[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25760187]
Chemical weapons just don't fit though, there's too many in too many peoples hands, and even if his did violate geneva convention... That's still not a good reason, neither is disposing of a dictator.[/QUOTE]
Country A has guns. Country B has guns. Country B invades Country C and begins massacring ethnic groups with said guns. Country A wants to attack Country B to stop the slaughter - but can Country A do so when they also have guns? Yes, of course they can. At the end of the day, it's not who has chemical weapons, but it's about how they use them. Saddam gassed the Kurds - the US didn't.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;25760223]Country A has guns. Country B has guns. Country B invades Country C and begins massacring ethnic groups with said guns. Country A wants to attack Country B to stop the slaughter - but can Country A do so when they also have guns? Yes, of course they can. At the end of the day, it's not who has chemical weapons, but it's about how they use them. Saddam gassed the Kurds - the US didn't.[/QUOTE]
That's what happened in the first Gulf war, worked out really well actually. Second one involved invading and occupying Iraq and causing nationalist insurgents to make life hell for everyone. Not really the same thing.
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;25751266]Wikileaks - Making people not trust their government since 2010[/QUOTE]
People trusted the government?
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;25751266]Wikileaks - Showing people what their government really is since 2010[/QUOTE]
Fixed it for you.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;25759889]I'll need some sources on that.
Seriously. I've heard the "it was all for oil from evil america" argument before. I agree, there's a good chance it /may/ have been to secure oil reserves. However, there are too many other variables, as I've stated before. Until I get some more info, I'm not going to make hasty judgments.[/QUOTE]
There's like two other variables
Saddam was evil and he killed innocent people
Two problems with that:
The US supported BOTH of those fucking variables.
[editline]31st October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;25759933]They went into Iraq on the fear that they had nuclear weapons. As Condi Rice said "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." I honestly don't buy the fact they went in there only for the oil.[/QUOTE]
Condi Rice was also in the field with Scooter Libby, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Karl Rove when they ousted Valerie Plame and her husband because he found out their yellow cake bullshit was indeed bullshit.
The US government probably had the Bluths plant them there.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;25760169]But, is (was) Kim Jong-Il a bigger threat than Saddam?[/QUOTE]
Kim Jong-Il has enough rocket artillery to level Seoul in a couple of days.
Not to mention he actually has Nuclear WMDs and Chinese backing.
He doesn't even have chinese backing these days.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25758351]You wanna talk shock images? Here's one 1000x worse than yours alienmartian. Sure shows you're so fucking wrong.
[img_thumb]http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f149/74311d1248366199-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-survivor-charonboat_dot_com_hiroshima_victim.jpg[/img_thumb]
[editline]30th October 2010[/editline]
Yeah man, Chemical warfare is so much worse than this, yeah?[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty poor argument to be honest.
Some guy got burned, therefore nuclear weapons are worse.
I mean, nuclear weapons are worse, but that picture doesn't really show anything besides some poor victim. All weapons have victims.
Both arguments were bad.
Nuclear weapons kill more, irradiate the area for decades, and kills tonnes of people after the fact and people in the surrounding area.
I think Nuclear weapons are worse.
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;25751266]Wikileaks - Making people not trust their government since 2010[/QUOTE]
More like "WikiLeaks - Testing the limits of free speech"
[QUOTE=Billiam;25766395]Kim Jong-Il has enough rocket artillery to level Seoul in a couple of days.
Not to mention he actually has Nuclear WMDs and Chinese backing.[/QUOTE]
There's no way China'd back North Korea in a military confrontation. They might supply aid, sure, but they wouldn't side with such an obvious loser (in a military sense).
[QUOTE=Murkat;25772120]More like "WikiLeaks - Testing the limits of free speech"[/QUOTE]
what
[QUOTE=Mabus;25751948]Justification aside, The chemical weapons he had were really dangerous some sort of nerve agent, he tested them on a village of kurds and it killed every last one of them.[/QUOTE]
Watch out, you'l be flamed by the 60% of GD that is a bunch of idiots who think everything that goes "pop" or "bang" should be banned and we should all be hugging trees and raping flowers.
[QUOTE=Capn'Underpants;25778606]Watch out, you'l be flamed by the 60% of GD that is a bunch of idiots who think everything that goes "pop" or "bang" should be banned and we should all be hugging trees and raping flowers.[/QUOTE]
what are you talking about
[QUOTE=Capn'Underpants;25778606]Watch out, you'l be flamed by the 60% of GD that is a bunch of idiots who think everything that goes "pop" or "bang" should be banned and we should all be hugging trees and raping flowers.[/QUOTE]
But we should all be hugging trees and raping flowers. :unsmith:
[QUOTE=Capn'Underpants;25778606]Watch out, you'l be flamed by the 60% of GD that is a bunch of idiots who think everything that goes "pop" or "bang" should be banned and we should all be hugging trees and raping flowers.[/QUOTE]
Well there goes popcorn :saddowns:
[QUOTE=Capn'Underpants;25778606]Watch out, you'l be flamed by the 60% of GD that is a bunch of idiots who think everything that goes "pop" or "bang" should be banned and we should all be hugging trees and raping flowers.[/QUOTE]
So being opposed to chemical weapons means we're hugging trees?
are you retarded?
