Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(London Times)   Bush Sr. says no to unilateral war on Iraq   (timesonline.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

23019 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2003 at 6:39 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



720 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2003-03-12 10:34:06 PM  
The Beastie Boys all have something to say, and they're letting you listen for free!

www.beastieboys.com

Ok, it's not the best Beasties song ever, but it's their first new one in 5 years, and it's better than "Give Peace A Chance."
 
2003-03-12 10:36:37 PM  
Weeflerunner
I'm not sure, I know that one kind (alpha or beta particles or gamma rays), but one is harmless on the outside of a person, but dangerous inside, and another is the opposite. I think it's beta that's just an electron, so I wouldn't think that one is either.
 
2003-03-12 10:37:02 PM  
03-12-03 10:31:54 PM Iaminsane
Here's what the so-called "people" arguing about politics look like:


What do you call running into a thread and posting your own ignorant opinion with a gigantic picture is? That isn't trying to be an attention whore?

pot=kettle
 
2003-03-12 10:37:10 PM  
Xtremehkr
this is pointless, you are not going to change my mind and I could care less, I do not consider radiation to be safe in any form. I am not going to go into specifics but I work with radiation everyday and I know about the real dangers of radiation even in small amounts.

Once heavy metal enters the bloodstream it never leaves. Read the earlier post to find out that there is a possibility of damage from uranium and then think about what 40 tons of forgotten Uranium could do once it gets into the water tables.


The problem is a matter of degree. Most people will NEVER be exposed to ANY radiation other than natural radiation and X-rays (oh, forgot, nuclear bomb tests! Damn asshole nuclear bomb tests). But you bring it up, and everybody jumps up and down like it's a 50's sci-fi movie. Whereas, coal, for example, is killing you right now, through the pollution, and heavy metals released into the air.

You NEED to be very careful around radiation. The goal is ALAP. On the other hand, there are a lot of people, myself included, who have been exposed to more than you will ever get, (barring a nuclear war - which seemed so far away a couple of years ago - now, ....), and have no health effects. (Just so you know, it's been 20 years since I stopped working with that stuff)
 
2003-03-12 10:37:35 PM  
Confabulat

you are right about that, it sounds like it was recorded in 5 minutes.

Best line...

(not exact) "If you like America, you don't have to get Hysterica"
 
2003-03-12 10:38:18 PM  
prehensile is Impaler's word of the day.
 
2003-03-12 10:38:44 PM  
"Bush is going to destroy the US at this rate. Economically and socially."

I always love this. It's like George Carlin used to say about people saying we were going to destroy the planet if we didn't watch out. The freaking planet wasn't going anywhere - the planet has been around for like 5 billion years, it has survived Ice Ages, meteors the size of Texas, possibly having a piece of it flung off to form the moon, dinosaurs, floods, earthquakes, and on and on and on.

And no President is going to "destroy" the US. Unless we're electing Damien Thorn all of a sudden, who's in the White House isn't the Be All and End All because of the way our system is set up. What does "destroy the US" mean anyway? Are we going to go back to the Great Depression? We survived that, didn't we? What would a social destruction of the American way of life look like? I mean, it's nice to bandy the phrase around so we have a good idea of how much you dislike the guy, but neither he nor anybody else we put in that office is going to "destroy" the country, economically, socially, or in any other way. That's just ridiculous (or rediculous, depending on your preference).

Things I've learned in this thread:

1. Anybody who's pro-war is a moron. Unless they aren't.
2. The war is about oil. Unless it isn't.
3. The whole world is against the war. Unless they aren't.
4. Almost every American is against the Bush Administration's policies. Unless they aren't.
5. Any country who votes with us in the UN is lying, or doing it against the will of their people, nearly each and every one of which we just know is against it.
6. Depleted uranium is bad for you. Or it is harmless.
7. I'd still hit Ann Coulter.
 
2003-03-12 10:39:10 PM  
Cashmoney03... in an earlier post you asked of farkers to find an other way to prevent another 9/11...

Keep an open mind and try this.

-Instead of asking of yourself how we can prevent an attack... ask of yourself WHY we are beeing attacked. Of course the easy answer is to say that there is some groups who are against the American way of life, nations who are jealous of America's success (see GWB october2001 state of the union adress for all the listed easy clichés)

Did you know that 17 cents comes out of every american taxpayer's paycheck every week and it is sent to the government of Israel ?

