The Iraq Thread

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,01:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually...the Allies started it...accidently.

A lone stray English bomber headed over Berlin and, thinking it was at the target, dropped its bombs. This infuriated Hitler, who up tho this point had only attacked Airdromes and bases of the RAF and military.

Within a few days the first Blitz against London took place, and there it escalates.

Other than that I liked your post <span id='postcolor'>

Warsaw was bombed to the ground in September 1939 by the Germans. So in ww2, they started it. City Guernica was bombed to ground was bombed to pieces 3 years earlier.

Both sides used terror bombing in WW2 so you really can't blame either side. 100,000 people died in Dresden and the city had no military significance. Pure terror as the London Blitz, trying to break the enemy's morale.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DOUBTED. This is sensitive material and NOT public. Don´t tell me you know more than me when it comes to UN papers or reports Mr. FS Pilot.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not that sensitive. It was on the history channel. No need to get offensive, I wasn't talking to or about you in any way.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The current piece of information provided to media from UN inspectors and officials is nothing to be a complete report.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm talking about the UN information from 1998, not the current information.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Otherwise I see no chance for the SCUD´s to reach Washington.<span id='postcolor'>

No, but suitcase nukes can easilly be loaded onto a small plane or car. And that they cant reach Washington isn't much comfort to Israel.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You tend to forget things a lot when they don´t fit your view FS. Better keep some things in mind for more than 2 weeks. This will save a lot of people at this forum from debating / clearing out the same things over and over again in regular intervals.<span id='postcolor'>

And you tend to take what I say out of context and respond to it harshly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">farming can be a bad job in the desert with jets over you that bomb anything to pieces that looks like a "threat" to them.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, tractors are a real target.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WHERE ARE THEY ?!? Jeeez !!<span id='postcolor'>

That's what the UN inspectors are workign on. You're getting pretty hostile, why don't you just relax some man.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The terms of surrender didnt enclose a 10 year ban in medical aid. They also didnt include the established "No fly zone"

And they certainly did not include an US option for an illegal preemptive strike against his country. <span id='postcolor'>

Nobody's banned medical aid. He can still import it if he trades it for oil. Either way it doesn't have any relevance to the conversation. Everything else you said was irrelevant.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">suspecting someone is different than prove. This seems to be the basic FS story again.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you blind or just ignoring the evidence? UN inspectors found WMDs, he USED WMDs, Iraqi defectors have confessed about WMDs. What else is there?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 21 2003,01:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,01:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually...the Allies started it...accidently.

A lone stray English bomber headed over Berlin and, thinking it was at the target, dropped its bombs. This infuriated Hitler, who up tho this point had only attacked Airdromes and bases of the RAF and military.

Within a few days the first Blitz against London took place, and there it escalates.

Other than that I liked your post <span id='postcolor'>

Warsaw was bombed to the ground in September 1939 by the Germans. So in ww2, they started it. City Guernica was bombed to ground was bombed to pieces 3 years earlier.

Both sides used terror bombing in WW2 so you really can't blame either side. 100,000 people died in Dresden and the city had no military significance. Pure terror as the London Blitz, trying to break the enemy's morale.<span id='postcolor'>

Ah yes. Forgot about that...

I was looking at it from a strictly Allies point of view, not Poland. Civilian targets were mostly avoided by the German and English (or should say large population centers, and particularly the capitols) against each other until the accidental Berlin drop, which was my point.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 20 2003,17:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is it that no one every replies to any of my arguments?  Are they just too damn good, or do you think that my arguments aren't worth a reply!

Reply something damnit!  I want a discussion too!<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe you're not pissing anyone off

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're getting pretty hostile, why don't you just relax some man.<span id='postcolor'>

Why ? Cause you are talking of a potential huge deathcount in Iraq that will happen if the US attacks the country like it was a minor walk in the park. US strategy bases on protection of their ground forces and units in general. Therefore massive airstrikes will begin this war. The difference to DS1 will be that the main target areas are not in open fields this time, but crowded cities. This will lead to a huge massacre of civilians only to protect the US ground forces. Bombs dont make difference between civilian or military and we talk about really crowded towns. So you tell me why I am getting hostile when it comes to the slaughter of 10000´s.

This is no game in your backyard with soft - air weapons . This is going to be the end of thousands of lives. And to base all this on specualtions and wild accusations is pretty inhuman isn´t it ? If you do invade Iraq cause you are afraid the tanks will get temperature problems during april to september (which is a military fact) and enforce the conflict on your own, as Powell said today at the UN HQ, you break international law and you shut down an era of civil rights.

