Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

50 reasons why to go to war to disarm iraq.....


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 littercritter

littercritter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 22 February 2003 - 05:33 PM

Nuclear

With sufficient black-market uranium or plutonium, Iraq probably could fabricate a nuclear weapon.

If undetected and unobstructed, could produce weapons-grade fissile material within several years.

Engaged in clandestine procurement of special nuclear weapon-related equipment.

Retains large and experienced pool of nuclear scientists and technicians.

Retains nuclear weapons design, and may retain related components and software.

Repeatedly violated its obligations under the NPT, which Iraq ratified on 10/29/69.

Repeatedly violated its obligations under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 687, which mandates destruction of Iraq's nuclear weapon capabilities.

Until halted by Coalition air attacks and UNSCOM disarmament efforts, Iraq had an extensive nuclear weapon development program that began in 1972, involved 10,000 personnel, and had a multi-year budget totaling approximately $10 billion.

In 1990, Iraq also launched a crash program to divert reactor fuel under IAEA safeguards to produce nuclear weapons.

Considered two delivery options for nuclear weapons: either using unmodified al-Hussein ballistic missile with 300km range, or producing Al-Hussein derivative with 650km range.

In 1987, Iraq reportedly field tested a radiological bomb.

Biological


May retain stockpile of biological weapon (BW) munitions, including over 150 R-400 aerial bombs, and 25 or more special chemical/biological Al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads.

May retain biological weapon sprayers for Mirage F-1 aircraft.

May retain mobile production facility with capacity to produce "dry" biological agents (i.e., with long shelf life and optimized for dissemination).

Has not accounted for 17 metric tonnes of BW growth media.

May possess smallpox virus; tested camelpox prior to Gulf War.

Maintains technical expertise and equipment to resume production of Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax), botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, and Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene).

Prepared BW munitions for missile and aircraft delivery in 1990-1991 Gulf War; this included loading al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads and R-400 aerial bombs with Bacillis anthracis.

Conducted research on BW dissemination using unmanned aerial vehicles.

Repeatedly violated its obligations under UNSC Resolution 687, which mandates destruction of Iraq's biological weapon capabilities.

Ratified the BTWC on 4/18/91, as required by the Gulf War cease-fire agreement.

Chemical


May retain stockpile of chemical weapon (CW) munitions, including 25 or more special chemical/biological al-Hussein ballistic missile warheads, 2,000 aerial bombs, 15,000-25,000 rockets, and 15,000 artillery shells.

Believed to possess sufficient precursor chemicals to produce hundreds of tons of mustard gas, VX, and other nerve agents.

Reconstructing former dual-use CW production facilities that were destroyed by U.S. bombing.

Retains sufficient technical expertise to revive CW programs within months.

Repeatedly used CW against Iraqi Kurds in 1988 and against Iran in 1983-1988 during the Iran-Iraq war.

An extensive CW arsenal
  • 0

#2 littercritter

littercritter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 22 February 2003 - 05:46 PM

no comments on the iraq comments??? so i guess you agree with the thread. if not, go start another thread.:D :D :cool:
  • 0

#3 Source

Source

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9046 posts

Posted 22 February 2003 - 07:52 PM

lots of words like probably, could, may.

to get people behind a cause, regardless of whether it's considered right or wrong, requires a body of persuasive evidence much in excess of what's presented here or indeed anywhere else thus far with regards to war against iraq.

obviously this is good news since this insane plan is heinous beyond imagination and the architects of it are undoubtedly evil bastards without peer ;)
  • 0

#4 MirrorMan

MirrorMan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8418 posts

Posted 22 February 2003 - 11:04 PM

Let's not forget that Iraq was a U.S. ally when most of this was going on. While Saddam was gassing Iranian forces he got U.S. intelligence about where the Iranian troops were located. Halabja was probably caused by wrong U.S. intelligence.

If Saddam had not invaded Kuwait, Saddam would have atomic bombs by now, and guess what??? Rumsfeld would be visiting one of Saddams palaces, negotiating the use of Iraqi air bases to attack Iran. In return Saddam would be allowed to invade Kuwait with impunity. The U.S. would explain that to the world by saying that Kuwait was also involved in 9/11.

Saddam's (premature) invasion of Kuwait has prevented this scenario from unfolding. Saddam invaded Kuwait because of its oil and the international community drove Saddam back. This had nothing to do with WMD. So, why the focus on Saddam's WMD after the Gulf War?
  • 0

#5 littercritter

littercritter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 22 February 2003 - 11:10 PM

get your history straight, jack. the US was not an ally of iraq in the iran iraq war. we provided them money and intelligence. that is a far cry from being an ally.

that is called looking out for what you see are your interests at the time. newbie to the world of politics???:D :o :D :D :cool:
  • 0

#6 MirrorMan

MirrorMan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8418 posts

Posted 22 February 2003 - 11:18 PM

littercritter

get your history straight, jack. the US was not an ally of iraq in the iran iraq war. we provided them money and intelligence. that is a far cry from being an ally.


