Say NO to this happening again (warning very graphic images and text)

[gvox]

I hate the fact that 200-10,000 people died because of their leader Saddam Hussein. They were living people. That is the point the photographer wished to make.

Sorry, almost let you go there without realizing what you were saying. Are the first two sentences to be read together, and linked to the third? If so that is false.

I would highly doubt that the photographer said that 400-10000 living people died because of their leader Saddam Hussein.

That is NOT the point he made on CNN, on his introdcution pages, or in the pictures that say a thousand words.

In fact, on CNN he stated that the purpose of the exhibit was to give Americans pause and remember that this was the aftermath the last time the US fought in Iraq. He stressed that he wasn't pointing fingers but that he wanted people to think about the price of war.

And in that aspect, and in line with my comment 'never again', the link was perfectly appropriate.

Sworn statements by eyewitnesses (NOT Clarke) state that the damage inflicted in several bombing runs is consistent with such wmd.

And I stress again, I don't think I said that the pictures proved that the US used weapons of mass destruction.

However the fact remains that they did. Deniers of that fact are fooling no one. Missiles and bombs are considered weapons of mass destruction, and they were used by the US, sometimes even hitting civilians.

After all, isn't it missiles and bombs aka wmd that Bush wants us all to believe that we need to go after Iraq for?

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

If you define missiles and bombs as Weapons of Mass Destruction then you could define nearly every single weapons system except a rifle or a pistol as a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons of Mass Destruction are Chemical/Biological/Nuclear weapons. They are consider weapons of mass destruction because of the area in which they could potentially cause destruction, which can be much greater and difficult to confine to a certain area, unlike a 2,000 pound laser guided bomb.

 

[Dreadsox]

Sorry, almost let you go there without realizing what you were saying. Are the first two sentences to be read together, and linked to the third? If so that is false.

I would highly doubt that the photographer said that 400-10000 living people died because of their leader Saddam Hussein.

I will restate what I meant. I apologize if it appeared I meant the photographer said that. MY take on the photographers pictures is that War is painful and full of human loss.

The senslessness of the death of those people, falls on their leader. That is my take on it.

 

[Dreadsox]

Sworn statements by eyewitnesses (NOT Clarke) state that the damage inflicted in several bombing runs is consistent with such wmd.

And I stress again, I don't think I said that the pictures proved that the US used weapons of mass destruction.

However the fact remains that they did. Deniers of that fact are fooling no one. Missiles and bombs are considered weapons of mass destruction, and they were used by the US, sometimes even hitting civilians.

After all, isn't it missiles and bombs aka wmd that Bush wants us all to believe that we need to go after Iraq for?

Well, we can agree to disagree here. I am not going to get into a battle over sources again.

I agree with Sting, as to his take on WMD. Your use of the word, would lead one to believe Nuclear and Biological weapons were used on the Iraqi's. You and I both know this is not the case.

Did the US use weapons to harm the enemy, yes. It was a war. The air war had ended the ground war before it could begin. That was the strategy. It was designed to help eliminate unnecessary casualties on the coalition side.

 

[gvox]

Gabrielvox,

If you define missiles and bombs as Weapons of Mass Destruction then you could define nearly every single weapons system except a rifle or a pistol as a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons of Mass Destruction are Chemical/Biological/Nuclear weapons. They are consider weapons of mass destruction because of the area in which they could potentially cause destruction, which can be much greater and difficult to confine to a certain area, unlike a 2,000 pound laser guided bomb.

I guess on that count then do you have any problem with Iraq developing a Tomahawk calibre missile? Just wondering, cause thats what was offically used on Iraq and at 1000 miles range is farther than anything they have or are allowed to have, and by the way, a Tomahawk to my knowledge can be fitted with a Nuclear warhead...

Im not the one who trivialized the term WMD, Bush is the one to thank for that.

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

Thats actually a good point but a little bit off the technical issue of what constitutes a Weapon of Mass destruction. The restriction on the range of Iraqi Balistic missiles is simply is an attempt to prevent them from threatening or hitting their neighbors as they did on dozens of occasions in Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War. It is true that such weapons could be fitted with Bio/Chem/Nuc weapons and so in case disarmament of Iraq had failed, as it so far has, a limit on the range of ballistic missiles that become mass destruction weapons only when carrying such warheads, acts as another barrier and restraint against a possible WMD attack on Israel, Saudi Arabia or any other country. Iraq agreed to the conditions but probably still has some long range Scud missiles in violation of the agreement. Another violation on Saddam's long list of violations.

 

[gvox]

And what prevents the US from delivering a chemical or nuclear warhead on Iraq via the Tomahawk?

Nothing, and they have already stated that they reserve the right to use nuclear force if necessary in any conflict.

So where are the UN resolutions to deal with THAT threat?

What a joke.

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

You miss the point that UN resolutions that are in place to strip and prevent Saddam from having weapons of mass destruction are there not because of such weapons in of themselves but because of Iraq's past brutal behavior and aggression. Its Saddams behavior "PLUS" WMD that creates the need for such UN resolutions.

 

[nbcrusader]

Nothing, and they have already stated that they reserve the right to use nuclear force if necessary in any conflict.

So where are the UN resolutions to deal with THAT threat?

Good question - I guess the world does not really consider the US military capability a threat.

 

[gvox]

Here we go round the mulberry bush again.

Saddams brutal behaviour + desire for WMD = percieved world threat

History of aggression + actual possession of enough WMD to kill every living thing on earth = REAL world threat (not to mention any names of course)

 

[nbcrusader]

Well, you better get the UN to stop that unnamed country!

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

Yep, again, the USA is not an aggressor state like Iraq.

 

[gvox]

Gabrielvox,

Yep, again, the USA is not an aggressor state like Iraq.

 

[STING2]

Hey, your entitled to believe what you want to believe.

 

[Dreadsox]

Did someone just cry UNCLE

 

[gvox]

No Im just waiting for somcone to rewind the tape.

 

[Dreadsox]

I was talking to STING....LOL It's all about you isn't it.....

HEHE!!!

 

[gvox]

Wow, eerie, thats who I was talking about too!



Ok really dude cease fire man Im just buggin!

PS Its all about the drums, reaally...