Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Un finds more unclaimed weapons!


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Randyusasc

Randyusasc

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 03 February 2003 - 09:59 PM

Well here we go again.........how many chances are we going to give iraq to LIE to the world? Enough time has been given.... it is time for the world to act. Iraq does not intend to follow the Un guidlines. Powell will lay it on the line this week......... then the world will take action against those who would do us harm. ENOUGH SAID
  • 0

#2 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2003 - 10:39 PM

we are supposed to take your word for it ? where's the beef ?
  • 0

#3 RedCoat

RedCoat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 03 February 2003 - 11:09 PM

Stop flapping your mouth and present some evidence. Then the world might be more willing to support your line of thinking (at least over Iraq).

At the moment all I see is smoke and shit. If you have the goodies, show them.
  • 0

#4 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2003 - 11:53 PM

Well I guess it does not really matter, because when the US does present the "smoking gun", all of you will claim it's false.
  • 0

#5 Firecat

Firecat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 12:02 AM

The only smoke around here is the smoke you're trying to blow out yer ***.

There is, never was, and never will be any proof.

Oh, never mind, I'm talking to Randy... here's a pile of dog biscuits, I'll probably have a better go of making IT understand.
  • 0

#6 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2003 - 02:08 AM

See what I'm talking about....
  • 0

#7 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2003 - 07:27 AM

The reality of this a blazing gun is a difficult thing to attain, even if he (being the wonderful dictator in Iraq we all love) had the same level of wepons of mass destruction as say France, it is diificult to find them when they have been perfecting there concealment practices over the last decade, the are not stuiped. But even the UN inspectors in the press conference today (02-03-2003) stated that Iraq was in clear violation of the 1991 resulution on dissarmerment. It is impossible to say other wise.
  • 0

#8 RedCoat

RedCoat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 08:05 PM

Recon,

As from day one, when I first posted on the old site I simply asked for proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

This, despite the bluster and posturing of various politicians and posters, has never been provided. This lack of evidence, coupled to the outright facist, racist and ignorant posts by many (not all) of the pro-War lobby has made me ever more convinced that there is no legitimate case.

I am actually quite balanced in my approach to conflict. There is never such a thing as black and white, just various shades of grey. This it true whether it is of the US and Iraq, Israel and the PLO or the UK and the IRA. I am just constantly amazed at how some posters are so ignorant and blinkered in their lives that they somehow believe that they are fighting on the side of God. This arrogance deserves the contemptous response that I, and others, am willing to give out.

Being well versed in debate I can quite happily argue any case I want - whether or not it is one I believe. While there are some equally qualified and interesting Mass Debaters here, I'm afraid that there are also a lot of masterbators.

As I, and many others, have said time and again - PRESENT SOME PROOF OF YOUR ARGUMENTS.
  • 0

#9 Firecat

Firecat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 09:41 PM

If hockey is the universal language, you are the puck.

You still don't understand. How can you PROVE something doesn't exist?

Good heavens, you're thick.
  • 0

#10 Firecat

Firecat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 10:09 PM

You are saying that you can prove that they HAVE the stuff because they haven't proven that they DON'T HAVE the stuff and it existed at one time.

Do I have your argument correctly parsed? If so, consider the following.

How would you "PROVE" that you destroyed it? Take someone to a hole in the ground and say "There it WAS."

Get a clue. The burden of proof IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN on the prosecution.
  • 0

#11 RedCoat

RedCoat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 10:38 PM

Drizzay,

You have to admit that Firecat has a point. How can you prove that something has been destroyed if, by the nature of it no longer existing, it cannot be demonstrated not to be there?

I seem to remember that Iraq has apologised for the oversight of the warhead? I doubt that I could account for everything in my house, let alone my country. I know very well that the RAF has some aircraft that it does not think it has. (I can account for one on the record (excluding location) if required, as I don't think it would cause problems.)

I am not trying to excuse Iraq, but why is the US refusing to allow the weapons inspectors time to do their job? As I said before, the only reason I can come up with is that they will find that Iraq actually has no weapons (which, to my surprise, I am starting to believe) and have to explain all the money wasted on moving troops and equipment out for a war that did not take place.

What, exactly, was in those building blown up in the first war? Suppose, just for a minute, that instead of blowing up bunkers full of women and children one of the bombs actually destroyed the majority of Iraqs WMD equipment. Iraq would hardly have admitted to it at the time, would it?
  • 0

#12 RedCoat

RedCoat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 10:52 PM

Chopblock,

This conversation seems to be going round in circles.
  • 0

#13 RedCoat

RedCoat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 10:56 PM

There seems to be some evidence (which I have not had the time to look into) that the Iranians launched the so-called Iraqi gas attacks on the Iraqi people.

Turkey is quite happy to dispose of Kurds when it feels the need. But, of course, they are an ally, so can do what they want?

The UN set the sanctions. The UN are checking to see if the terms have been met. The UN inspectors asked for more time - so why is the US so desperate to start a war?

As to spending two years in that particular theatre. Live with it. That is what service life is about, and you knew that when you signed up. That is what you are paid for.
  • 0

#14 Firecat

Firecat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 11:07 PM

According to a CIA spook interviewed on Hannity & Combes last night. He was assigned to the Iraq account for the entire period of the Iraq/Iran war.

Of course, he may be lying. If he is, then you have to admit that the Iraqis were provided those weapons by the US government, who continued to sell them 18 months AFTER the gassing took place.

Which ugly scenario do you like the best, killer?

Firecat
Editor, www.StopDubya.com
  • 0

#15 RedCoat

RedCoat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 11:13 PM

Change my perspective? I doubt it. Read my profile if you haven't, then stop your whinging.
  • 0

#16 RedCoat

RedCoat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 11:15 PM

Considering the type of President you find great, why not move to Iraq. You'd probably find Saddam fantastic once you got used to things.
  • 0

#17 Firecat

Firecat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 11:22 PM

Redcoat, it would appear that our killer has some unresolved anger issues.

I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to keep rubbing his face in his own shit until he realizes it or just ignore him completely?
  • 0

#18 RedCoat

RedCoat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 11:28 PM

I used to assign people like him a nice little, shitty and pointless duty. They could usually just about manage it without f*ck*ng up, and it gave them time to think things over.

I almost miss it! :rolleyes:
  • 0

#19 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 05 February 2003 - 02:32 AM

Though I am new to this discusion board, I thought do to its nature it would have a more professional behavior of its participants. I would like to think everyone here has a maturaty above that of some little punk on the school yard. Lets keep it civil.

On that note I would like to say to those who might feel that commitment of military forces in Iraq must be avoided, I can not feel a similarity with the argument fielded by certain countries in the 1930's in reference to Germany, had there been a concerted effort to remove the Hitler, we would not faced the massive conflict that we called WW2 we now are faced with a similar issue. We can listen to the apeasers who wish to give what this new (actualy old) tyrant wants and let him become even stronger, or fight now and remove hime before he can attain his goals.

And to put it simply it will cost us less in Allied lives and money if we do it now...which is always a good thing.
  • 0

#20 RedCoat

RedCoat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 07:35 AM

I'm sorry, firebrand04, but it's not Iraq that many people are comparing to 1930s Germany.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru