Empty Warheads found in Iraq

[Evanauto]

An inspection team searching bunkers in southern Iraq on Thursday found 12 empty chemical warheads that Iraqi officials had not declared to the United Nations, a U.N. spokesman said. Iraq insisted that it had reported the rockets, which it said were old and never used for chemical weapons.

what do we do next?

[TheEvilOne]

Wow... I guess the inspectors really are doing their job after all. :)

Basically, this just shoots down the argument by those that are opposed to an attack on Iraq that it would be an unprovoked attack without any evidence. It proves that Iraq is indeed trying to hide weapons of mass destruction in their country. It may help swing world opinion into our favor, so we won't have to do this alone. I know that the French and Germans had been grumbling about needing another UN resolution before going ahead with an attack. If it does come to another resolution, this could help us get it passed.

Maybe we'll give Saddam another chance to disarm himself, but if we keep finding stuff like this, then we are probably heading for war. And I'm all for it.

I think the attack will come in late 2003 or early 2004.

[mulder-xuk]

the warheads are also expired and pose no threat at all

i think this will be used to start the war

[Ted-Easton]

But Iraq has as much right as the US to have empty warheads or even full warheads, for that matter. Until Iraq does something violent, there is no cause for war.

[TheEvilOne]

At 1/16/03 09:00 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: But Iraq has as much right as the US to have empty warheads or even full warheads, for that matter. Until Iraq does something violent, there is no cause for war.

That's the thing--Iraq has taken violent actions in the past. If you recall, in 1990, they invaded the small neighboring nation of Kuwait. The US and UN sent troops to repel this invasion, and won a swift victory. After this, we could have--indeed, we probably SHOULD have--invaded Iraq and finished off Saddam for good. But we didn't. Instead, a cease-fire agreement was made on the condition that Iraq would end its weapons programs. Inspectors would be allowed into the country to see to it that this was done. Time and again, Iraq has violated this agreement, forcing the inspectors out of the country. Sure, they let the inspectors back in (only after we threatened war), but it is possible that they are still playing a game of deception. Today's discovery would seem to support that theory. To me, if a nation violates an agreement that was made to end a war, then that's as if the war never ended.

[patton55]

well if the US goes to war it will be quick. it is aftermath that i am afraid of

[Speechless]

Well lets see, Iraq and US have nukes. Iraq is about to be bombed because it hasn't used the nukes. You say Iraq has done bad before, well WHAT ABOUT THE US , HIROSIMA AND ETC. Why doesnt the UN destroy and bomb America it has done bad things before and has more nukes than any other country , why not bomb it. Or Israel , its attacking Palestine and hasn't been investigated for nukes. Think before you talk.

[TheEvilOne]

At 1/17/03 12:20 AM, Speechless wrote: Well lets see, Iraq and US have nukes. Iraq is about to be bombed because it hasn't used the nukes. You say Iraq has done bad before, well WHAT ABOUT THE US , HIROSIMA AND ETC. Why doesnt the UN destroy and bomb America it has done bad things before and has more nukes than any other country , why not bomb it. Or Israel , its attacking Palestine and hasn't been investigated for nukes. Think before you talk.

Perhaps we have done some bad things in the past. The United States is not a country that is without foreign policy screw-ups. However, aside from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which I think were horrible but necessary (see the Hiroshima thread on this board), we have never used nuclear weapons. We keep them as a deterrent, to prevent other nations from using them against us. We have not attempted to use the fact that we posess them as leverage to force other nations to bow to our will. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein is a man who's past actions indicate that he probably would do just that. This is a man who has gassed his own people, for crying out loud!

[TheShrike]

bomb that SOB Saddam

[TheEvilOne]

Crap, I accidentally hit enter before I was finished. Anyway, as I was saying, that shows that he knows no ethics or morals. He does whatever it takes to stay in power. If he acquired nuclear weapons, he would use them to blackmail his neighbors, as well as the United States and our allies. I don't think that such destructive weapons should be in the hands of a madman such as Saddam Hussein.

[Ted-Easton]

I think the US and the UN should butt out of Iraq. They repelled them from Kuwait, and now they just can't leave well enough alone.
The weapons inspectors are there, what else can they want. If they find any weapons (which is very unlikely), Iraq will just move them and deny it until either they give up, or Iraq is invaded.
This time they're not going to be afraid to use whatever weapons they have.
The US had better watch itself if it's going back there when they know how dangerous it is.

[Slizor]

That's the thing--Iraq has taken violent actions in the past. If you recall, in 1990, they invaded the small neighboring nation of Kuwait.

Do you know why they invaded Kuwait? Well firstly they needed some money after the exhausting Iran-Iraq war(totally encouraged by the Western nations, especially America.) And America said they would not act if Saddam attacked Kuwait. Strange that.

