Army Guy Posted June 2, 2008 Report Posted June 2, 2008 Perhaps a simpler explanation might be more likely true. Saddam was obviously playing a game with the world to make them THINK he had WMD's! He was too good at his own game and his bluff got called. I agree 100% that this is a likely scenario for what happened. Like Israel's phantom nukes. the possibility that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD gave him power within and without Iraq. I believe had it been known within Iraq that his stockpiles had been destroyed Saddam would have seen uprisings in the north and south and the possibility of the Iranians flexing their muscles, since in all possibility, they still have chemical weapons. We have to remember that Chemical wpns are considered WMD wpns, something that is lost on the media, and thier reporting as tonnes of chemical wpns were found by Blixs team and just after the ground campaign by Coalition forces, and where destoyed on site.... The amount of chemical wpns destroyed would have given him more than enough to remain in power in the region....Keeping in mind that VX nerve gas requires only a very small drop from a needle to kill a human, a 155 mm Arty shell would have liters of the stuff inside....and hundreds of shells were destroyed, not including the bulk agent , rockets, air craft bombs also found containing chemical wpns.... Blixs team was concentrating on Iraq's nuclear capabilities and programs, this is what made the top and leading headlines....i think "this" is what made people nervous in the region....a Mad man with a crude nuclear device can do that...top that off with a the means to deliver it such as a modified scud missle, or a Cannon that could fire shells from Iraq and hit Israel just added to the confusion...a cannon that was designed by a Canadian no less, some how he meet up with some pissed off Israelis and stopped breathing, the site of the cannon was destroyed by coalition forces.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
M.Dancer Posted June 2, 2008 Report Posted June 2, 2008 You guy's just make this shit up as you go don't you? Not as often as you but in anycase, what is it you are unaware of? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted June 2, 2008 Report Posted June 2, 2008 Israel's phantom nukes. Do tell. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted June 2, 2008 Report Posted June 2, 2008 I googled 'Israel's phantom nukes' and only got a bunch of references to some Korean and Syrian phantom menace. The only mention of Israel was at the bottom of the page, something about the destruction of Palestine... So much for Google I guess. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted June 2, 2008 Report Posted June 2, 2008 Israel's phantom nukes. Do tell. The phantom nukes are the nukes that Israel is supposed to have, but Israel will neither confirm nor deny they have them...They may exist...or they may simply be a fiction. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted June 2, 2008 Report Posted June 2, 2008 What do you think? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted June 2, 2008 Report Posted June 2, 2008 What do you think? I think that allowing people to think you have WMDs but can't be 100% sure is probably the cleverest move ever made in regards to the Bomb. I believe this spectre has given Syria and Egypt (and Iran, Iraq etc etc) a reason to think and to ensure that what ever military adventures they initiate, that the goals are limited enough that Israel would never see a legitimate reason to show their cards.... really though....no one outside of those whose business it is to know, knows. What kind of bomb cpild they have? Tactical artillery shells? free fall tacticle weapons? Missiles with multiple warheads? Who knows....Israel has never tested a weapon so they may have dozens of half mega ton shells or none, dozens of guided smart bombs or none..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted June 2, 2008 Report Posted June 2, 2008 Your's is probably the best argument I've ever heard for proliferation. In all likelihood the US knew full well that Iraq had no nuclear WMD's because it would have been awfully risky to attack a country it was unsure of, don't you think? That said it seems to me that someone will eventually call Israel's bluff too. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Wild Bill Posted June 2, 2008 Report Posted June 2, 2008 or a Cannon that could fire shells from Iraq and hit Israel just added to the confusion...a cannon that was designed by a Canadian no less, some how he meet up with some pissed off Israelis and stopped breathing, the site of the cannon was destroyed by coalition forces.... No....Bull? Sorry, couldn't resist the pun! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
M.Dancer Posted June 2, 2008 Report Posted June 2, 2008 Your's is probably the best argument I've ever heard for proliferation.In all likelihood the US knew full well that Iraq had no nuclear WMD's because it would have been awfully risky to attack a country it was unsure of, don't you think? That said it seems to me that someone will eventually call Israel's bluff too. Do you think then they were loaded down with bio and chem kits for no good reason? The threat of chemical weapons can be managed.....see the first world war for example. Every modern nation trains to neutralize the threat of chemical weapons, for those whose training is exact and their equipment is modern (say the last 30 years) a gas attack would be a major inconvienence...but not much more than that. So to your suggestion that the US knew iraq (a known user of chemical weapons) didn't have any chemical weapons... I think you said it best.... You guy's just make this shit up as you go don't you? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
