[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lennier [/i]
[B]Who bit the hand that fed it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually Lennier, it was US who turned it's back to Iraq first, which then led Iraq to be in the opposite side. It was US who supported Iraq too far before they noticed that Iraq started to get too much power over OIL(!), which led US to stop supporting Iraq and then eventually attacked against Iraq in 1991. Read the article which I posted a link to in another thread.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
There is NO proof and you are complitely ignoring that. That's a very strange logic you're telling me.
- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
You say there is no proof, I say there is. We could be going around in circles longer than this conflict will last. Once again, I believe that the prior use of the weapons, and the lack of open disarmament is proof enough to justify the attack.
[QUOTE]
[i]Originally posted by PJH[/i]
Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait and security has been maintained in the region. No further conflicts have been there since the 1991 war, except now that the US is starting a military conflict there.
[/QUOTE]
The absence of open conflict is not necesarily synonomous with security in the region.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lennier [/i]
[B]You say there is no proof, I say there is. We could be going around in circles longer than this conflict will last. Once again, I believe that the prior use of the weapons, and the lack of open disarmament is proof enough to justify the attack.[/b][/quote]
Dude, it's not my opinion, it's a [b]fact[/b] that there's no proof. It's not a matter of an opinion or what I say. No evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons have been found from Iraq. You don't seem to be very well informed about this subject. I'd suggest following the news more closely.
[quote][b]The absence of open conflict is not necesarily synonomous with security in the region. [/B][/QUOTE]
Again your logic is really strange.
Lets use an example again: If the person next to you does not attack you then there is no need that you or anybody else should attack him either, am I right? Sure you might need protection if the person happens to be dangerous and you feel that he might be a threat to you, but you don't have any need to attack him or convict him unless he comes and for example punches you, am I right? You can't "neutralize" him if you just THINK he's a dangerous and a threat to you.
The area IS secure if there's no action against anyone going on and the lack of secure is no reason to attack anyone. When there is a threat you secure, when there is attack you defend and attack back, not before.
It's strange how you and the US government regard assumings as facts and that past actions of someone is enough evidence that that someone will do something again and thus gives you justification to take action against that someone.
I've never heard such a strange, twisted and immoral logic.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lennier [/i]
[B]Whenever I hear that neighbor analogy I can't help but think how naive and idealistic it sounds. Be practical. If your neighbor is sitting in his house or standing in front of a window and pointing a shotgun at your house and family members of course you have every right to use the police to take legal remedies. Of course you can't just shoot them, but thats because you have the police. In the absence of a Police force that can go arrest Saddam, we are using military force. Simple as that.
Also, consider that your typical neighbor doesn't have the means to not only kill you but gas or infect millions in addition to the thousands of Kurds already dead. The doves don't seem to ever mention them. We rather take action now then sit on our hands and one day say at least [I]we[/I] didn't hurt anyone as we mourn potentially thousands.
[/b][/quote]
Ok, in this case, the police force is the UN security council. The resolutions and enforcement thereof are the responsibility of the UN, not the US.
As far as the gassing of the Iranians and Kurds, that was a long time ago and done with the weapons [i]WE[/i] gave them to use.
I have the ability right now to break into my neighbor's house and kill him. Does that give him the right to kill me before I do so?
[b][quote]
Do a little research. UN resolution 678 gave authority to kick Iraq out of kuwait and maintain security in the region.
Resolution 687 suspended that right to use force, [i]but only on the condition that Iraq got rid of WMD. [/i] When the threat from Iraq was fresh in their minds the UN made the proper resolutions. They just don't have the balls to follow through on them now. [/B][/QUOTE]
You do some research, yourself! What is the UN charter? Why was the UN founded?
[url]http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/[/url]
The very first ideal in the Preamble:
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind"
The US is now violating that charter. Shrub and his keepers should be prosecuted in the World Court for war crimes.
Not that the US has ever paid any attention to the World Court when the decision goes against us.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i]
[B]I have the ability right now to break into my neighbor's house and kill him. Does that give him the right to kill me before I do so?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Well if you've already broken into two other houses and tried to kill their occupants, then yes.