Again, preemtive strikes are illegal. If UN authorization for an Iraq mission is granted I have no doubt the proof they collected is bulletproof. But by now it is far from that. Don´t mix things up here. DS1 is a finished conflict. We are talking about an UN resolution here. If Iraq is proven (only by UN inspectors; noone else has the right to judge that) to have WMD´s that were produced after DS1 I have no problem with a CONTROLLED military intervention, but if not you´d better get all your guys back home soon. I know that money is a matter of the US administration right now. What do think every day of that military crowding in mid east counties costs ? I don´t believe Bush will send them home without any business made. The US would have to pay for that all on their own as nobody asked them to go. So he will force the UN and put more and more pressure on them to get them to war. This would save his money and open new business.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not that sensitive. It was on the history channel. <span id='postcolor'>

I can´t help but this is ridiculous.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, tractors are a real target. <span id='postcolor'>

Better check the bomb reports on civil targets. Maybe this will convince you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He can still import it if he trades it for oil.<span id='postcolor'>

No he can´t. A lot of medicals can´t be imported. Double useage is the key term in this. This put up a huge list of banned medicals to Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UN inspectors found WMDs, he USED WMDs, Iraqi defectors have confessed about WMDs. What else is there?<span id='postcolor'>

The facts TODAY. We are not talking about history , do we ?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 21 2003,07:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why ? Cause you are talking of a potential huge deathcount in Iraq that will happen if the US attacks the country like it was a minor walk in the park.<span id='postcolor'>

No, because you're talking to someone who can't do anything about the situation. Yelling at me will not change my opinion either.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can´t help but this is ridiculous.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, it was. It'll probably be on a rerun. Check their website for a time, you might even be able to order the tape if you like.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No he can´t. A lot of medicals can´t be imported. Double useage is the key term in this. This put up a huge list of banned medicals to Iraq. <span id='postcolor'>

because he'll use them to kill people, not help people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The facts TODAY. We are not talking about history , do we ?<span id='postcolor'>

4 or 5 years ago isn't that far off. And do you really think he's disarmed? Waiting gives the devil time you know.

[HellToupee 0]

i have an iraqi friend and lets just say he dosnt like the US, he dosnt seem them wanting to liberate them, hell their have been worse dictators that no one did anything about, he sees them wanting to take over his contry and put a puppet in charge of it for US benefit, and i agree, all this talk of helping them is Bull shit, army service is compulsary these ppl will be bombed and blown to bits by the US to help them civilians will die infrastructer destroyed, my friend if he stayed in iraq now would be doing miltary service, his mother had to fly back their recently to visit a sick relative.

[FSPilot 0]

So he's not in Iraq now?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, because you're talking to someone who can't do anything about the situation.  Yelling at me will not change my opinion either.

<span id='postcolor'>

First of all, I didnt yell at you. Second you can do something. Open your mind and eyes. If you are still convinced sign up for army as it seems to be a very important thing to you to spread pain over Iraq. Grab a gun and hop onto the wartrain.

I suggest this to everyone here that thinks war is cool and can solve problems of a higher nature.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, it was.  It'll probably be on a rerun. <span id='postcolor'>

It must have been a very long film as the papers I know of have more than 12000 pages. Seriously, the passages about condition of military and unitcount plus reports on facilities are not public. They will be in 20 years maybe but for now they are locked and only open for UN personel at a certain security level. You have to realize that info published to media is not all of the info collected and available.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">because he'll use them to kill people, not help people.<span id='postcolor'>

again, how do you know ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4 or 5 years ago isn't that far off.  And do you really think he's disarmed?  Waiting gives the devil time you know.<span id='postcolor'>

so what happened 4 or 5 years ago ? You answer. Iraq is not to be disarmed completely. There was never an agreement on that. Pretty stupid idea anyway. Again you refuse to see that Iraq is the best sat and aerial watched country on this planet since GW. The inspectors have not found any WMD´s till today. So what´s the problem ?

And the "devil" is a very  flexible thing to define.

EDIT: Bedtime now.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 21 2003,15:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So he's not in Iraq now?<span id='postcolor'>

no he inst his family didnt want him and his brothers to do miltary service, they werer there in the gulf war when the cities got bombed.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 21 2003,03:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the "devil" is a very flexible thing to define.

<span id='postcolor'>

Not to take away from your post, and I'm sure the pic was in jest...

But that is from a University of Texas function. His little hand gesture is used at football games of the Universities "Longhorns"....a type of bull for those that don't know. It means "Hook em horns."