Meanwhile 3 generations of palestinians are living in refugiee camps. I absolutely condone suicide attacks, but it just goes to show yo how desperate the palestinian people have become. The USA sells arms to Israel, which Israel pays for, with US donated funds !!!. Meanwhile the palestinians have rocks.

So lets try this action just to see if it can work ?

NO ACTION= that means ; lets freeze all US money from getting to Israel for a limited time period. The United States have full power to demand of Ariel Sharon to recognise a a Paletinian state and to resolve peace if they want to get some more us money again.

You will be surprised at the drop of suicide/terrorist attacks following such démarche.
 
2003-03-12 10:39:54 PM  
and lets say the DU seeps into a water source at say .. 3 ppm .. for every gallon of water you drink, this means your body is going to be exposed to about 12-15 excited helium atoms every 4 and a half billion years

The problem there is the fact that uranium is a heavy metal like lead. The radioactivity isn't the concern.

(I've learned a lot in the past 3 hours, 3 more and I'm an expert)
 
2003-03-12 10:40:28 PM  
Big Al
It's not that big. There are plenty of larger pictures in this thread. Attention "whores" do it for money. I'm not even doing it for attention. I am merely stating the fact that you're all monkeys, for those of you who do not know already. Plain and simple.
 
2003-03-12 10:41:08 PM  
 
2003-03-12 10:41:12 PM  
CashMonkey03

That link above was for you. I'm not saying it's truth (Mother Jones is a leftie rag) but it's worth considering.

To me, it seems like Bushie and the gang are throwing the dice. If this is a nice, cushy, easy war like Gulf War I, the US wins, and we rule the world more than ever before.

If it turns ugly and we end up in WWIII...well...

I don't even like the $10 craps tables.
 
2003-03-12 10:41:58 PM  
ZipBeep

Harmless radiation is turning out to be not so harmless though.

California did not ban certain forms of radiation (medical) from going into landfills. But recent testing has found very high amounts of radiation as opposed to the levels that are supposed to be there.

The same argument of questioning the facts was used as a reason not to support the Kyoto accord. After that even conservative scientists came back and said that the Oil industry is contributing to global warming.

Landfills decompose and enter the eco-system and it is going to take a spike in something life harming before anyone feels the need to do anything about it.

is the cure better? or preventing having to find a cure?
 
2003-03-12 10:42:50 PM  
I absolutely condone suicide attacks

I know that's a mis-type, but I'm going to hold you to that.
 
2003-03-12 10:43:05 PM  
Flg8or: Nice post. Y'know, I've always wanted to prove George Carlin wrong on that one...

And people who type in "rediculous" drive me around the bend. What, are the being diculous again? The root is ridicule, damnit!
 
2003-03-12 10:45:05 PM  
I absolutely do not condone....


my bad... a really big bad !!!
 
2003-03-12 10:45:14 PM  
[image from ramsites.net too old to be available]
damn .. flame out

I'm going in search of food .. just take it for granted that I'll pretty much argue against anything stupid said about the publicity induced dangers of depleted uranium, occasionally dropping a veiled insult at xtremehkr because he refuses to try and argue with the facts
 
2003-03-12 10:45:34 PM  
03-12-03 10:39:10 PM Bashturn wrote:

NO ACTION= that means ; lets freeze all US money from getting to Israel for a limited time period. The United States have full power to demand of Ariel Sharon to recognise a a Paletinian state and to resolve peace if they want to get some more us money again.

And let the Arabs drive those dirty Jews into the sea, is that it?

The Palestinians don't want their own state, they want it ALL and the Jews gone. Hamas has even said publicly they intend to keep attacking no matter who agrees to what deal between what partys.

Israel is armed as they because they have to be. Without a strong military they'de all be dead. All of them.

AK
 
2003-03-12 10:45:38 PM  
bashturn... nice. thanks man. we only have until 2012 so make it worth it boys...
 
2003-03-12 10:46:08 PM  
Weeflerunner
ZipBeep: Plutonium also emits beta and gamma particles. Gamma particles are decidedly dangerous.

Are alpha particles capable of penetrating the respiratory tract? I did not think that they were, but I could be wrong on that one.


