Americans in Iraq Attacked W Bomb Containing Nerve Gas (WMD)

Cephus:

But I'm sure Bush's media "Sheepdogs" aren't mentioning that either.

0 Replies

Oh, I see, a hand granade is the criteria. Anything larger than a hand granade. Hmmm. Interesting new (and yet another) definition. Would it kill more than one of our cluster bombs which we have used?

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

Iran has chemical weapons? Since when? I know they were on the receiving end of chemical attacks from the Iraqi Army, but I hadn't heard they had them too.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Quote:
kickycan wrote:
I can't believe there are still some people who think this war was justified.

Actually the vast majority of Iraqis think the war was justified, if you can believe the polls.

I will give weight to those polls when you give weight to polls showing bush is in big trouble for reelection.

I don't care whether you believe the Iraq polls or not.

EDIT - to fix the nexted quotes

Whew, cutting edge there Deputy Dawg....I guess you told me.......

0 Replies

1st Cav's big score could get bigger

By Terry Boyd, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Thursday, May 20, 2004

http://www.stripesonline.com/photos/22295_519175449b.jpg

Link

This is a military publication. It's interesting that they talk about an H&K "assault rifle." I guess it must have been capable of going full automatic.

0 Replies

An excellent article, Tarantula. Thank You. I read it with interest. There was one particularly important sentence.

quote

"when we walked up there were five or six holes, each three feet across and four feet long"

How much else is buried in Iraq? It is larger than California in area. Chemical and Biological Weapons are not ICBM's. A lot of death can be hidden in a small area.

0 Replies

Seems like I recall hearing about ground-penetrating radar being used to locate ancient Egyptian cities and other things of interest underground. I wonder if they could use that to find buried WMD, say, in Syria maybe.

0 Replies

Brandon 9000, The US only intervenes in places where its interests are furthered, but the government and the people of the us try to put a moral spin to these interventions. The US is either an emperialist power trying to further its agenda and interests, or its is a benovelent, freedom loving caring country. The claims and actions do not match. For this reason we (most of the rest of the world) conclude that it is pushing its agenda and refute all your bs talk about how it is out there to do good. Give me one case of US involvment in a foreign conflict where it did not have something to gain. One instance where it intervened to protect the weak. The us decision to act is almost excluvely based on its geo-politic interests. That I can live with, but when you try to compound it with the lie that it is there to do good I blow my top. I

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

Seems like I recall hearing about ground-penetrating radar being used to locate ancient Egyptian cities and other things of interest underground. I wonder if they could use that to find buried WMD, say, in Syria maybe.

Tarantulas, I'm an archaeologist and I have used ground penetrating radar, and it is not as simple as you describe it. Half the time it does not work because the "target" is not sufficiently reflective. It work best on voids (tunnels, tombs etc). The rest of the time all it shows in anomalies and patterns of anomalies and you have to dig to find what the are. Many times they are not what you want. Depth is also a consideration. If the "target" is deep enough, the signal will not reach it.

0 Replies

yilmaz101 wrote:

Brandon 9000, The US only intervenes in places where its interests are furthered, but the government and the people of the us try to put a moral spin to these interventions. The US is either an emperialist power trying to further its agenda and interests, or its is a benovelent, freedom loving caring country. The claims and actions do not match. For this reason we (most of the rest of the world) conclude that it is pushing its agenda and refute all your bs talk about how it is out there to do good. Give me one case of US involvment in a foreign conflict where it did not have something to gain. One instance where it intervened to protect the weak. The us decision to act is almost excluvely based on its geo-politic interests. That I can live with, but when you try to compound it with the lie that it is there to do good I blow my top. I

ALL governments serve only their countries interests.

The US government is no different. The American population on the other does a tremendous amount to help the world and for you to look down your nose at the US's generosity makes you appear foolish which you have demonstrated time and agian that you are not.

You seem to think this is an either/or situation and it's not. The American government looks out for the countries best interests. Whether that is cheap goods, military defense and offense, a stable economy, good laws, whatever. This is a given. But, to equate that with imperialism is the height of both stupidity and ignorance. The US has no desire to become an empire nor does it have some secret agenda to take over the world.

