Wolf Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 The British are storing WMDs in an all-girls school? What?
Dante Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 Well it was this little documentary I saw once that told me during the last Conservative government, maybe even under Thatcher, convenient places to hide toxic waste were needed. One of the most controvertial was underneath a primary school. Of course it was only discovered after someone else in the government thought it wasn't such a good idea and had it taken out again after it had been there for a while.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 If you're really afraid that another nation might attack you, station troops at their borders and tell them not to try anything funny. That's how things have always been done.That doesnt work when the enemy is overseas.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 I hope you do realize that PEARL HARBOR ITSELF WAS A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE.YES AND I HOPE YOU REALIZE THAT THE TWIN TOWERS WAS A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE.
ordos45 Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 Ordos45: Where did Saddam say he bought suitcase nukes? It would be considerably hard to find a few nondescript suitcases in the whole of Iraq. And the fact that they have not been found -- with, again, the possibility (Saddam's own admission) that they might have existed -- seriously worries me.Saddam didn't. Osama bin Laden did. It was one of those news headlines that got thrown under the carpet rather quickly a few months back. Hince bin Laden not really needing Iraq to sell him anything.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 There can be no WMDs, because if there were, they would have been used against the US invaders!!Not exactly ...Using WMD would have caused EVERY UN Nation to take up arms against Iraq GUARANTEEING THEIR DEFEAT.... think about that for a minute.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 Hince bin Laden not really needing Iraq to sell him anything.So Osama has several buyers to choose from? .... so what? ...So one less person/nation to sell weapons to terror organizations.
HasimirFenring Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 "Using WMD would have caused EVERY UN Nation to take up arms against Iraq GUARANTEEING THEIR DEFEAT.... think about that for a minute. Using WMD's would have been suicide and would have only sped up their defeat. And not only that but it would have generated more criminal charges after the war was over. "Umm...Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that their defeat was already guranteed. Just how long did the war proper last? How could the intervention of any other nations possible have sped their defeat?
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 "Using WMD would have caused EVERY UN Nation to take up arms against Iraq GUARANTEEING THEIR DEFEAT.... think about that for a minute.
ordos45 Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 So Osama has several buyers to choose from? .... so what? ...So one less person/nation to sell weapons to terror organizations. In the small picture it doesnt seem like a big deal but in the big picture it matters.You know we could destroy all his potential buyers with nukes, but we'd have to kill America too. Considering we funded and armed him against the Soviets.They wanted to create another Vietnam. Wanted to? It seems they've succeeded in creating a Vietnam style situation quite well.
DukeLeto Posted July 12, 2004 Author Posted July 12, 2004 You are not thinking from an Iraqi point of view.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 i think deep down they thought they would create a vietnam style situation which would make it so they would never have to use MWD's on invading forces...By the time it was clear that baghdad would be taken it was too late to mobilize the MWDs from their hiding spots... the invading forces took over way too quickly.And Ordos if you think that Baghdad is like Vietnam right now then you need a reality check.You insult people who actually went to Vietnam when you say silly things like that.
ordos45 Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 And Ordos if you think that Baghdad is like Vietnam right now then you need a reality check.You insult people who actually went to Vietnam when you say silly things like that. They utterly failed in creating a Vietnam. They were crushed in record time.So glad we must resort to attacking my patriotism. Baghdad is the safe zone, so to speak. Yet still, if you read soldiers' journals you'll find accounts like "There were fifty mortar attacks today in Baghdad". The country has become a Vietnam style war. For people who were crushed in record time, they seem to be killing Westerners at a decent clip. We passed 1000 dead Coalition members the other day, 800 or so were military, the others were civilians. Let me tell you what I think the situation is:The roads are littered with garbage, each day you must look out for new bumps in the road itself, or for wires under the garbage to reveal Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). You must watch for snipers on the rooftops, and almost everyone has at least one weapon in their family. You can't react on sight to a weapon, because it may be defensive, and your first indication it isn't is when the bullets are headed towards you. You see an AK-47, you hesitate, it can be a defensive weapon, you see an RPG launcher you shoot first, then ask...it cannot be a defensive weapon. Your friendly civilians could just be that, or like on several occasions, they could be leading you into traps by insurgents, all the while smiling and waving. A random rocket every month crashing into a hotel or a grenade going off somewhere is pale in comparison to what a true Vietnam situation would be like. Dont be silly and attempt to compare it with true Vietnam hell. I'm not, you did. I'm comparing it as a country where ambushes happen every day. I'm comparing it to where "safe" is 50 mortar attacks a night on your position. I'm comparing it to where you are bogged down for 18 hours under enemy fire, fire off a fourth of your ammo, and then the media reports "Coalition forces withdraw from city without firing a shot", because that's what it is. By the way, I'll pass off your opinion to the colonel, he served in Vietnam and has been comparing Iraq to it. But I suppose he insults the memory of those who served under him eh? I'll also pass your opinion along to my uncle who served in Vietnam, and has compared Iraq to it. And next time at the cemetary, I'll pass your opinion along to my other uncle who served in Vietnam's grave.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 So glad we must resort to attacking my patriotism.
ordos45 Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 Fine, insult my perception of reality. Perhaps I'd insult someone who had been there, perhaps I wouldn't. Perhaps the media also slings it around with more abandon than I do. I do know a lot of vets who are more offended by the normalization relations with Vietnam, than the frequent comparisons of Iraq and Vietnam. 58,000 lives later we get cheaper goods from Vietnam's still Communist government. It's things like that that are the real slap in the face, the slap that says to many "What you did, was for nothing".
Wolf Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 Well, things in Iraq are much more stable than in Vietnam. Coalition forces nominally control the country, a provisional/interim government exists. Overall, things are going much better in Iraq than they had in Vietnam.However, this is not to say that things are all right. They are better, yes, but it is hard to do worse than 'Nam, you see?
ordos45 Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 Yes, having the whole thing collapse into a civil war or Iranian invasion on the American pullout would be horrible to those who have served.
Dunenewt Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 Using WMD would have caused EVERY UN Nation to take up arms against Iraq GUARANTEEING THEIR DEFEAT.... think about that for a minute.
nemafakei Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 On a side note on the Saddam/Al-Quaida issue, MI6, it seems, had published a document before the war, clarifying that there was no evidence to suggest that there was a link between Saddam and Al-Quaida, and indeed, MI6 intelligence suggested that Saddam has specifically "rebuffed" such attempts by Al-Quaida (presumably due to their religious differences).
ordos45 Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 Korea was the Police Action. Vietnam was just a "conflict".
Wolf Posted July 12, 2004 Posted July 12, 2004 Did MI6 say anything about whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
Recommended Posts