Don't make me look this shiat up!!! :@ :D

IIRC, Plutonium emits gamma and beta radiation through the process of the actual alpha radiation - in other words, the fact that the alpha particles exist and bounce off one another, etc. produces some beta and gamma radiation through bremstrahlung (the process where a gamma ray is produced by another radioactive partical drawing an electron away from the nucleus)and collisions, but it's weak.

You know, at one point, I sat a guy down over the lunch hour and explained nuclear radiation to him. Now, I will have to get out a book. But not tonite. :D
 
2003-03-12 10:47:11 PM  
Whoops. There should have been a speech bubble around the "look at me" stuff. Here's a new version that should be smaller.
[image from 216.136.200.194 too old to be available]
 
2003-03-12 10:47:48 PM  
hey... Alleykat, you really think you can justify jews killing palestinians with assault rifles, grenades, and bombs, when all they got is rocks? first of all, if Israel didn't care so much about pumping water from under the West Bank they would have abandoned it a farkin long time ago... it's all about resources, really... just look at history bum
 
2003-03-12 10:49:22 PM  
and PS, fark Sharon, the International Criminal Court at the Hague found him guilty of multiple disgusting human rights violations and found him worthy of being prosecuted under international law for genocide.... Shalom!!!
 
2003-03-12 10:50:02 PM  
Was Martin Luther King Jr. a hippie? Walter Cronkite?

No. It shows your complete lack of historical knowledge when you lump anti-war sentiments with being a "hippie". Hippies were the children of affluent parents who "dropped out" of society. For the most part, they were those who decided to get away from society, not those who took part in political activism. Obviously, there were long-haired, drug-addled people taking part in political activism at the time, but don't label the anti-war movement, SDS, civil rights, and everything else as hippie movements, because they weren't, and it's demeaning to the causes, whether you believe in them or not. Likewise, don't make the same mistake about today's activism.
 
2003-03-12 10:50:06 PM  
Xtremehkr
Harmless radiation is turning out to be not so harmless though.

California did not ban certain forms of radiation (medical) from going into landfills. But recent testing has found very high amounts of radiation as opposed to the levels that are supposed to be there.

The same argument of questioning the facts was used as a reason not to support the Kyoto accord. After that even conservative scientists came back and said that the Oil industry is contributing to global warming.

Landfills decompose and enter the eco-system and it is going to take a spike in something life harming before anyone feels the need to do anything about it.

is the cure better? or preventing having to find a cure?


If this is the worst thing you have to worry about, you'll be OK, is what I guess I'm trying to say. Other pollutants and chemicals that are far more prevalent and at LEAST as dangerous would be a better use of time and money.
 
2003-03-12 10:50:52 PM  
btw, when was the last time you were in a synagogue? i've said it before and i will again... any Jew in America is a Jew before they are an American
 
2003-03-12 10:51:51 PM  
Xtremehkr

Definitely not the Beasties' best work.

I especially like the lines:

Say ooh ah what's the White House doin'?
Oh no! Say, what in tarnation have they got brewing??!!!!???!!

George Bush you're looking like Zoolander
Trying to play tough for the camera
What am I on crazy pills? We've got to stop it


It's STILL better than "Give Peace A Chance" though.
 
2003-03-12 10:52:54 PM  
03-12-03 10:47:48 PM Cronehimself
hey... Alleykat, you really think you can justify jews killing palestinians with assault rifles, grenades, and bombs, when all they got is rocks? first of all, if Israel didn't care so much about pumping water from under the West Bank they would have abandoned it a farkin long time ago... it's all about resources, really... just look at history bum


So thats what the Palestinians are using for suicide attacks huh. ROCKS!!

And you do realize that those pictures of children throwing rocks at IDF soldiers usually don't show a few nice gernades being thrown in there as well...

but most people fall for media biased, only because their mind belives it first.
 
2003-03-12 10:52:57 PM  
AlleyKat : sad post, considering you were a serviceman... tell me, what are your toughts on the 34 US sailors who died when the Isralis tried to sink the USS Liberty 1967 ?

Tell me how it is that you can support Ariel Sharon who is a CONVICTED war criminal ?
 
