Breaking News: WMDs found in Iraq

"We" have more weapons of mass destruction than anyone else.

But we're allowed to have them...Saddam is not.

Just wondering, but why though (seriously)? Please dont just say "because we are good, they are bad."

"We" have more weapons of mass destruction than anyone else.

But we're allowed to have them...Saddam is not.

Just wondering, but why though (seriously)? Please dont just say "because we are good, they are bad."

Because we're not unstable and retarded like Saddam? You guys act like America is out there telling people that we are the only ones who can have nuclear weapons. A LOT of countries have nuclear weapons. Nobody plans on using them but it's just for show. You can't have guys like Saddam and Kim Jong having weapons because they are unstable and they have shown they will use it without thinking twice. The United Nations is the organization that really decides it, it's just America is the force that regulates it.

Are you telling me you trust Saddam Hussein with nuclear and chemical weapons? People who try to turn this isn't a debate about why we have so many and nobody else can have them, which once again isn't true, are just stupid. America has them because pricks like North Korea and Iraq have them. We can't get them to stop making them so we won't stop. The only difference is it is illegal for them to do it.

And what does America do with our weapons of mass destruction?

The Hiroshima bomb, known as "Little Boy" - a reference to former President Roosevelt, devastated an area of five square miles (13 square kilometres). More than 60% of the buildings in the city were destroyed.
Official Japanese figures at the time put the death toll at 118,661 civilians. But later estimates suggest the final toll was about 140,000, of Hiroshima's 350,000 population, including military personnel and those who died later from radiation. Many have also suffered long-term sickness and disability.

Three days later, the United States launched a second, bigger atomic bomb against the city of Nagasaki. The device known as "Fat man", after Winston Churchill, weighed nearly 4,050 kg (nearly 9,000lb).

Nagasaki is surrounded by mountains and because of this the level of destruction was confined to about 2.6 square miles or 6.7 square kilometres.

Nearly 74,000 were killed and a similar number injured.

And why is it that we're the good guys and are allowed to have them, but others aren't?

Well, I still believe the bomb was a good thing but that is a whole different debate. The fact is that was a different time and it was during WWII where there were limited options. We never fully tested the weapons so we didn't know what kind of damage it would create. We did help rebuild the country after the bomb, though. Thoese were two very large bombs, yes. Um...but we learned from our mistake.

Difference: America doesn't want to do that again after seeing the aftermath. Saddam and other guys WANT to do that after seeing the aftermath. There is no way you could justify dropping a nuclear warhead with today's media. It's a different time.

Just because we're not dropping a nuclear bomb doesn't mean we're not killing massive amounts of people. Over 40,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed since we started this shit in what, 2003? And over 2000 USA soldiers. Look at all these dead: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/f ... asualties/

Look at them. What are they dying for? To prevent innocent people from being killed? How can that be when they were responsible for killing 40,000 innocents on their quest to eliminate the REAL bad guys repsonsible for killing thousands of innocent americans?

Fuck that. I'm just going to say this. I really think you're blinded by your force-fed patriotism.

Last edited by Donatello on Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nobody plans on using them but it's just for show. You can't have guys like Saddam and Kim Jong having weapons because they are unstable and they have shown they will use it without thinking twice.

Are they really more unstable than us? Remember wittle Wiot, the only country to even use a nuke on another country is America; not Kora, not Iraq, not Pakistan, India, Russia, etc.

America has them because pricks like North Korea and Iraq have them. We can't get them to stop making them so we won't stop.

Not true. If memory serves correctly, I believe America and the Soviet Union were the first two countries to have nuclear weapons. We've had them long before Korea or Iraq have, and America will have nukes whether Iraq/N. Korea has them or not.

If memory serves correctly, I believe America and the Soviet Union were the first two countries to have nuclear weapons. We've had them long before Korea or Iraq have, and America will have nukes whether Iraq/N. Korea has them or not.