AngusThermopyle Posted June 3, 2008 Report Posted June 3, 2008 I can't believe such a simple question has been dragged out for eight pages. The answer is very simple. Ship the cowards back where they came from. They signed on the dotted line and took the oath when all they saw were the benefits that come with service. All the talk of immoral and illegal wars is nothing more than a smoke screen to cover their obvious recalcitrance. If you believe you may have moral or ethical issues with the orders you are given then you don't join in the first place. One of them has stated that he thought he'd be doing humanitarian work, c'mon, gimme a break! The right decision has been made, send em back, and tell Chow where she can shove her silly asse'd sentiments. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
guyser Posted June 3, 2008 Report Posted June 3, 2008 I can't believe such a simple question has been dragged out for eight pages.The answer is very simple. Ship the cowards back where they came from. They signed on the dotted line and took the oath when all they saw were the benefits that come with service. +1 I may not call them cowards, but they still have to be sent back. if it were a conscripted army, then that changes everything. But it isnt, so back they go Quote
myata Posted June 3, 2008 Report Posted June 3, 2008 The motion has passed. Canada lived up to its traditional role and provided refuge to those who refuse to take part in an unjust war. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
guyser Posted June 3, 2008 Report Posted June 3, 2008 The motion has passed. Canada lived up to its traditional role and provided refuge to those who refuse to take part in an unjust war. Uh not quite. It did pass, but is not binding, thus it will be ignored.(as it should) From CTV News.... MPs vote to give asylum to U.S. deserters, Tories say no The House of Commons has passed a non-binding motion to grant permanent residence status to American military deserters and their families. 03/06/2008 5:45:10 PM CBC News While all three opposition parties supported the non-binding NDP motion Tuesday, the government voted it down and is certain to ignore it...... Quote
g_bambino Posted June 3, 2008 Report Posted June 3, 2008 The House of Commons has passed a non-binding motion to grant permanent residence status to American military deserters and their families. Permanent residence!? My roommate went through six years of lawyers and fees to get PR status, while the let's-hold-hands-under-the-rainbow MPs want to give permanent residency to any US soldier "fleeing" to Canada... automatically? And I thought the idea of allowing them as refugees was ridiculous... Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 3, 2008 Report Posted June 3, 2008 You know...I would lend my support if they volunteered to be combat sappers in Afghanistan.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
capricorn Posted June 3, 2008 Report Posted June 3, 2008 One of them has stated that he thought he'd be doing humanitarian work, c'mon, gimme a break! The "humanitarian work" excuse plays right into the hands of those bleeding heart Canadians and MPs who voted to offer protection to these cowardly opportunists. The right decision has been made, send em back, and tell Chow where she can shove her silly asse'd sentiments. Oh yes, Chow who thinks that the government turfing these deserters out is tantamount to ignoring 'the will of the Canadian people'. "I hope the government listens to the will of the Canadian people and the House of Commons," said Olivia Chow, the New Democrat MP who moved the motion.http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/...5749191-cp.html It's no wonder the NDP hasn't been able to gain ground in this country. Stunts like this are sure to keep them safely away from the halls of power. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
myata Posted June 4, 2008 Report Posted June 4, 2008 Uh not quite. It did pass, but is not binding, thus it will be ignored.(as it should) Right, Harper is big on ignoring democracy; no news there. And, military honour trumps democracy... As it should; and was since times ono; with more destructive war following another; and always the last one. Makes you wonder very hard, if only those guys happen to get to power a few years earlier, we'd probably be seeing our military fight and die in Iraq. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Topaz Posted June 4, 2008 Author Report Posted June 4, 2008 Right, Harper is big on ignoring democracy; no news there. And, military honour trumps democracy... As it should; and was since times ono; with more destructive war following another; and always the last one.Makes you wonder very hard, if only those guys happen to get to power a few years earlier, we'd probably be seeing our military fight and die in Iraq. I agree and Harper is just an extension of the Bush, secrets, lies and deception. Quote
HisSelf Posted June 4, 2008 Report Posted June 4, 2008 (edited) I am and always have been dead set against the war in Iraq, but we have an extradition treaty with the US, and we should abide by their extradition requests. The only exception I would make to this is where extradition involves the death penalty. I don't think we should automatically extradite people back to face the death penalty - the justice system is too flawed. Edited June 4, 2008 by HisSelf Quote ...
