Calecia.com




Discussions

> Search   > Members

> Profile   > Log in

> Register
Dude, where's my nerve gas?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Calecia.com Discussions Forum Index -> Current Events & Social Issues
Author Message
bemisnorris
Cole


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 2096
Location: Not Here
Reputation: 91.4Reputation: 91.4
Votes: 1

PostPosted: 23 Mar 2003 12:08 AM    Post subject: Dude, where's my nerve gas? Reply with quote

The U.S. has gone to war against Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussien and his regime of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq claims that they have no more weapons of mass destruction, but the U.S. insists that they do. Up to this point in time, Iraq has not used any of their so-called weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops, and U.S. troops have not found any evidence of these weapons that they insist Iraq has.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/20/iraq/main544764.shtml

What implications will it have if no weapons of mass destruction are ever found? Will Saddam be allowed to return to power? Will the U.S. be sanctioned in some way?

What if Iraq never uses any of the chemical and/or biological weapons, the U.S. insists they have, against U.S. troops, but the U.S. reveals that they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Will the rest of the world believe that Iraq had these weapons and just decided not to use them? Or would they believe that the U.S. planted them to avoid embarrassment and justify the war?
Back to top
Sponsored Links
verbal
Cole


Joined: 24 Oct 2002
Posts: 2555
Location: C-Town
Reputation: 99Reputation: 99
Votes: 9

PostPosted: 23 Mar 2003 06:31 PM    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who is going to sanction the US?

No one. What, we are going to put an economic embargo on our country?

Who is going to convinct the US of war crimes?

No one.

No one sanctioned the US after dropping two atomic bombs on the two civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in 1945.

No one was arrested for placing Japanese Americans in internment camps.

The USA has no international laws applied to them. Unless China and Russia want to do some thing about it.

By 2015 China will have from 75-100 ICMB's. Red Dawn anyone.
Back to top
bemisnorris
Cole


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 2096
Location: Not Here
Reputation: 91.4Reputation: 91.4
Votes: 1

PostPosted: 23 Mar 2003 08:41 PM    Post subject: Reply with quote

verbal wrote:
Who is going to sanction the US?

No one. What, we are going to put an economic embargo on our country?

Who is going to convinct the US of war crimes?

No one.

No one sanctioned the US after dropping two atomic bombs on the two civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in 1945.

No one was arrested for placing Japanese Americans in internment camps.

The USA has no international laws applied to them. Unless China and Russia want to do some thing about it.

By 2015 China will have from 75-100 ICMB's. Red Dawn anyone.


That is very true, but how much longer will the rest of the world allow us to do things like this, especially if we are proven wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?
Back to top
spic-ole
Coffee


Joined: 10 Oct 2002
Posts: 1655
Location: UC Calecia
Reputation: 89.4Reputation: 89.4
Votes: 1

PostPosted: 23 Mar 2003 11:49 PM    Post subject: Re: Dude, where's my nerve gas? Reply with quote

bemisnorris wrote:
The U.S. has gone to war against Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussien and his regime of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq claims that they have no more weapons of mass destruction, but the U.S. insists that they do.


I don't know if they do or not, all I know is that Iraqi generals practically laughed at what the U.S. called their "Shock & Awe" campaign, and stated that if they really wanted to see a "Shock & Awe" campaign, Iraq would show it to them.
Back to top
bemisnorris
Cole


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 2096
Location: Not Here
Reputation: 91.4Reputation: 91.4
Votes: 1

PostPosted: 24 Mar 2003 12:43 AM    Post subject: Re: Dude, where's my nerve gas? Reply with quote

spic-ole wrote:
bemisnorris wrote:
The U.S. has gone to war against Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussien and his regime of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq claims that they have no more weapons of mass destruction, but the U.S. insists that they do.


I don't know if they do or not, all I know is that Iraqi generals practically laughed at what the U.S. called their "Shock & Awe" campaign, and stated that if they really wanted to see a "Shock & Awe" campaign, Iraq would show it to them.