Its sad that any life is lost and even made worse when all diplomatic means weren't exhausted.Iraq had 12 years to disarm big deal,what is a couple of more months then.The using of depleted uranium is also in violation of the geneva convention as the after effects of such weapons affect the civilian population long after the war has finished.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lennier [/i]
[B]You say there is no proof, I say there is. We could be going around in circles longer than this conflict will last. Once again, I believe that the prior use of the weapons, and the lack of open disarmament is proof enough to justify the attack.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Apart from the lacking logic which has already been answered and the inhumanity of this statement, you seem to have a lack of deep knowledge about the UN weapon inspections. Have a look at what has become known to the public: [url]http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect[/url]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]the effects of Depleted Uranium is greatly exaggerated...
you have to *EAT* it to see any effects [/B][/QUOTE]
Not true. Do research on the [url]www.[/url] You might want to start on [url]http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm[/url]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]the effects of Depleted Uranium is greatly exaggerated...
you have to *EAT* it to see any effects [/B][/QUOTE]
Or breathe in particles of it. Hmm...bullets made out of the stuff being shot from guns.... Why don't you look into how rifling works and how bits of bullets are shaved off during the process. How about how the stuff burns and particles fly off as the bullets go through the air? How about the particles that get knocked loose on impacts with anything?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]Dude, it's not my opinion, it's a [b]fact[/b] that there's no proof. It's not a matter of an opinion or what I say. No evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons have been found from Iraq. [/B][/QUOTE]
Now this is a point that has always caught my attention: If there aren't any chemical or biological weapons, why is there such a big hype about soldiers using chemical protective suits? Why are they being so cautious? Since you are sure there is no proof, would you tell the troops to stop worrying and to leave the masks and suits behind?
If there is intelligence that Iraqi field commanders have been given mustarad gas shells to use then there is some proof, unless you can prove otherwise.
On another note, Iraq must've still been hiding things from inspectors if they have Scuds to shoot off today. Those were also banned by the UN at the end of the first gulf war, which would break the cease fire agreement anyways.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i]
[B]Or breathe in particles of it. Hmm...bullets made out of the stuff being shot from guns.... Why don't you look into how rifling works and how bits of bullets are shaved off during the process. How about how the stuff burns and particles fly off as the bullets go through the air? How about the particles that get knocked loose on impacts with anything?
THEY'RE BREATHING RADIOACTIVE DUST! [/B][/QUOTE]
Actualy your assuming the DU makes contact with the lands, the DU rounds are availbe to the US government in 5 callibers, 120 MM 105 MM, 30 MM 25 MM and 20 MM, the 120 mm weapon is the Rhinemetal cannon which is a smooth bore saboted projectile the 105 mm is also rifled but is also a sabot round where the the penetrator itself never comes into contact with the lands
and for all the other weapons, the DU is located INSIDE a jacket of other metal which must be peeled away (say when it hits)
Now the impact does generate dust and fragements, but thats the LEAST of your worries, nextly even U238 dust is fairly heavy and then settles out of the air fairly fast, and is hard to disurb due to its high weight.
Secondly the amount of DU dust you would have to breat in is farily large, its a problem at maufacturing centers but not so much in battlefield conditions, or even after the fact in battlefields..
The main threat of DU is due to the fact that like all heavy metals it concentrates in the liver and could kill you via standard heavy metal poisioning, but again thats going to take large amounts.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Language of Hope [/i]
[B]Apart from the lacking logic which has already been answered and the inhumanity of this statement, you seem to have a lack of deep knowledge about the UN weapon inspections. Have a look at what has become known to the public: [url]http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect[/url]
Not true. Do research on the [url]www.[/url] You might want to start on [url]http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
He is realitivly acurate, DU isnt healthy but its not going to kill the entire population of Iraq, you have just as much to worry about lead projectiles then anything else, the radioactivity isnt the problem, its a heavy metal problem.
you could find other links to do reaserch or you might have sat through two years of college level chemistry and learned how the world really works
The danger of DU is alot less then say the damn smoke detectors we have in hour houses which are moderatly high level GAMMA emiters!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]Well if you've already broken into two other houses and tried to kill their occupants, then yes. [/B][/QUOTE]
What!!???
If he has TRIED to kill someone before, that gives you the right to KILL him?????
That is going even further than the current death penalty goes. So now in your opinion someone doesn't even have to actually kill anybody and that gives you right to execute him.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by whitestar90 [/i]
[B]Its sad that any life is lost and even made worse when all diplomatic means weren't exhausted.Iraq had 12 years to disarm big deal,what is a couple of more months then.[/b][/quote]
EXACTLY!
[quote][b]The using of depleted uranium is also in violation of the geneva convention as the after effects of such weapons affect the civilian population long after the war has finished. [/B][/QUOTE]
EXACTLY!
Btw, I've heard from the news that US brought GAS WEAPONS in Mid-East area before the war started. That is prohibited by international laws. And US is accusing Iraq of producing those same gas weapons. Not at all contradicting??? It's ok for the USA???
