It's war time...

[LWW 10+ year member]

CAA you are coming around. First the oil wells may well cause over 1,00 deaths and be a WMD by your own definition...it just takes a bit longer.

Second my point was that Hitler was hard at work on the A-bomb and prototype ICBM's as well as intercontinental jet bombers. This is well documented. Savant's point seems to be that since we did not have 100% proof we should have waited until an American city was incinerated. Since we did not have 100% proof of Nazi death camps and only the tales of defectors and escapees (sound familiar to now) we were wrong to go in and liberate them.

My analogies between Hitler and Saddam perhaps were not clear enough...it was not about available firepower. The point was that both were intent on developing the most potent weapons possible for their time to conquer as much area as they could and kill as many of their enemy as possible in the most efficient manner. The means of the dictator change over time. The mindset that motivates this type doesn't.

5,000 yrs ago society could tolerate such lunatics because they would be intent on building the biggest club. About Alexander's time it was to build the biggest army. By Hannibal's time it was to use the fiercest beast of burden to propel the army. Then the best catapult. Then the best rifle. Then the best cannon. By Hitler's time the world could no longer allow such a leader to gain control of a nation with the wealth to wage major war. The potential costs were to the point of the end of civilization and possibly life on the planet itself.

Throughout the cold war there were 2 major sides which kept the minor players on a leash. At the end of the cold war America thought "we won...let's cut defense budgets and take a rest...the USSR is dead". Well that gave Iraq and N Korea a window of opportunity to arm nation's led my madmen with some nasty stuff.

The ultimate choice is do we handle it NOW when Iraq can be taken down at a cost of maybe 2,000 lives combined, as bad as that is, or wait until cities lay under mushroom clouds and the cost is millions and perhaps billions of lives?

The choice lies in the hands of this generation. Future ones will praise our courage and wisdom or curse our foolishness and cowardice.

I pray that we choose wisely.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84006,00.html

Anyone still doubting a terrorist link might find this enlightening.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/12/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

And here is another one hot off the cable modem. Seems that an Iraqi officer surrendered and offered to take US troops to the location of missiles containing nerve agents.

The first was marked with the international marking to designate it as a "chemical weapon". On site tests of the outside of the warhead test positive for traces of nerve agent at areas where the shell is assembled and sealed.

Now however the bleating must begin. I suppose that since the warhead is not "installed" in the missile merely present to be installed, and since now those who wanted to see proof of chem/bio weapons before they could see this as justified now specify that it must be atomic in nature capable of killing many thousands with a single round AND actually be used before it counts then this is obviously more evidence of the existence of "industrial bugs" in the Iraqi desert. Certainly not a WMD I'm sure.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif :nono: //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif :nono:

After all Saddamite Hussinsein said he doesn't have any.

By the way I went to the Dayton Dragons home opener last night. They won 5-4 with an 8th inning 5 run rally. We however could use some of those Iraqi middle relief pitchers when we get our hands on them as our's gave up 3 quick runs. We all know that since George W Bush made his money in the Baseball business and since so many baseball players support this war that it's all about seizing the Iraqi ballplayers.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2941727.stm

If anyone wonders about why the Iraqi military didn't use them or how legitimate and beloved Saddamite Hussinsein was they should read this.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/12/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

Another Iraqi officer who had been imprisoned by the regime has offered to take US forces to the locations of 24 chemical warhead equipped missiles.

The results are as yet unknown.

PEACE

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW Please supply me with another use for an aerosol dispersion artillery shell? Ans something to kill industrial insects doesn't count.

I wonder if one could use them for large scale bug spraying.. though, I really would have to immagine that crop dusters are a much better alternative.. As for what else they could be used for, I have no idea.. The question wasn't what would I use them for, it's would I have them.. and the only reason I would have them would be if I had an alternative (reasonable and viable) use for them.. since I don't know what else they could be use for at the moment, I wouldn't have them at the moment, now would I? So, again, you are trying to over simplify things and twist contexts to suit your needs..

