undisclosed stockpiles of corroded, aging, nearly useless weapons buried in the desert? It seems this discovery might say so.
In the end though, this discovery isn't ground-breaking. It still doesn't prove that Saddam was developing WMD's post Desert Storm, which was the reason given for the U.S. invasion.
Comments
They key to this article can be found in this line.
Asked whether the incident will prompt the Army to make all soldiers wear protective chemical gear, she said, “It hasn’t so far.”
If the army aren't taking it seriously, why are you?
You expect them to wear the gear 24/7 while on patrol? In case some insurgent digs up another sarin round?
Should they wear bulletproof jackets in case the insurgents have guns?
Of course our troops should wear gasmasks if the enemy is using Sarin gas on them. Are you seriously suggesting they shouldn't?
.
The questions here is not whether or not our troops should wear their protective clothing, it's why aren't they?
So either the Pentagon wants it's troops to die, they don't have any protective clothing, or they don't believe there is any threat.
Which is it? You choose.
Not according to the U.N. it didn't.
Who went on to find nothing. (Easy to say with the benefit of hind sight, but true nonetheless).
Do you have any idea how stupid that statement was? Are you trying to suggest that everyone in the U.K. and other European countries is a poor drunk person who can't afford to buy the weekly groceries? Because that sure as hell is what it sounds like you're trying to say.
My guess is that you've never even been to Europe. You really should go some time. I think you'd be completely amazed at how happy and technologically advanced those "poor drunks" over in Europe actually are.
Saying that socialist practices don't work and leave people in perpetual poverty is completely stupid and uninformed.
You’re close. They can buy food and a few luxury
goods but that’s about it. Yes they are dunks, they riot, they burn cars, or on
strike. One in ten is without a job. Three in ten under thirty is without a
job. What those young kids do in their free time? Drink, burn cars, riot, and breaking
the law.
Haha. You haven't been over here have you? Probably not outside the USA either. You gotta love totally uninformed and ignorant people. Funny that the country I live in is ranked as the best country to live in eh? And that European countries top the top 10 list over the best countries to live in? "To prevent the worst massacre and slaughtering in human history from happening again".
That's a joke right? Do you want me to post a list of all
the genocide that has happen on the UN watch and still happening? They have not
stopped genocide from happening. They have in fact prolonged wars. They have
inadvertently help started wars. They have helped tyrants stay in power. They
have stop democracy from taking roots in nations. They pocked money that was supposed
to go to the needy. They are a corrupt. They did nothing to help humanity.
So you mean that WW2 wasn't the worst massacre in human history? There hasn't been anything comparable to it since 1945.
Did you read my other post? I have said that UN isn't perfect and that it highly depends on it's members, specially the big ones like USA.
Yes there are genocides happening today. Many wich the western world doesn't care about. When we don't care the UN can't do anything either.
The UN is no active military power. They can't go in and stop wars. They are mostly a peace keeping force.
We have helped to start wars. We have helped tyrants stay in power. We have stopped democracy from taking roots in nations. And so on.
The UN is us. The UN is like the name says, United Nations. What the UN does is based on the decisions of the countries, specially the ones in the security council. If the UN "ignores" a conflict it's because it's members ignore the conflict. A example: "Failure to prevent the 1994 Rwandan genocide,
which resulted in the killings of nearly a million people, due to the
refusal of the security council members to approve any necessary
military action"
Like I asked in my previous post, what is the alternative to the UN? USA? HAHAHAHA
So now you are trying to tell me there is no reasonable suspicion that they were presently going to come under an immediate bio/chem attack.
Which is it?
They either have them or they don't?
In the first Gulf war they carried their chemsuits on them at all times.
The U.N. isn't a military power at all, it's a diplomatic institution. It has no troops, peace keeping or otherwise.
There have been plenty of genocides on par with those in WW2 since. Rwanda and Ethiopia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia (as usual).
Tyrant does not = evil person. There are plenty of benevolent Tyrants, both currently (Jerry Rawlings in Ghana) and throughout history. Tyranny is a form of government not the rule of the devil over innocent people. Democracy may be well suited to our own countries, but there are as many forms of government as their are ways of life. When you hear the words "democracy" try not to stroke your own penis but instead realise that it loosely referes to a system of government and nothing more. Hitler was democraticly elected.
So now you are trying to tell me there is no reasonable suspicion that they were presently going to come under an immediate bio/chem attack.
Are you purposefully trolling? When have I ever said the soldiers are under an immediate threat? Did you even read my response? "They aren't going to run around in bio/chem equipment while on patrol because a sarin artillery was accidently found (most likely) by insurgents." Meaning, it's doubtful they (the insurgents who found the shell) even knew what they had. Or, that they had found other rounds to use. Alot of these munitions have been found buried/hid amongst conventional munitions. More than likely it was the case with the Sarin round.
