The W
Views: 100031907
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.07 0715
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - You know what's funny about this whole Iraq thing...
This thread has 5 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(1838 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (19 total)
Cerebus
Scrapple
Level: 108

Posts: 427/3470
EXP: 13496115
For next: 24428

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#1 Posted on 28.2.03 2039.45
Reposted on: 28.2.10 2040.48
I don't see other countries comming over here to the U.S. and telling US to dismantle OUR nukes? What, are WE special or something?

WHAT! I'm just SAYING...
Promote this thread!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 1777/16309
EXP: 142825895
For next: 541012

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on 28.2.03 2057.49
Reposted on: 28.2.10 2059.03

    Originally posted by Cerebus
    What, are WE special or something?
Yes.
Cerebus
Scrapple
Level: 108

Posts: 428/3470
EXP: 13496115
For next: 24428

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#3 Posted on 28.2.03 2316.11
Reposted on: 28.2.10 2318.39
Um, why? Why are we 'special' then. What gives us the right to have all these weapons of mass destruction, yet at every turn, we stop others from having them. Don't ather countries have the same rights as us to protect themselves from forign powers.

Example: The French. EVERYONE hates them. They know it. What do they do, set off a few nukes on deserted islands just to keep assholes in check, as if to say "Ok, you may not like us, but you better not do anything to us cause we're ready for you you nice smelling, water loving faggots." They are just thinking of themselves.

Now Saddam gat a few missles. OH NO! That means his country has about .008% of the firepower the US has. And we're gonna go after him because HE'S the bad guy trying to take down US? I guess I'm not seeing the logic in this, perhaps if I was a flag waving jar head like the rest of the country, I'd get it. But the guy's a ruler of his country, not a religous zealot like Bin Laden.

I guess next, we'll go after the countrys who armed HIM, right? That's gonna be funny. I found this quite an interesting read. this is taken from the SUNDAY HERALD in Scotland...

"SEVENTEEN British companies who supplied Iraq with nuclear, biological, chemical, rocket and conventional weapons technology are to be investigated and could face prosecution following a Sunday Herald investigation.

One of the companies is Inter national Military Services, a part of the Ministry of Defense, which sold rocket technology to Iraq. The companies were named by Iraq in a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December. The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages -- including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq...

...24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities...Germany, currently opposed to war, is shown to be Iraq's biggest arms-trading partner with 80 companies selling weapons technology, including Siemens. It sold medical machines with dual-purpose parts used to detonate nuclear bombs...In China three companies traded weapons technology; in France eight and in Russia six. Other countries included Japan with five companies; Holland with three; Belgium with seven; Spain with three and Sweden with two, including Saab.

The UN claims publicly naming the companies would be counter-productive. Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members -- Russia and China -- traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991. All trade in WMD technology has been outlawed for decades."

I wonder which country we would start with after we take out Saddam.

This was a nice quote I got from the article...

"Mick Napier of the Stop The War Coalition said: 'How can we support a government which says it's against mass murder when its record is one of supporting and supplying Iraq? This government depends on public mass amnesia.'"

Interesting read, you can go see it for yourself here here.

(edited by Cerebus on 28.2.03 2117)
Excalibur05
Knackwurst
Level: 102

Posts: 1200/2927
EXP: 10811811
For next: 278194

Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 1.3.03 0207.52
Reposted on: 1.3.10 0208.02
We're less likely to use them, so the fact that we have them is pretty moot. And if we DID use them, we'd have everything to lose as there are A LOT of other countries that would start getting REALLY pissy after that. Iraq is already not well loved, they are run by a military, and have shown willingness to use chemical and biological weapons in the past and are actively seeking nuclear weapons, and would very likely use THOSE too, if they could get them.

Yeah, I know, we're the only people ever to use nukes. The rest of the world hasn't let us forget about that.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1025/4700
EXP: 21588308
For next: 248354

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#5 Posted on 1.3.03 0919.00
Reposted on: 1.3.10 0922.09

    Originally posted by Cerebus
    perhaps if I was a flag waving jar head like the rest of the country, I'd get it.