I've heard you say this but don't know where you are getting it. I know we had some business dealings before the monster showed himself but all of Saddam's weapons I have seen were either French, Russian, Chinese, or N Korean. I'm not 1oo% convinced you are wrong but you are the only source I recall for this.

It's based on our helping Saddam during his war with Iran.. We were playing both sides against the middle, is how I belive you put it? How do you aid someone in a war if you aren't giving them money and weapons? Maybe it was just money so they could buy more French and Russian weapons, that doesn't make us any less culpable..

I've got a problem with this also. You are against intervention. You concede (at times) inspections didn't work.

I concede that in the past they didn't work at all.. When Bush invaded, it looked like it was working to a degree.. not completely, but getting closer.. Because of that, it's my opinion that we should have kept pushing that route until we were posative it wasn't getting anywhere.. since we had Saddam blowing up missles at the time, it was obviously getting somewhere..

You don't want to wait for these weapons to be used. You concede (at times) that even you believe we will find them.

I concede that we 'might well' find them.. I concede that there is a reasonable possibility we will find them, but I also concede that we might well have found them with inspections and pushing the other issues other than invasion.

I see no other choice than inspections (failed), waiting to be attacked (insane), and taking him down (worked). If you see another option you haven't mentioned it so I assume you don't.

Again.. for the last time since I'm tiring of wasting my breath.. you say inspections failed, I say that avenue was abandond too soon.. So, your statement of

So whatare you trying to prove other than you dance from point to point in contradictory circles attempting to prove something which appears more and more wrong each day?

shows your distinct lack of reading comprehension skills.. How many times do I have to say I don't believe we exhausted the UN/Resolution/Inspection option? You believe we did, I believe we did NOT.. If you can't understand that, then you really are thick.. and all this is your blowing your own horn just to hear yourself talk and practice being an ******* to people and keeping your shitty debating tactics polished.. you must be planning on running for office soon or something..

Wrong again. Yes we do know. In 1998 Billy Jeff loaded Kuwait up with troops to make Saddamite Hussinsein comply. Saddam basicly told Bubba to go commit fornication with the horse upon which he was riding. Then he threw the inspectors out of the country and very little is known directly of what happened since. So yes we DID try the gun to his head. He dared Billy Jeff and Billy Jeff flinched. Our troops were sent home.

How many troops? Certianly not 250,000 like we had when Saddam let inspectors fire a 'presumed' legal missle based on published stats, but it tested longer than it's range so they had to be destroyed.. He didn't like that, but he was destroying them.. THAT IS THE POINT.. so, with a 'serious' threat at his border, he at least looked like he was trying to keep from getting spanked.. You say it was a stall... a stall for what?? If we are getting what we want (if we really only wanted to disarm him), we WERE GETTING IT.. slowly, and it needed more effort perhaps, but it was happening.. that point can NOT be disputed, period.. He was blowing up ~10 missles a day..

So, I would really like to know how many troops we had in Kuwait and how many went 'home' as you claim..

The problem was passed off to the next administration...very similar to the Bin Laden deal.

Amazing how generals have gone on the record after Sept. 11th as saying they had been given info on bin Laden and even had him in their sites a few times, but the pentagon told them to leave him be for now.. Sure wish I could find some sources for that.. I wonder what you would say if proof that your precious administration is doing the same thing with bin Laden that Clinton did..

ONCE AGAIN THE ONLY THING SADDAM UNDERSTANDS IS FORCE! A gun pointed at someone's head is useless if they are convinced you won't pull the trigger.

And if Saddam didn't think Clinton would, he certianly thought Bush would.. clearly, since he was DESTROYING MISSLES once the US brought over ~250,000 troops.. Which, again, is why I think we had a responsibility to push the diplomatic/peaceful/inspection possibility farther.. Saddam was worried and we should have taken advantage of that.. instead, we invaded.. That tells me it wasn't about disarming Saddam.. And, in FACT, we now know this administration wanted Saddam out for various reasons, some of them started as early as the middle of last year, long before this war started.. In that light, yes.. war/invasion was the only way.. but the initial and only LEGAL reason was disarming..

