iraq back down, US do not...

[jheriko]

Originally posted by zootm

why? surely any attack that manages to get through the US security is a triumph? the sept. 11th bombers were called a lot of things, but i don't recall "cowardly" being one of them.

i seem to remember a speech by president bush about a year ago in which he called said attacks cowardly. to the point i meant that it is cowardly for a leader of a country to use terrorist tactics. the men who do these things are brave (and mostly insane) those who order them are cowards.

and according to my newspaper IN FRONT OF ME saddam doesn't have enough enriched uranium for one bomb, he has no good source in his own country and it is projected that even with outside help he is still several months away from creating a nuclear weapon of any reasonable size. however if he got a critical mass together it would be dangerous since in the hands of the immoral you don't need technology to make the bomb, just a man who doesn't mind losing his life and a furnace, not hard things to find.

as for europe hating america, right now tony blair is so far up george bush's rectum that he can see his tonsils. in fact the british people are getting pretty sick and tired of the way in which we are loyally supporting america in anything that they decide to do.

the thing that really should be noted is that america practically put saddam in control of iraq, then armed his army for him, then payed him to have a war on iran during which most of his chemical weapons were developed with the help of us funding. all because the us didn't like the way in which iran was being run.

also america owns most british newspapers so the facts and figures before me are probably the same ones that you can find in some american newspaper. the only difference is that in our newspapers the facts aren't hidden under a 50-foot layer of pro-american propaganda, they are layered under a 10-foot layer of anti-britsh propaganda.

i don't hate americans, i hate the hypocritical nature of american foreign policy, granted it has gotten considerably better over the past 10 years or so but it still needs some work. it all stems from the prewar isolationist policy that america stuck to, after they gave it up america soon became the most powerful country in the world (shows isolationism was bad) but unfortunately, due to the previous policies, had so little experience of international affairs and how to use this new found influence.

i've said my bit now so i'm going to shut up and leave it at that.

hope that saddam falls soon and that america will finally learn its lessons.

[tiger84]

I can't help it if he can't see the truth thats right in front of his face. A thread of this topic is bond to be a heated argument and should be left alone. People in this world need to get thicker skins.

[Curi0us_George]

RanDom_ErrOr, American Megatrends produces motherboards and motherboard BIOSes.

[jheriko]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George

Details. I want details.

i could start a huge list here... you probably wont have heard of any of it so i'll just give two the most well known

napalm
sharpened combat knives

there you go. go and find a copy of the convention pact if you want to see some more.

[tiger84]

Originally posted by jheriko

and according to my newspaper IN FRONT OF ME saddam doesn't have enough enriched uranium for one bomb

Just the other day I watched the interview of an Iraqi defector who told us that Saddam has enough enriched uranium for up to 3 nuclear weapons! And you speek of pro-american propaganda, what about anti-american propaganda floating around Europe which there obviously is enough of. Also, Tony Blair has not supported us on everything we decide to do. Just one more thing, try having two of your major buildings destroyed by terrorists along with 3,000 lives, then get back to me and tell me you don't see the world in a different light.

[rm']

Originally posted by tiger84
I can't help it if he can't see the truth thats right in front of his face. A thread of this topic is bond to be a heated argument and should be left alone.

Then you should go cool of somewhere else. No one is forcing you to respond to this thread, let alone read it. See how no one else is calling each other names? That's how civil discourse is conducted.

There is no excuse, I repeat, NO EXCUSE for insults. Ad hominem attacks are the biggest sin in Philosophy; they are equally grave on the forums.

[tiger84]

Originally posted by rm'


Then you should go cool of somewhere else. No one is forcing you to respond to this thread, let alone read it. See how no one else is calling each other names? That's how civil discourse is conducted.

There is no excuse, I repeat, NO EXCUSE for insults. Ad hominem attacks are the biggest sin in Philosophy; they are equally grave on the forums.

Did you read through the rest of this thread? There are plenty of insults...not just personal ones, ones aimed at the US...thats just as bad if not worse. Many people's posts in this thread are not the most civil of messages. No one may be forcing me to read or respond to this thread, but it is a fool who does not speak up. My beliefs about insulting people are also a little different then yours.

Originally posted by jheriko

napalm
sharpened combat knives

What is the point of a knife if it is not sharp?