Correct. the USA won the "race" and made the first one, The Soviet Union soon after that. edit: Russia has the most in the world, we're a close second place.

Last edited by Donatello on Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

There are casualties in war. Iraqbodycount (which has been questioned, but I'm meeting everyone half-way) lists roughly 40,000 civilian deaths since March 2003. (Which includes "criminal activity resulting from the breakdown of law-and-order" i.e. everyday crime that results in civilian deaths.)

I'm sure the Iraqis are rushing to sign up for their new army because of their desire for liberalism.

It's possibly sickening that you claim the troops are responsible for "killing 40,000 innocents." Are they responsible when a terrorist blows up a carbomb in a crowded plaza? When someone is captured, tortured and executed by the "insurgents"?

Anyway. People point to the dropping of the two atomic bombs.

You are all aware that a land invasion of Japan would've cost millions of lives? That the "civilians" were going to take up arms and fight to the last man. You are aware that even after the first bomb, Japan didn't surrender. It required a second one.

It was the biggest war in human history. Things all sides might not have done outside of the war were done.

Whining about how why some countries are allowed to have weapons and others aren't pretends everyone is the same. Let's think about this. We don't care if Canada or France has nuclear weapons, because they're rational actors. Aren't they? North Korea sold their stuff on the black market. Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Those aren't rational actors.

We shouldn't say, we'll, if we have weapons, they should get to have them as well. That's foolish and dangerous. The line of thinking should be, they can't have weapons, and then once they're stopped, we'll work on reducing our number of weapons.

The Soviet Union has the most in the world, we're a close second place

Someday the wall will fall...and so will the Soviet Union...someday...

(Of course, I like when people scream "WE GAVE HIM WEAPONS!" as if because of that, we shouldn't go in later and fix the problem. Don't correct your mistakes.)

It may seem like that's what I meant, but reasons why we went to Iraq have nothing to do with "giving them weapons and going in and fixing the problem."

The problem was not "stockpiles" of WMDs but programs to produce them.

Ok, so if they have programs to make them and not "stockpiles", then what exactly were we looking for in invading Iraq then? Programs? Obviously, when we toppled Saddam, his programs would fall apart too. He can't exactly organize them if he's in our custody.

The Soviet Union has the most in the world, we're a close second place

Someday the wall will fall...and so will the Soviet Union...someday...

Heh. Yeah. They were the Soviet Union when they made the first bomb, I had a brain fart and put the name again later . Pardon me, Russia

Ok, so if they have programs to make them and not "stockpiles", then what exactly were we looking for in invading Iraq then? Programs? Obviously, when we toppled Saddam, his programs would fall apart too. He can't exactly organize them if he's in our custody.

Ending the programs was one of the many reasons to finish the war. Right. Exactly. You got it. Good job.

I know one of the reasons wasn't giving them weapons and then fixing it. But if you're going to say "we gave them weapons!" why would you be opposed to correcting that mistake?

As Jon Stewart put it,

Stem Cell research is looked at as bad by many of the same people who support the Iraq War. The reason stem cell research is bad is because it takes innocent lives to save lives. The Iraq war is good though, because it takes innocent lives to save lives.

The war is a very unneccessary war. When the entire world tells you not to do it (Except the UK who will stand by the US even if they invaded Canada) you should probably listen.

We had a chance to solve the Saddam problem as a planet, as a world, but we decided to do it on our own and kill 40,000 innocent civilians.

ok then why did the Bush administration repeatedly state that Saddam had WMDs in 2003? Something didn't seem right to me when they kept switching their story from "he HAS weapons" to "he has the capacity to produce weapons" to "he has programs" and back to "he has weapons" in each succeeding statement or speech.

I know one of the reasons wasn't giving them weapons and then fixing it. But if you're going to say "we gave them weapons!" why would you be opposed to correcting that mistake?