The US and UN sent troops to repel this invasion, and won a swift victory. After this, we could have--indeed, we probably SHOULD have--invaded Iraq and finished off Saddam for good. But we didn't. Instead, a cease-fire agreement was made on the condition that Iraq would end its weapons programs.

This seems to me to be a contradiction, they won a swift victory, therefore he was easy to beat. Why wouldn't he be so easy again?

Inspectors would be allowed into the country to see to it that this was done. Time and again, Iraq has violated this agreement, forcing the inspectors out of the country.

Actually the inspectors left. You just believe the current rhetoric of America's (conservative) mainstream media.

Sure, they let the inspectors back in (only after we threatened war), but it is possible that they are still playing a game of deception.

Possibly and actually are two different things.

Today's discovery would seem to support that theory.

Despite the fact that they have not be proved to not be in the list supplied, and were empty.

To me, if a nation violates an agreement that was made to end a war, then that's as if the war never ended.

But that's not how it is.

[JudgeDredd]

At 1/17/03 01:31 AM, TheEvilOne wrote: WE have never used nuclear weapons (except Japan). We keep them as a deterrent, to prevent other nations from using them against us. We have not attempted to use the fact that we posess them as leverage to force other nations to bow to our will.

New Zealand is ANTI-NUCLEAR. Since banning visits by US Warships, NZ has lost about 1 billion in trade every year since about 1987 (meat, dairy, etc) so about 15 billion NZD of leverage so far, but to no effect. NZ and America are both White Western Democracy countries, but this is how they treat their "friends".
_

[Speechless]

Oook , one its his country he can do what he wants America only has the right to defend countries not remove leaders of countries. BTW Who are you to say Saddam is a mad man , is that the only excuse you have so that he shouldnt have nukes ?! America shouldnt put rules about nukes if they have nukes.

[Speechless]

At 1/17/03 01:31 AM, TheEvilOne wrote:

Perhaps we have done some bad things in the past. The United States is not a country that is without foreign policy screw-ups. However, aside from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which I think were horrible but necessary (see the Hiroshima thread on this board), we have never used nuclear weapons. We keep them as a deterrent, to prevent other nations from using them against us. We have not attempted to use the fact that we posess them as leverage to force other nations to bow to our will. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein is a man who's past actions indicate that he probably would do just that. This is a man who has gassed his own people, for crying out loud!

WTF No levarage , major levarage , any time a country is out of order , "Hey stop or we'' nuke ya". America is a big bully in the game of politics. Making rules that dont apply to anyone except Iraq and other countries it doesn't like. This will be America's downfall.

[FreedomSlave]

"We must prevent the worst leaders in the world from acquiring the worst weapons in the world" - Dubya

Hmm so that must include you too George, oh no thats right US rules only apply to certain countries.

I'd like to see UN weapon inspectors in every western country, see what Weapons we all have hidden away.

[DrNatchKilder]

First of all, i don't think that a preventive war is correct. That's a medieval idea, not a modern one, and there isn't any evidence. If the US, as george has said several times, knows where are the weapons, why don't they tell the UN where they are? That makes me to suspect about what the real objetives of this war are...

What about the fact that most of the population on Iraq is 25 years old. If there's a war most of them will be killed, as they will fight the invader, with the consequences that it has for a country

Has our friend george thought that he will cripple the country (aside all the "collateral damage") ?

[JudgeDredd]

At 1/26/03 09:02 AM, Reaper-n wrote:
I'd like to see UN weapon inspectors in every western country, see what Weapons we all have hidden away.

..ya shoulda seen "The Awful Truth" series by Michael Moore.. When he did that "duck'n'cover" story on Nukes, he also tried to do a story on American (homeland) weapons inspections.. but was told bluntly, "Weapons Inspections in America are (by definition) ILLEGAL" ..it's basically considered "National Security", so chemical and biological weapons dating back to WW2 still remain fairly unprotected, or possibly unaccounted for in bunkers all over the States.

..i wont even delve into the USAMRIID "anthrax cover-up" ....as yet still unresolved.

* the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases

[Ted-Easton]

Wait a minute- "preventative war". You're starting a war to avoid a war. Anyone else see a bit of a flaw in that logic?

[Fantastico]

At 1/26/03 09:27 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Wait a minute- "preventative war". You're starting a war to avoid a war. Anyone else see a bit of a flaw in that logic?

it may appear to be contradictory, but think of it as being starting a war to prevent a potentially much more devastating war.