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by mambo_morden [/i]
[B]Now this is a point that has always caught my attention: If there aren't any chemical or biological weapons, why is there such a big hype about soldiers using chemical protective suits? Why are they being so cautious? Since you are sure there is no proof, would you tell the troops to stop worrying and to leave the masks and suits behind?[/b][/quote]
Of course they are cautious if they BELIEVE that Iraq still has those weapons and that it might use them against them. I'd be cautious as well. Besides if you go to a war you got to be prepared for everything no matter what you know about the enemy beforehand.
[quote][b]If there is intelligence that Iraqi field commanders have been given mustarad gas shells to use then there is some proof, unless you can prove otherwise.[/b][/quote]
Yes, IF and THEN.
I have not heard of nor seeing any evidence of that anywhere yet.
And that would also be knowledge gathered AFTER the war started.
[quote][b]On another note, Iraq must've still been hiding things from inspectors if they have Scuds to shoot off today. Those were also banned by the UN at the end of the first gulf war, which would break the cease fire agreement anyways. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sure, but you didn't know that beforehand(!) and inspections weren't complited. They still have the Al-Samoud (sp?) missiles as well which they were destroying under UN supervision before the war started. Some of those weren't destroyed yet before the war started.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]What!!???
If he has TRIED to kill someone before, that gives you the right to KILL him?????
That is going even further than the current death penalty goes. So now in your opinion someone doesn't even have to actually kill anybody anymore and that gives you right to execute him.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]But you still are convinced when you read a pro-war site, right?[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]Yes, IF and THEN. I have not heard of nor seeing any evidence of that anywhere yet.[/B][/QUOTE]
I find it humerous that you will take the opinion of an obviously biased anti-war site as the absolute truth, but refuse to believe evidence provided by Colin Powell and other evidence gathered by the US government. At least be consistent PJH.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]Sure, but you didn't know that beforehand(!) and inspections weren't complited.[/B][/QUOTE]
Are you certain that we did not know before hand? A statement like that would suggest that you know something the CIA does not. There's alot of info collected out there, by both the CIA and the British that isn't necessarily made public.
Even though the inspections were not finished, SCUD missiles were not declared in their latest arms declarement to the UN - so they were concealing them.
Because something is later verified does not mean it wasn't there in the first place - this goes for anything! The US stated that there were missiles and SCUDs that Iraq was hiding before they fired them last night.
Unless you are certain that we did not know before hand, you are wrong.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by mambo_morden [/i]
[B]I find it humerous that you will take the opinion of an obviously biased anti-war site as the absolute truth, but refuse to believe evidence provided by Colin Powell and other evidence gathered by the US government. At least be consistent PJH. [/B][/QUOTE]
And I find it humorous that you are now stating that I am taking, to quote you, "the opinion of an obviously biased anti-war site as the absolute truth", because I NEVER said that I do anywhere.
I'm gathering all of my information from many different websites (too many to list), TV-channels (CNN, CNBC, 4 different Finnish TV-Channels etc.) and newspapers. And most of them have not taken any sides AFAIK. I regard ONLY official confirmed information as facts. If I use unofficial unconfirmed info I'll mention that.
There has been NO definitive evidence provided by Colin Powell or US government before the war. That material which Mr. Powell introduced to the UN council and other countries was not definite proof and enough evidence from the most of the worlds opinion, thus it can't be considered such.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by mambo_morden [/i]
[B]Are you certain that we did not know before hand? A statement like that would suggest that you know something the CIA does not. There's alot of info collected out there, by both the CIA and the British that isn't necessarily made public.[/b][/quote]
That's not essential. What is essential for us as a public is what we do know from public sources. If the US and UK really does have definitive proof, then why are most of the countries still saying that there is not enough proof to justify an attack? We DO know that most of the world thinks like that.
And how could US, CIA and their current Allies expect us (the public), or other governments to support them and believe them if they don't present us that definitive evidence if they have any, but instead keep it secret? We should just trust Bush's and Blair's words even if they don't show us the evidence and let them do whatever they want? Sounds like Sledgehammer "Trust me, I know what I'm doing".
And it's still wrong anyway that US with its allies started the war without UN accepting it, no matter if there is evidence or not. So that point is actually irrelevant in the end anyway.
[quote][b]Even though the inspections were not finished, SCUD missiles were not declared in their latest arms declarement to the UN - so they were concealing them.[/b][/quote]
Yes, but that's again information which is verified AFTER the war was started. Of course you can NOW say that they were concealing them, because [b]now you know for sure[/b] because they've actually used them now.
[quote][b]Because something is later verified does not mean it wasn't there in the first place - this goes for anything![/b][/quote]
That's true.