Well, I'm not exactly with those people that keep saying "40,000 innocent civilians have died" and whatnot because it isn't exactly easy for Americans to differentiate between friend and foe out there... but it seems like we got American kids dying out there for too long. I could go into a long debate on Haliburton and oil in Iraq, but I want to keep from doing that. I think what we are doing in Iraq is right to a certain extent. To me, after Sept. 11th, it seems like America has been on a crusade against anything that's "Middle Eastern" or "Arab" or "Muslim", and I don't tihnk it's right for us to go to Iraq and force a democracy and tell them how to live their lives. If we want to keep the peace, that's fine, but we should stick to being peacekeepers

"We" have more weapons of mass destruction than anyone else.

But we're allowed to have them...Saddam is not.

Just wondering, but why though (seriously)? Please dont just say "because we are good, they are bad."

Nobodys right Nobodys wrong. Nobody should have weapons of mass destruction, But we have more moral than Saddam. It would have been justified had we known this prior to entering the war.

As Jon Stewart put it,

Stem Cell research is looked at as bad by many of the same people who support the Iraq War. The reason stem cell research is bad is because it takes innocent lives to save lives. The Iraq war is good though, because it takes innocent lives to save lives.

The war is a very unneccessary war. When the entire world tells you not to do it (Except the UK who will stand by the US even if they invaded Canada) you should probably listen.

We had a chance to solve the Saddam problem as a planet, as a world, but we decided to do it on our own and kill 40,000 innocent civilians.

We have more than just the United Nations helping us in the War in Iraq. Here are a list of countries that have sent TROOPS to Iraq:

-Albania
-Armenia
-Australia
-Azerbaijan
-Bosnia
-Bulgaria
-Czech Republic
-Denmark
-El Salvador
-Estonia
-Georgia
-Italy
-Japan
-Kazakhstan
-South Korea
-Latvia
-Lithuania
-Macedonia
-Mongolia
-Netherlands
-Norway
-Poland
-Romania
-Slovakia
-United Kingdom
-Ukraine

That list isn't even counting the countries that are helping with NATO missions. Then you also have countries that were helping us (Fiji, Hungary, Nicaragua, Spain, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Moldova, Singapore, Tonga and Portugal) but have pulled out recently. We had a lot of support going in. Sure, there were some countries that strongly opposed the war (namely Russia and France) but those two countries either had illegal trades going on with Iraq (ahem...Russia) or they are just bitter. Either way, the support was there.

Here is what I do not like. No matter what the cause of war is it doesn't seem to matter anymore. Today's media coverage will turn any kind of war into a negative one. If World War II had today's media we would have pulled out within a month. The media loves to highlight and bold loss of life. We understand loss of life is horrible and bad but there is no need to underline every single one. It's war and that is what happens. The public hates to see people die so when you have media in places where they shouldn't be (war) that creates a lot of negative headlines. Do you really think the reporters are going to be able to report good news in a warzone? ITS A FUCKING WARZONE!!! What do they expect? It drives me crazy. They mention that a carbomb went off and two people were killed and they say this is why we need to leave Iraq. Well gee, this is excatly what we are trying to stop in Iraq. People die in war and that is just the way it is.

It's just a beef I have with the media right now. There is no reason why the media should be with the soldiers in war. Nothing good can come out of it. I'm afraid one of these days we are really going to be in trouble and the media is going to screw it up and protray the war as bad even though it isn't. It's a great fear of mine.

This shit's disgusting. I'm going to go make my own political thread. The topic: Gay Marriage.

Who's coming with me?!

Riot I'd like to see the troop counts from those nations...

United Kingdom-12,000
South Korea-3,300
Italy-3,030
Poland-1,500
Ukraine-950
Georgia-850
Romania-863
Japan-800
Australia-1,370
Denmark-540
Bulgaria-450
El Salvador-380
Azerbaijan-151
Fiji-150
Latvia-136
Mongolia-130
Lithuania-120
Albania-120
Norway-10
Slovakia-100
Czech Republic-90
Armenia-45
Bosnia-36
Macedonia-35
Estonia-35
Kazakhstan-27
Netherlands-4

Most of them are helping out a lot, a few of them not so much (4 and 10) but it's their support either way. They support the war but that is all they can send. Most countries are also sending supplies and money. In fact, there are even more countries that are simply sending supplies and money to the war instead of people. But yeah, there is a lot more foreign support than many people think.