Many jokes around here center around the "devilish" nature of the sign (similar to the Atlanta Braves "Tomahawk")

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First of all, I didnt yell at you.<span id='postcolor'>

No, but you were getting aggressive and personal.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Second you can do something. Open your mind and eyes.<span id='postcolor'>

You're the one who seems to have his eyes closed to the evidence against Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you are still convinced sign up for army as it seems to be a very important thing to you to spread pain over Iraq. Grab a gun and hop onto the wartrain.

I suggest this to everyone here that thinks war is cool and can solve problems of a higher nature.<span id='postcolor'>

I've said before that I don't support a war without evidence that Saddam has, or has been exporting his WMDs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It must have been a very long film as the papers I know of have more than 12000 pages.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe we're thinking of different papers. This show was an hour long and outlined saddams WMD programs and NBC capabilities, including what the UN inspectors could not destroy when they were kicked out in 1998.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Seriously, the passages about condition of military and unitcount plus reports on facilities are not public. They will be in 20 years maybe but for now they are locked and only open for UN personel at a certain security level. You have to realize that info published to media is not all of the info collected and available.<span id='postcolor'>

So they have more? It's obviously public knowledge if it was in a documentary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">again, how do you know ?<span id='postcolor'>

He's done it recently, and it fits his profile.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so what happened 4 or 5 years ago ? You answer. Iraq is not to be disarmed completely. There was never an agreement on that. Pretty stupid idea anyway.<span id='postcolor'>

It's stupid to think that he disarmed voluntarilly after having WMDs in 1998. He wouldn't spend so much time and money on it AND kick out the inspectors just to disarm voluntarilly when they're gone.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again you refuse to see that Iraq is the best sat and aerial watched country on this planet since GW. The inspectors have not found any WMD´s till today. So what´s the problem ?<span id='postcolor'>

Could've done the same thing he did in desert storm: move whatever he needs to when there aren't any satellites overhead.

And I think there are three different signs that look like that. One means "rock on" one means "i love you" and one has something to do with the devil. Apparently that has something to do with a football team.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

yeah, that's just a symbol for "hook 'em horns".

[HellToupee 0]

OMG the USA has more nukes than anybody else, quick men we gota invade, china, north korea, russia, india pakastian all have nukes, i belive 1 % of USA's stock pile is enough to kill us all. One question a country like iraq with little anti missle defence systems that if uses nukes would become nothing but a crater, were as a country like the US developing nuke defence systems is more likly to use them because thy can defend them selfs. There are far more dangrous countries than iraq, iraq isnt even the US's problem iraq has no means to attack the US.

[HellToupee 0]

and y so worried about WMDs there has only been one country to use them, and they were used against a civilian population 2 times in a row against a nation that was pretty much already defeated, a nuke attack on the US would show them Nukes dont save lives like they are told.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 21 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and y so worried about WMDs there has only been one country to use them, and they were used against a civilian population 2 times in a row against a nation that was pretty much already defeated, a nuke attack on the US would show them Nukes dont save lives like they are told.<span id='postcolor'>

We've already dealt with that exstensively.

Also I pointed out that Germany and England used what are refered to as WMDs in WW1, Mustard Gas in that case.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 21 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and y so worried about WMDs there has only been one country to use them, and they were used against a civilian population 2 times in a row against a nation that was pretty much already defeated, a nuke attack on the US would show them Nukes dont save lives like they are told.<span id='postcolor'>

We've already dealt with that exstensively.

Also I pointed out that Germany and England used what are refered to as WMDs in WW1, Mustard Gas in that case.<span id='postcolor'>

i dont believe mustard gas was used to destroy cities, if iraq is invaded by the US and they strike the US with nukes to "save" their troops lives thats the same excuses they use for US attacking the jap cities 2 times. Fact is US is only country with a bad record with nuke weapons

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 21 2003,05:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 21 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and y so worried about WMDs there has only been one country to use them, and they were used against a civilian population 2 times in a row against a nation that was pretty much already defeated, a nuke attack on the US would show them Nukes dont save lives like they are told.<span id='postcolor'>

We've already dealt with that exstensively.

Also I pointed out that Germany and England used what are refered to as WMDs in WW1, Mustard Gas in that case.<span id='postcolor'>

i dont believe mustard gas was used to destroy cities, if iraq is invaded by the US and they strike the US with nukes to "save" their troops lives thats the same excuses they use for US attacking the jap cities 2 times. Fact is US is only country with a bad record with nuke weapons<span id='postcolor'>

Nukes no. Atom bombs? Sure. Bad record? Won't debate it because I'll get called a rascist again and threatened with banning. I suggest you flip back to about page 100 I think...the debate on that was there.

WMDs as currently defined? No. A number of countries have worse records or hold the honor of First Users.