2003-03-12 10:53:07 PM  
Keely1116
Was Martin Luther King Jr. a hippie? Walter Cronkite?

No. It shows your complete lack of historical knowledge when you lump anti-war sentiments with being a "hippie". Hippies were the children of affluent parents who "dropped out" of society. For the most part, they were those who decided to get away from society, not those who took part in political activism. Obviously, there were long-haired, drug-addled people taking part in political activism at the time, but don't label the anti-war movement, SDS, civil rights, and everything else as hippie movements, because they weren't, and it's demeaning to the causes, whether you believe in them or not. Likewise, don't make the same mistake about today's activism.


Nicely said, Keely. Maybe we should go back to the old "Yippee" name Abby Hoffman gave us. Youth Involved in Politics, IIRC. Although, youth is really stretching it for ME! :D (keep telling myself, it's only a number!)
 
2003-03-12 10:54:02 PM  
03-12-03 10:49:22 PM Cronehimself
and PS, fark Sharon, the International Criminal Court at the Hague found him guilty of multiple disgusting human rights violations and found him worthy of being prosecuted under international law for genocide.... Shalom!!!


You mean an event that Syrian rebels committed? Yet it is Sharons fault because "he did not control them" from far away in Israel, right?
 
2003-03-12 10:54:49 PM  
Cronehimself: Uh, the International Criminal Court was just established. It hasn't tried anyone yet, and specifically by charter, doesn't have the right to try anyone from countries which are not signatories to the treaty. Israel didn't sign. (Neither did Russia, the U.S., China, and most any other country with an active military.)

IIRC, it was a Belgium national court which ruled that Sharon could be tried for war crimes. Which isn't the same as being found guilty, though I doubt he could find an unbiased court anywhere in the world.
 
2003-03-12 10:55:20 PM  
Ancalagon

HeySuess! don't make this personal dude.

Read GimpRulze "DU Health Dangers" Link and see what was happening.

Maybe Uranium was the main component and it was mixed with more dangerous forms of radioactive materials. This stuff obviously wasn't good for peoples health, it was not cool of us to leave behind 40 tons of it.
 
2003-03-12 10:55:38 PM  
03-12-03 10:52:57 PM Bashturn
AlleyKat : sad post, considering you were a serviceman... tell me, what are your toughts on the 34 US sailors who died when the Isralis tried to sink the USS Liberty 1967 ?


Your great country was spying on Israel and was selling the info to the arabs in exchange for better oil prices. Congrats, you are defending a country who backstabbed its greatest ally in the middle east... which is exactly why they kept everyone hush hush about it.

Tell me how it is that you can support Ariel Sharon who is a CONVICTED war criminal ?


Hey is as guilty as American generals are in Vietnam. The day anyone tries to bring them to court like they did Sharon is the day I will somewhat accept your statement. Next?
 
2003-03-12 10:58:38 PM  
"This will not stand, man, this aggression!"
 
2003-03-12 10:59:28 PM  
Bashturn - "ask of yourself WHY we are beeing attacked."

That's easy. Our government does things they don't like.

They kind of have us at an advantage: thanks to the terrorists, they don't have to ask why we're bombing them into the stone age.

There are acceptable ways to address grievences. They aren't nearly as exciting, they don't appeal to retrograde bloodlust, and they often take a long time to produce results.

Or, you can use terrorism. It's like peaceful protest, but with more blood, death and explosives. Very dramatic stuff, but you lose the sympathy of every civilized nation on the planet. Not an impediment if all you're out to impress are fundamentalist mouth-breathers and incorrigible apologists.
 
2003-03-12 11:01:21 PM  
Big Al : you are missing the point... put anybody in living conditions such as the palestinians are living in and you will get suicide bombers... But think about what that implies... How bad must a situation be to push someone over that edge ?

I have been to the middle east over a dozen time in the past 8 years, let me tell you, life is bad over there... you mentioned the media as being biased, well I have to disagree with you on that, way too many Americans, when they think of a palestinain, think of an AK-47 totting nut, what does that say about media bias ?
 
2003-03-12 11:01:38 PM  
Xtremehkr
Oh and Kuwait paid the US 52 Billion dollars for that liberation effort. Practically all of Kuwaits nest egg.