I'm sure many Americans are "shocked" that 10 Marines were killed and 12 soldiers are missing after a battle at Nasiriya, and are "awed" by the fact that Iraqi forces are showing more resistance than at the earlier stages of the war.
Back to top
Sponsored Links
bemisnorris
Cole


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 2096
Location: Not Here
Reputation: 91.4Reputation: 91.4
Votes: 1

PostPosted: 02 May 2003 10:00 PM    Post subject: Reply with quote

As of May 2, 2003 we still haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. What will George Dubya do if none is found? I think that the U.S. will plant some just to avoid embarrassment.
Back to top
bemisnorris
Cole


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 2096
Location: Not Here
Reputation: 91.4Reputation: 91.4
Votes: 1

PostPosted: 18 Dec 2003 09:11 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

The New York Times wrote:
Remember 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'? For Bush, They Are a Nonissue

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 — In the debate over the necessity for the war in Iraq, few issues have been more contentious than whether Saddam Hussein possessed arsenals of banned weapons, as the Bush administration repeatedly said, or instead was pursuing weapons programs that might one day constitute a threat.

On Tuesday, with Mr. Hussein in American custody and polls showing support for the White House's Iraq policy rebounding, Mr. Bush suggested that he no longer saw much distinction between the possibilities.

"So what's the difference?" he responded at one point as he was pressed on the topic during an interview by Diane Sawyer of ABC News.


What's the difference? Over 200 American soldiers died to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and you say what's the difference!?!?!?!

The New York Times wrote:
This week, at a news conference on Monday and in the ABC interview on Tuesday, Mr. Bush's answers to questions on the subject continued a gradual shift in the way he has addressed the topic, from the immediacy of the threat to an assertion that no matter what, the world is better off without Mr. Hussein in power.


No! Iraq is better off without Mr. Hussein in power. I'm neither better off, nor worse off without Saddam in power.

The New York Times wrote:
Mr. Bush replied. "I'm telling you — I made the right decision for America because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country."


What about Osama bin Laden? I thought he was the main threat to the security of the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/politics/18PREX.html
Back to top
alpha
Wal-Mart Associate


Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 245
Location: under your bed
Reputation: 38.3Reputation: 38.3Reputation: 38.3Reputation: 38.3

PostPosted: 18 Dec 2003 11:04 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

i just think this war was all bullshit. what the u.s. really wanted was to take full control of the oil that is produced. Iraq has very rich lands with lots of oil refineris <-----(or how ever the fuck you spell that)

and it was all a lie about the weapons of mass destruction there is none i mean there is ppl just looking for them all day long and they have not found anything ever since the war started. so thats all just plain bull.

and then what when the war is over whats going to happen fuck who ever said we cant get a economic depresion for the money that was take for this stupid war. i mean from what i know funds that the u.s. have for war are running out or prob already did, some shit like that so that meas taxes can go up on everything and are ppl going to be happy all i say karma is a fucking bitch and this will come back around some way or another.
Back to top
bemisnorris
Cole


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 2096
Location: Not Here
Reputation: 91.4Reputation: 91.4
Votes: 1

PostPosted: 18 Dec 2003 11:33 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

alpha wrote:
and then what when the war is over whats going to happen fuck who ever said we cant get a economic depresion for the money that was take for this stupid war. i mean from what i know funds that the u.s. have for war are running out or prob already did, some shit like that so that meas taxes can go up on everything


I'm glad you brought this up.

United Press International wrote:
WASHINGTON - With $63 billion above and beyond the military's annual budget already earmarked for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2004, the Pentagon's top budget official said he expects the Defense Department will require another supplemental appropriation to cover the bill in 2005 as well.


http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_money_121803,00.html
Back to top
alpha
Wal-Mart Associate


Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 245
Location: under your bed
Reputation: 38.3Reputation: 38.3Reputation: 38.3Reputation: 38.3

PostPosted: 18 Dec 2003 11:46 AM    Post subject: Reply with quote

and im pertty sure there is someone who can sanction the us for what they did i mean its not going to be the world power all the time. and they do have to do some kind of reconstruction. As for sadam he is not going to be try just for possesion of weaponds of mass destruction, he is also going to be try for all the ppl he kill in iraq not only during war, and he already did say he does not feel bad and does not care for all the ppl he kill for no aperent reason. and do remember that he was on the black list of the u.s. so weaponds of mass destructiom is not the only thing he can be try for.
Back to top
Sponsored Links
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Calecia.com Discussions Forum Index -> Current Events & Social Issues All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1