IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

Indeed, snood.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

If "logic" had anything to do with it, Hussein should have been about 4th on that list behind N Korea, Pakistan, Saudi, ....

Not really. We can't invade North Korea now because they aleady have the bomb and could kill a million people in the first hours of the invasion. It is simply not practicable. Pakistan should certainly be persuaded to destroy its WMD, but will never do it unless India does too. This is a negotiation issue. Saudi Arabia doesn't have any WMD that I know of, and, furthermore, do not seem to have the same expansionist mentality as Hussein. Since Saudi Arabia may have some internal ties to terrorism, signs of WMD development on their part would be cause for concern, but since they claim to be our ally, it would be appropriate to try negotiation for awhile, should this happen, as we did with Iraq. Anyway, pointing out other countries which ought to be invaded doesn't show that invading Iraq was not right.

0 Replies

Well, ironically, it seems that the only thing that can keep the peace is for each and every nation to get the bomb, thereby preventing any country from attacking another.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Well, ironically, it seems that the only thing that can keep the peace is for each and every nation to get the bomb, thereby preventing any country from attacking another.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Well, ironically, it seems that the only thing that can keep the peace is for each and every nation to get the bomb, thereby preventing any country from attacking another.

If this were to happen, there would be very little chance that the bomb would not be used. Millions would die. Do you think that this is merely some kind of debating exercise?

0 Replies

That what is some kind of debating exercise? Posting on this forum? Well, yeah.

What is your reason for believing that if every country had the bomb there would be very little chance that it would not be used? Just the human desire to jump when standing on the edge of a cliff?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

That what is some kind of debating exercise? Posting on this forum? Well, yeah.

What is your reason for believing that if every country had the bomb there would be very little chance that it would not be used? Just the human desire to jump when standing on the edge of a cliff?

Discussing it here is a debating exercise, but it applies to a real world situation with the gravest consequences for the future of humanity or the lack therefof.

I am frankly incredulous that you ask me why I believe that if every country had the bomb, it would be highly likely that someone would use one, but I'll play along. Because every time an additional country gets it, the odds of it being used go up, and if lots and lots of countries had it, in fact every country, there would just be too many opportunities.

You can't play Mutual Assured Destruction with hundreds of countries at once, particularly since that will include tiny, unstable ones. There would simply be too many opportunities for someone to use the bomb.

0 Replies

I understand the simple probability increase based on the increase in participants. But do you not think that the deterrent power of nukes would diminish that probability? Is that not the very argument that gun owners make when speaking of gun control?

<edit> I posted this before your edit, I see what you're saying.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I understand the simple probability increase based on the increase in participants. But do you not think that the deterrent power of nukes would diminish that probability? Is that not the very argument that gun owners make when speaking of gun control?

1. You cannot play Mutual Assured Destruction with hundreds of participants, especially since that will include some entities less risk averse than the US, USSR, or China.
2. Are you really so far gone that you cannot distinguish between one gun that can kill a handful of people and one WMD that can kill as many as a million?

<edit> You posted before my response. Okay.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I understand the simple probability increase based on the increase in participants. But do you not think that the deterrent power of nukes would diminish that probability? Is that not the very argument that gun owners make when speaking of gun control?

1. You cannot play Mutual Assured Destruction with hundreds of participants, especially since that will include some entities less risk averse than the US, USSR, or China.
2. Are you really so far gone that you cannot distinguish between one gun that can kill a handful of people and one WMD that can kill as many as a million?

<edit> You posted before my response. Okay.

Take it easy Brandon. I like to probe things. I realize that some people immediately take the things I post and extrapolate them into a firm position which I may or may not hold, and then berate me for it. But it sure was a fun exercise.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Take it easy Brandon. I like to probe things. I realize that some people immediately take the things I post and extrapolate them into a firm position which I may or may not hold, and then berate me for it. But it sure was a fun exercise.

Yeah, it was nice. Let's do it again some time.

0 Replies

I will make myself available for berating any time, B9000. Just let me know.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I will make myself available for berating any time, B9000. Just let me know.

Good, good. Send a few photos too, okay?

0 Replies

Condi Rice remains as arrogant in error as ever. What a nauseating woman.

0 Replies

Would that help you, Brandon?

0 Replies

gungasnake

you assume that Saddam and his scientists, who got their wmd from us in the 1980's, were that far ahead in processing anthrax that they could do it better than we could.

you also assume that because we "knew" that the anthrax came from somewhere where Atta was reportedly staying, but we didn't know for sure, that there is some conincidence here that would stand the test of circumstantial evidence.

the fact is that we didn't know where the stuff came from, who sent it or from where. the fact is that it might just as well have been sent by us to us to make the case for wmd in Iraq.

you assume like many of the uninformed that the asses who blew up the towers and the pentagon were from Iraq, when they were primarily from saudi arabia.

Saddam, who was a dictator and a secularist, wanted no islamic fundamentalists mucking up his golden goose. There is no logical reason why he would want any terrorists in his country especially religious nuts.

as snood so aptly put it, Saddam was 4th on the list behind others. my list would read: n. korea, saudi arabia, iran, pakistan, syria. except for the second largest oil reserves in the world, saddam was small potatoes.

if you have any doubts about what i have laid out, i suggest that you read up on cia black ops. you might be less inclined then to argue against my points.

0 Replies

plainoldme

Condi wasn't much good as national security advisor. She lied about her part in the 9/11 affair. "I never heard anything about planes being crashed into buildings" why expect anything different from her in hearings as a candidate for Secretary of State

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

Condi Rice remains as arrogant in error as ever. What a nauseating woman.

Want nausiating?? Try this:

http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/photos/feature.commmadeline.jpg

Quote:

http://www.vnts.nl/index.php/madeleinealbright

During the Rambouillet talks on Kosovo in France in 1999, Albright was said to have been mistaken for a cleaning lady by one of the Albanian delegates. She is said to have burst out angrily using very undiplomatic language. Critics say that since that incident, she has upscaled her wardrobe, added more color to it and now always wears oversized gold brooches.

0 Replies

For someone "disgusted" by that, you sure do post it a lot.

I notice you prefer to attack Albright instead of defending Rice.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

One other thing which has to be emphasized, is that the first cases of anthrax were in the neighborhoods of the 9-11 hijackers, and the last previous case of anthrax in a human in the US was 30 or 40 years ago.

You either believe in modern mathematics and the laws of probabillity or you don't and if you do, then the 9-11 hijackers were also responsible for the anthrax attacks.

Now, ASSUMING that Atta et. al. were responsible for the anthrax, and I'd rate that one 100%, then the question of where they GOT the anthrax has to have a simple answer. In other words, those guys were living right in the neighborhood of the guy (Saddam Hussein) who was the world's ultimate master of that kind of ****, who was pleased as punch to sell it to terrorists and hoodlums... what possible motive could they have had to want to buy or otherwise obtain it from anybody else??

US anthrax attacks linked to army biological weapons plant

According to a report in the New York Times, federal investigators have concluded that the anthrax spores in the Daschle and Leahy letters could only have been produced in a government weapons laboratory, probably one run by the American government. The anthrax in these letters contained as many as one trillion spores per gram, a concentration sufficient to cause the death of half the American population if widely distributed.

The Washington Post, in a front-page report December 16, cited these experts as concluding: "Genetic fingerprinting studies indicate that the anthrax spores mailed to Capitol Hill are identical to stocks of the deadly bacteria maintained by the US Army since 1980." At least one of the scientists told the Post that "the original source" of the anthrax in the Daschle and Leahy letters "had to have been USAMRIID," i.e., Fort Detrick.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/anth-d28.shtml

0 Replies

IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know