Really? Is this true? 52 Billion? Man. Are they still trying to drill sideways into Iraq's oil fields (supposedly the cause of the invasion of Kuwait in the first place)

Even Japan isn't helping to fund this possible war. Though they will help with the cleanup.

Everyone will want to help with the cleanup. There's money to be made in the cleanup. And plenty of oil to fund it. Everyone WILL GET PAID for their cleanup efforts.
 
2003-03-12 11:03:54 PM  
Don't worry Tan will save us!

/sarcasm
 
2003-03-12 11:04:27 PM  
I'm a dual dutch-american citizen, and as such I don't really have much of a stance on the war either way. I see both points, I just wish that people arguing for either side would present well-articulated intelligent arguments.

Iraq ranks #9 in countries that the U.S. imports oil from. In front of it? Canada, Mexico, Venezuela...etc. The argument that Bush just wants war in order to gain cheap oil is just silly. Since plans for a war began, the cost of oil has gone up, not down- and it will continue to even if the U.S. wins any eventual conflict. Why? Because even after a war, the U.S. will get Iraq's oil the same way it always has-- it will buy it.

Also remember, Bush isn't acting against the wishes of everyone. It wasn't too long ago that a Democratic Senate and a Republican House voted to approve military action in Iraq. The President can act without the support of the U.N., but to act without the support of congress would be political suicide.

Will a conflict bring peace to the Middle East? No. Not in the least. That's a silly argument for war. It's just as silly as the thought that a war in Iraq will end terrorism. I can see why most of the liberals on this forum are cynical of "cowboy Bush," because of this notion that the war will stop terrorism. It won't.

I don't think unilateral action is necessarily the answer, but if the U.N. refuses to enforce the resolutions it passes, then it is an ineffective body, and I can see why the U.S. is ready to act on its own.

My two cents. Or my three cents, whatever.
 
2003-03-12 11:07:25 PM  
03-12-03 11:01:21 PM Bashturn
Big Al : you are missing the point... put anybody in living conditions such as the palestinians are living in and you will get suicide bombers... But think about what that implies... How bad must a situation be to push someone over that edge ?


Oh you mean a bad situation like having your country under constant attack at the places you want to relax and pretend to be a normal citizen?

Let me guess, its the settlements. Before it was the occupation, next it is... ? Excuses after excuses, when everytime the Palestinians have a chance for peace, their government either refuses or backs away from the table without compromize. Yeah, they sure want peace, right?

I have been to the middle east over a dozen time in the past 8 years, let me tell you, life is bad over there... you mentioned the media as being biased, well I have to disagree with you on that, way too many Americans, when they think of a palestinain, think of an AK-47 totting nut, what does that say about media bias ?


I don't listen to the media, especially the American media. I also have much more experience with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general than most. What is your opinion of the number of Palestinian supporters of suicide bombers? You realize it is over 80%? Yet those tactics do nothing but pull IDF troops back into their cities to get more bomb makers and other terrorists.

Face it, until the Palestinians can control their radical groups, or WANT to control them, then nobody should be bending over backwards to help them out again and again. And the IDF isn't willing to allow them to be on their own to plan more and more attacks.
 
2003-03-12 11:08:44 PM  
Media bias. Strange issue. Some say the Jew run press is pro-isreal. Others have said it has "become chic around media types to run away from Israel and into the arms of the Arabs" - Howard Bloom, "The Puppets of Pandemonium Sleaze and Sloth in the Media Elite".

But who is telling the truth, or knows the truth?

Discuss.
 
2003-03-12 11:10:37 PM  
oh boy guys... i guess you got me all wrong. A Belgium National Court? No. Sorry. It was the International Court of Criminal Justice, which is, sadly, an International Court. Oh yeah, based in the Hague. And beyond that... yes.... Palestinians do indeed curry their advantage with grenades and suicide bombs... but did any of you hasidic idiots consider the FACT that ISRAEL has killed over 1 MILLION islamic and christian refugees since the foundation of their state.. oh please someone contradict me, i've got the hard data right here... AND ALSO the farkin bagel lovin' idiots have described to us a situation in the middle east that is not of their making. sure.