[jheriko]

your information is more recent than mine so i'll accept it then. so he has enough uranium for 3 bombs. the point is america should sort iraq out and leave everyone else out of it, it is a problem belonging to the us.

we get more pro-american propaganda than anything else here. for your 9/11 comment it should teach america to be more careful about whos business they interfere in and that even when you are a superpower if you screw someone over they will get revenge every now and again. even the strongest will get caught off guard every now and again. yes it was big and bad as far as attrocities go but get over it, shit happens, that's life - whatever. everyone has to deal with loss during their lifetimes and it does change your outlook on life.

btw the reason that there is little or no conncetion between iraq and al-qaeda is because osama was against saddams regime and against us interference in the balance of power in the area, if i remember correctly that is why was exiled from saudi arabia in the first place.

[jheriko]

Originally posted by tiger84

What is the point of a knife if it is not sharp?

if a combat knife is sharpened then it will cause fine near painless wounds which will cause slow and painful death by blood loss rather than the faster shock related death of having skin punctured and internal organs bludgeoned with a dulled blade. that is why it is against the convention to use sharpened combat knives or bayonets during war.

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by jheriko
i could start a huge list here... you probably wont have heard of any of it so i'll just give two the most well known

napalm
sharpened combat knives

there you go. go and find a copy of the convention pact if you want to see some more.

I just searched two copies of the convention. (from different locations just to be sure one of them wasn't missing info)

I found no mention of the words "knife", "knives", or "napalm".

It makes no sense to say that soldiers can't sharpen their knives. Trust me, you do not want to be stabbed or cut by a dull knife. That is far less humane than a clean cut. As for napalm, it was not mentioned as far as I could see (as I already said), but in any event, we are certainly not the only country to use Napalm.

You better find those provisions in the document if you want to hold onto any last shred of believability.

[tiger84]

"just getting over it" is dangerous...very dangerous. And I might add, Europeans haven't exactly learned many lessons they need to have learned by now...i.e. appeasment of malignant dictators does not work.

Originally posted by jheriko


if a combat knife is sharpened then it will cause fine near painless wounds which will cause slow and painful death by blood loss rather than the faster shock related death of having skin punctured and internal organs bludgeoned with a dulled blade. that is why it is against the convention to use sharpened combat knives or bayonets during war.

A dull knife is no more humane than a sharp knife. War is war and there are much worse ways to die in a war that can not be helped.

[jheriko]

okay, the knife thing i was told by a weapons officer on an raf base.

as for napalm, you are not allowed to use any liquid or gas which is corrosive, incindiary, poisonous or biological as a weapon, that is in the geneva convention somewher, it may not be in the first copy but in one of the many updates it has had. it doesn't specify napalm specifically but it does include napalm under it.

here is a quote from 1928:

"Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world; and "

thats not the one i'm looking for but it pretty much covers napalm.

[Cheekyb0y]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George

We supported out allied status with Kuwait, and we stopped a small nation from being slapped around.

Heh, like the US doesn't slap other countries around.

[jheriko]

i cant be bothered with this anymore (mainly cos the geneva pact is enormous and i can't be bothered to search through it), i can understand people having a problem with the european stance, especially france and germany who are being pretty lame about this. and i strongly dislike the current british government and its attitudes and policies towards america and iraq. the problem i have with america is more that they don't play by the rules, everyone on the outside sees it more than the people on the inside and thats a fact that we all have to except. the real thing that should show that america has done things wrong before is that they interfered in the democratic processes of other countries in attempts to halt the spread of communism (korea and vietnam most notibly). read up on the vietnam war in particular and you will find that america broke the rules most heavily then and in fact provided their enemies with weapons unwittingly by using badly manufactured mines and bombs and subsequently lost the war (something which should be really humiliating). that has nothing to do with whats happening at the moment tho, i'm just sick of the american attitude. if bush came before the un and just said, 'my predecessors screwed up, let me fix it' then i'm sure he would get ten times more admiration and respect as well as support from the whole world in eradicating the iraqi regime.

i really am going to leave this alone now!

nice debate. don't take anything too personal, governments and populations really different.

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by jheriko
okay, the knife thing i was told by a weapons officer on an raf base.

I don't care what some officer told you.

as for napalm, you are not allowed to use any liquid or gas which is corrosive, incindiary, poisonous or biological as a weapon, that is in the geneva convention somewher, it may not be in the first copy but in one of the many updates it has had. it doesn't specify napalm specifically but it does include napalm under it.

here is a quote from 1928:

"Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world; and "

thats not the one i'm looking for but it pretty much covers napalm.