You guys keep looking at it as if Saddam were a sane reasonable individual. If he was he would never have attacked Iran or Kuwait. He isn't. To his way of thinking he had stared down 2 US presidents and neither of them had the steel in them to take him down. He thought the same thing about this one. He thought wrong.

Again, we disagree since THIS time he was blowing up missles and letting the inspectors go places they hadn't been able to get to before.. THIS time, Saddam was worried since we had so many troops.... nevermind, I'm tired of reapeating myself..

Verrrrrrry interesting. You so proudly have claimed on multiple occassions that the whole war was over oil due to the Bushes being in the oil business. Now when the stupidity of that argument is demonstrated by applying it to any other group and industry you take humbrage. You don't mind tossing out your trash but you don't like it being thrown back I see.

Actually, 'supporting' the war is what most people do by saying it's a good idea.. yeah, the US is right, yeah Bush is great.. blah blah.. Nationalism.. fine.. that's different than the 'support' given by oil companies.. A better statment might have been that the oil companies are encouraging the quick invasion instead of diplomatic solutions.. why? diplomatic solutions would completely preclude oil companies getting money.. invasion and a new government in Iraq means the oil companies can get their hands on Iraq's oil.. The local police station that 'supports' the war doesn't gain anything.. their support/encouragement doesn't have potentially DIRECT PROFITS for them.. for the oil companies it does..

To even try and talk to 'stupidity' is pretty pathetic when you insist on using the debating stance of the most stupid people I've ever met.. You continually refuse to stick to the points, and actually have not even tried to refute (I'll guess here) about 75% of all the other points I've made, you focus in on things you think you can twist contexts about and resort to posts of pure namecalling and your famous 'pap' statements.. funny how that works..

I see why you like to define the rules. When this first started it was a Scud that was acceptable. Now it has to be nuclear. Would you 2 listen to yourselves here:

No, a SCUD was NEVER claimed to be a WMD.. it was claimed to be a missle with an illegal range (375 miles, clearly over the 93 mile limit).. So, it's a long range missle and illegal and capable of carrying a chem/bio weapon warhead (though, I believe just about any missle can carry a chem warhead).. And, a BOMB is NOT a WMD in any event (convential explosive

type that is).. Blowing huge holes in a building or gaping holes in a street is what a bomb does, not a weapon of MASS destruction.. To something that can actaully ruin a full city block, I would think only nukes could do that.. that would be 'mass' on a small scale.. You 'might' be able do that with a big enough convential bomb, but I'm doubting that..

WOW! I had JOKED earlier that you would have supported leaving Hitler alone to not be wrong. I never actually believed you would. Well you got me here Savant. I WAS WRONG ABOUT YOU!

again, you twist things for your own needs.. I never even came close to implying Hitler should have been left alone, yet you try to convince your audience that I would have.. Another perfect example of out-of-context pulling and ignorant debating.. good job..

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Can you at least admit that you do not have sufficient command of the english language to understand the meaning of the word "possible" in my post. In addition the story you link to contradicts itself if you read it by stating that on Friday they were on the way to inspect it and at the same time had already inspected it and had multiple others. They also had no explanation of what else it was either.

I obviously have a much better grasp of the language than you do. I understand the definition and concept of 'fact' and 'proof', you obviously do NOT.. Hell, you started a thead on March 20th (Out of curiosity) .. 22 days BEFORE any 'proof' MIGHT actually have been found. The warheads are pretty close to proof.. once they are open we might well have our 'proof'.. and the plutonium from Friday is pretty convincing as well, but I'll be curious to see if it's just rods from the power plant.. I don't know enough nuklear power to know if the rods used are of 'weapons grade'.. Actually, not sure if it was a power plant either.. it's a Nuklear Facility they said, and a well known and presumably LEGAL one.. the caverns and labs underneath are very suspect though.. Anyway, the point is, you ask for an admission of being wrong 22 days before any reasonable possiblity of proof, saying we now had proof.. and for 22 days you couldn't even come close to supplying any.. Now, there are things that are reasonable despite still not being fully proved (the chem warhead, even without chems, shows he didn't blow up all that stuff.. course, the burried ones 'might' have been forgotten .. location, etc.. but since a general or whomever knows about them, Saddam most likely did as well.. and we still have no idea if the burried warheads really are chem, but probably are since this one appears to be and it's where the informant said it was).. So, 22 days of you saying 'might be' and 'suspicious' and 'looks like' is proof shows that you don't understand what proof or fact is.. Most of what you have touted as proof so far has actually been dismissed and discounted.. *shrug*

While you used the word possible, you obviously took the report to mean we had a bio weapon.. here is what you said immediately after being a smartass about it..

