I become afraid of my own anti-Americanism - Page 5

chequita guevara · March 27, 2003, 09:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Amesjustin
And you should read the UN sanctions against Iraq from 12 years ago that explicitly detail that Iraq is not to have any missiles with a range of (about) 96 miles. Then look at the reports missiles hitting encampments about 150 miles inside Kuwait.

First off, it is established on Poly that you must provide your own proofs, not require someone who doesn't believe you to look them up.

Next, given that Kuwait isn't 150 miles deep, how is it possible for a missile to hit 150 miles inside Kuwait? With the exception of one missile, they've all been short of the range limitations set by the U.N. Apparently a missile that went off course into the Persian Gult went 180 kilometers the other day, which is only 30 kilometers over the limit.

Jack_www · March 27, 2003, 13:04

I just have a question for those opposed to US, do you think the war will have positive results or make things worse??

I will be glad to see Saddam go. I also think that many hate US because they are now the world sole Super power, and people dont like that, but someone has to be on top, and US is better then say having China in that postion. ALso if 9-11 did not happen, this war in Iraq would have never came about, I dont know how 9-11 effected people in other nations, but many here in US it changed a lot of things.

Jack_www · March 27, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

First off, it is established on Poly that you must provide your own proofs, not require someone who doesn't believe you to look them up.

Next, given that Kuwait isn't 150 miles deep, how is it possible for a missile to hit 150 miles inside Kuwait? With the exception of one missile, they've all been short of the range limitations set by the U.N. Apparently a missile that went off course into the Persian Gult went 180 kilometers the other day, which is only 30 kilometers over the limit.

Well I have heard news reports that indicate that many of the missles fired at Kuwait were indeed scuds, missles Saddam claimed to have gotten rid of. Also Have you heard about the hosipital that they found that had chemical suits and antidotes for nerve gas? We know that US will not use chemical weapons on Iraq, so why would the Iraqies have this stuff??

DinoDoc · March 27, 2003, 13:11

Quote:

Apparently a missile that went off course into the Persian Gult went 180 kilometers the other day, which is only 30 kilometers over the limit.

That's quite a ways over the limit though.

Willem · March 27, 2003, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

Apparently a missile that went off course into the Persian Gult went 180 kilometers the other day, which is only 30 kilometers over the limit.

That's quite a ways over the limit though.

How do we know that it wasn't just one of the missiles that Iraq was in the process of destroying before the war started? Can we be certain that the job been completed?

Willem · March 27, 2003, 13:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
Also Have you heard about the hosipital that they found that had chemical suits and antidotes for nerve gas? We know that US will not use chemical weapons on Iraq, so why would the Iraqies have this stuff??

Have you heard that there's an abominable snowman that lives in the Himalayas? Hearsay is meangless. They've also said, a few days back, that Basra had been captured, but now we're hearing of heavy fighting there. And the British are even backing away from the uprising story. Truth is the first casuality of war.

DinoDoc · March 27, 2003, 13:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
How do we know that it wasn't just one of the missiles that Iraq was in the process of destroying before the war started?

How is that relevent?

Jack_www · March 27, 2003, 13:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Have you heard that there's an abominable snowman that lives in the Himalayas? Hearsay is meangless. They've also said, a few days back, that Basra had been captured, but now we're hearing of heavy fighting there. And the British are even backing away from the uprising story. Truth is the first casuality of war.

They have tape of this hosipital and what was in it, I saw it with my own eyes. They turn it into a millitary base so that it would not get bombed by the allied forces. They have found many Iraqi troops with gas masks too, so again why would they have them??

Willem · March 27, 2003, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

How is that relevent?

Because people are now saying "See, he's been hiding something all along!" But if they're one of the bunch that was ordered destroyed, with compliance on Saddam's part, that argument doesn't hold water. Until more evidence comes out it's pointless to speculate, and only leads to misinformation.

Jack_www · March 27, 2003, 13:41

Willem do you think that Iraq does not have any chemical or biological weapons?

Willem · March 27, 2003, 13:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www

They have tape of this hosipital and what was in it, I saw it with my own eyes. They turn it into a millitary base so that it would not get bombed by the allied forces. They have found many Iraqi troops with gas masks too, so again why would they have them??

Why does the US have fallout shelters? Keep in mind that Iran and Iraq once fought a war with both sides using gas. It would be simple prudence to have a few suits lying around, just in case, and proves nothing.

Willem · March 27, 2003, 13:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
Willem do you think that Iraq does not have any chemical or biological weapons?

I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but until I see some definite proof I'm not going to make any conjectures either way. So far there's been no "smoking gun", just circumstantial evidence.

Jack_www · March 27, 2003, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but until I see some definite proof I'm not going to make any conjectures either way. So far there's been no "smoking gun", just circumstantial evidence.

