"like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima" - Americas Iraq Attack Plan

Victor

Originally posted by DriftingRain
I live less than 60 miles from the Anniston Army Depot. They are destroying them as we speak. We have the "code" thing going on here, in case of an accident occuring while the depot is destroying these wepons.

So how are they destroying something they don't have? And why is the USA developing chemical warheads for mortars for "law enforcement"? (Channel 4, Mark Thomas' UNTHOM programme http://www.channel4.co.uk/news/microsites/M/mark_thomas/index.html)

Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002

gandalf

Heres a article by Mark Thomas which contains some of the info exposed in that program. http://www.mtcp.co.uk/mark/articles.htm#top

Apparently they will be firing transcripts of the show on www.mtcp.co.uk today sometime (3hrs to go ).

Gandalf.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor
So how are they destroying something they don't have?

Im open to correction as im going on memory, but the reason they still have material left over is that disposing of the stockpiles is a delicate, dangerous and time consuming thing to do. I think they have had a few plants constantly destroying their stockpile for close on the past decade. Surely this shouldnt be much of an issue, as they do plan is to destroy their entire inventory, its just taking some time?

I dont think the US has had any chemical or biological arms in standard service, deployed with units, for many many years. Its all sitting in secure sites waiting for destruction.

Originally posted by Victor
And why is the USA developing chemical warheads for mortars for "law enforcement"? (Channel 4, Mark Thomas' UNTHOM programme http://www.channel4.co.uk/news/microsites/M/mark_thomas/index.html)

At a glance i couldnt find what your talking about - im not saying it isnt there, just the site isnt very friendly.

Synkronite

Everyone knows North Korea has WMD
Chances are Iraq does too (Let's pretend they do)

Saddam Hussein has not recently threatened to use weapons against America. It stays silent and pleads for more time for inspections when America talks about war with it.

North Korea simply told America- declare war on us, and there will be armaggeddon.

Iraq cant nuke a few cities in America, but North Korea certainly can get South Korea / Japan if not America directly.

So although Iraq asks for diplomacy and North Korea expels Nuclear Monitors and threatens war..

We're expected to ride the bandwagon in Bush's call for war on Iraq and diplomacy for North Korea?

I feel he is picking on the weak.
Or the easier target?

Either way, the world needs regime change in both Iraq and North Korea. Just not in hypocritical ways that will further enrage Muslims of the Middle East causing more terrorism, hence resulting in more money being allocated for industries of war, hence more war on Muslim states, hence..

Or could this really be the plan?

I dont know- I like conspiracy theories.

But Id also prefer it if people keep their perceptions straight.

Iraq has repeatedly defied UN resolutions
Fair enough..
But then so have
-Israel (Golan Heights, Syria, etc)
-India (Kashmir)
-North Korea..

Bush "But Iraq threatens our national security"

But so does North Korea.

But there's Al-Qaeda!
Utter Bollox, Osama Bin Ladin and his crew are Wahabbi Muslims, they dont consider Saddam Hussein a Muslim, rather a Bhai (A sect that broke off from Islam, not considered Muslims at -ALL- infact discriminated against in many muslims countries e.g. Iran).

And let's not forget 1990 when Bin Ladin wanted to invade Iraq, and the Saudis chose America first (Leading to Bin Ladin's resentment of American forces on the "Holy Land").

But then who armed Saddam Hussein to the teeth in the first place to fight the Iranians back in the 1980s? America was it? Just like they trained Osama Bin Ladin back in the 80s to fight as Mujahideen against the Soviet invasion. Let's also not forget the American government actively supported the Taleban from 1996 until relations grew sour over Bin Ladin towards the end of the decade.

They created this mess.

Pearl Harbour was Japan wanting to establish its empire and wanting the US to back off.

Some people in the world simply want to go on with their lives without intervention from America playing the Cold War.

Once again I reiterate, Im all for regime change in Iraq and North Korea. I just believe it should be done properly. Everyone knows Saddam Hussein is a lunatic, send an EM Pulse and have him flown to Den Hague along with his crazy sons!

Bunny

I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be considered atrocities, but then again just about every other major power involved in ww2 committed atrocities even if they didnt have the shock value of a double nuclear attack.