DOES ANYONE CONSIDER THE FACT THAT BEFORE THE BRITISH LIBERATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST THESE GUYS HAD NO AUTONOMY, and since then, HAVE HAD NO DEFINITIVE SAY ON RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY, and also, NO RELIGIOUS BOUNDARIES HAVE EVER BEEN SET FORTH, so let's just love each other guys...
fark BUSH, fark BLAIR, fark SHARON, AND fark THE AXIS OF EVIL (included above)
 
2003-03-12 11:11:16 PM  
03-12-03 11:04:27 PM Cheesycow
I'm a dual dutch-american citizen, and as such I don't really have much of a stance on the war either way. I see both points, I just wish that people arguing for either side would present well-articulated intelligent arguments.


and you follow it by....

Iraq ranks #9 in countries that the U.S. imports oil from. In front of it? Canada, Mexico, Venezuela...etc. The argument that Bush just wants war in order to gain cheap oil is just silly.


This is BY FAR the stupidest statement people make to try to get rid of the fact that there is tons of oil in Iraq.

Just because they export a small percentage to the US only means America knows there is ROOM TO GROW and get more of it. Why not take it all over and name the price to other countries? Thats what they will be able to do...

So that statement is getting boring, nobody thinks when they say it.

Since plans for a war began, the cost of oil has gone up, not down- and it will continue to even if the U.S. wins any eventual conflict. Why? Because even after a war, the U.S. will get Iraq's oil the same way it always has-- it will buy it.


Sure, it will buy it from Halliburon and other companies they just signed to do the rebuilding, And I guarentee you it will cost less than it would if Iraq was still selling.

Also remember, Bush isn't acting against the wishes of everyone. It wasn't too long ago that a Democratic Senate and a Republican House voted to approve military action in Iraq. The President can act without the support of the U.N., but to act without the support of congress would be political suicide.


They were politically scared to go against the President, so they gave him the authority to call for war.


I don't think unilateral action is necessarily the answer, but if the U.N. refuses to enforce the resolutions it passes, then it is an ineffective body, and I can see why the U.S. is ready to act on its own.


So complaining that Iraq isn't listening to the UN, the US is going to NOT listen to the UN and start a war? Hypocracy, it isn't just for Politicians anymore...
 
2003-03-12 11:13:13 PM  
and yo, Big Al, just listen to the world... obviously everything ever written was biased towards the jews
 
2003-03-12 11:14:16 PM  
03-12-03 11:10:37 PM Cronehimself

but did any of you hasidic idiots consider the FACT that ISRAEL has killed over 1 MILLION islamic and christian refugees since the foundation of their state.. oh please someone contradict me, i've got the hard data right here... AND ALSO the farkin bagel lovin' idiots have described to us a situation in the middle east that is not of their making. sure.


Bagel lovin' idiots? You are a nice person, I can tell.

The only thing that proves is that the IDF is a much better trained and eqiped army. The same thing applies to the US. When they went to the Gulf War, the loss to kill rate was about the same as the IDFs. Are you complaining about that too? Of course not!
 
2003-03-12 11:14:46 PM  
RE: AlleyKat....

1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have? A: 6%

2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have? A: 50%

(which by chance, it also has the most freedom)

Try visiting Europe sometime

3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves? A: Saudi Arabia

4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves? A: Iraq

5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide? A: $900+ billion

6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.? A: 50%

7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according the the UN? A: 10% (that's about $40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).

Aww.. you mean those greedy taxpayers don't want to feed the entire world?

better than bombing the shiat out of the entire world

8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II? A: 86 million

9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons? A: Since the early 1980's.

10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical and biological weapons on their own? A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britain and private corporations.

And France! Why did you leave out France as a major contributor?

Valid Point, all governments suck

11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran? A: No

Yes we did, now you're telling blatant lies.

Didn't stop it though, did they

12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988? A: 5,000

13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time? A:None ; why?

Where the hell were you? I remember the reports on CNN.

14. Q: How many gallons of Agent Orange did America use in Vietnam? A: 17 million.

Not enough.

Statements like this are why America is hated throughout the world.

15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack? A: No

So that Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi ambassador in Hungary means nothing?

Hmm, I think you mean when Atta supposedly met an Iraqi Agent in the Czech Republic. This story has since been disproved, the Czech Secret Service got mixed up with a different Atta. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134573686_noalqaida1​1.html

16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War? A: 35,000

But that Saddam put his weapons in populated areas means nothing...