That most definitely does not cover napalm. Napalm burns. It does not asphxiate or poison.

edit:

Originally posted by jheriko
i cant be bothered with this anymore (mainly cos the geneva pact is enormous and i can't be bothered to search through it)

Yeah. My friend says that you should go "fark" yourself.

[jheriko]

i'm gonna break my last comment for that insult.

you said:
That most definitely does not cover napalm. Napalm burns. It does not asphxiate or poison.

i say:
did you miss the OTHER category there, that quote basically says that you can not use harmul gases or liquids as weapons of war. napalm is a liquid.

here comes a big fat quote that proves that napalm is completely illegal its is from www.unhchr.com the united nations human right website and from a document entitled - Human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. it part of the human rights charter. it starts by saying weapons shall be banned if: and goes on to give groups then some more specific examples...

on page 7 it lists napalm:

'5. The specific types of weapons listed in sub-commission resolutions 1996/16 and 1997/36 are nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium'

there we go, you can go and get the document and read it for yourself if you want, you can also look up sharpened knives whilst your there and you'll find them.

now i will leave it alone okay! i have seen more rudeness and ignorance here than i have seen a long time. i dont care about the petty insults and crap like that, what i care about is the fact that america uses illegal weapons, other countries own them - fine, but at least they don't use them, they are often there as a last resort or as a backup plan not as a primary tool.

i'm gonna stop now cos i don't want to offend people i didn't intend my comments to be offensive i am just offering up my opinion mixed with facts.

[Supremacey]

All this mumbo jumbo about America and there war crap is one of the reasons I'm proud of being Canadian! Yea, CNN sucks.

[Curi0us_George]

The address is http://www.unhchr.ch/

"did you miss the OTHER category there, that quote basically says that you can not use harmul gases or liquids as weapons of war. napalm is a liquid."
What other category?

"as for napalm, you are not allowed to use any liquid or gas which is corrosive, incindiary, poisonous or biological as a weapon, that is in the geneva convention somewher, it may not be in the first copy but in one of the many updates it has had. it doesn't specify napalm specifically but it does include napalm under it."
This not a quote from the Geneva convention.

"Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world; and "
This is, but it does not cover napalm. That quote covers asphyxiating (and poisonous) gases, liquids, and other materials/devices. That does not cover napalm.

The paper Human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is not an international agreement. It is a paper produced by the one of the UN committees. As far as I know, no one has signed anything that makes that paper an "international law". Besides which, it is not part of the Geneva convention, which is what we were debating about in the first place.

There were also no results for "sharpened knives".

[jheriko]

fine. i don't care. believe what you want, i'll believe what i want.

[Curi0us_George]

Fine. Believe what you want, but don't go spreading hearsay around if you can't support it. The USA has done things wrong, just like every other country, but imaginary rule breaking does not count.

[jheriko]

i guess the geneva protocol is open to interpretation, it looks like it covers napalm to me (other gases and analagous liquids covers a lot of stuff) but answer this, why did america wait untill after the vietnam war to ratify it? untill after the last time that they used chemical weapons on human targets? probably because of the critism they recieved for the use of napalm and the belief of many that it was illegal. (i've found a million and one websites saying that it was/is illegal but nothing official if you exclude the geneva protocol)

the reason i have this 'thing' against america is because they interfere in the affairs of other countries to the point of enforcing governments and dictators upon them. and that is a fact well documented in the history books. no other country has done this without a prior war and invasion as far as i know.

[Curi0us_George]

I agree that we sometimes get involved when we shouldn't. I also know that we make mistakes.

Of course, most of those mistakes were before my birth, so my generation, at least, will not take the blame for them. We should not have been involved in Vietnam. I know that. I know we did things there that we should not have. I also know that I was not born yet. I guess when you think of America, you think of the older politicians. I think of the people my age, because in a matter of years, perhaps as many as twenty or thirty, perhaps less, my generation will be pretty much fully in charge. I just hope we will live up to the standards I envision.

Most of that has nothing to do with this thread. I'm just tired and I let my train of thought carry the words.

[jheriko]

you are right to go off topic.

we are too involved in modern politics and current affairs are to look at them in the same way that we can look at past events objectively. the mistakes that countries made in the past whether it be vietnam or nazi germany are never forgotten but looking at the present we can easily point fingers and mark out past events as if we are doomed to repeat them. i have to admit after sleeping for half an hour (thats all the sleep im getting tonight/today ) i've lost the impetus to care or complain anymore. i guess i was just being a bit of a whiny bitch.

i think every one agrees that saddam needs some control (i'd say a heavy doe of mortality) but we all want to do it in a different way.