But again there's the word LATER verified. It should be BEFORE verified if you are going to start a war against someone!
[quote][b]The US stated that there were missiles and SCUDs that Iraq was hiding before they fired them last night.
Unless you are certain that we did not know before hand, you are wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]
NO, unless you are certain that you DID know beforehand YOU are wrong. Not the other way around, because like I've said there has been no definitive evidence as far as we know from public sources (TV, Internet, Radio, Newspapers). And as long as public sources are not telling us about definitive proof, then that's what we as a public got to believe and keep as fact. Otherwise it's assuming from our part, I don't think you can deny that.
I just wonder if people see B5 paralels in the whole story - I do...and I am really afraid looking in the future. I don't think that a dictator like Saddam Hussein despite of being a thread to humanity within his country but a minor threat regarding the area in consideration of his military capabillity after the first gulfwar.
what is striking me and other people all over the world is the fact that the UN is a usefull installation as long as following a certain policy of the US administration but actually oposing against warplans of the Bush administration doesn't seem to be have any considerable impact on theirs decisions.
imho in the last weeks Bush has given a clear statement of what is political reality regarding global policy and who is the man in charge!!!
this action isn't justifyable because of a suppression - a lot of inhuman regimes were tolerated by the US in the past and even now as long as they're no thread to the gouvernement's policy. it's just a humanitarian slogan to give it some sugar making it easier to accept it.
question yourself, question the the so called reasons spread throughout the media.
And don't think that I think that my gouvernement or others refusing agreement to this war are the holy ones being on the right side - I don't think so, but I am really glad that there're some voices of resistance!
we all have to question what freedom is like and if we are that free people make us believe just because there are some lacking the freedom we know of.
* at last I just want to say to those who have relatives or friends being involved into the campaign despite of my view on this war; I just hope the strike will be quick and they'll return safely at home - I hope casualties on both sides will be of small numbers!*
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]Yes, so they probably STATED, but they didn't show any evidence to back that statement up, did they!?[/B][/QUOTE]
Perhaps you should have closely listened to Colin Powell's presentation:
[QUOTE]While inspectors destroyed most of the prohibited ballistic missiles, numerous intelligence reports over the past decade, from sources inside Iraq, indicate that Saddam Hussein retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud variant ballistic missiles. These are missiles with a range of 650 to 900 kilometers. [/QUOTE]
The evidence was out there, whether you dispute the source or not, so it appears I was not wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]
You call that evidence? There was absolutely nothing.
Powell can say whatever he wants. Even those documents and other evidence (if authentic) which according to that speech Powell presented to the UN council, are only some very small details from here and there, which can at best only suggest that Iraq has been trying to continue their WMD programs.
There was evidence presented such as Iraq acquiring of the rocket engines and aluminum pipes, some various Iraqi people's descriptions of mobile labs, unmanned plane detected to fly over the allowed 150km, recorded conversation of some people talking about bio agents. None of that actually prooves anything. At least nothing which would justify a war against a country.
If I was a leader of some country and you were to convince me and justify a war against some country you'd have to do much better than that.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by mambo_morden [/i]
[B]In all honesty, what would you consider to be convincing evidence? [/B][/QUOTE]
Clear, undisputable evidence that the country actually has working and usable WMD in possession. Pictures, video footage, maybe results of chemical analysis and so on. Not just evidence from some single parts which can be used in production of some weapons and claims of some defected people etc.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by mambo_morden [/i]
[B]I assume from this that you have, then, indeed read these "numerous intelligence reports" that Colin Powell is referring to so as to back up your claim that there "are only some very small details from here and there"? [/B][/QUOTE]
And I assume from this that you didn't even read all that text, because if you did you'd know that that evidence material which Powell presented to the UN council was described in that text by him.
Yes he also talks about "numerous intelligence reports", but he did not present any hard data of that to the UN council, only mentioned that there was such reports.
As I said earlier, if most of the world did not keep the evidence enough to justify a war, then I believe there wasn't heavy enough evidence presented/existing.
Besides, have >you< then read those "numerous intelligence reports" to back up >your< claim? Don't forget that >you< are the one who is supposed to prove that there is justification for a war. I don't have to prove anything.
I can't know more than is published, so I must base my opinion on that information. I don't have access to those secret reports including images, video footage etc. and I don't think you, or anyone else here have either, so it's no use for us to speculate what these reports might include. So lets stay with the facts that we actually do know.
Comments
[B]Who bit the hand that fed it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually Lennier, it was US who turned it's back to Iraq first, which then led Iraq to be in the opposite side. It was US who supported Iraq too far before they noticed that Iraq started to get too much power over OIL(!), which led US to stop supporting Iraq and then eventually attacked against Iraq in 1991. Read the article which I posted a link to in another thread.