I don't thin insulting Marines is a good way to prove the point.


    Originally posted by Cerebus
    I wonder which country we would start with after we take out Saddam

Hopefully Cuba; Major League Baseball needs a place to move the Marlins.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 76/810
EXP: 1523860
For next: 53695

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 3 days
#6 Posted on 1.3.03 0939.52
Reposted on: 1.3.10 0941.08
There is an expression in Latin that says 'That which is permitted to Jove is not permitted to a cow' (when translated, anyways).

Also, you mentioned that Russia and China did sell the weapons to Iraq after the resolution. Shouldn't this recuse them from voting in this matter? If they cannot live according to the UN resolutions (over which they have veto power), then why are they writing further resolutions about the exact same issue? This just further points out the complete uselessness of the UN.

And, which country was Mick Napier referring to? France, Germany, China, and Russia throughout the 1990s? Or, the U.S. in the 1980s when Hussein was fighting Khomeini (who, rightly or wrongly, was a bigger enemy of the U.S. at the time)? I'm not defending the sales, I'm just asking why the U.S. gets castigated for this while France, Germany, etc. are portrayed as being 'for peace' in spite of their very recent history. The truth is that the U.S. has ulterior motives in wanting to depose Hussein and France, Germany, Russia, et al have ulterior motives in keeping him in power. It is not because the U.S. is 'pro-war' and hegemonic and wants to shed blood while the other countries are 'pro-peace' and against Iraqi bloodshed. Regardless of whether or not there is a military intervention, blood will be shed and will continue to be shed. The question is who will shed the most blood: Hussein and his ultimate successor (Have you read about his sons? They are worse than him)? Or, a U.S. lead coalition? Personally, I vote for the U.S. as the party likely to shed the least blood, especially in the long-run.

EDIT: Cerebus: BTW, Love the quote about graft!

(edited by Corajudo on 1.3.03 0941)
Cerebus
Scrapple
Level: 108

Posts: 435/3470
EXP: 13496115
For next: 24428

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#7 Posted on 1.3.03 1022.01
Reposted on: 1.3.10 1023.35
I did not mean 'jar head' in a mean way, it just sounded mean. I have a friend in the mariens and we all car him that and he actually TOLD us to call him that. I don't know either...

Yeah, China got busted selling materials used to make missles as far back as late last year. We should go level thier country.

Hmm, I wonder where THEY got the stuff from...

"Two major US aerospace companies, Hughes Electronics Corp. and Boeing Satellite Systems, Inc. have been charged by the US State Department with 123 counts for violating the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The companies are charged with illegally transferring sensitive US space technology and instructions during the mid-1990's that could have helped the Chinese military develop and perfect intercontinental missiles. In addition, to curry favor with Beijing, Hughes hired the son of a PLA military General-called China's "most important space official"-who oversaw a $600 million communications satellite contract. A third company, Loral, previously agreed to pay a $14 million fine and to spend $6 million on internal reforms to stop (illegal) overseas technology transfers."

...this was a side bar item in the Washington Post Jan 21st 2003. Sounds to ME like someone in our own government is prefabricating a war.

Hey, it's not so far fetched. Both companies have long standing contracts with our government for the same stuff they are selling to China. Do YOU think the government didn't know they were selling this stuff to other countries. It's a conspiricy I tell you.

Corajudo: If you like it, you should read the series, quite excellent.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 511/1528
EXP: 4085455
For next: 105693

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2832 days
Last activity: 2674 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 1.3.03 1205.11
Reposted on: 1.3.10 1221.12
And you can thank Bill Clinton, that great patron of the Chinese, for it. It has nothing to do with a Bush conspiracy to start a war, and everything to do with campaign contributions for Slick Willy.

The Washington Post has a neat archive of relevant stories here.

And what the hell does Bush gain by starting this war with Iraq, politically? It has only hurt him in the polls.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1100/2108
EXP: 6617149
For next: 33541

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#9 Posted on 1.3.03 1428.34
Reposted on: 1.3.10 1429.03
And what the hell does Bush gain by starting this war with Iraq, politically? It has only hurt him in the polls.