Britain firebombing german cities (especially non-military target Dresden)

Russia for the mass rape, execution and murder of Polish, German and even Russian civilians as it drove toward Berlin

Germany obviously

Italy for being crap

and France for being cheese eating surrender monkeys

Bunny

Originally posted by DriftingRain
I think Ireland has had its fair share of terrorist type people have you not....[URL=http://]www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/6477/worldwars.html[/URL]

We've had our fair share of terrorism, and a few wars too, even if they go back in history. We're a small nation with a small population not a superpower, we're hardly a target or a threat to anyone.

We are the top dollar givers to developing countries how can you say we don't help other countries out and that we cause so much suffering?...[URL=http://]www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/developingnations/developingworld.html[/URL]

America is easily one of the richest countries in the world and while the American people mean well, its government likes to keep certain countries poor, e.g. Cuba, I dont have a head for facts but I think theres quite a few countries that the US likes to keep poor. If America wants to make a real visible different I believe if they scrap the new aircraft carrier they are building they can almost afford to fund education for every child in every developing country.

That is soooo not true. Why do you think we have the "War on terrorism" going on here, almost all other countries have joined in this with the US.

[URL=http://]www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011220-11.html[/URL]

Thousands of civilians have died in Afghanistan, hundreds of innocent asylum seekers jailed indefinitely in europe, thousands of children will die in Iraq (if post 911 fuelled war happens, CNN doesn't like to report enemy civilian casualties) and stability in the Middle East seriously threatened.

I don't think this "War on Terror" is really the answer, it just seems to be creating massive anti-american feeling around the world and much more problems for America. The ignorance of the American government during the 80's/90's concerning Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden and airbases is absolutely unbelievable.
You people really should've voted for Ralph Nader.

I hope some of these links help you understand where I am coming from.
I was also commenting that we were rataliating from pearl harbor in the WW, not anything to do with sadamm!

My internet opinion doesn't count, so reply, response, blah.

I was also commenting that we were rataliating from pearl harbor in the WW, not anything to do with sadamm!

Retalitating against what? As far as i can see, Saddam, has not made an aggressive move since before the last invasion. And if u mean the dropping of the nukes were retalitory strikes, then thats crap. Pearl Harbour was attacked by Conventional weapons. The Japanese were after the fleet. It wasn't trying to take out the infrastructure or the civilians, but the American fleet. Any civilians that may have been killed/Injured chose to live/work on a military base, whereby they're fair-game.

Iraq cant nuke a few cities in America, but North Korea certainly can get South Korea / Japan if not America directly.

If these "Supposed" weapons exist in Iraq, then they can hit Israel. However for a county having problems feeding themselves, and recovering from the last invasion while being hit by economic screw-balls, I doubt they have much money to invest in weapons such as that.

Some people in the world simply want to go on with their lives without intervention from America playing the Cold War.

I totally agree.

Shinji

If these "Supposed" weapons exist in Iraq, then they can hit Israel.

The only delivery systems I have seen any evidence for Iraq posessing are 150km-range devices. These are too small to hit any major target outside Iraq's borders, and are in fact nothing more than battlefield tactical support units. Indeed, Iraq is actually ALLOWED to own them; they're not considered to be WMDs or banned under any treaty.

Yet the western media and the yanks are bouncing up about them /now/ and claiming that they're a serious threat to security... Right. In fact, the weapons inspectors claim the Iraqis haven't even got them to WORK yet...

Every major country in the world has some form of ballistic missiles, or delivery system in place. I don't see America going ape because the French were testing Nukes, or becuase the UK have a missiles that can penetrate the americans carrier group defenses.

The concept that Iraq has such weapons is just a way of playing on the fears of the american people. Just as Hitler did with the german people, using the traditional fear of the jews to get the people behind him. These weapons don't exist, as far as i can see, nor have i seen/heard any evidence of them. They're just a very see-thru excuse to attack.

Victor

Originally posted by Bunny
Britain firebombing german cities (especially non-military target Dresden)

The Americans bombed Dresden, not the British, read my previous posts on the point.

Originally posted by Bunny
Italy for being crap

and France for being cheese eating surrender monkeys

How are these war attrocities? I think you are just out to abuse someone.

The French surrendered in WWII (1) because the Germans had reached Paris (2) they had no intention of repeating the more than 2,000,000 dead they had in WWI, together with the destruction of much of the industrial north east.

