Saddam's Nuclear Weapons - Busted

by Perry 33 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Sentinel

  Well, can someone answer this for me. Here we are on the brink of war. War in this world arena of missiles contained horrible germs is very scary. I thought the nuclear threat alone was bad--this is worse. Here we are, concerned that they will send these horrible deseases upon us, but won't all these germs be let loose anyway into the atmosphere over there if we bomb them now? This means the loss of many innocent lives, and a danger to countries close by. We're not talking about simple diseases, that you can get a shot for and be okay. Some are so deadly, that just "breathing" the air will kill you. Others kill you slowly and painfully. It would be like several world-wide plagues going on at the same time. I've read about the Black Plague alone, and this world could be turned upside down!

  It is common knowledge "who" the individual terrorists leaders of the world are, and yet they continue to "live". They continue to have control over masses of people and reign terror on neighboring countries. It's not just a matter of religious belief, it's a matter of what the mass of society upon this earth deem to be the answer to such a predicament. Isn't this what the UN is all about?

  Since we have such strict laws for those who practice terrorism, why can't we get the address of these leaders, and just hire a hit man to pop them off? If you get the leader and his staff, the ones at the top of the control ladder, their "system" will fall apart. What is so wrong with this? Why kill thousands of innocent people, when we know who is responsible? Why go to war, when we have the technology to rid ourselves of the individuals causing these problem? It would certainly set an example for anyone else trying to establish terrorist movements.

  It seems that Bush would rather go to war. It is a powerful threat to the entire world. He seems to be bullying the members of the UN into doing it "his way".

  You cannot "fight" a terrorist. A terrorist is crazy. They don't think like a normal, rational human being. They live by a different code. We can never win a war like this, because terrorists will always rise up in all parts of this world, even in the US. We have to find them and destroy "them". We have to search for them, like we do serial killers.

  I often wonder, why it is that these bad people aren't ever struck by lightening, or hit by a car, or run over by a tank, or just plain die of heart attack. Go figure...

  Just my thoughts...
• 

  email

  If you could prove conclusively that Saddam has plans to USE such weapons ON US, then you'd have a case US fighting a war with him. You can't.

  Xander... you know this is ridiculous...

  The point here is... HE IS IN VIOLATION with the UN agreement to disarm... no one can argue that. We are part of the world community, a nuke or a biological or chemical attack (which he has already tried on his OWN people) can and will affect the rest of the world. PLUS... if he can develop those weapons and pass it on to terrorists (ties that are also proven beyond any doubt) then we ALREADY experienced and can conclusively state that he MIGHT directly or inderectly (through the hands of terroists) use it againt us.
• 

  dubla

  We are part of the world community, a nuke or a biological or chemical attack (which he has already tried on his OWN people) can and will affect the rest of the world.

  no, no, no, email......didnt you take xanders advice and look at a world map? only events that happen near us actually affect us....duh.

  aa
• 

  Xander

  A massive nuclear war WOULD effect us. Even a dozen nukes going off in the middle east WON'T. Hell, we've tested that many nukes ABOVE GROUND and in OUR OWN COUNTRY, with no negative effect.

  You people seriously overstate the capability of nuclear weapons. Yeah, they are really, REALLY big bombs. And fallout sucks, but lethal doses of it don't travel all the way around the world! (Unless you set the nuke off WAY THE HELL HIGH in the atmosphere, but there really isn't any reason to do that, because it won't actually damage anything then. And the Chernobyl disaster would not have any parallel in any way at all to a nuclear attack.)

  I'm not saying a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan or Iran and Iraq would be all roses and the best thing for the world ecology, but it's not a global catastrophe that the US should do everything in its power to interfere with and stop (RE: starting another war and occupying another foreign country whose residents ALREADY don't like us).

  As to what that would do to oil prices? Well, hell, we've needed to, and been able to, get off middle east oil for a LONG time now. Maybe that would give the politicians a kick in the pants to start USING some of the alternative energy sources we've already researched, and put more research into others.
• 

  dubla

  xander-

  so basically youre saying that as long as the fallout doesnt reach us, we shouldnt even care who blows up who over there....right? so at the same time im guessing you were very against operation restore hope, considering the famine had nothing to do with the u.s.?

  aa
• 

  Emiliano

  Profiting from arming the Enemy! Business as usual

  10-09-01
  Three generations of Bushes have armed America's enemies: from Hitler, to Hussein, to bin Laden.
  Read Now

  9-11 TIMELINE "Oh Lucy, You Gotta Lotta 'Splainin to Do!" - FTW's infamous timeline now has 16 new additions. Expanded and Revised 9/9/02 - Evidence of Bush Administration Foreknowledge and complicity is now overwhelming. We have also provided a printable PDF version of the timeline.
  Read Now

  Hey! Wake up!

  Edited by - Emiliano on 28 January 2003 15:41:47

  Edited by - Emiliano on 28 January 2003 15:49:25
• 

  Perry

  Yawn
• 

  Satanus

  http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/28/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html

  Much is made about iraq's withholding and hiding, which is possible, but have a read of this statement by blix, the swiss chief inspector for the UN:

  "I think the more evidence that is placed on the table, if there is some, the better," Blix said.

  "But there is some evidence that has been placed on the table that has been put into doubt, like evidence about the aluminum tubes. So the more on the table, the better."

  He is referring to evidence furnished by the US. American govt evidence that was given to him didn't hold up. While more evidence from the US has been promised, up to this point the strange situation that has attained is the the US state is guilty of witholding evidence. Classified, you know.

  SS
• 

  Perry

  That is just plain wrong. Blix overwhelmingly said that Saddam has failed miserably to show that he has disarmed, distroyed his known WMD. You left wingers just don't get it do you?

  This will be another Nazi Germany. Mark my words. When we go in and find the nasty truth written in the mass graves of Saddam's opponents, and in the over one million pounds of chemical weapons that he has admitted, but somehow cannot acount for destroying, and understand the extent of his revived nuclear weapons program; many I say many will be forever thankful. Your voices will ring hollow real soon.

  The world will be waving little American flags and the European naysayers (read France) will line up like a bunch of afterthoughts to appear as if the world needs their treachery. I don't think so.

  Just exactly what is your problem Satan with demolishing evil?
• 

  Satanus

  Just exactly what is your problem Satan with demolishing evil?

  None. Demolish it, wherever it is, i say. The US govt has consistently withheld evidence/proof that it claimed it had, on grounds of national security. It has done this on a few issues since 9-11. It claims to have all the cards, yet refuses to play them. Why is the govt of the world's only superpower so fearful of showing it's cards, if it has such a good hand? Discosure would win a lot of agreement at a time when it is being lost.

  SS