You're going to have to show me these polls. If Bush didn't have the whole "I'm are movie star bad-ass" thing going for him, he'd probably be at about 40%. I love when people get mad at Hollywood stars for getting involved in politics, because every time I see Bush talk it seems more and more like he's trying really hard to play the President in an action movie.

The U.S. (and France, Russia, England, China, Pakistan, India, and Israel) all don't have the outcry over nukes that Iraq does because these countries having nukes doesn't really change the regional or international balance of power or deterence. When Israel got nukes in the mid-seventies, nothing really changed in that region in terms of balance of power, as Israel had already demonstrated they could kick the Arab's ass pretty much at will, and Russia wouldn't let them go too crazy with the nukes. If India and Pakistan didn't BOTH have nukes, it would probably be a problem, but the two counter each nicely (although it still makes everyone pretty nervous).

If Iraq got nukes the entire balance of power in the region (and perhaps the world) would be shifted, leading to a whole lot of unpredictability, which is probably the scariest thing, from a "let's avoid really bad wars" standpoint, that there can be.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1024/1759
EXP: 4930981
For next: 61889

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on 1.3.03 1752.52
Reposted on: 1.3.10 1755.18
I think there is a big difference between the US having nukes and Iraq having nukes. Granted, we were the only nation to ever use them, but at that time, their effects were unknown. And it was clear that at the time, the first nation to get them was going to use them.

Fast forward to today, were the vast majority of the nuclear powers recognize that offensive use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is immoral. Evil even. We as a civilized society (societies?) have reached a point where we abhor the intentional killing of civilians in war. We even mourn the accidental civilian losses we cause.

Iraq, on the other hand, seeks to have these weapons to use them. We reject this attitude on a global scale. It is the same argument that a pro-gun American would use. Everyone has the right to bear arms to defend themselves (I believe this is a legitimate stance), however, if it is clear that a person wants a gun to commit murder, he is to be denied that weapon. In this case, Saddaam is the felon who blew someones brains out in the past. He has served his time and has been released, but he no longer has the right to possess a gun. To take the analogy even further, he is required to prove that he does indeed not own a gun.

If the United States suddenly demonstrated a change of heart, and began to threaten use of nuclear weapons in an offensive manner, I would give more credibility to the notion that we, too, should be disarmed.
Dahak
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 355/772
EXP: 1446684
For next: 39253

Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 2028 days
Last activity: 1681 days
#11 Posted on 1.3.03 1820.40
Reposted on: 1.3.10 1821.08
The biggest difference is that the US is not violating a treaty by possesing nukes. Possibly it is bending agreements but not a treaty.
Or to put it this way. The US didn't invade a small rich neighbor. Spend 7 months raping and stealing from the invaded country. Refuse to leave when it is asked too by the UN. Get it's ass kicked by another country. Then go whining like a bitch to the UN to avoid getting completely overrun. But Iraq did all those things so they should have to live up to their own agreements to the treaty that they wanted from the UN.
That is why I agree that Iraq should be attacked if they don't comply with their treaty. But why I think the US is wrong about pushing North Korea and Iran around.

(edited by Dahak on 1.3.03 1621)

(edited by Dahak on 1.3.03 1622)
Cerebus
Scrapple
Level: 108

Posts: 440/3470
EXP: 13496115
For next: 24428

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#12 Posted on 1.3.03 1936.15
Reposted on: 1.3.10 1940.43

    Originally posted by Dahak
    The US didn't invade a small rich neighbor. Spend 7 months raping and stealing from the invaded country. Refuse to leave when it is asked too by the UN. Get it's ass kicked by another country. Then go whining like a bitch to the UN to avoid getting completely overrun.


Umm, what about Vietnam, remember THAT one.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1029/4700
EXP: 21588308
For next: 248354

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#13 Posted on 1.3.03 2059.43
Reposted on: 1.3.10 2059.45

    Originally posted by Cerebus
    Umm, what about Vietnam, remember THAT one.