Wild Bill Posted June 4, 2008 Report Posted June 4, 2008 I'm surprised no one has mentioned how during WWII many objectors still served as medics and such in combat zones. They did not want to take a life but they were brave enough to risk their own to save lives. Why haven't any of those who want refugee status today chosen that path? As for honour trumping "whatever", the NDP and the left in Canada has never grasped the concept of honour. They practice "situational ethics" instead. If Canada were ever attacked, they would be the LAST people capable of defending ourselves and our children. We would end up conquered and/or dead. Their ideas simply are wishes and not practical in the real world. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Army Guy Posted June 4, 2008 Report Posted June 4, 2008 Right, Harper is big on ignoring democracy; no news there. And, military honour trumps democracy... As it should; and was since times ono; with more destructive war following another; and always the last one.Makes you wonder very hard, if only those guys happen to get to power a few years earlier, we'd probably be seeing our military fight and die in Iraq. Since when is sending a criminal back to his home country to face justice ignoring democracy....Because the oppostion bought into "those poor, poor soldiers plight", and after the group hug said sure we'll let him stay wiping the tears from thier eyes....Can't have those poor american soldiers face justice....thats is just wrong.... And the excuse " I thought i was going to do Humanitarian work", give me a break, When was the last time the red cross or any other humanitarian group gave any of it's members military fatigues, a flak jacket, An automactic wpn with enough ammo to wipe out a small village..... How retarded does one individual have to be, not to get the piont, you train for 13 weeks at basic....No humanitarian training there, then train for another 6 months for an active duty mission....still no humanitarian training, talk to those that have come back from Iraq, nope no one said one thing about humanitarian work....watch the media, still nothing....kind of like training in the fire fighters school expecting to do police work.... I'd say by this time if you still have not come to the conclusion that "you may not be involved in humanitarian work, but rather hard core combat, then you are a retard".....And Canada already has it's share of retards.... And if that is the best excuse he can come up with, then maybe would should be shipping his ass back, not to the US but to Iraq, where the rest of his brothers and sisters are carrying his load because he volunteered to do a job, and now just figured it out , maybe they want me to use that rifle they keep giving me..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Wilber Posted June 4, 2008 Report Posted June 4, 2008 Why haven't any of those who want refugee status today chosen that path? The oppositition just voted to give them permanent resident status. Want to become a Canadian resident, easy join the US military and desert. Link Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Peter F Posted June 4, 2008 Report Posted June 4, 2008 I'm surprised no one has mentioned how during WWII many objectors still served as medics and such in combat zones. They did not want to take a life but they were brave enough to risk their own to save lives.Why haven't any of those who want refugee status today chosen that path? They havn't because the 'Medic' you describe no longer exists. Midics in the USMC/US Army are armed and expected to use thier weapons just like everybody else and to the same end. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
M.Dancer Posted June 4, 2008 Report Posted June 4, 2008 They havn't because the 'Medic' you describe no longer exists. Midics in the USMC/US Army are armed and expected to use thier weapons just like everybody else and to the same end. The reason for that is it is expected that conscientious objectors won't volunteer to serve in the armed forces. Back when there was conscription C/Os were placed in non combat roles..the brave ones wore red cross targets... By definition someone who volunteers and joins the army can't be a conscientious objector. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.