OOOOPS!!! Possible mobile bio weapons van found. Driver flees when asked to stop. Lab is designed to be refrigerated and remotely operated to avoid contamination. 

Of course it could just be the new 2003 Orkin truck.

The same kind of little kid crap you have been pulling all along.. name calling, diversionary statements to detract from the lack of substance to your post, mocking, false associations (like claiming I said bottle rockets were bing fired and sparklers were in the oil fields, not buring wells.. neither of which did I say or even imply, yet you used it over and over in posts to try and make you look better despite your complete lack of substance in that post.. or to add extra lines to a post in an attempt to make it look like you had more points that you did, all of which tend to have the same merrit or substance as your bottle rocket and sprinkler comments). As far as I'm concerend, given your previous level of comprehension, you were touting it as proof.. why else the OOOOOPS? and Orkin Truck? hmmmm?

Anyway.. again I am beating my head against a wall trying to get through to you. I make a very simple statement, and you try to twist that too or can't add 1 and 1 to get 2.. Maybe some day you will learn to absorb/comprehend what you read, but given your age I'm doubting you can teach that old dog new tricks..

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW OH MY GAWD!!! Thanks for the link. This is a leftist piece of propaganda if I have ever seen one. Not only do they spit on the grave of 3,000 dead Americans due to Bin Laden they defend Bin Laden and Saddam as innocent victims then go to great lengths to baffle the foolish (who posted this link first?) by using multi syllable words and couch everything by attributing their data to mysterious shadowy people who cannot have their identities revealed. They obviously fear CIA retribution if they are found out and count on Al Qaeda and the Republican Guard to defend them I guess. In addition to your snippets it also said this:

Yet, it's ok for the US to say they can't divulge their sources from Iraq cause they are affraid that those sources will be killed.. yet we are now in a conflict and removing Saddam and his troops so the lives of the informants aren't in danger.. Hmm.. Odd, we say we are protecting them from someone that's dead or at least not in power, yet other people in other countries aren't allowed to not divulge themselves to the public to avoid retrubution? And, as you say, from the CIA? Hmm.. why would anyone fear retribution from the CIA? Certianly the US and our offices would never do anything illegal for anyone to be affraid of.. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

Why is it that when the US gets info that justifies it's agenda, it's ok to keep sources anonymous, but when someone speaks out against the administration (foreign or domestic sources) they aren't afforded the same liberties? Why is it that when it's AGAINST the US, it must be 'shadowy' people that aren't reliable? Nice hypocricy you have there..

And the wacko side shows again. The US used 1 atomic bomb on Japan because:

 

1-The Japanese sneak attacked Pearl Harbor.

2-Refused all attempts at peace.

3-It actually SAVED an estimated 100K US soldiers and over 1,000,000 Japanese lives that would have been lost in an invasion.

 

The US used the 2nd atomic bomb on Japan because:

 

1-Japan refused surrender still.

2-They broiadcast to their people that the 1st bomb wasn’t an American weapon but that it was God punishing the Japanese people for not fighting intensely enough.

 

Following the 2 bombs and final peace the US:

 

1-Rebuilt Japan.

2-Gave it free military protection for at least 58 years.

3-Instituted Democracy.

4-Gave them most favored nation trading status.

5-Bought it’s wares in massive amounts.

6-Gave medical care, free and long term, to all affected Japanese.

 

So take your puke back with you and stop your stupid attempt to bring moral equivalence between whatever some dungpile dictator and the USA does.

 

Your hatred of your counyty should be apparent to all by now.

 

Savant you are truly beneath shame.