But if you take countries that actually have significant numbers (The US has over 150,000 troops there now) you get a very small number of troops that also make up a very small percentage of the total troop population

It leaves (excluding the ever following UK)

South Korea
Italy
Poland
Australia

as for the other countries, I hardly see how 850 Georgian troops helps, and Ukranians could maybe, MAYBE included on that list.

As for Japan, they plan on removing their troops from Iraq, so the support seems ever dwindling, and US approval for the war is also dwindling.

There are 192 Countries in the world and 191 in the United Nations. Instead of having five or six countries make an impact, we should have approached this problem as a globe.

But if you take countries that actually have significant numbers (The US has over 150,000 troops there now) you get a very small number of troops that also make up a very small percentage of the total troop population

It leaves (excluding the ever following UK)

South Korea
Italy
Poland
Australia

as for the other countries, I hardly see how 850 Georgian troops helps, and Ukranians could maybe, MAYBE included on that list.

As for Japan, they plan on removing their troops from Iraq, so the support seems ever dwindling, and US approval for the war is also dwindling.

There are 192 Countries in the world and 191 in the United Nations. Instead of having five or six countries make an impact, we should have approached this problem as a globe.

Well first off, how does 850 troops not help? That is 850 troops that help patrol streets, train Iraqi's and conduct raids. This isn't World War II, 850 troops is a lot. Those troops can do some serious damage.

Secondly, we did try to get the world's support and most of them said they either couldn't afford a war or they didn't want to help. Iraq was breaking sanctions put on them by the United Nations. There is no reason why the U.N. shouldn't have stepped up to the plate. What is the point in having sanctions if you don't enforce them?

Wow, Netherlands has 4 troops, force to be reckoned with.

What the hell are you going to do with 850 Georgian troops, or 863 Romanian troops. They arent trained to the standard that our troops our so they cant help in the same way our troops can, and most of the troops are sent there just for the sake of sending troops. With over 150,000 highly trained US troops, 850 troops trained to a lesser standard doesnt make a huge difference except for people who like to use the statistics in arguments.

What the hell are you going to do with 850 Georgian troops, or 863 Romanian troops. They arent trained to the standard that our troops our so they cant help in the same way our troops can, and most of the troops are sent there just for the sake of sending troops. With over 150,000 highly trained US troops, 850 troops trained to a lesser standard doesnt make a huge difference except for people who like to use the statistics in arguments.

You obviously have no idea what 850 troops are capable of, especially in this urban warfare in Iraq. You should really learn what troops are doing in Iraq and then maybe you'd understand that 850 troops can make a huge difference. Those troops can conduct many, many raids and patrol dozens of roads and streets. They can stop and conduct arrests or disarm roadside bombs. I just don't understand how you think 850 troops doesn't make a difference in war. It makes a huge difference.

Thats barely half a percent of the entire population of US Troops in Iraq. No country is even close to sending a significant amount of support for the war except the UK, and even then thats only 8 percent of the entire amount of US troops, so I'm going to stand by what I said and say we still dont have a significant amount of world support.

Thats barely half a percent of the entire population of US Troops in Iraq. No country is even close to sending a significant amount of support for the war except the UK, and even then thats only 8 percent of the entire amount of US troops, so I'm going to stand by what I said and say we still dont have a significant amount of world support.

Those 850 troops are able to perform missions and tasks that our troops don't have to do. If they weren't there then we would have to work our troops even harder to cover their ground. Or, even worse, we'd have to send in even more troops.

Of course we have the most troops because we are leading the invasion and we are the main force. No country is going to send in thousands and thousands of troops to a war that they just aiding in.