- PJH
There is NO proof and you are complitely ignoring that. That's a very strange logic you're telling me.
- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
You say there is no proof, I say there is. We could be going around in circles longer than this conflict will last. Once again, I believe that the prior use of the weapons, and the lack of open disarmament is proof enough to justify the attack.
[QUOTE]
[i]Originally posted by PJH[/i]
Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait and security has been maintained in the region. No further conflicts have been there since the 1991 war, except now that the US is starting a military conflict there.
[/QUOTE]
The absence of open conflict is not necesarily synonomous with security in the region.
[B]You say there is no proof, I say there is. We could be going around in circles longer than this conflict will last. Once again, I believe that the prior use of the weapons, and the lack of open disarmament is proof enough to justify the attack.[/b][/quote]
Dude, it's not my opinion, it's a [b]fact[/b] that there's no proof. It's not a matter of an opinion or what I say. No evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons have been found from Iraq. You don't seem to be very well informed about this subject. I'd suggest following the news more closely.
[quote][b]The absence of open conflict is not necesarily synonomous with security in the region. [/B][/QUOTE]
Again your logic is really strange.
Lets use an example again: If the person next to you does not attack you then there is no need that you or anybody else should attack him either, am I right? Sure you might need protection if the person happens to be dangerous and you feel that he might be a threat to you, but you don't have any need to attack him or convict him unless he comes and for example punches you, am I right? You can't "neutralize" him if you just THINK he's a dangerous and a threat to you.
The area IS secure if there's no action against anyone going on and the lack of secure is no reason to attack anyone. When there is a threat you secure, when there is attack you defend and attack back, not before.
It's strange how you and the US government regard assumings as facts and that past actions of someone is enough evidence that that someone will do something again and thus gives you justification to take action against that someone.
I've never heard such a strange, twisted and immoral logic.
- PJH
[B]Whenever I hear that neighbor analogy I can't help but think how naive and idealistic it sounds. Be practical. If your neighbor is sitting in his house or standing in front of a window and pointing a shotgun at your house and family members of course you have every right to use the police to take legal remedies. Of course you can't just shoot them, but thats because you have the police. In the absence of a Police force that can go arrest Saddam, we are using military force. Simple as that.
Also, consider that your typical neighbor doesn't have the means to not only kill you but gas or infect millions in addition to the thousands of Kurds already dead. The doves don't seem to ever mention them. We rather take action now then sit on our hands and one day say at least [I]we[/I] didn't hurt anyone as we mourn potentially thousands.
[/b][/quote]
Ok, in this case, the police force is the UN security council. The resolutions and enforcement thereof are the responsibility of the UN, not the US.
As far as the gassing of the Iranians and Kurds, that was a long time ago and done with the weapons [i]WE[/i] gave them to use.
I have the ability right now to break into my neighbor's house and kill him. Does that give him the right to kill me before I do so?
[b][quote]
Do a little research. UN resolution 678 gave authority to kick Iraq out of kuwait and maintain security in the region.
Resolution 687 suspended that right to use force, [i]but only on the condition that Iraq got rid of WMD. [/i] When the threat from Iraq was fresh in their minds the UN made the proper resolutions. They just don't have the balls to follow through on them now. [/B][/QUOTE]
You do some research, yourself! What is the UN charter? Why was the UN founded?
[url]http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/[/url]
The very first ideal in the Preamble:
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind"
The US is now violating that charter. Shrub and his keepers should be prosecuted in the World Court for war crimes.
Not that the US has ever paid any attention to the World Court when the decision goes against us.
[B]I have the ability right now to break into my neighbor's house and kill him. Does that give him the right to kill me before I do so?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Well if you've already broken into two other houses and tried to kill their occupants, then yes.
edit- [url=http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html]Read this[/url]
you have to *EAT* it to see any effects
[B]You say there is no proof, I say there is. We could be going around in circles longer than this conflict will last. Once again, I believe that the prior use of the weapons, and the lack of open disarmament is proof enough to justify the attack.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Apart from the lacking logic which has already been answered and the inhumanity of this statement, you seem to have a lack of deep knowledge about the UN weapon inspections. Have a look at what has become known to the public: [url]http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect[/url]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by WHY [/i]
[B]the effects of Depleted Uranium is greatly exaggerated...
you have to *EAT* it to see any effects [/B][/QUOTE]
Not true. Do research on the [url]www.[/url] You might want to start on [url]http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm[/url]
[B]the effects of Depleted Uranium is greatly exaggerated...
you have to *EAT* it to see any effects [/B][/QUOTE]
Or breathe in particles of it. Hmm...bullets made out of the stuff being shot from guns.... Why don't you look into how rifling works and how bits of bullets are shaved off during the process. How about how the stuff burns and particles fly off as the bullets go through the air? How about the particles that get knocked loose on impacts with anything?