 

Actually, the POINT is that the U.S. NUKED people, killed potentially millions of people to get it's way.. when the day is over, the U.S. NUKED HUMANS.. sure, we went in and helped to rebuild, sure we did things to help the country after the fact, but that doesn't bring back all those INNOCENT CIVILIANS.. Was our nuking Japan the same as Saddam's behaviors or intent with WMD? NO.. not even close, I agree.. but that does NOT change the fact that we dropped nukes..

 

Also, if you want to get into the morality issue .. how about all the depelted uranium bullets we used in 91 that are making Iraqi people sick and causing horrific birth defects? The government and military knows these bullets are nasty, yet we use them anyway.. Have we found out if we are using them in this war too? I mean, we are in cities where these people live and leaving radio-active bullets in their walls that they will be living and working in..

 

Is it US practice to be 'immoral' on a level like Saddam? not even close.. does the US engage in activities that are horrid, and even with knowledge that they are doing it? yes.. we do.. the US is not as morally corrupt as people like Saddam, but we are NOT moral angles either.. What bothers me the most is you are willing to look the other way because it suits your needs instead of thinking it a bad thing we are doing and try to change it. You can't change it if you deny it's existence, I try to spread that knowledge so people can try to make change, you try to hide the FACT that we actually do engage in morally reprehensible behaviors because you feel it's only a little bad and not even close to as bad as what others do so we don't need to worry about it.. Shame on me? no, shame on YOU..

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

In addition the story you link to contradicts itself if you read it by stating that on Friday they were on the way to inspect it and at the same time had already inspected it and had multiple others. They also had no explanation of what else it was either.

Almost missed this one.. Actually, the article does NOT contradict it's self, it shows everyone here how you can't comprehend what you read, and instead of trying to see why you thoght something didn't make sense (you thought there was a contradiction, you didn't bother to clarify if it was or not).. I read over the article again to see what you were getting at.. and found it..

"On Thursday, Army investigators looked inside what appeared to be a refrigerator truck at a construction site and saw what looked like a surface-to-air radar vehicle. But hidden inside fake side panels were an electronic pulley system, open jars and containers, a winch and hooks meant to move apparatus for rinsing and cooling substances without manual help."

Then,

"It was suspected that the truck may have been a mobile biological weapons lab. However, on Friday the Army said that specific vehicle was deemed not to be such a lab, but that the seven to 15 others discovered on the site are still being investigated"

Hmm.. so, here is what happened.. Thursday they found it and did a preliminary look.. opened it and then found fake panels.. then, "Fox News' Rick Leventhal — embedded with the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines in Baghdad — reported Friday that an Army intelligence unit was heading toward a suspect vehicle Friday where they will test for the presence of chemical or biological agents. ".. Which tells me that, unless there is some way to refute it, we can't unless we talk to the person who wrote the article for clarification, Thursday they found the truck and did a prelim, then went back first thing Friday to do more testing to see if it was a BioWeap truck.. Not a contradiction at all, yet you can't fill in the blanks.. much like you can't accpet that 'maybe' is not 'proof' it's speculation.. speculation is not fact ..

Anyway.. enough is enough.. for weeks you have been asserting that we have proof and found proof, yet it's 22 days in and still no smoking gun (despite 22 days of you saying we just found proof).. you also keep skirting issues and playing word games and acting like a child. There really is no point in talking about this anymore.. The war is almost over as far as 'fighting'.. now we have to decide what we will do next.. If the US stays in Iraq, we are likely to have a nasty mess on our hands.. The only other thing (for me anyway) to watch is to see how the oil rights issues play out after we get a new government installed..

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

I wonder if one could use them for large scale bug spraying.. though, I really would have to immagine that crop dusters are a much better alternative.. As for what else they could be used for, I have no idea.. The question wasn't what would I use them for, it's would I have them.. and the only reason I would have them would be if I had an alternative (reasonable and viable) use for them.. since I don't know what else they could be use for at the moment, I wouldn't have them at the moment, now would I? So, again, you are trying to over simplify things and twist contexts to suit your needs..