EDIT: Mustard gas was still used on numerous occassions causing thousands of wounded and casualties. Biological and Chemical weapons hold the dubious honor of being WMDs that kill populations and leave the cities for the conquerer to occupy.

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 20 2003,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 21 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and y so worried about WMDs there has only been one country to use them, and they were used against a civilian population 2 times in a row against a nation that was pretty much already defeated, a nuke attack on the US would show them Nukes dont save lives like they are told.<span id='postcolor'>

We've already dealt with that exstensively.

Also I pointed out that Germany and England used what are refered to as WMDs in WW1, Mustard Gas in that case.<span id='postcolor'>

i dont believe mustard gas was used to destroy cities, if iraq is invaded by the US and they strike the US with nukes to "save" their troops lives thats the same excuses they use for US attacking the jap cities 2 times. Fact is US is only country with a bad record with nuke weapons<span id='postcolor'>

WMD=Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons, not just nukes. I would also say that a chemical or biological agent used correctly could desimate a city's population and not destroy a single building, or is it just the building destruction that counts?

[5thSFG.CNUTZ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote  

It must have been a very long film as the papers I know of have more than 12000 pages.

Maybe we're thinking of different papers.  This show was an hour long and outlined saddams WMD programs and NBC capabilities, including what the UN inspectors could not destroy when they were kicked out in 1998.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, you can do a simple google search and find allot of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports.  Some are even host on the UN website.  THey may not have everything but a general sumation I would imagine.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 21 2003,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 20 2003,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 21 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and y so worried about WMDs there has only been one country to use them, and they were used against a civilian population 2 times in a row against a nation that was pretty much already defeated, a nuke attack on the US would show them Nukes dont save lives like they are told.<span id='postcolor'>

We've already dealt with that exstensively.

Also I pointed out that Germany and England used what are refered to as WMDs in WW1, Mustard Gas in that case.<span id='postcolor'>

i dont believe mustard gas was used to destroy cities, if iraq is invaded by the US and they strike the US with nukes to "save" their troops lives thats the same excuses they use for US attacking the jap cities 2 times. Fact is US is only country with a bad record with nuke weapons<span id='postcolor'>

WMD=Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons, not just nukes. I would also say that a chemical or biological agent used correctly could desimate a city's population and not destroy a single building, or is it just the building destruction that counts?

<span id='postcolor'>

all WMDs should be outlawed in everysingle country, chemical weapons have the ability to wipe out everyone, who knows how long and far teh agent can travel. Fact is the USA has more WMD than anybody else, y do they have the right to stop other countries using them, they showed in ww2 wat they do, they are only effective agaisnt civilian populations so y have thousands of them and y continue to build them.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 21 2003,05:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 21 2003,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 20 2003,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 21 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and y so worried about WMDs there has only been one country to use them, and they were used against a civilian population 2 times in a row against a nation that was pretty much already defeated, a nuke attack on the US would show them Nukes dont save lives like they are told.<span id='postcolor'>

We've already dealt with that exstensively.

Also I pointed out that Germany and England used what are refered to as WMDs in WW1, Mustard Gas in that case.<span id='postcolor'>

i dont believe mustard gas was used to destroy cities, if iraq is invaded by the US and they strike the US with nukes to "save" their troops lives thats the same excuses they use for US attacking the jap cities 2 times. Fact is US is only country with a bad record with nuke weapons<span id='postcolor'>

WMD=Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons, not just nukes. I would also say that a chemical or biological agent used correctly could desimate a city's population and not destroy a single building, or is it just the building destruction that counts?

<span id='postcolor'>

all WMDs should be outlawed in everysingle country, chemical weapons have the ability to wipe out everyone, who knows how long and far teh agent can travel. Fact is the USA has more WMD than anybody else, y do they have the right to stop other countries using them, they showed in ww2 wat they do, they are only effective agaisnt civilian populations so y have thousands of them and y continue to build them.<span id='postcolor'>

As also discussed previously in the thread only the original nucelar powers are allowed to have WDM's per se.

Check the Non-Proliferation Treaty website.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 20 2003,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As also discussed previously in the thread only the original nucelar powers are allowed to have WDM's per se.

Check the Non-Proliferation Treaty website.<span id='postcolor'>

That is the status quo, but he suggested something by saying "should".

[HellToupee 0]

y should anyone have them

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 21 2003,06:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 20 2003,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As also discussed previously in the thread only the original nucelar powers are allowed to have WDM's per se.

Check the Non-Proliferation Treaty website.<span id='postcolor'>

That is the status quo, but he suggested something by saying "should".<span id='postcolor'>

I agree.

But "should" is extremely different than what is realistic. I think everyone should live in peace...unfortunately that doesn't mean it will happen.