THEY'RE BREATHING RADIOACTIVE DUST!
[B]Dude, it's not my opinion, it's a [b]fact[/b] that there's no proof. It's not a matter of an opinion or what I say. No evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons have been found from Iraq. [/B][/QUOTE]
Now this is a point that has always caught my attention: If there aren't any chemical or biological weapons, why is there such a big hype about soldiers using chemical protective suits? Why are they being so cautious? Since you are sure there is no proof, would you tell the troops to stop worrying and to leave the masks and suits behind?
If there is intelligence that Iraqi field commanders have been given mustarad gas shells to use then there is some proof, unless you can prove otherwise.
On another note, Iraq must've still been hiding things from inspectors if they have Scuds to shoot off today. Those were also banned by the UN at the end of the first gulf war, which would break the cease fire agreement anyways.
[B]Or breathe in particles of it. Hmm...bullets made out of the stuff being shot from guns.... Why don't you look into how rifling works and how bits of bullets are shaved off during the process. How about how the stuff burns and particles fly off as the bullets go through the air? How about the particles that get knocked loose on impacts with anything?
THEY'RE BREATHING RADIOACTIVE DUST! [/B][/QUOTE]
Actualy your assuming the DU makes contact with the lands, the DU rounds are availbe to the US government in 5 callibers, 120 MM 105 MM, 30 MM 25 MM and 20 MM, the 120 mm weapon is the Rhinemetal cannon which is a smooth bore saboted projectile the 105 mm is also rifled but is also a sabot round where the the penetrator itself never comes into contact with the lands
and for all the other weapons, the DU is located INSIDE a jacket of other metal which must be peeled away (say when it hits)
Now the impact does generate dust and fragements, but thats the LEAST of your worries, nextly even U238 dust is fairly heavy and then settles out of the air fairly fast, and is hard to disurb due to its high weight.
Secondly the amount of DU dust you would have to breat in is farily large, its a problem at maufacturing centers but not so much in battlefield conditions, or even after the fact in battlefields..
The main threat of DU is due to the fact that like all heavy metals it concentrates in the liver and could kill you via standard heavy metal poisioning, but again thats going to take large amounts.
[B]Apart from the lacking logic which has already been answered and the inhumanity of this statement, you seem to have a lack of deep knowledge about the UN weapon inspections. Have a look at what has become known to the public: [url]http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect[/url]
Not true. Do research on the [url]www.[/url] You might want to start on [url]http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
He is realitivly acurate, DU isnt healthy but its not going to kill the entire population of Iraq, you have just as much to worry about lead projectiles then anything else, the radioactivity isnt the problem, its a heavy metal problem.
you could find other links to do reaserch or you might have sat through two years of college level chemistry and learned how the world really works
The danger of DU is alot less then say the damn smoke detectors we have in hour houses which are moderatly high level GAMMA emiters!
[B]Well if you've already broken into two other houses and tried to kill their occupants, then yes. [/B][/QUOTE]
What!!???
If he has TRIED to kill someone before, that gives you the right to KILL him?????
That is going even further than the current death penalty goes. So now in your opinion someone doesn't even have to actually kill anybody and that gives you right to execute him.
You can't be serious.
- PJH
[B]Its sad that any life is lost and even made worse when all diplomatic means weren't exhausted.Iraq had 12 years to disarm big deal,what is a couple of more months then.[/b][/quote]
EXACTLY!
[quote][b]The using of depleted uranium is also in violation of the geneva convention as the after effects of such weapons affect the civilian population long after the war has finished. [/B][/QUOTE]
EXACTLY!
Btw, I've heard from the news that US brought GAS WEAPONS in Mid-East area before the war started. That is prohibited by international laws. And US is accusing Iraq of producing those same gas weapons. Not at all contradicting??? It's ok for the USA???
- PJH
[B]hmm... one antiwar site... I can't say I'm convinced... [/B][/QUOTE]
But you still are convinced when you read a pro-war site, right?
- PJH
And You people say your against Nukes????
[B]Now this is a point that has always caught my attention: If there aren't any chemical or biological weapons, why is there such a big hype about soldiers using chemical protective suits? Why are they being so cautious? Since you are sure there is no proof, would you tell the troops to stop worrying and to leave the masks and suits behind?[/b][/quote]
Of course they are cautious if they BELIEVE that Iraq still has those weapons and that it might use them against them. I'd be cautious as well. Besides if you go to a war you got to be prepared for everything no matter what you know about the enemy beforehand.