You actually came close to an epiphany ther Savant. I was straightening the truth to demonstrate that nobody has as yet came up with a reason to possess aerosol dispersion artillery shells other than to dispense chem/bio weapons. Logic, and I apologize cause I know this is where you get lost, is that if you possess such shells you would also possess the materials without which they are useless. Actually you knew that but again cannot face R-E-A-L-I-T-Y.

you twist things for your own needs.. I never even came close to implying Hitler should have been left alone

Savant...put down the pipe, loosen the tourniquette, drop the syringe, take a deep breath....there now feel better? you were getting delusional again. Just so your barely brighter than BooBoo Bear brain can remember. This is the exchange:

LWW:

As to Nazi WMD's read your history. V3 Amerika was a long range jet bomber to hit DC that was in the works. The Horten Ho9 was actually an attempt at the original stealth bomber...very similar to the B2. The ME-262 the first operational jet fighter and bomber. They also had crude versions of nightvision. They also were at work on the A-bomb. By the way London was pretty much leveled. As was Moscow. As was Stalingrad and Leningrad. Did he have today's firepower? No thankfully. Is your point that we should have waited until he did? There were people who didn't WANT that to be the case but if they had prevailed WOULD have been the case. Mine was that we stopped him in time...barely!

PEACE

Now my point was clearly that the Nazis were at work on weapons systems the Allies could not have combatted AND that there was a pacifist appeasement antiwar element in the west that did not want war with Hitler. Keep in mind that until we invaded Europe we only had the word of defectors and escapees as to the things being developed and othe atrocities being committed in the SS Death's Head camps. The left whinnied mightily that we do not have 100% proof then as well, all we had was circumstantial evidence. Wheb we LIBERATED Europe we found things WORSE than we had thought.

Savant:

Listen to yourself.. look at what you JUST typed.. CAA said he didn't have WMD.. You SUPPORTED that statement, yet touted it like he did? ' in the works', 'were at work on'.. This is my problem with your presentations, and thus your credibility.. Just like your insistence on the word 'suspected' meaning 'proof' and 'fact'..

Now from that I get the idea that it was, in your opinion, wrong to take on Hitler since we had no pROOF TO A 100% LEVEL that he was working on these weapons. Until the V3 Amerika incinerated Washhinton DC or NYC how would we know for sure?
That in conjunction with your other link to a site implying that 9/11 didn't happen and that the US invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq solely to gain control of the Middle East and it's oilfields leaves me with the conclusion that you about as far left wing insane as can be. Is there any evil in the world today Savant that is not the fault of the US in general and the President in particular? And don't couch a reply with "yes XXXX id evil BUT" and then use the initial couching phrase as a smokescreen for another panties all in a wad tirade of unfounded gibberish that Joe Stalin would shake his head at.

PEACE

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Actually, the POINT is that the U.S. NUKED people, killed potentially millions of people to get it's way.. when the day is over, the U.S. NUKED HUMANS.. sure, we went in and helped to rebuild, sure we did things to help the country after the fact, but that doesn't bring back all those INNOCENT CIVILIANS.. Was our nuking Japan the same as Saddam's behaviors or intent with WMD? NO.. not even close, I agree.. but that does NOT change the fact that we dropped nukes..
Also, if you want to get into the morality issue .. how about all the depelted uranium bullets we used in 91 that are making Iraqi people sick and causing horrific birth defects? The government and military knows these bullets are nasty, yet we use them anyway.. Have we found out if we are using them in this war too? I mean, we are in cities where these people live and leaving radio-active bullets in their walls that they will be living and working in..

Now here is where you go off the deep end again but I will try to explain. If you have problems Yogi will help you.

Now first yes we did nuke humans. We did it to end a war not of our choosing. We did it because it saved more lives than it cost. We did it in an era before the long range effects of radiation were known. We did it AFTER warning the Japanese govt of it's impending use if they did not surrender.

Yes it was a horrible thing the US did. It was done to end a more horrible war forced upoin us. It was done to avoid a total destruction of the Japanese people and homeland. The moral equivalency you fools on the left use is shameful. Is it horrible to shoot a human being between the eyes? Of course. What if that person is in the act of murdering an innocent? The equation changes. Fools like you can only see the bad side of the good side and miss that the evil side didn't even have a good side.