If you can't see the good that America has done, is doing, and will do for the world, then i pity you because you are extremely misinformed.

0 Replies

McG

Your formulation permits no allowable or valid criticism of US foreign policy. The US, your formula maintains, is just like every other country in self-interest, however it is uniquely benevolent too.

Such a formulation is precisely what folks from outside (as well as many inside) understand as being what blinds you. It's hubris, and that's dangerous for you and everyone.

0 Replies

Where did I say or even imply it was "uniquely" benevolent?

0 Replies

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. The premise that any administration only has benevolent goals in mind is a Trojan Horse (or a new MacDonalds). What the people want will again come out in the next election and will probably be another nearly polarized result. That depends, of course, on how Bush's performance holds up.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Where did I say or even imply it was "uniquely" benevolent?

Well, what do you figure? Top 100 countries in the world as related to spreading happiness and good? Top 10? Top 2? If top 2, who is the other?

0 Replies

The US attempts to buy good will and happiness but on the flip side we will force it down your throat if the money doesn't work. Talk about throwing money at a problem. Should anyone suggest there is something intrinsically wrong with our diplomacy? Anyone ever hear of soft power? Or even know what it means?

0 Replies

I have no interest in touting the good will of other countries.

The question wasn't whether or not various countries of the world do good things, it was whether or not the US does.

My post was in direct response to Yilmazs allegations. Why are you now trying to change the subject? Do you deny the benevolence of America? As a Canadian, I am sure that you have benefitted greatly from the US, whether you want to admit it or not.

0 Replies

yilmaz101 wrote:

Give me one case of US involvment in a foreign conflict where it did not have something to gain. One instance where it intervened to protect the weak.

Here are two instances for you:

Haiti
Grenada

0 Replies

McG

But that IS yilmaz's point. He is saying that the US, in it's foreign affairs, has made enemies...and that the causes of this are very commonly misunderstood by American citizens precisely because of their notions of national goodness.

Such criticisms can be and often are perfectly valid. They aren't manifestations of 'anti-Americanism'.

Iraq is such a perfect case in point, and so much of the rest of the world is pissed because so many Americans will NOT face up to the negative consequences for others of American mistakes and policies.

0 Replies

so that's why we have all those congressional committees and hearings? Because "Americans will NOT face up to the negative consequences for others of American mistakes and policies"?

That is so much over-hyped leftist BS.

I'd like to see any country outside the G-8 step up as much as the US has. Hell, I'd like to see some of the countries in the G-8 step up!

0 Replies

McG,
Please don't try to argue with Blatham on this one. He is merely a victim of what we like to refer to as Canadian Guilt Syndrome.

Canadian Guilt Syndrome (Or CGS) is defined as follows:
The Canadians realized a long time back, they since America was providing a massive defensive shield around North America with its Navy, Air Force and Army, that they could afford to have only a token military to defend themselves. They understood that the U.S.A. couldn't afford to allow any foreign power to invade Canada and use it as a 'jumping off point' to attack the U.S. so America would protect Canada with its mighty military as fiercely as they protected their own lands.

This led to the Guilt part of the Syndrome.
After many years, the Canadians came to the conclusion that since America's military had to be strong enough to defend the whole continent, their own contributions being almost negligible, that they were in part responsible for the actions of the military, though not their own, that was still the defender of THEIR freedoms.

Canadians have no idea how to resolve this Guilt...
They can't encourage the U.S. to shrink their military because that would entail THEM increasing their defense budget to help guard themselves.
They can't afford to fund more of their own defense without cutting into their wonderful 'socialized medical system'.
They deep down, though they won't admit it, truly ashamed that 4 generations of Americans have shouldered the burden, many dying while doing so, of defending a country that should have been able to defend itself.

0 Replies

A true nadir in the political threads of A2K. To all those Canadians who gave up their lives in WWl and WWll. You have been insulted but not forgotten.

0 Replies

Americans in Iraq Attacked W Bomb Containing Nerve Gas (WMD)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know