[quote][b]If there is intelligence that Iraqi field commanders have been given mustarad gas shells to use then there is some proof, unless you can prove otherwise.[/b][/quote]
Yes, IF and THEN.
I have not heard of nor seeing any evidence of that anywhere yet.
And that would also be knowledge gathered AFTER the war started.
[quote][b]On another note, Iraq must've still been hiding things from inspectors if they have Scuds to shoot off today. Those were also banned by the UN at the end of the first gulf war, which would break the cease fire agreement anyways. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sure, but you didn't know that beforehand(!) and inspections weren't complited. They still have the Al-Samoud (sp?) missiles as well which they were destroying under UN supervision before the war started. Some of those weren't destroyed yet before the war started.
- PJH
[B]What!!???
If he has TRIED to kill someone before, that gives you the right to KILL him?????
That is going even further than the current death penalty goes. So now in your opinion someone doesn't even have to actually kill anybody anymore and that gives you right to execute him.
You can't be serious.
- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
[B]But you still are convinced when you read a pro-war site, right?[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]Yes, IF and THEN. I have not heard of nor seeing any evidence of that anywhere yet.[/B][/QUOTE]
I find it humerous that you will take the opinion of an obviously biased anti-war site as the absolute truth, but refuse to believe evidence provided by Colin Powell and other evidence gathered by the US government. At least be consistent PJH.
[B]Sure, but you didn't know that beforehand(!) and inspections weren't complited.[/B][/QUOTE]
Are you certain that we did not know before hand? A statement like that would suggest that you know something the CIA does not. There's alot of info collected out there, by both the CIA and the British that isn't necessarily made public.
Even though the inspections were not finished, SCUD missiles were not declared in their latest arms declarement to the UN - so they were concealing them.
Because something is later verified does not mean it wasn't there in the first place - this goes for anything! The US stated that there were missiles and SCUDs that Iraq was hiding before they fired them last night.
Unless you are certain that we did not know before hand, you are wrong.
[B]I find it humerous that you will take the opinion of an obviously biased anti-war site as the absolute truth, but refuse to believe evidence provided by Colin Powell and other evidence gathered by the US government. At least be consistent PJH. [/B][/QUOTE]
And I find it humorous that you are now stating that I am taking, to quote you, "the opinion of an obviously biased anti-war site as the absolute truth", because I NEVER said that I do anywhere.
I'm gathering all of my information from many different websites (too many to list), TV-channels (CNN, CNBC, 4 different Finnish TV-Channels etc.) and newspapers. And most of them have not taken any sides AFAIK. I regard ONLY official confirmed information as facts. If I use unofficial unconfirmed info I'll mention that.
There has been NO definitive evidence provided by Colin Powell or US government before the war. That material which Mr. Powell introduced to the UN council and other countries was not definite proof and enough evidence from the most of the worlds opinion, thus it can't be considered such.
- PJH
[B]Are you certain that we did not know before hand? A statement like that would suggest that you know something the CIA does not. There's alot of info collected out there, by both the CIA and the British that isn't necessarily made public.[/b][/quote]
That's not essential. What is essential for us as a public is what we do know from public sources. If the US and UK really does have definitive proof, then why are most of the countries still saying that there is not enough proof to justify an attack? We DO know that most of the world thinks like that.
And how could US, CIA and their current Allies expect us (the public), or other governments to support them and believe them if they don't present us that definitive evidence if they have any, but instead keep it secret? We should just trust Bush's and Blair's words even if they don't show us the evidence and let them do whatever they want? Sounds like Sledgehammer "Trust me, I know what I'm doing".
And it's still wrong anyway that US with its allies started the war without UN accepting it, no matter if there is evidence or not. So that point is actually irrelevant in the end anyway.
[quote][b]Even though the inspections were not finished, SCUD missiles were not declared in their latest arms declarement to the UN - so they were concealing them.[/b][/quote]
Yes, but that's again information which is verified AFTER the war was started. Of course you can NOW say that they were concealing them, because [b]now you know for sure[/b] because they've actually used them now.
[quote][b]Because something is later verified does not mean it wasn't there in the first place - this goes for anything![/b][/quote]
That's true.
But again there's the word LATER verified. It should be BEFORE verified if you are going to start a war against someone!
[quote][b]The US stated that there were missiles and SCUDs that Iraq was hiding before they fired them last night.