Which is it?
Lol, I love the "gotcha" implied here. Try reading and not interjecting more than I've said. The question is already answered by my other posts.
They either have them or they don't?
What? Who?
In the first Gulf war they carried their chemsuits on them at all times.
And they did this time around too, till they toppled the regime. I'm not sure how much longer after that. But, I remember the many interviews demonstrating the injector stick and suit. What's your point?
The U.N. isn't a military power at all, it's a diplomatic institution. It has no troops, peace keeping or otherwise.
There have been plenty of genocides on par with those in WW2 since. Rwanda and Ethiopia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia (as usual).
Tyrant does not = evil person. There are plenty of benevolent Tyrants, both currently (Jerry Rawlings in Ghana) and throughout history. Tyranny is a form of government not the rule of the devil over innocent people. Democracy may be well suited to our own countries, but there are as many forms of government as their are ways of life. When you hear the words "democracy" try not to stroke your own penis but instead realise that it loosely referes to a system of government and nothing more. Hitler was democraticly elected.
Aren't you kinda saying what I said all over again? I find you post abit weird.
Yes, the UN is not a military power. It uses the military power of it's member nations as peace keeping forces. But when it does these forces will be under the UN flag. It's a diplomatic power like you said. A very important one. Wich shouldn't be removed.
Yes, there have been more than enough wars and genocides since 1945. If you count everything over 50 million people have died in the period between 1945 and 2000. But the UN is not a independent organisation that can act like it feels fit. It is a diplomatic power that is controlled by all nations. So the ability of the UN to act depends on it's member nations. That these wars and genocides have happened is because the member nations didn't act. So when a person wants to abolish the UN because they are incompetent, he is infact blaming his and other countries. Specially the big nations like USA in the security council.
Again I find you post weird. Are you blaming me for the Tyrant = evil person? Reads to me like you are accusing me to be an american all high on democracy, wich I'm not, at all. Or where you following up on my post? If that is the case, I'm sorry that I got you wrong.
The point is simple, if the military thought there were any WMD in Iraq, the troops would be issued with chem suits. They aren't.
You say there are, but the military clearly don't agree.
By it's very nature a WMD must be a weapon of mass destruction. Trace elements of chemicals not capable of mass destruction or an old empty chemical warhead shell, is not a weapon of mass destruction. It's an old empty chemical warhead.
A WMD goes off next to some soldiers but no one is hurt. You are really clutching at straws here. Isn't that called a Weapon of No Destruction? Where is the ten thousand dead? The devastated city?
Your news story is either total sensationalism or just propaganda. You must really desperately want this to be true in order to believe it.
@ Phoeniks 99% agreeing with you/ranting the same rant. Just clarifying some points that intrest me.
If I had to take issue with anything it would be the parts about the U.N. not acting.
The U.N. acted in a number of those genocides (though not in all). But U.N. action is just a diplomatic go ahead for people who wish to take military action to do so. It can pass a ruling saying no one minds if you invade, but that's all it can do. It's a talking shop nothing more.
A place were many nations can get together and find out if they can go to war without starting WW3.
For example, I want to invade Iran. But if Iran signs a mutual defence pact with Russia or China or India or France or Israel the U.S., that would be war that would likely result in the total destruction of my nation (and theirs). Since all the representatives of those countries are sitting in the same room, I can find out whether or not they will join in all at the same time. So can Iran.
This is the purpose of the U.N. It's a diplomatic institution that enables governments to communicate with each other faster. It doesn't in itself hold any power or ability to act.
On the subject of your nationalty and Democracy, I like everyone from all countries I like you if you are an American, I like you if you are not. I do see that word "Democracy" has become a propaganda word. It's an Americanism and one that I find distasteful.
The point is simple, if the military thought there were any WMD in Iraq, the troops would be issued with chem suits. They aren't.
You say there are, but the military clearly don't agree.
By it's very nature a WMD must be a weapon of mass destruction. Trace elements of chemicals not capable of mass destruction or an old empty chemical warhead shell, is not a weapon of mass destruction. It's an old empty chemical warhead.
A WMD goes off next to some soldiers but no one is hurt. You are really clutching at straws here. Isn't that called a Weapon of No Destruction? Where is the ten thousand dead? The devastated city?
Your news story is either total sensationalism or just propaganda. You must really desperately want this to be true in order to believe it.
Have you even read my posts? What sensationalism? My responses in this very topic, have stated the the shells were not evidence of ongoing production...................................The only thing I've speculated that these finds could indicate, is that Saddam had failed to destroy all muntitions, as required. It all goes back to his "unilateral destruction" of his programs and wmds. Which, then caused the UN to have a hell of a time verifying what had been destroyed or not. The UN's last report still notes wmd stockpiles that it can't account for. Smuggled, buried, lost, actually destroyed? I have no idea. Neither do they do. What I've haven't done is attempt to use the old munitions as proof of onging production after the gulf war. Please, before you continue to respond to me, read what I've wrote.....