[Xerxes]

I want to do it John Major's way.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002431528,00.html

Now this is what I call negotiating: use Weapons of Mass destruction and America will Nuke your capital

I am ever so glad that there are still some people who remember that war is the natural extension of diplomacy.

[jheriko]

Originally posted by Xerxes

I am ever so glad that there are still some people who remember that war is the natural extension of diplomacy.

i like to think of war as the inevitable result of human nature.

[zootm]

Originally posted by tiger84
HEY MORON!!!! YEAH THATS RIGHT YOU, THE IDIOT!!! Saddam already has enough enriched Uranium to produce up to 3 nuclear weapons! So take that, role it up, and sit on it.

no proof whatsoever of that, tiger. all they know is he's tried to obtain it in the past but has (as far as they know) always been unsuccessful.

also, just because napalm isn't *exactly* denied in the geneva convention does not mean it's alright to use it - that's just finding a loophole in the law. are nerve gases not left out for the reason that they weren't around when the convention was made? besides, incendiary devices,by definition, asphixate.

to those who are telling me that george bush called terrorists "cowardly", is this the same george bush who said, immediately after signing a bill, "I don't intend to read it all."? i try not to listen to any of the inanity that spews from that puppet's mouth. unless it's funny

[tiger84]

Originally posted by zootm


no proof whatsoever of that, tiger. all they know is he's tried to obtain it in the past but has (as far as they know) always been unsuccessful.

That is absolutely false, there is proof. If you read one of my subsequent posts, you would note that I have watched the interview of an Iraqi defector who said directly that Saddam has enough Uranium to produce up to 3 nuclear devices.

Originally posted by zootm

to those who are telling me that george bush called terrorists "cowardly", is this the same george bush who said, immediately after signing a bill, "I don't intend to read it all."? i try not to listen to any of the inanity that spews from that puppet's mouth. unless it's funny

George Bush is one of the best world leaders in office today. He knows what needs to be done and he does it. He is also a much better president than Clinton was.

[Lescuyer]

Originally posted by tiger84

That is absolutely false, there is proof. If you read one of my subsequent posts, you would note that I have watched the interview of an Iraqi defector who said directly that Saddam has enough Uranium to produce up to 3 nuclear devices.

Oooouh! Now THAT'S solid proof! What is this guy's name, background, family, studies, carrer, relations with the US government, other governments, did he had troubles in the past with the CIA or other secret services in the past, etc, etc...there are much more questions that need to be answered before we can give any credibility to this testamony. To me it's a totaly worthless "proof". I strongly believe that the embargo is far more lethal and threatening than Saddam's regime.

Originally posted by tiger84

He knows what needs to be done and he does it

If by that you are talking about waging war and being even more hated throughout the third world countries, I believe you are right. Yet, there are probably more urgent things to do than spreading hate and terror.

[zootm]

Originally posted by tiger84
George Bush is one of the best world leaders in office today. He knows what needs to be done and he does it. He is also a much better president than Clinton was.

to be perfectly honest, they were both piss-poor.

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by Lescuyer
Oooouh! Now THAT'S solid proof! What is this guy's name, background, family, studies, carrer, relations with the US government, other governments, did he had troubles in the past with the CIA or other secret services in the past, etc, etc.

What you're really saying is that you don't want to believe. Anyone who comes to the US and tells us that Saddam has nuclear weapons is obviously going to have some tie with our government. If you are going to say that they aren't trustworthy because of that, then you'll never accept any evidence. So, I guess we need to go in and get it, you know, just so you'll be happy. . .

[Lescuyer]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George

What you're really saying is that you don't want to believe. Anyone who comes to the US and tells us that Saddam has nuclear weapons is obviously going to have some tie with our government. If you are going to say that they aren't trustworthy because of that, then you'll never accept any evidence. So, I guess we need to go in and get it, you know, just so you'll be happy. . .

it is obvious that he had some sort of connection, I didn't question that, I meant what KIND of relation.

[RanDom_ErrOr]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George
RanDom_ErrOr, American Megatrends produces motherboards and motherboard BIOSes.

look at the components on their boards, where were they made? NOT AMERICA. they might make the motherboards (which were mass produced in another country) but they dont make the chips that control them. You find ANY chip (recent within the 90s-00s) that says MADE IN THE USA i will be amazed.