[editline]1st November 2010[/editline]
I mean, if this was a gun control debate i would understand.
but... like
you're fucking arguing in favour of chemical weapons.
[QUOTE=Capn'Underpants;25778606]Watch out, you'l be flamed by the 60% of GD that is a bunch of idiots who think everything that goes "pop" or "bang" should be banned and we should all be hugging trees and raping flowers.[/QUOTE]
wait you want chemical weapons to be legal?
Why would any sane person need them unless they were trying to kill 50 guys
Ever read "Dulce Et Decorum Est", by Wilfred Owen?
Chemical weapons aren't cool. They may be necessary as a deterrent, but they're still horrible, horrible things.
I don't think it was a big surprise that Saddam [I]had[/I] WMDs. The problem with the war is that the government claimed that Iraq had been continuing to make WMDs and its material after the First Gulf War in significant numbers. A lot of the "WMDs" that were found in the invasion were typically derivatives from the first program that were hidden but never used, and thus fell into disuse and not as deadly as they could be.
This is not really the damning evidence or the smoking gun to say "aha, he had WMDs!". It only joins a long line of First Gulf War or Iraq-Iran War era weaponry that they never destroyed and locked away, only to fall into decay. I remember sometime ago war apologists were getting excited about the "discovery" of some yellowcake, which was really old left over material and refuse from Iraq's nuclear program in the 1980s, which was halted after Israel bombed the plant. Iraq subsequently dumped the waste in one of their institutions.
By the way for those of you wanting to see the effects of chemical weapons over the long term, it takes a look at the areas that were affected by the weaponry. The largest single use was in Halabja in Kurdish Iraq which killed 5,000, and affected most of the villagers. Affected people got all sorts of weird things, respiratory problems, loss of vision, and photo sensitivity. Offspring got some other weird things, with the first three and the added issue of physical deformities. As the UN mission in Iraq reported:
[url]http://www.uniraq.org/documents/Halabja%20Visit20100420.pdf[/url]
[quote]Halabja, a Kurdish town in northern Iraq (Sulaymaniyah Governorate), located about 240 km northeast of Baghdad and only 15 km from Iranian border. On 16 March 1988 this settlement was subjected to shelling with chemical weapons leaving 5,000 dead and 7,000 injured with long-term illnesses. The chemical after-effects of the attack are still affecting people. Since the chemical attacks, the number of various forms of cancer, birth deformities, still-born babies and miscarriages is reported to have dramatically increased and traces of the chemical agents are still residing in the water, air and food...
He further added that “Years ago a British scientist on genetics studied the long-term effects of the 1988 chemical attack and had discovered that there are mutation cases amongst patients coming from this region affected with varieties of long term diseases; particularly with effect on infertility on women patients and congenital malformations on pediatric patients. Due to lack of a specialized institute there are no proper records maintained on exact numbers and types of birth defects and fatal death cases. Halabja maternal and child care hospital will help in initiating the research and proper recording and tracking system of these cases” concluding that “UNDP and the Government of Japan are restoring Halabja from ashes”.[/quote]
Halabja chemical bombings were a part of the Al-Anfal Campaign against the Kurdish population in Iraq, which ended up killing at least 100,000 people and destroying most of the infrastructure there. Chemical bombings were an aspect of this. The US at the time turned a blind eye to the issue, going so far as to have the CIA classify the Halabja bombing as being perpetrated by Iran rather than Iraq in order to keep Iraq's image clean for the purpose of Iran-Iraq war.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;25768231]That's a pretty poor argument to be honest.
Some guy got burned, therefore nuclear weapons are worse.
I mean, nuclear weapons are worse, but that picture doesn't really show anything besides some poor victim. All weapons have victims.
Both arguments were bad.[/QUOTE]
Uh. No. You must just be ignoring that he's not the only one like this. The only thing that can even compare in terms of actual damage to a civilization over decades is agent orange. Nothing else even comes close. Agent Orange is an exception, and if chemical weapons were ever a reason to invade, the US should have been invaded for that shit.
Were the US using Agent Orange as a weapon to kill Vietnamese villagers, or were the (ignorantly) using it as a defoliant?
Does it really matter? It was used, and it killed many many people. they knew it wasn't safe for people.
[editline]1st November 2010[/editline]
You don't ask if Iraqs are used for a certain purpose, but the US gets that benefit of the doubt? Really?
Did they know that before or after its horrific effects on humans were revealed?
Edit: Yes, because nerve gas =/= defoliant. A nerve gas can't be used for anything else BUT to kill other humans. Meanwhile, the primary purpose of a defoliant is to remove vegetation, which theoretically seemed an appropriate situation in Vietnam at the time. Obviously, it has since become apparent that Agent Orange can also be used as a weapon. HOWEVER, this is not the obviously assumable answer. In a default situation (excluding situational variables), you would assume defoliant being used on vegetation is being used as a defoliant, not a weapon. Thus, through probabilities, the US gains the benefit of the doubt, and Saddam does not.
With all the other shit the US did, I'm wouldn't be surprised if they did know. Even if it didn't, it doesn't mean the US is innocent during that war.
I mean, then again: how could they NOT know it hurt people?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.