ARGH! I'm really dissapointed with you Ted... I read a load of your posts and had agreed with most if not all of them, but now i see you are anti the possible war in Iraq. See my arguments, then bow in submission and i might consider this a glancing transgression.. ~(:p

Read the Praise Bush thread and realise your folly

[Ted-Easton]

I do see the reasons for a war in Iraq, and they are very good reasons, but I've sided with the anti-war side, my main reason being they don't have anyone else arguing for them.
I usually like to take an uphill battle.
In another situation, I'dbe arguing right alongside you.
I'm not an "Anti-War Hippie", or anything like that, I just argue against war in Iraq, because this is one war we shouldn't fight. I support the war in Afghanistan, I support most wars, because they are started on good intentions (The road to hell is paved with them), but this is one war I've decided I'm against.

[Fantastico]

AhhHHHhh
So you're just doing this to encourage debate...
ohhhhhhhhhh

hippy

[Fantastico]

sorry... that "hippy" thing was an attempt at humour. I apologise

[TheEvilOne]

At 1/26/03 07:57 AM, Speechless wrote: Oook , one its his country he can do what he wants America only has the right to defend countries not remove leaders of countries. BTW Who are you to say Saddam is a mad man , is that the only excuse you have so that he shouldnt have nukes ?! America shouldnt put rules about nukes if they have nukes.

Do you deny that Saddam is a madman? I think his past actions speak for themselves. If he were a good leader who simply sought nuclear weapons as a deterrent, then maybe you could say that he could do what he wants. However, his past actions indicate that he is not a good leader. He has threatened his neighbors and killed his own people. He has shown that he is unworthy to posess nuclear weapons.

WTF No levarage , major levarage , any time a country is out of order , "Hey stop or we'' nuke ya". America is a big bully in the game of politics. Making rules that dont apply to anyone except Iraq and other countries it doesn't like. This will be America's downfall.

I never said that we haven't tried to enforce our will on other nations, and we have made some mistakes in the past. All I said is that we have never used nuclear weapons for that purpose. There have been some cases where we went somewhere that we shouldn't have been (Vietnam, anyone?), but in this case, I feel there is justification.

[DrNatchKilder]

At 1/26/03 09:35 PM, Fantastico wrote:

At 1/26/03 09:27 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Wait a minute- "preventative war". You're starting a war to avoid a war. Anyone else see a bit of a flaw in that logic?

it may appear to be contradictory, but think of it as being starting a war to prevent a potentially much more devastating war.

What are you saying? Do you support a war without any REAL evidence. Who can you say that a war could be done as a preventive ? Remember that everyone is innocent until proved the contrary and nowadays there's a big risk that this war with another culture could start a world war and with all the nukes these could be the last war

Actually, the idea of preventive war is a Scholastic idea which was used as a kind of justification for the Crusades. Remeber, never, NEVER a war can be justified as a measure for avoiding war. Just remeber that NEVER there's a winning side in a war, there are only losing sides, but one of them writes the History

[Ted-Easton]

At 1/27/03 03:53 PM, Dr_Natch_Kilder wrote: Just remeber that NEVER there's a winning side in a war, there are only losing sides, but one of them writes the History

So war is a battle over authorship... so someone who steals someone's work can't get sued, they get declared war on?
im jk

[DrNatchKilder]

At 1/27/03 05:06 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: So war is a battle over authorship... so someone who steals someone's work can't get sued, they get declared war on?
im jk

You are right ;-)

[the-unknown-soldier]

Those warheads are left over from when AMErICa, home of the free, gave them to iraq to use against iran. you give them something and then hblow them up because they have it.

You realise that america has been bombing iraw on a weekly basis for 13 years???? 13 years of spy planes going over and you think if there was a huge missile launcher, we are talking a msasive missile launcher, which would be needed to launch missiles to the usa. and to big to store underground.

In 13 years of spy planes if there was anything their amreica would have found it. the plan was well send spy planes in find something and use it to invade. when nothing was found they waited until s11. the perfect oppotunity 'evil doers' harbour terrorists., somehow suam housain is the person who bombed the wtc. and not all the people from suadi arabia which hasn't been touched by america.
So tehy can't find anything they are using your emitions to go in anyway. fucking read my signature. you could become the next unknown soldier.

[Ted-Easton]

The US hasn't had spy planes everywhere over Iraq. They've only been patrolling the north and south No-Fly zones. There's a rather large area of land in the middle that is out of US reach.

[JudgeDredd]

At 1/30/03 08:10 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: The US hasn't had spy planes everywhere over Iraq. They've only been patrolling the north and south No-Fly zones. There's a rather large area of land in the middle that is out of US reach.

But America keeps extending the No-fly-zone everytime they bomb another Iraqi-based structure. You can hardly fly a kite in Iraq without going over into "US territory" which now covers about two thirds of Iraqs land mass.. not to mention satellite coverage... so the US can see everything!