[Curi0us_George]

They produce BIOS chips. Can you not read?

[jheriko]

yeah american megatrends definitely to make bios chips (looks at inside of computer)

and about the defector... that is compelling evidence but you have to remember that there is a degree of unreliability in such sources since for all we know he could have been instructed to deliver false information, it is just as likely that he is telling the truth though.

it is common for false information to be given to be leaked that is major counter intelligence tactic, that is why defectors are rarely trusted, because sometimes a government will pay/order someone to defect in order to add some confusion to the mix.

[Curi0us_George]

But basically, the only sources we could have are defectors, our intelligence agencies, and physical evidence.

Obviously, defectors are not the best source of information, but we can often make the information they give public.

Our intelligence cannot be compromised by revealing it. I have no doubt that we have our own sources, though.

We have to go in to get physical evidence.

So, pretty much all we can reveal is information from defectors.

[jheriko]

the only conclusion that can really be drawn is that there is or will be a nuclear threat. that should be enough, the specifics are unimportant.

wouldn;t the best way to determine how much nuclear material they have be to do it from space with one of those countless spy satellites? you can take a high resolution image in what ever frequency that uranium gamma is emitted at to find all of it. don't tell me its not possible because they do very similar things when studying the sun and spatial phenomena. it wouldn't be 100% but it would show where it all is and roughly how much there is.

[rm']

It is not possible. The sun is not 50 feet underground in a concrete bunker. If Hussein is smart, he's not leaving his nukes out for all the world to see.

[jheriko]

yes the material would likely be shielded but even several metres of lead or depleted uranium can not block 100% of gamma emissions, you could probably see small gamma sources through the entire planet if the equipment used was accurate enough. all that you would need to pinpoint the location of weapons grade uranium would be a source (regardless of strength) exibiting an unusually high ratio of u235 emitted photons to u238 emitted photons. even a small/faint source can be filtered out of the background due to the higher concentrations of 235.

and if hussein is smart he wouldn't put it 50 feet underground in a concrete bunker. it would probably be best hidden sealed away in thick depleted uranium or lead casing and placed in or near a natural uraninite or pitchblende deposit. even so you should still be able to pinpoint a source like that since you can detect radiation sheilding by the lack of background radiation coming through it. it is impossible to make weapons grade material look like a background source since the strength of the source is irrelevent.

there is always a way, the technique may require some intense analysis but it is definitely possible.

[Shitbear]

I am fed up with people using past mistakes made by governments to justify their grievances with the current administration. We elect different people into power every four years and they have no responsibility for the decisions made by their predecessors. Hence mistakes made in Vietnam, WWII, and even the Gulf War have no relevance to the current situation. The government will act in a unique way based on the available facts at the time.

Also, we, as a people, elect governments to represent our views in running the country. They are then privy to information that we cannot be, for security reasons, and then make decisions based on these facts. We cannot then turn around and moan if they make a decision that we don’t agree with because we do not have all these facts. We cannot have a referendum for every decision that needs to be made, it would be far too complicated to administer and far too time consuming. This is how a democracy works; we elect people, who best represent the views of the nation, to make decisions for us. It is probably the hardest decision that a prime minister or president has to make, sending men to die in battle, therefore I am sure if they make that decision they will have very good reasons and strong evidence.

The problem in Iraq is not whether or not they have nuclear or chemical weapons, its why will they not let the inspectors in to prove it. What are they hiding? If there is even a remote chance that they do have these weapons we need to investigate it. People say that that Iraqi people should rise up and overthrow Saddam. He kills, tortures or imprisons anyone who tries. He clearly has no compassion for his own people otherwise he would let the inspectors in, thus lifting the trade embargoes and allowing food to get to the people.

Other countries will never put trade embargoes on America. America is one of, if not the biggest, buyers of manufactured goods in the world. It would not be economically viable to manufacture goods if you cannot sell them to your biggest customer.

Anyway that’s just my two cents. I think we do need to enforce the UN mandates against Iraq with force if necessary otherwise what’s the point in having the UN in the first place. It is going to be hard but if there are weapons then its better to prevent a much bigger disaster than to let it happen and have the guilt of knowing we might have prevented it.

[Curi0us_George]

jheriko, it's not possible to get that accurate if the material was properly hidden. The emmisions would be too weak. A satellite definitely couldn't pick up the signature.