As to the depleted uranium shells, well I went to that website. Now if you want to talk about twisting things and pulling at people's heartstrings to propel an aganda forward this is it.

Now as horroific as these photos are I would like to present a few facts:

1-The oilwell fires set by Saddamite Hussinsein released toxins into the biosphere which are PROVEN to cause the exact same types of deformities.

2-The nerve agents and blood agents Saddam has been playing around with are also PROVEN to cause these deformities.

3-This site does not even contemplate the possibility of any of Saddam's actions being the cause.

4-Depleted uranium shell casings litter the American desert, the Ft Knox, Ky artilery range, and other sites in America and abroad.

5-These birth defects have NOT been rampant in these areas.

6-The M1 Abrams tank has depleted uranium armor plating as well as the shells being contained inside. Crews of these tanks have not experienced these maladies in their offspring.

7-The millitary version of the Hummer H1 (HMMMV?) has a depleted uranium floorpan to protect against mines. Literally millions of US service personnel have traversed millions if not billions of miles with their boots resting atop it. They have been through exposions perforating and making airborn the depleted uranium and their offspring has not experienced these birth defects.

8-The shells, floorpans, and armor plating are all made in the US and these workfprces have not experienced it either.

9-Abrams tanks are on public display indoors and outdoors at the George S Patton museum and other sites and visitors and employees of these sites have not been afflicted either.

Now bottom line is that to my knowledge no scientific work has been done to measure the cause of or frequency of the defects BUT there is much evidence to point towards Iraq.

Savant if you KNOW all these things as you claim why do you stay in the home of the great Satan?

PEACE

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

3-This site does not even contemplate the possibility of any of Saddam's actions being the cause.

You are absolutely correct LWW. He used chemical weapons in the last war and caused lots of health problems to the people in Iraq.

Peacenics are clowns. I'm amazed at how evil Savant feels the U.S. is. We are the most generous nation in the world, but this is not good enough for you. I would say that you don't way your cost and benefits, but I don't think this is true. You simply feel that the benefits of war are not worth the costs. You might as well say that the U.S. shouldn't have gotten into WWII SAvant. After all it was the treaty that ended WWI that caused him to do what he did. It wasn't his fault. He was just trying to rebuild a nation. What a nice guy. He never drop a bomb on the U.S. He was no threat. He was across the Sea. Those evil americans. Preventing him from creating a great nation. I think you'd fit in perfectly in France. I think you'd like it there. I could bring up 9/11 again and go through why liberalism caused this, but I won't. The liberals couldn't even see or learn from their mistakes then. If a nuke drop on the U.S. they would not learn a lesson.

Savant I think it would be a great idea if you protest against U.S.A. Go to France and avoid all american goods and don't be a part of their work force. Don't pay their taxes. GO to France, it's a beautiful wise country.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Originally posted by CarAudioAddict Reasons 2 through 4 I will accept as motives, 1 is just a side effect of completing 2-4. I would've accpted liberation had it not been an after thought when the original reasons for going in lost supprt.

Remeber proper treatment of the people was part of the resolution.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Just because gun companies support the war doesn't mean that they support it because they make guns. How can this horrible flawed assumption be made.

Just because Sadam has chemical weapons shells doesn't mean he plans on using them.

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

Originally posted by joshpoints Remeber proper treatment of the people was part of the resolution.

Yes, but libarating the people of Iraq was ONLY mentioned when people wouldn't support the US govt. sending troops in (even though the troops were already sent over).

The reason given to the American people WHEN the troops were sent in was that Saddam had illegal weapons, intelligence had proof (though was unwilling to reveal it), and that he must be disarmed. There was NOTHING said about liberation, or improving the lives of the Iraqi people.

Now it has been mentioned that the proofwas kept hidden because they didn't want to risk the informants lives, but I call BS on that one. Had the proof been released without any form of identifying the informants (which would VERY easy), then the informants lives wouldn't be risked. All anyone wanted wass PROOF, but there was NONE released, just suspicion, circumstantial evidence, and unconfirmed reports.