Victor

Originally posted by DriftingRain
So what you are saying that the pre-meditated, sneaky tactics that japan used to attack all the innocent people at Pearl Harbor, (btw the US wasn't even in the WW2 then) isn't an atrocy?

The USA was at war, they had the declaration from the Japanese. It wasn't "sneaky", the American radars saw them coming. And yes it was a pre-meditated retaliation against an American oil embargo.

This site list 2,400 casualties ("Complete casualty list") at Pearl Harbor, of whom 43 were civilians (including 5 civilian defence workers). While any civilian casualties is to be regretted, this would appear to be exemplary behavior. The second site lists 2,409 of whom 59 were civilians. The third site says " In the case of civilians .... many were employed at the various bases there"

http://www.vetshome.com/perl_harbor_memorial_4.htm
http://www.newbie.net/PearlHarbor/casualties.html
http://www.merriam-press.com/mono_050/m_039.htm

Also from http://commondreams.org/views03/0129-09.htm, when did Yugoslavia attack the USA? Wasn't there a 19 year old make-up artist killed when NATO bombed the TV station?

The U.S. record of sparing the innocent in its recent wars has been quite poor, with upwards to 5000 civilians killed in the first Gulf War, an estimated 500 civilians in Yugoslavia and approximately 3000 civilians in Afghanistan. Most scenarios predict a far higher level of civilian casualties in a U.S. invasion of Iraq, particularly should American troops have to seize Baghdad – a city of five million – by force.

Originally posted by DriftingRain
If iraq pointed a big ol missle (that they say they have distroyed) at Ireland wouldn't you wanna Shock and Awe them too?

But we don't harass and annoy people to the point where people want to point nasty missiles at us. And Iraq has no missiles that can reach the USA (or Ireland).

Victor

Originally posted by DriftingRain
I think Ireland has had its fair share of terrorist type people have you not....[URL=http://]www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/6477/worldwars.html[/URL]

If this is your understanding of Ireland, then well you know very little of Ireland. 75,000 Irishmen died in World War I, primarily in the British Army, so we were hardly neutral. And BTW, much of the financing for the IRA came from the USA.

Originally posted by DriftingRain
We are the top dollar givers to developing countries how can you say we don't help other countries out and that we cause so much suffering?...

The USA is also the top proliferator of weapons.

Originally posted by DriftingRain
I hope some of these links help you understand where I am coming from.

The White House press office? From you link, I think it is obvious were White House priorities lie.

Key Facts
The United States is the world leader in humanitarian assistance and food aid, providing over $3 billion combined in 2000. The United States is spending $1 billion per month for the war on terrorism.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
However for a county having problems feeding themselves, and recovering from the last invasion while being hit by economic screw-balls, I doubt they have much money to invest in weapons such as that.

North Korea has problems feeding itself, an even-more devestated economy, no oil exports , fought a major war since its inception which it has never fully recovered from, supports one half of the most militarised border on the planet, has been hit by economic screwballs for far longer than Iraq, and didnt have much money to invest in weapons "such as that".

They have WMDs.

I agree that the question about Iraq is "if they have them", but your reasoning as to why we can doubt it is flawed.

jc

The Saint

"The United States is the world leader in humanitarian assistance and food aid, providing over $3 billion combined in 2000. The United States is spending $1 billion per month for the war on terrorism."

They also send $3 Billion in military aid to Israel each and every year.

shotamoose

They also take in billions in debt servicing from developing countries every year, a lot of which is unpayable, odious (ie stemming from loans used to prop up favoured dictators with no expectation of ever getting them back) or otherwise illegitimate. They also harbour billions in flight capital from developing countries and refuse to reveal details so that the countries of origin can tax these deposits.

So the Third World is financing American development, which seems a little backwards to me.

The Saint

And everyone thought Bush was great when he gave something like $1.6 billion to develop hydrogen fuel technology when they could easily spend a lot more, reduce their dependance on ME oil, therefore reducing the need to support dictators, terrorists and war but I'm sure (vice)President Cheney would have none of that.

Bunny

Originally posted by Victor
The Americans bombed Dresden, not the British, read my previous posts on the point.