Thanks for clearing that up, and sorry for being "harsh" against you.
Speculate away, there isn't any evidence. Or rather there is an extremely large amount of evidence to the contrary. Reams and reams and reams of it.
And with the benefit of hindisght, we know Saddam was in compliance, just as the inspectors suspected all along but couldn't 100% definitively prove (to a load of warmongers who didn't want it proven because they wanted an electable excuse to invade). Since then all we've had is a load of very powerful people trying to lie their way out of being caught lying. Tough. They lied, they got caught. The end. More lies doesn't help their position at all.
OK, here we go to the brainwashed liberial idiots.
1. Saddam himself thought he had WMD. He didn't let the inspectors do their job because of this. This led us, and many other countries, to beleive he had weapons. We do know he broke UN sanctions (good job of the UN holding them to those). We do know he was looking to stockpile materials.
2. Lying, I want you to prove the Bush intentiolaly lied to the public. I know you can't, because he didn't. Now I can point to another time someone lied, but we won't go there. "I will tell you once more time, I did not point to a president who lied to the nation and obstructed justice."
3. You lost the election, now quit crying
and look at facts instead of your, "I hate Bush." You are children.
Anyone who is unaware that Foxnews is one of the most reknowned, right-wing biased news organizations out there has either been living in a closet the laste decade, or is completely ignorant. What other 'news' organization constantly puts words into people's mouths who disagree with them, as well as attacking guests on their show¿ Oh, Crossfire, with Bill O'reilly...see also loudmouthed-ignorant jackass.
You always have to take everything Foxnews says with a grain of salt. They have an agenda, and they make it know. Constanly.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
This is the mind-numbing crap coming out of the liberial cult. Fox news seems right because it is the only news that tries to be in the center. Bill, if you actually listened to him and not repeat what your superiors say, picks on anyone he seems as doing wrong (whcih has been right and left people).
As for more biased news...New York Times might be looking at legal issues that accuse them of treason
Speculate away, there isn't any evidence. Or rather there is an extremely large amount of evidence to the contrary. Reams and reams and reams of it.
And with the benefit of hindisght, we know Saddam was in compliance, just as the inspectors suspected all along but couldn't 100% definitively prove (to a load of warmongers who didn't want it proven because they wanted an electable excuse to invade). Since then all we've had is a load of very powerful people trying to lie their way out of being caught lying. Tough. They lied, they got caught. The end. More lies doesn't help their position at all.
No, Saddam wasn't in compliance.
This is the mind-numbing crap coming out of the liberial cult. Fox news seems right because it is the only news that tries to be in the center. Bill, if you actually listened to him and not repeat what your superiors say, picks on anyone he seems as doing wrong (whcih has been right and left people).
As for more biased news...New York Times might be looking at legal issues that accuse them of treason
You consider Fox News to be center?!?!?!?!
That's pretty funny.
Name one big name liberal on the channel to make up for big name neo-con talking heads like Sean Hannity or John Gibson. You can't.
And how has Bush lied? ....
Bush lied about the major part of this war being over.
Bush lied about the oil fields in Iraq paying for us going to war over there.
Bush lied when he said we have found banned weapons. Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons
Bush lied in his campaign when he said he was not interested in "nation building".
Do you want me to keep going, cuz I promise I can. Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure a quick Google search will bring up plenty of his lies.
Its more center than lets say the New York Times. Treason for them.
By the way..here is your list of liberial talk show hosts - Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Kevin McDonald, Kim Miller, Marcus O'Crotty, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Howard Stern, Lynn Samuels, Peter B. Collins.
Want more. There is an army of them. You don't consider Fox balanced becaue you are a far left wack job who only repeats what you have been told to say. I bet none of you have even watched more than one or any of Bills shows. You just repeat what the superiors tell you. They controll you and you are the drones.
These are the pupper masters, now I want to know the come-back your superiors have told you for this.
The reason given for invading Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein was actively developing WMD's circa 2003. There is still not a shred of evidence supporting this claim. The entire justification for the invasion for Iraq is still non-existant.
In this discovery of chemical weapons, these were developed before Desert Storm in 1990-91. We and the enitre world knew Saddam's regime had developed chemical weapons before Desert Storm. After all, he used them in the conflict. Did the U.N. demand that he stop producing and reveal all stocks of WMD's? Yeah, they did. Did Saddam stop developing them? Right now, there's no evidence that he did try to start developing them again. Did he possibley have some undisclosed stockpiles of corroded, aging, nearly useless weapons buried in the desert? It seems this discovery might say so.
In the end though, this discovery isn't ground-breaking. It still doesn't prove that Saddam was developing WMD's post Desert Storm, which was the reason given for the U.S. invasion.