Blood for oil

HeXp£Øi± said:
the fact that Iraq can develope weapons without anyone knowing" ? Don't WE do that here?
Click to expand...
No we don't. We decided many years ago to work towards disarmament so we've been cutting the amount of nuclear devices we have.
Click to expand...

Oh, PLEASE...You CAN'T believe that the US isn't developing new weapons technologies. I can't even entertain the thought that that was a serious comment.
 
Anyway Squiggy your ideas are novel, but they just don't cut it in the real world. You can sit here and argue until you're blue in the face that Iraq has the right to produce these weapons and use them as they please but that's just not going to fly with people who value human life.
 
Hex is right, Squiggman. Nuclear is a dead-end. Try Lasers and particle-beams and you'd be more correct... ;)
 
Now its getting stupid. WHEN did I say Iraq can use their weapons "as they please"? Why do so many here like to distort the truth when trying to discuss this stuff? I am actually looking for a clearer point of view here. I'm not arguing anything.
 
Well if we know they've used them as they pleased in the past, they've threatened to use them against us, and they continue to develop them then what the hell do you think they're going to do with a nuclear weapon when they have it? If you want to consider stupid then rethink your reasoning process.
 
"We" remain the only ones who have ever used a nuclear weapon. Again, a distortion planted from nowhere. And I've been trying to say that I am looking to clarify my own position on this issue, but I'm not going to accept unfounded reasoning as clarity. I'll opt out of this discussion if I'm unable to make that clear. I'm NOT trying to change any minds here or "argue" anything.
 
You're so full of it. Claiming i'm putting words in your mouth and in the same breath making it sound like i'm denying the fact that we've used the bomb. Which probably saved countless American and yes and japanese lives.
Stop with the retoric already you're not sly enough to pull it off. He's had chemical weapons, he's used them. He's had biological weapons, he's used them. If he hasn't used nuclear weapons it's because he doesn't have them yet.
 
Okay, Squiggy. Here are the facts, as we know them.

1. The US is, so far, the only country to use nuclear weapons...HOWEVER, those weapons were used on an enemy (Japan) who had attacked us first, and we didn't have the means to go house-to-house with an enemy who thought surrender was the height of dishonor.

2. Chemical weapons (first used by both sides in WW1) are outlawed by the Geneva Convention because they cause 'unneccesary suffering'. What that means, I don't know, but accept that as fact. Since WW1, only one country has used chemical weapons. Iraq used chemical weapons first on the Iranians that pushed their army back into Iraqi territory during the 1980's (on their own soil, I might add), and on the Kurdish population of Iraq during the same period. Later, Iraq invades Kuwait, under the guise of recapturing stolen terrirory. Iraq threatened to use the same type of chemical weapons on coalition troops during the Gulf War, but were deftly dissuaded from that action by the promise of the UK that one chem attack will result in 2 nuclear attacks. Also during the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein launched attacks against a non-combatant nation in order to shift the focus of the war onto another area. Now suppose this guy has nukes. Think he's going to be scared to up the ante during his next military campaign? I don't think so. True, that last bit is supposition, but it is something to think about and draw your own conclusions.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
Well if we know they've used them as they pleased in the past, they've threatened to use them against us, and they continue to develop them then what the hell do you think they're going to do with a nuclear weapon when they have it? If you want to consider stupid then rethink your reasoning process.
Click to expand...

HeX, If that doesn't imply subliminally that Iraq used nuclear weapons, I apologize. My problem isn't that I don't think Sadam has got to go. Its about "our" motivations and integrity. Don't forget that the Shaw was also killing his people by the thousands, but because he was friendly toward our oil interests, he did it while we turned a blind eye. There are so many grey issues wrapped in this that its difficult to find a line to hold. Thats all I've been trying to point out. I'm not trying to anger anyone. If I misspeak, use it against me. But don't imply that I said things when I didn't.
 
Don't forget that the Shaw was also killing his people by the thousands, but because he was friendly toward our oil interests, he did it while we turned a blind eye.
Click to expand...
Do two wrongs make a right? Because Bill Clinton sat by and watched a Genocide take place does that mean we should do it again? No. We learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. Anyway, i agree. The point of discussion is to turn grey areas into understanding.
Besides, i don't get angry, i mearly use text aggressively. :D
 
How's this for clear...

He's a genocidal maniac that has even mass-murdered his own people by the thousands now he wants nukes. He doesn't live in peace with his neighbors, he invades and slaughters. He rigs "elections" and/or murders anyone that tries to run against him.

What do you think he wants nukes for? To start a hippy commune?

Get real dude, come back to Earth...
 
My mention of the Shaw was meant to point out that the capaicity to do evil has never been a concern of ours. The only thing that has changed in the Iraq equation is that they have become unfriendly to our oil interests. I wouldn't want to have to use that as an excuse to die or kill. If we do, we expose ourselves to the same treatment from the rest of the world because of our gluttony. So no. Its not black and white to me yet. I am not saying that I wouldn't support this country because they went into a war that I wasn't sold on. I enlisted in the USMC in '69 and I never agreed with that war.
And Coffeee Bean, Just because my thinking isn't the same as yours doesn't mean that you're on earth and I'm in space. You've already demonstrated your propensity toward hypocrisy by posting opposing views in two different threads. Apparently, you don't even know what you think.
 
Chills with the personal attacks, ladies. Where's your integrity, Marine? I know they taught that stuff back in '69.
 
MitchSchaft said:
Chills with the personal attacks, ladies. Where's your integrity, Marine? I know they taught that stuff back in '69.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to maintain it. Sorry for the weak moment.
 
Squiggy said:
And Coffeee Bean, Just because my thinking isn't the same as yours doesn't mean that you're on earth and I'm in space. You've already demonstrated your propensity toward hypocrisy by posting opposing views in two different threads. Apparently, you don't even know what you think.
Click to expand...

By saying that Martial Law is an infringment on our rights? Just because I support the right doesn't mean I don't ever think they make mistakes.

Who's the hypocrite komrade?
 
HomeLAN said:
Squiggy said:
Its about "our" motivations and integrity.
Click to expand...

Gee, I thought it was about a threat to our nation and way of life. Silly me...
Click to expand...

And another one...You took that out of context to make it fit a smartass remark. I believe that it read, "Its [my concern] about "our" motivation and integrity". Reads a little different that way. If "it" was "a threat to our nation and way of life", I would be able to find the line I'm searching to walk. Again, why can't this be discussed in enlightening ways instead of all this anomosity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top