by Simon 398 Replies latest social current
realist-
so even in this respect it is still worth occupying iraq.
do you honestly dispute that bush is working for the industry that supports him?
so, explain to me in detail, according to your personal theory on it, how bush is going to exploit those reserves. this way we will have a simple reference point in the future to look back on and check the actual facts against.
aa
dubla,
you mean like with WMDs YES or NO ?
my "theory" is that US oil companies will get the drilling rights - and thus will make the profits.
Yes, people seem to look at the net balance to the US and the fact that they spend a lot of money in Iraq (though as with many 'aid' programmes, lots of the money comes right back to the US because it's spent on US contractors)
In reality, the taxes of the poor are spent to secure oil contracts for the wealthy.
realist-
you mean like with WMDs YES or NO ?
exactly......sarin filled bombs included.
aa
double post
oh yes...i forgot about the one granade stockpile!
realist-
two so far, both rigged as ieds......for the sake of everyone in iraq, i hope youre right, that there isnt more to come. the one bomb had 4 liters of sarin in it.....considering one drop can kill you, id say 4 liters isnt anything to sneeze at (it could actually kill thousands if detonated properly in a populated area). pretty dangerous stuff, especially considering saddam didnt declare any (that means zero) of these types of shells as still existing. but, most of us knew saddams declarations were b.s. long ago. maybe, stealing a phrase from blix, there were some sarin shells misplaced with the marmalade?
aa
Actually, as artilliary pieces they need to be fired for the chemicals to mix. The people using them as IEDs obviously don't know this.
It would be silly to stockpile chemical weapons but not the crucial bit to make them deadly, I'm sure you will agree !
simon-
Actually, as artilliary pieces they need to be fired for the chemicals to mix.
any explosion can mix the two chemicals, but they are much more effective when fired from an artillery piece......which is why i said that amount (4 liters) could kill thousands if detonated properly. it obviously wasnt. it appears they didnt know what they had, which is a very good thing.
It would be silly to stockpile chemical weapons but not the crucial bit to make them deadly, I'm sure you will agree !
im quite sure that when saddam was stockpiling such weapons he had every intent to fire them properly (actually he already has in the iran-iraq war). just because the guys who rigged it didnt use it correctly doesnt mean thats the way it was intended to be used originally......this is pretty elementary stuff here.
the significance of the find is that there are obviously shells left over that were not declared by saddam. take your stance for example....that saddam was indeed trying to prove that all of his chemical munitions were destroyed. how did this particular shell, the largest artillery shell he utilized, filled with 4 liters of sarin, slip through the cracks? and if its because it was simply "misplaced", then how could he possibly have proven all of the stockpiles to be destroyed, not even knowing where they all were?
aa
Realist,
The Russians were in no position to attack Germany. Russian military equipment was outdated crap.
The Germans would have defeated Russia if:
A) Hitler wasnt so stupid
B) They had a long range bomber
C) It had stayed summer just a weeeee bit longer
A civilian killed in a bombing raid though tragic, is not in the same context as the systimatic destruction of the an ENITIRE RACE of people. The Allies DID NOT attempt to KILL EVERY German on the Planet. The Germans DID try to kill ALL the Jews.