17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western forces during the Gulf War ? A: None

Sucks to be you doesn't it.

Sucks to be anyone the US decides to pick on


18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front? A: 6,000

Another lie. Leftist propaganda at it's finest.

Haven't heard this one myself, but do recall that retreating Iraqi soldiers were shot

19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War? A: 40 tons

Depleted. Look up the word some time.

Must be totally safe then! There is strong evidence that Depleted Uranium has caused the Iraqi cancer epidemic

20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994? A: 700%

Only Iraq and not Kuwait? Very strange. But you said..

Actually, the Cancer increase has been reported as far away as Saudi Arabia, but it centres around Iraq

21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991? A: 80%

And how much has been re-supplied by Iraq, France and Germany?

I have seen no evidence of this, are you making it up? Last I heard the Iraqi military was still in a pretty sorry state and not even up to its level of 1991

22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than deterrence and self defense? A: No

Was there any proof there would have been a 9/11?

Yes, loads actually. Thats why at the Genoa G8 Summit earler in 2001 there were surface to air missiles mounted on top of the venue. All Saddam cares about is retaining power, using a nuke or any WMD against America or its allies would result in his ultimate destruction. He's nasty and ruthless, but hes not stupid.

23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago? A: No

Yes they do, by not abiding to 14 UN resolutions.

*cough* Israel *cough*

24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2002/3? A: 10,000

Right, because Saddam will see to it.

I think Saddam will be concerned about trying to Kill Americans during any conflict

25. Q: What percentage of these will be children? A: Over 50%

For the camera no doubt.

If Saddam bombed the US, I'm sure you'd see lots of mangled American kids on Fox News.

26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq? A: 11 years

Your boy Clinton had a grand ol'time in 1998 didn't he?

*sigh* If you're not a Republican you have to be a Democrat yeah? WRONG. Most post WW2 Presidents have been warmongering scum, Clinton was no different

27. Q: Was the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999? A: No

But yet Clinton lobbed more cruise missles at that time than in all of the previous Gulf War without a peep from your twerps. Selective peacenicks, gotta love'em.

Nobodys defending Clinton... I'm not anyway. But Bush is waaaay worse

28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999? A: 20 million

Ya, that's about right.

Yeah, it only killed some smelly brown people, probably deserved it

29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports? A: 12 years

Yup.

30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)? A: 38

Hell, we abort more than here.

31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)? A: 131 (that's an increase of 345%)

And how many palaces did that poor nation manage to build for Saddam?

This argument makes no sense

32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions? A: 1.5 million

No, as a result of Saddam using the money from oil sales on WDMs instead of food for these very same people.

Yeah, Its Saddams fault that the country can't import Cancer drugs. Before the war, Iraq had the highese literecy rate in the arab world, allowed education of women, had a very goood standard of living. Like it or not, this was because of Saddam. Until the US came along and destoyed it all, then put down sanctions ensuring the country would stay on its knees.

33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions since 1997? A: 750,000

See above.

See above

34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq? A: No

No, be he did directly cause them to leave.

Nothing to do with US spies amongst the Inspectors then?

35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998? A: 300

And at any one of those he could have offered proof that he did what he promised to do.

36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems? A: 5

Seems to me they all had problems.

Yes, well we can all make things up...

37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ? A: Yes

Is there a point to this? The weapons are hidden.

Personally, If the most powerful military force in world history told me I was in line for an ass whooping, I'd hide some damn weapons as well. He knows that if he ever uses them, he is doomed.
 
daz
2003-03-12 11:14:53 PM  
No one is saying that the war on iraq will stop terrorism. It will stop a major terrorist supplier, not to mention a major threat to the stability of the region.

I think he's the only country in that region that has attacked 3 neighbors that weren't Isreal, which is a record.
 
2003-03-12 11:15:01 PM  
Cronehimself
and yo, Big Al, just listen to the world... obviously everything ever written was biased towards the jews

Umm...what?
 
2003-03-12 11:15:07 PM  
03-12-03 11:13:13 PM Cronehimself
and yo, Big Al, just listen to the world... obviously everything ever written was biased towards the jews


Obviously you like smoking crack.
 
Displayed 50 of 720 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report