Unless you are certain that we did not know before hand, you are wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]
NO, unless you are certain that you DID know beforehand YOU are wrong. Not the other way around, because like I've said there has been no definitive evidence as far as we know from public sources (TV, Internet, Radio, Newspapers). And as long as public sources are not telling us about definitive proof, then that's what we as a public got to believe and keep as fact. Otherwise it's assuming from our part, I don't think you can deny that.
- PJH
[quote][b]The US stated that there were missiles and SCUDs that Iraq was hiding before they fired them last night.[/b][/quote]
Yes, so they probably STATED, but they didn't show any evidence to back that statement up, did they!?
- PJH
what is striking me and other people all over the world is the fact that the UN is a usefull installation as long as following a certain policy of the US administration but actually oposing against warplans of the Bush administration doesn't seem to be have any considerable impact on theirs decisions.
imho in the last weeks Bush has given a clear statement of what is political reality regarding global policy and who is the man in charge!!!
this action isn't justifyable because of a suppression - a lot of inhuman regimes were tolerated by the US in the past and even now as long as they're no thread to the gouvernement's policy. it's just a humanitarian slogan to give it some sugar making it easier to accept it.
question yourself, question the the so called reasons spread throughout the media.
And don't think that I think that my gouvernement or others refusing agreement to this war are the holy ones being on the right side - I don't think so, but I am really glad that there're some voices of resistance!
we all have to question what freedom is like and if we are that free people make us believe just because there are some lacking the freedom we know of.
* at last I just want to say to those who have relatives or friends being involved into the campaign despite of my view on this war; I just hope the strike will be quick and they'll return safely at home - I hope casualties on both sides will be of small numbers!*
[B]Yes, so they probably STATED, but they didn't show any evidence to back that statement up, did they!?[/B][/QUOTE]
Perhaps you should have closely listened to Colin Powell's presentation:
[QUOTE]While inspectors destroyed most of the prohibited ballistic missiles, numerous intelligence reports over the past decade, from sources inside Iraq, indicate that Saddam Hussein retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud variant ballistic missiles. These are missiles with a range of 650 to 900 kilometers. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.08/index.html[/url]
[QUOTE]Still, the report concludes that Iraq has the capability of pulling hidden Scuds out of storage and firing them. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/06/iraqi.scud.threat/[/url]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]NO, unless you are certain that you DID know beforehand YOU are wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]
The evidence was out there, whether you dispute the source or not, so it appears I was not wrong.
[B]Perhaps you should have closely listened to Colin Powell's presentation:
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.08/index.html[/url]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/06/iraqi.scud.threat/[/url]
The evidence was out there, whether you dispute the source or not, so it appears I was not wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]
You call that evidence? There was absolutely nothing.
Powell can say whatever he wants. Even those documents and other evidence (if authentic) which according to that speech Powell presented to the UN council, are only some very small details from here and there, which can at best only suggest that Iraq has been trying to continue their WMD programs.
There was evidence presented such as Iraq acquiring of the rocket engines and aluminum pipes, some various Iraqi people's descriptions of mobile labs, unmanned plane detected to fly over the allowed 150km, recorded conversation of some people talking about bio agents. None of that actually prooves anything. At least nothing which would justify a war against a country.
If I was a leader of some country and you were to convince me and justify a war against some country you'd have to do much better than that.
- PJH
[B]In all honesty, what would you consider to be convincing evidence? [/B][/QUOTE]
Clear, undisputable evidence that the country actually has working and usable WMD in possession. Pictures, video footage, maybe results of chemical analysis and so on. Not just evidence from some single parts which can be used in production of some weapons and claims of some defected people etc.
- PJH
[B]I assume from this that you have, then, indeed read these "numerous intelligence reports" that Colin Powell is referring to so as to back up your claim that there "are only some very small details from here and there"? [/B][/QUOTE]
And I assume from this that you didn't even read all that text, because if you did you'd know that that evidence material which Powell presented to the UN council was described in that text by him.
Yes he also talks about "numerous intelligence reports", but he did not present any hard data of that to the UN council, only mentioned that there was such reports.
As I said earlier, if most of the world did not keep the evidence enough to justify a war, then I believe there wasn't heavy enough evidence presented/existing.
Besides, have >you< then read those "numerous intelligence reports" to back up >your< claim? Don't forget that >you< are the one who is supposed to prove that there is justification for a war. I don't have to prove anything.
I can't know more than is published, so I must base my opinion on that information. I don't have access to those secret reports including images, video footage etc. and I don't think you, or anyone else here have either, so it's no use for us to speculate what these reports might include. So lets stay with the facts that we actually do know.
- PJH