Weapons of mass destruction found!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

iacrobat

War Child
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
585
Location
Toronto
Someone finally found some weapons of mass destruction!

07_rooting_out_evil.gif


In February 2003, the international peace organization, Rooting Out Evil, pays a visit to an undisclosed US weapons facility. They could start almost anywhere - America is home to the world's largest concentrations of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"We don't expect to be admitted, but we will make a public statement," says Rooting Out Evil organizer Christy Ferguson. They'll also hold a jammer's mirror up to the US administration and its pre-war rhetoric of "rogue nations." The group selected the US for inspection as its top priority, based on the Bush government's own criteria for dangerous states: a stockpile of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; refusal to sign and honor international treaties; ignoring due process at the United Nations; and attaining power through illegitimate means.

"We want to highlight not only the hypocrisy of the Bush administration, but also the danger of it - that they are really posing a threat to global security," Ferguson says.

Over 12,000 people have signed up as honorary weapons inspectors on the coalition website. Not every supporter can play the role of Hans Blix at, say, the biological weapons storehouses of Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, but all are given updates and opportunities to participate as the campaign evolves.

"People sign up to say they're interested, they believe in what we're doing," says Ferguson. "And they believe that the United States should come under further scrutiny."

http://www.rootingoutevil.org/index.php3/Home
 
:wink:

Oh yeah...funny stuff.....very funny!!!!


I almost gave it some credibility, but after reviewing the map, I can say they got much of it wrong.:huh:

I am not correcting it however...Have your fun with this thread.:wave:
 
Dreadsox said:
:wink:

Oh yeah...funny stuff.....very funny!!!!


I almost gave it some credibility, but after reviewing the map, I can say they got much of it wrong.:huh:

I am not correcting it however...Have your fun with this thread.:wave:

Yeah! Funny! Second largest nuclear arsenal in the world, wheee, heee heee!:eyebrow:

To the accuracy of the map I cannot attest. However, I think the map is -just- an illustrative point to go with the text, it's not meant to be taken so literally.

I don't think the accuracy of the map changes the point or spirit of what these people are doing.

However, Dreadsox, perhaps it would have been better to include a more accurate map.:wave:
 
iacrobat said:


Yeah! Funny! Second largest nuclear arsenal in the world, wheee, heee heee!:eyebrow:

To the accuracy of the map I cannot attest. However, I think the map is -just- an illustrative point to go with the text, it's not meant to be taken so literally.

I don't think the accuracy of the map changes the point or spirit of what these people are doing.

However, Dreadsox, perhaps it would have been better to include a more accurate map.:wave:

You are assuming that I found the nuclear part funny. Unfortunately you read too much into what I found funny.

For starters....the implication that Bush gained power illegitimately....implied by the article....I find amusing.

Comments like that aside from the map make me feel :tsk:
 
Dreadsox said:


You are assuming that I found the nuclear part funny. Unfortunately you read too much into what I found funny.

For starters....the implication that Bush gained power illegitimately....implied by the article....I find amusing.

Comments like that aside from the map make me feel :tsk:

Sorry, I equated laughing at a group who takes seroiusly the threat of America's nuclear capability with not taking seriously America's threat to the world because of it's nuclear capability.

You were just laughing at the map?

"and attaining power through illegitimate means."

This does not necessarily imply that they are talking about Bush's rise to power. Could America's control of Iraq be considered illegitimate? And nowhere on their website do they contest the election results of 2000. Perhaps they (the magazine that wrote the article) were just listing Bush's criteria for rogue states.

Or maybe not.
 
Bush's application of rise to power had to do with the Taliban and Saddam.

Nice try.

I find it funny.
 
Dreadsox said:
Bush's application of rise to power had to do with the Taliban and Saddam.

I am sorry, I am a little slow today.

Saddam's and the Taliban's rise to power through violence and illegitimate means is different from the US's rise to power in Iraq. How?
 
As far as I know Bush is not yet the President of Iraq..

Nor is he using chemical weapons, nerve gas, etc on Iraqis

But whatever..I'm certainly no defender of GWB, but just to throw that out there
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
As far as I know Bush is not yet the President of Iraq..

This is true, he is not the elected president of Iraq. He has taken control through force. But I don't think that is what you meant. He may not officially be the president, but the point is that Iraq is controlled by the US.

Nor is he using chemical weapons, nerve gas, etc on Iraqis

No but he sure does have a big stockpile of them. Cluster bombs and other such goodies were enough to get the job done.
 
i think it is one country that used nuclear weapons on innocent civilians

that's long past though I understand.
 
iacrobat said:


I am sorry, I am a little slow today.

Saddam's and the Taliban's rise to power through violence and illegitimate means is different from the US's rise to power in Iraq. How?

I work with 8 year olds so I am used to working slow.:sexywink:

As to the inspections of the US because of Bush's rise to power in Iraq....If that is what the author's believe then it further proves my point about what a piece of :censored: the whole thing is.

Thank you for making my case for me.
 
Dreadsox said:


I work with 8 year olds so I am used to working slow.:sexywink:

Somedays I feel like a bit of a baby...

eek, that was bad...:yuck: (made me laugh though!)

As to the inspections of the US because of Bush's rise to power in Iraq....If that is what the author's believe then it further proves my point about what a piece of :censored: the whole thing is.

Thank you for making my case for me.

No, I don't think the article is saying this and the group has nothing of the sort on their website.

That was my idea. I am not convinced that the US's power is more legitimate that Saddam's. But that is another thread.

I think the group is mostly concerned with the US stockpile of chemical and nuclear weapons and the fact that there was talk about pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Bush is prepared to use these weapons. That scares a lot of people. It needs to be challenged. The idea of applying Bush's own definition of a rogue state to the US , whether all criteria apply or not, is highlight the hypocrisy of the criteria.
 
Last edited:
I personally have no idea why the US doesn't just destroy their chemical and nuclear weapons.

can somebody clear that up? why have so much of it around?
 
Basstrap said:
I personally have no idea why the US doesn't just destroy their chemical and nuclear weapons.

can somebody clear that up? why have so much of it around?

Because many find the sword to be mightier than any pen...
 
Back
Top Bottom