THAT relates back to the great Wienerville hobby; blame the French.
Dahak
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 356/772
EXP: 1446684
For next: 39253

Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 2028 days
Last activity: 1681 days
#14 Posted on 2.3.03 0153.04
Reposted on: 2.3.10 0153.50
OK Cerebus remember South Vietnam? You know the country that existed from 1950 to 1975. The country that invited the US in. Did North Quwait invite in Iraq to help defeat South Quwait? No and do you know why? Because no one from Quwait invited Iraq in.
But even so what is your point? You asked what the difference is. And that is my point. What is yours other than the US is evil and any other country is better? Iraq signed a treaty and now is to violating that treaty. That is why the US is probably going to "invade" Iraq for WMD while we have WMD. We have never signed a treaty to get rid of our WMD. We have signed many agreements to limit in numbers and type of WMD. But no treaties.
TheCow
Landjager
Level: 63

Posts: 377/948
EXP: 1996282
For next: 100881

Since: 3.1.02
From: Knoxville, TN

Since last post: 2451 days
Last activity: 2451 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on 2.3.03 0157.45
Reposted on: 2.3.10 0159.01
Wait, didn't we just recently back out of a WOMD treaty?

Or am I thinking of the Kyoto Protocol? Think that one was pretty recent, too.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1029/1759
EXP: 4930981
For next: 61889

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on 2.3.03 0357.57
Reposted on: 2.3.10 0359.01
I think there is a difference between backing out a treaty, and failing to follow through on your agreed terms of surrender. Backing out of a few of the treaties WE have could result in tensions, but it was all done properly, so the most it should result in is some pissed off countries. Iraq agreed to disarm as part of its surrender. Its failure to comply pretty much nullifies the treaty that ended the last Gulf War...
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1031/4700
EXP: 21588308
For next: 248354

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#17 Posted on 2.3.03 0851.21
Reposted on: 2.3.10 0851.38

    Originally posted by TheCow
    Wait, didn't we just recently back out of a WOMD treaty?

    Or am I thinking of the Kyoto Protocol? Think that one was pretty recent, too.


We withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia so we could build our missile defense system.

We never acceded to the Kyoto Protocol despite the fact that Clinton signed it because the Senate had enough common sense not to approve it.
Dahak
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 358/772
EXP: 1446684
For next: 39253

Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 2028 days
Last activity: 1681 days
#18 Posted on 2.3.03 2005.09
Reposted on: 2.3.10 2005.09
The Kyoto were accords meaning countries agreed to them. And the term treaty has been used by politicians of all countries to trick people into taking agreements more seriously. But Iraq's treaty was to end a war. Like the Versailes Treaty or the treaty that ended the Civil War. A far different kind of treaty than the usual trade agreements or limit on weapons.
Hairy Caray
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 35/100
EXP: 66180
For next: 1544

Since: 28.10.02
From: Wrigley Field hot dog stand

Since last post: 3695 days
Last activity: 3693 days
#19 Posted on 3.3.03 1718.58
Reposted on: 3.3.10 1723.13
Nuclear. Proliferation. Treaty.

India got away with it because 1) They didn't sign the treaty. 2) No one was going to get them without a fight with their hostile neighbor Pakistan...umm...-packing- them too, and 3) Not to start a Clinton-bashing turn to the thread, but if he appeased the North Koreans on that front, he sure as hell wasn't going to give a *cough* "democracy" *cough* a hard time about it.

People get on France's ass about nukes because they go off and detonate them all over when the whole frickin' world (almost) agrees not to do so.

Oh yeah, and they launched them against Springfield just because Mayor "Diamond" Joe Quimby called them "froggies". (See "Homega Man")
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: War: What Is It Good For? . . . . $300!
Next thread: Basketball player's war protest
Previous thread: U.S. Tear Gas Use in Iraq May Violate Weapons Treaties
(1838 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - You know what's funny about this whole Iraq thing...Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.212 seconds.