Well, I guess that the rules of the game have changed. I don't think that someone providing ''money and intelligence'' to Bin Laden would not be considered an ally of Bin Laden by Bush. But then if you are the U.S. president you can do as you please.
  • 0

#7 littercritter

littercritter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 22 February 2003 - 11:23 PM

double negatives really destroy a post......and no i am not the president.:)
  • 0

#8 RedCoat

RedCoat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 23 February 2003 - 12:28 AM

"the US was not an ally of iraq in the iran iraq war. we provided them money and intelligence. that is a far cry from being an ally. "

So you share inteligence with nations that are not your ally. Does this explain, then, why your government refuses to share intelligence with its supposed actual allies, like the UN?
  • 0

#9 littercritter

littercritter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 23 February 2003 - 12:47 AM

since when the hell is the UN our allies? God forbid the day that happens.:( :mad: :mad:
  • 0

#10 fu2

fu2

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25082 posts

Posted 23 February 2003 - 02:18 AM

no comments on the iraq comments???

Is there anything to comment on hear say? Yje simple facts are, despite all the "inteligence info" the US provided to the weapons inspectors, none come to be true. Why do you think the inspectors call the US "inteligence info" a CRAP? LOL :D.

This either means that the US "inteligence info" is wrong (hence all their claims about Iraq are product of their sick imagination) or they intentially lie to the UN in order to find some pseudo legality on attacking a sovereighn nation. In both cases the US warmongers are screwd though. LOL :D
  • 0

#11 JaySantos

JaySantos

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 23 February 2003 - 03:34 AM

Originally posted by MirrorMan

If Saddam had not invaded Kuwait, Saddam would have atomic bombs by now, and guess what??? Rumsfeld would be visiting one of Saddams palaces, negotiating the use of Iraqi air bases to attack Iran. In return Saddam would be allowed to invade Kuwait with impunity. The U.S. would explain that to the world by saying that Kuwait was also involved in 9/11.
[/B]




Your fantasy scenario forgets one thing: Why 9/11? One answer is because bin laden wants US troops out of the Holy Land. Why are US troops/bases in the Holy Land. Maybe it has something to do w/ Iraq Invading kuwait. Oh wait, not maybe, that is the reason. So, by your logic, if no invasion of Kuwait, there wouldn't be the bases that bin laden hates so there'd be no 9-11. $0.02
  • 0

#12 MirrorMan

MirrorMan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8418 posts

Posted 23 February 2003 - 02:31 PM

JaySantos

Your fantasy scenario forgets one thing: Why 9/11? One answer is because bin laden wants US troops out of the Holy Land. Why are US troops/bases in the Holy Land. Maybe it has something to do w/ Iraq Invading kuwait. Oh wait, not maybe, that is the reason. So, by your logic, if no invasion of Kuwait, there wouldn't be the bases that bin laden hates so there'd be no 9-11. $0.02



But why did people like Atta join Al Qa?da in the first place. Why would an Arab student studying in Germany go to Afghanistan for training. Yes, Bin Laden has his own motivations, but without people like Atta, 9/11 would not be possible.

I think that the reason is that about 6 billion people see that the U.S. is supporting Irsrael's fascist policies. A tiny fraction of those people, one in hundred million, want to take desperate measures to stop the U.S. But that is still a lot of people. Did Atta really need Bin Laden to attack the U.S.? Probably not. He could have done it all by himself.
  • 0

#13 MirrorMan

MirrorMan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8418 posts

Posted 01 February 2005 - 10:40 PM

[URL][/URL]
  • 0

#14 TerrorPod

TerrorPod

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7451 posts

Posted 01 February 2005 - 10:45 PM

:eek:
  • 0

#15 dobbie

dobbie

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2368 posts

Posted 01 February 2005 - 10:54 PM

Whats really funny is some of our posters still believe the crap put forth in this thread.
Im guessing that littercritter has got hinself a new nic due to the corruption of the old from these stupid statements he believes in.
  • 0

#16 MirrorMan

MirrorMan

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8418 posts

Posted 01 February 2005 - 10:59 PM

Originally posted by dobbie
Whats really funny is some of our posters still believe the crap put forth in this thread.
Im guessing that littercritter has got hinself a new nic due to the corruption of the old from these stupid statements he believes in.


:D
  • 0

#17 TerrorPod

TerrorPod

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7451 posts

Posted 03 December 2005 - 10:20 PM

:wonder:
  • 0

#18 EZland

EZland

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12346 posts

Posted 03 December 2005 - 10:27 PM

-------------------
I think that the reason is that about 6 billion people see that the U.S. is supporting Irsrael's fascist policies. A tiny fraction of those people, one in hundred million, want to take desperate measures to stop the U.S. But that is still a lot of people. Did Atta really need Bin Laden to attack the U.S.? Probably not. He could have done it all by himself.
-------------------
:wonder: :kowt:
  • 0

#19 vbcode

vbcode

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6233 posts

Posted 03 December 2005 - 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Source
lots of words like probably, could, may.

to get people behind a cause, regardless of whether it's considered right or wrong, requires a body of persuasive evidence much in excess of what's presented here or indeed anywhere else thus far with regards to war against iraq.

obviously this is good news since this insane plan is heinous beyond imagination and the architects of it are undoubtedly evil bastards without peer ;)



Right:happy:

A huge number of countries enter littercritter's criteria. So let's invade the world and make them join American flag!!!!:wonder:
  • 0

#20 vbcode

vbcode

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6233 posts

Posted 03 December 2005 - 11:10 PM

Originally posted by littercritter
no comments on the iraq comments??? so i guess you agree with the thread. if not, go start another thread.:D :D :cool:



No way
I disagree!:happy:
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru