disapearing wepons of mas destructiin

[tovaris]

Here is an idea... When you are short on resaurses, money, international influence, and highly educated people; you take a satelite snapshot, circle a school and call it a wepon of mas destruction. Than you start a war on the argument of these objects, and when you get there blow everething up and steal what you can carey the wepons disapear, in the mean whioe you have fixed your economie, astablished a new resoure tap, and put some shate in your neighbours trousers.
Sounds like a plan.
Sounds familiar to.

What do you make of it?

[Harry Smith]

Lool? This thread makes no sense, I know you're talking about Iraq. America weren't short on oil, they were buying it from Iran,Saudi, Syria, UK, Canada,kuwait and many other countries. It's a myth. America didn't need the oil when they were buying it already.

[tovaris]

Lool? This thread makes no sense, I know you're talking about Iraq. America weren't short on oil, they were buying it from Iran,Saudi, Syria, UK, Canada,kuwait and many other countries. It's a myth. America didn't need the oil when they were buying it already.

There is a diference between buying and paing ,oney and stealing and paing no moeny.
I never mentioned oil, you brought it up, wonder where the ide came into your head...

[Harry Smith]

There is a diference between buind and paing ,oney and stealing and paing no moeny.
I never mentioned oil, you brought it up, wonder where the ide came into your head...

Because it's the only resource that Iraq has and the anti-war movement cling to it an unborn baby.

I don't understand your sentence either, what's buind?

[tovaris]

Because it's the only resource that Iraq has and the anti-war movement cling to it an unborn baby.

I don't understand your sentence either, what's buind?

You havent touched the wepons bone at all my camerad.

Yes and they came to steal it, along with Irequy freedom.

Buying

[Harry Smith]

You havent touched the wepons bone at all my camerad.

Yes and they came to steal it, along with Irequy freedom.

Buying

No they didn't steal.

1) They had an abundance of oil.
2) Iraq was selling it to the US
3) How did they exactly steal it? Did they stuff it in their pockets and run?

Lool Iraqi freedom? Under saddam Hussein? A man who gassed his own people

[tovaris]

No they didn't steal.

1) They had an abundance of oil.
2) Iraq was selling it to the US
3) How did they exactly steal it? Did they stuff it in their pockets and run?

Lool Iraqi freedom? Under saddam Hussein? A man who gassed his own people

You stil stuck on the slipery oil? Lets help thee...
When you are sold something you have to pay it. True right you agree so far, ok? When you steal something you do not pay for it. Stil true right?
No country has the right to invade and ocuoy a nother and steal their freedom, under their own rule they can at leest atand up, under foreihgn ocupation its harder (but not inposible). There can not be any excuse for a dountry to ocuoy a nother.

And stil they disapear. :)

[Harry Smith]

You stil stuck on the slipery oil? Lets help thee...
When you are sold something you have to pay it. True right you agree so far, ok? When you steal something you do not pay for it. Stil true right?
No country has the right to invade and ocuoy a nother and steal their freedom, under their own rule they can at leest atand up, under foreihgn ocupation its harder (but not inposible). There can not be any excuse for a dountry to ocuoy a nother.

And stil they disapear. :)

So by your theory the allies didn't have a right to invade germany in 1944?

America didn't steal any oil, you have no evidence that the government moved Iraqi oil to American shores illegally do you?

America didn't need Iraqi oil. Still their freedom? There was no freedom under Saddam.

Rhetoric again, can you please in the future

[tovaris]

So by your theory the allies didn't have a right to invade germany in 1944?

America didn't steal any oil, you have no evidence that the government moved Iraqi oil to American shores illegally do you?

America didn't need Iraqi oil. Still their freedom? There was no freedom under Saddam.

Rhetoric again, can you please in the future

Now you see it now you dont. What is it? Its sadams wepons of mas destruction.

[Harry Smith]

Now you see it now you dont. What is it? Its sadams wepons of mas destruction.

Lol ignore my point to show your knowledge. He refused to let the weapons inspectors in, why did he do that? He had the infrastructure to produce nerve agents and he very much did,along with mustard gas. All of these are weapons of mass destruction

[tovaris]

Lol ignore my point to show your knowledge. He refused to let the weapons inspectors in, why did he do that? He had the infrastructure to produce nerve agents and he very much did,along with mustard gas. All of these are weapons of mass destruction

I was going to ad to that but you beet me to it.

Anywhoo...

If they dont want foreners snoping around their country that is their buisnis. As you like to say so oftenm where is the prof where are the gases?
And... why is the general historycal opinion that the public was lied to by the brits and unitedstatians.

[Harry Smith]

I was going to ad to that but you beet me to it.

Anywhoo...

If they dont want foreners snoping around their country that is their buisnis. As you like to say so oftenm where is the prof where are the gases?
And... why is the general historycal opinion that the public was lied to by the brits and unitedstatians.

What? Foreigns snooping around?

I can't find my Tony Blair book, but I'll see what I can quote from AC diaries.

50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media

[britishboy]

ok harry is 100000000% right! America actually has its own oil pumping from texas! and about the nukes, they have gone down since the cold war and are slowly shrinking

[Stronk Serb]

ok harry is 100000000% right! America actually has its own oil pumping from texas! and about the nukes, they have gone down since the cold war and are slowly shrinking


Honestly, where are those WMD in Iraq? Many people think the attack was not for the WMD or Iraqi freedom, but for something else, maybe oil, since there are vast quantities of it, and it was ripe for the taking.

ok harry is 100000000% right! America actually has its own oil pumping from texas! and about the nukes, they have gone down since the cold war and are slowly shrinking

The nuclear weapon quantities aren't shrinking, tensions between nuclear powers are, thus making the possibility of a nuclear war, and possibly Armageddon less possible.

[britishboy]

Honestly, where are those WMD in Iraq? Many people think the attack was not for the WMD or Iraqi freedom, but for something else, maybe oil, since there are vast quantities of it, and it was ripe for the taking.



The nuclear weapon quantities aren't shrinking, tensions between nuclear powers are, thus making the possibility of a nuclear war, and possibly Armageddon less possible.

1)it was actually because it was thought they had nukes
2)theyre rising with iran and north korea, and do you even know what the cold war was?!

[Stronk Serb]

1)it was actually because it was thought they had nukes
2)theyre rising with iran and north korea, and do you even know what the cold war was?!


Not really. Just because North Korea is yapping, and Iran is trying to arm themselves due to the Israeli menace, does not mean a nuclear Armageddon will happen. The Russians and the Chinese will stay out of it as long as their major interests aren't threatened. Alliances today thankfully aren't like the ones in the Middle Ages where you had the obligation to join the war of your ally. The Cold War, a period after WWII where Europe was divided into two blocs, the Eastern Bloc which had the support of the soviet Union, and the Western Bloc which had the support of the United States. At that time, a nuclear war was a very high possibility. The beginning of the end started in '89 when the Berlin Wall was demolished. it ended in '91 when the Soviet Union fell apart.

[britishboy]

Not really. Just because North Korea is yapping, and Iran is trying to arm themselves due to the Israeli menace, does not mean a nuclear Armageddon will happen. The Russians and the Chinese will stay out of it as long as their major interests aren't threatened. Alliances today thankfully aren't like the ones in the Middle Ages where you had the obligation to join the war of your ally. The Cold War, a period after WWII where Europe was divided into two blocs, the Eastern Bloc which had the support of the soviet Union, and the Western Bloc which had the support of the United States. At that time, a nuclear war was a very high possibility. The beginning of the end started in '89 when the Berlin Wall was demolished. it ended in '91 when the Soviet Union fell apart.

you proved my point, nukes are shrinking in numbers and theres little tension nowadays

[Stronk Serb]

you proved my point, nukes are shrinking in numbers and theres little tension nowadays


As far as I know, the US and Russia are keeping their nukes. But there are no major war groups now, so there is no need to use them.

[britishboy]

As far as I know, the US and Russia are keeping their nukes. But there are no major war groups now, so there is no need to use them.

but theyre slowly decreasing in numbers

[Harry Smith]

Honestly, where are those WMD in Iraq? Many people think the attack was not for the WMD or Iraqi freedom, but for something else, maybe oil, since there are vast quantities of it, and it was ripe for the taking.



The nuclear weapon quantities aren't shrinking, tensions between nuclear powers are, thus making the possibility of a nuclear war, and possibly Armageddon less possible.

There aren't vast quantities of oil in Iraq, most of it is actually in Iran due to the correlation of it across the border. The whole oil argument is stupid for about 3 reasons.

1) If America wanted oil they could of got it in '91.
2) There are many bigger oil suppliers than Iraq.
3) America doesn't need oil

In regards to the weapons of mass destruction, why was Saddam turning away the UN weapon inspectors then? He had broken every deal with the UN since '91.

And weapons of mass destruction were found in raw form along with their creation tools



As far as I know, the US and Russia are keeping their nukes. But there are no major war groups now, so there is no need to use them.

[Stronk Serb]

but theyre slowly decreasing in numbers

Yes, some are probably being decommissioned due to their warheads losing their destructive power or something.

[Harry Smith]

Yes, some are probably being decommissioned due to their warheads losing their destructive power or something.

The warheads are also actually more powerful now and the era of the arms race is gone.

Back to Iraq

There aren't vast quantities of oil in Iraq, most of it is actually in Iran due to the correlation of it across the border. The whole oil argument is stupid for about 3 reasons.

1) If America wanted oil they could of got it in '91.
2) There are many bigger oil suppliers than Iraq.
3) America doesn't need oil

In regards to the weapons of mass destruction, why was Saddam turning away the UN weapon inspectors then? He had broken every deal with the UN since '91.

And weapons of mass destruction were found in raw form along with their creation tools

[Stronk Serb]

The warheads are also actually more powerful now and the era of the arms race is gone.

Back to Iraq

There aren't vast quantities of oil in Iraq, most of it is actually in Iran due to the correlation of it across the border. The whole oil argument is stupid for about 3 reasons.

1) If America wanted oil they could of got it in '91.
2) There are many bigger oil suppliers than Iraq.
3) America doesn't need oil

In regards to the weapons of mass destruction, why was Saddam turning away the UN weapon inspectors then? He had broken every deal with the UN since '91.

And weapons of mass destruction were found in raw form along with their creation tools

Sources. If there were any since '91, they were probably rusted artillery shells that would explode in the cannon if fired, or something else which is more hazardous for the user then for the victim.

[Harry Smith]

Sources. If there were any since '91, they were probably rusted artillery shells that would explode in the cannon if fired, or something else which is more hazardous for the user then for the victim.

You ask for sources and yet dismiss active Weapons of Mass destructions later

[Stronk Serb]

You ask for sources and yet dismiss active Weapons of Mass destructions later

Ok, I found this myself.

Source: Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

From what I saw, since '91 Iraq was slowly disarmed. The only chemical weapons remaining were the ones made during the 80s and were practically useless since they were corroded and the agents needed to be extracted carefully. No active WMD have been found during the inspection of 2003 and the CIA informant lied. Saddam might have planned to re-establish the nuclear weapons program which led to no fruition since it was established in the first place due to Mossad killing off all research peronel. Saddam had western help in making his program during the '60s and '70s and the '80s.

[Harry Smith]

Ok, I found this myself.

Source: Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

From what I saw, since '91 Iraq was slowly disarmed. The only chemical weapons remaining were the ones made during the 80s and were practically useless since they were corroded and the agents needed to be extracted carefully. No active WMD have been found during the inspection of 2003 and the CIA informant lied. Saddam might have planned to re-establish the nuclear weapons program which led to no fruition since it was established in the first place due to Mossad killing off all research peronel. Saddam had western help in making his program during the '60s and '70s and the '80s.

Please don't use wikipedia for something like this. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, hence why it's not used during historical studies as a source.

That's the problem with intelligence. You can't use hindsight in the CIA or any other service, if you have 10 reliable reports telling you the same thing your a fool to ignore them, all the signs pointed towards it.

the discovery of a number of 122mm chemical rockets warheads in a bunker 170 km south of Baghdad was publised. this was a new bunker showing these rockets should of been moved in the last few years when Iraq shouldn'g of had the weapons
pg 417

[Stronk Serb]

Please don't use wikipedia for something like this. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, hence why it's not used during historical studies as a source.

That's the problem with intelligence. You can't use hindsight in the CIA or any other service, if you have 10 reliable reports telling you the same thing your a fool to ignore them, all the signs pointed towards it.


pg 417


Wikipedia is heavily moderated. You shot down a very similar statement Maticek made with an answer similar to mine.

[britishboy]

Wikipedia is heavily moderated. You shot down a very similar statement Maticek made with an answer similar to mine.

I was studying the holocaust in history, I went on Wikipedia and a very inappropriate statement came up, thats why schools dont let you on Wikipedia

[Stronk Serb]

I was studying the holocaust in history, I went on Wikipedia and a very inappropriate statement came up, thats why schools dont let you on Wikipedia

Hmm. I think the sources are legit since it is not black and white. It is not like the weapons vanished all of a sudden. They were there, but in smaller quantities and were not made since '91. But they were still there.

[britishboy]

Hmm. I think the sources are legit since it is not black and white. It is not like the weapons vanished all of a sudden. They were there, but in smaller quantities and were not made since '91. But they were still there.

maybe, for it to be respectef you should find another source

[Harry Smith]

Wikipedia is heavily moderated. You shot down a very similar statement Maticek made with an answer similar to mine.

Lol sure, the problem is that the sourcing in it is very sketchy, it's not that people write gibberish is that's people use unsupported points the majority of the time and the bias is unknown

[britishboy]

Lol sure, the problem is that the sourcing in it is very sketchy, it's not that people write gibberish is that's people use unsupported points the majority of the time and the bias is unknown

especially in wars are politics like this, if you look at the Falklands conflicts, it will change from evil British to evil Argentines every week

[tovaris]

What? Foreigns snooping around?

I can't find my Tony Blair book, but I'll see what I can quote from AC diaries.

The wepons inspestors you pseek of, its not any othe countries buisnis whi some country lets in or not.
Fugetives being exepted from this rule.

They were liing all the time. Where are this wepons they spoke of?

[Harry Smith]

The wepons inspestors you pseek of, its not any othe countries buisnis whi some country lets in or not.
Fugetives being exepted from this rule.

They were liing all the time. Where are this wepons they spoke of?

They do, the weapons inspectors where from the UN. They have the right to do this.

the discovery of a number of 122mm chemical rockets warheads in a bunker 170 km south of Baghdad was published. this was a new bunker showing these rockets should of been moved in the last few years when Iraq shouldn't of had the weapons.

[tovaris]

They do, the weapons inspectors where from the UN. They have the right to do this.

Non the less a country has the right to seal itself of fom the rest of the world, it is an internal mather.

adnagaporp

[Harry Smith]

non the less a country has the right to seal itself of that is an internal mather.

adnagaporp

What? I don't understand

[tovaris]

What? I don't understand

which part?


And weapons of mass destruction were found in raw form along with their creation tools

Thats like saing „I faund a cake” when what you realy found is flower, egs, chocolate, cream, a wisk, and an oven.

[Stronk Serb]

They do, the weapons inspectors where from the UN. They have the right to do this.

Iraq either kept it there, or had shoddy paperwork and misplaced it. But honestly, who the hell misplaces a chemical weapon? The Iraqis probably kept it there, and hoped nobody including the new government would find it. Chemical weapons are ideal weapons of terror and fear, and when the chemicals get to you, I assume you want to kill yourself

[Harry Smith]

Iraq either kept it there, or had shoddy paperwork and misplaced it. But honestly, who the hell misplaces a chemical weapon? The Iraqis probably kept it there, and hoped nobody including the new government would find it. Chemical weapons are ideal weapons of terror and fear, and when the chemicals get to you, I assume you want to kill yourself

They lied to the UN, they claimed in 91' they had 6,000 and said they destroyed 4,000 afterwards, 2,000 missing tons of gas. Saddam used it on his own people

[tovaris]

They lied to the UN, they claimed in 91' they had 6,000 and said they destroyed 4,000 afterwards, 2,000 missing tons of gas. Saddam used it on his own people

If that statement is corect ith horible. But not an international ,ather to start a war, no other country was efected, and the people or the goverment didnt call for an ocupation.

[Harry Smith]

If that statement is corect ith horible. But not an international ,ather to start a war, no other country was efected, and the people or the goverment didnt call for an ocupation.

This is a man who gassed his own people. It's international under the terms of resolution 660 which allows for force to be used to enforce the UN terms

[tovaris]

This is a man who gassed his own people. It's international under the terms of resolution 660 which allows for force to be used to enforce the UN terms

He was distencing the country from the un and wouod probably have denies it entirely avantuly. And they had no concrret prof.

[Harry Smith]

He was distencing the country from the un and wouod probably have denies it entirely avantuly. And they had no concrret prof.

You can't distant yourself from the UN. How would you get concrete proof? What did you want Bush and Blair to ask Saddam nicely to show them the chemical weapons

[tovaris]

You can't distant yourself from the UN. How would you get concrete proof? What did you want Bush and Blair to ask Saddam nicely to show them the chemical weapons

Afcors you can you can even leave the organisation.

Yes! And its a whel exepted fact, internationaly (before you say anything) that they lied

[Harry Smith]

Afcors you can you can even leave the organisation.

Yes! And its a whel exepted fact, internationaly (before you say anything) that they lied

They didn't lie, under American libel laws it's only libel if you know what your saying is un-true.

Every indication pointed to Nuclear weapons. He kicked out the UN, there was weapons-grade plutonium, defectors alluding to a regime and of course the mustard gas found in Iraq which is a WMD.

Also you can't escape the UN, it has the power to allow any country to face embargo's or have force used against it.

Also it's Of course not Afcors

[tovaris]

They didn't lie, under American libel laws it's only libel if you know what your saying is un-true.

Every indication pointed to Nuclear weapons. He kicked out the UN, there was weapons-grade plutonium, defectors alluding to a regime and of course the mustard gas found in Iraq which is a WMD.

Also you can't escape the UN, it has the power to allow any country to face embargo's or have force used against it.

Also it's Of course not Afcors

They knew that the words comming out of their mouths were untrue. They knew wery whel.

Serbia survived the blocade for years and prospered what makes you think they couldnt? Cuba is stil holding on and even advancing despite The embargo.... I have no doubt sadan would have no problem with such sanctions.

[Harry Smith]

They knew that the words comming out of their mouths were untrue. They knew wery whel.

Serbia survived the blocade for years and prospered what makes you think they couldnt? Cuba is stil holding on and even advancing despite The embargo.... I have no doubt sadan would have no problem with such sanctions.

Cuba wasn't blockaded by the UN...

[tovaris]

Cuba wasn't blockaded by the UN...

i kniw that i was making a point about enbargos and blocades.

[Harry Smith]

i kniw that i was making a point about enbargos and blocades.

Cuba got support from the USSR, without it they would of have been bankrupted . A UN embargo would deny any country from providing aid or support

[tovaris]

Cuba got support from the USSR, without it they would of have been bankrupted . A UN embargo would deny any country from providing aid or support

The embargo by the usa stil stands, and that is not the point the point is that sadam had nothing to fear he could survive just nice, his minions would suffer a little but they were „used to it”

[Harry Smith]

The embargo by the usa stil stands, and that is not the point the point is that sadam had nothing to fear he could survive just nice, his minions would suffer a little but they were „used to it”

I know.... The US is one country, UN is 198

Nothing to fear? His country had no income as a result, that's why his army was so weak in '03 because he didn't have any money.

[tovaris]

I know.... The US is one country, UN is 198

Nothing to fear? His country had no income as a result, that's why his army was so weak in '03 because he didn't have any money.

He could have simply survived un blocades and sanctions just like my people did. He wouldnt fribe but wouodnt siffer ether. He had oil he had feelds, he had the means to wather them... What more couod a dictator posibly need.

[Harry Smith]

He could have simply survived un blocades and sanctions just like my people did. He wouldnt fribe but wouodnt siffer ether. He had oil he had feelds, he had the means to wather them... What more couod a dictator posibly need.

Money? Their was an Embargo on the oil, no-one was buying it. You make it sound like a country can survive on farming

[tovaris]

Money? Their was an Embargo on the oil, no-one was buying it. You make it sound like a country can survive on farming

Smugeling is wery popular these days...
Tel me how could have Serbia survived the blocade?

[Stronk Serb]

If that statement is corect ith horible. But not an international ,ather to start a war, no other country was efected, and the people or the goverment didnt call for an ocupation.

The reason is enough for a war. But the way it was carried out... It could have been better.

They lied to the UN, they claimed in 91' they had 6,000 and said they destroyed 4,000 afterwards, 2,000 missing tons of gas. Saddam used it on his own people

He was not Kurdish, so he did not gas his own people. He gassed other ethnicities in Iraq. I heard he made some ecological disasters in southern Iraq due to chemical weapons.

[Harry Smith]

The reason is enough for a war. But the way it was carried out... It could have been better.



He was not Kurdish, so he did not gas his own people. He gassed other ethnicities in Iraq. I heard he made some ecological disasters in southern Iraq due to chemical weapons.

I know he wasn't kurdish, I'll rephrase it to his gassed his own citizens.