In 1941 Charles Portal of the British Air Staff advocated that entire cities and towns should be bombed. Portal claimed that this would quickly bring about the collapse of civilian morale in Germany. Air Marshall Arthur Harris (BRITISH) agreed and when he became head of RAF Bomber Command in February 1942, he introduced a policy of area bombing (known in Germany as terror bombing) where entire cities and towns were targeted.

On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to FOLLOW up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 135,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 250,000. Whatever the figure, it was probably greater than the 51,509 British civilians killed by the Luftwaffe during the whole of the Second World War and the 70,000 immediate deaths at Hiroshima after the dropping of the first atom bomb on 6th August 1945.

How are these war attrocities? I think you are just out to abuse someone.

The French surrendered in WWII (1) because the Germans had reached Paris (2) they had no intention of repeating the more than 2,000,000 dead they had in WWI, together with the destruction of much of the industrial north east.

I was taking the piss, lighten up a bit. I don't think the French even had the time to commit any atrocities and the Italians were too disorganised to commit any.

DriftingRain

I just don't care anymore...there is no need to try to sway your opinions...you are gonna believe what you wanna believe. I think America is a good place to live and must be a good place to visit cause alot of the people on the boards have been here and liked it! I am tring to learn more about the Irish ways and the irish cultures...Is anyone of you making an effort to learn about us? I would be gald to share anything I can about us if you would like to know more. Now I sound like a blimy sappy commercial. I hate that you feel the need to bash us in general, but I love all nationalities...and love the loyality of the irish people. Your country is beautiful and so are most of your people. I just wish there were more like me that just wanted peace! I am the first that will tell you I believe most of our government officals are corrupt...but have you ever meet a politician that wasn't corrupt! All they want is power and money. All I want is peace and happiness. Sorry if I have ruffeled any feathers but I an not fighting an useless battle with you people anymore! Good Luck debating the impossible!

bonkey

Originally posted by DriftingRain
I hate that you feel the need to bash us in general,

And therein lies the entire problem.

Very few, if any people here have bashed "you in general". The vast majority of posters attack the US administration, previous administrations, the foreign policy resultant from those administrations, and so on. It is relatively rare that this is extended to a general attack on the American people.

You - as so many other people - appear to have interpreted that as an attack on - or dislike of - America and Americans in general.

I just wish there were more like me that just wanted peace!

There are. Unfortunately, many of us dont necessarily agree with each other on how peace should be achieved.

jc

DriftingRain

There are. Unfortunately, many of us dont necessarily agree with each other on how peace should be achieved.

.....I'm gonna go back to the old statement MAKE LOVE NOT WAR...So I'll start by sayin...BONKEY....I think I love ya!
:rolleyes: LOL


I think all the chocolate and work make me a little loopy!

gandalf

Originally posted by DriftingRain
I hate that you feel the need to bash us in general,

As bonkey says we are (in the main) criticising your administration not the American people. I have been in the states twice, I have alot of American friends. I am concerned for those people because I believe since Bush has seized power what your country stands for has been eroded even more. America is suppost to be the cradle of modern democracy except your President comes out with terms like "either your with us or against us" thus nullifying a proper debate because your will be seen as Anti-American or Unpatriotic (if your a American).

War should be the very last option taken. Winston Churchill (I think) said "Jaw Jaw is better than War War". Your President is rushing into this war and his motivation is not what they are saying. He is placing hundreds of thousand of US lives on the line for short term profit not for peace. By taking this action you will probably see more terrorist attacks against US interests and Citizens worldwide. Far from halting terrorism George and the Oil Junta will actually allow it to grow much worse.

Here is another very apt Winston Churchill quote to end this rant of mine

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Gandalf.

DriftingRain

I understand that you are making statements about the administrators and such but...several of the statements i responded to still seemed to be directed at us in general that was my whole point. I already said in a past post that i will be the first to say that our government is corrupt...but then again have you ever meet a politician that wasn't corrupt? Anyhow...thanks for sharing your opinion with me!

sceptre

Originally posted by DriftingRain
but then again have you ever meet a politician that wasn't corrupt?

Strangely enough, I have. Not very many but er, more than zero. Even if I hadn't, just because most politicians may be corrupt doesn't mean we should have to stop pointing out the corruption when we can see it.

Greenbean

We live in a world where being ignorant of the realities of what goes on can only help to contribute to the bad things happening.