Well This is a good postion to have, allthough I am think he has chemical weapons, and the recent disscoveries make me think this even more, but again no hard evidence has been found yet, since they are focused on fighting the war and have bypassed most cities to get to the capital Baghdad. I think that after the fighting is done if Saddam does not use chemical weapons we will find them in his many underground bunkers.

chequita guevara · March 27, 2003, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
We know that US will not use chemical weapons on Iraq, so why would the Iraqies have this stuff??

You mean like we didn't use chemical weapons in Vietnam?

Iraq isn't the only country with chem wepaons in the Gulf. Iran also used gas during the first Gulf War.

chequita guevara · March 27, 2003, 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

Apparently a missile that went off course into the Persian Gult went 180 kilometers the other day, which is only 30 kilometers over the limit.

That's quite a ways over the limit though.

True, but it's not a SCUD nor is it the same range as Amesjustin was claiming (150 miles).

Cyclotron · March 27, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You mean like we didn't use chemical weapons in Vietnam?

Out of interest, could you list them for me?

Dom Pedro II · March 27, 2003, 22:58

He's probably referring to Agent Orange.

Drake Tungsten · March 27, 2003, 23:00

Quote:

He's probably referring to Agent Orange.

That's what I thought at first, but he couldn't seriously call Agent Orange a chemical weapon. There must been some sort of gas we used to clear out tunnel complexes or something that che is talking about. Right?

chequita guevara · March 27, 2003, 23:00

Agent Orange, for one. Just because the defoliants weren't directed at human beings doesn't mean that they didn't cause lots of harm to people. As bad as Agent Orange has hurt American vets, it's hurt Vietnam even worse. It meets the test as a chemical weapon.

Right now, the US is spraying dangerous defoliants in Columbia. It not only kills the coca plant, but just about everything else green also, like food crops. It also makes people and animals sick.

Drake Tungsten · March 27, 2003, 23:02

And so my faith in che is shattered. Now herbicides count as chemical weapons...

chequita guevara · March 27, 2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
And so my faith in che is shattered. Now herbicides counts as chemical weapons...

They do when they kill people.

Cyclotron · March 27, 2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Agent Orange, for one. Just because the defoliants weren't directed at human beings doesn't mean that they didn't cause lots of harm to people. As bad as Agent Orange has hurt American vets, it's hurt Vietnam even worse.

Yes, but while AO is a chemical, it's not a weapon. I was under the impression a weapon had to be purposefully designed or purposefully used to hurt or kill... AO was never designed to hurt or kill and was not used in that way. I think they did not realize that it was dangerous until later...

Something being dangerous does not make it a weapon, just like saccharin chewing gum that is discovered to cause cancer is not a weapon.

Drake Tungsten · March 27, 2003, 23:05

BTW, the "dangerous defoliant" America is dropping on Colombia is Roundup. This "dangerous" chemical weapon is present on just about every farm in America. Hell, my dad has some in his garage. Better call in the weapons inspectors...

chequita guevara · March 27, 2003, 23:07

It was used as a weapon, not against people, but against terrain. Not all weapons have people as their primary targets. For example, the US has used biological weapons against Cuba twice (as far as we know). Once they introduced swine fever, which resulted in half a million of Cuba's pigs having to be destroyed. Recently we've sprayed a type of scale (thripsis) over Cuba, which attacks Cuba's crops.

chequita guevara · March 27, 2003, 23:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
BTW, the "dangerous defoliant" America is dropping on Colombia is Roundup.

Roundup isn't the one I'm talking about. This particular pesticide I'm talking about is a fungus.

Cyclotron · March 27, 2003, 23:11

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It was used as a weapon, not against people, but against terrain. Not all weapons have people as their primary targets. For example, the US has used biological weapons against Cuba twice (as far as we know). Once they introduced swine fever, which resulted in half a million of Cuba's pigs having to be destroyed. Recently we've sprayed a type of scale (thripsis) over Cuba, which attacks Cuba's crops.

It's arguably a weapon when used against swine, for instance, because swine are economically important to people. Foliage generally is not, therefore chemicals that kill foliage are not weapons (while chemicals that kill rice crops, for example, could be classified as such).

We have words like "herbicide" for chemicals that are not weapons. AO is an herbicide.

Drake Tungsten · March 27, 2003, 23:13

Quote:

This particular pesticide I'm talking about is a fungus.

Well, there's no evidence that the fungal pesticide is dangerous. A guy who writes for our college paper *****ed about the same thing in a column and got ripped to shreds afterwards. You'd be suprised how pissed off ag professors get when you make false claims about the products they invent...

Willem · March 27, 2003, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
And so my faith in che is shattered. Now herbicides count as chemical weapons...

If they're so destructive that they kill can someone, and they are used in that cotenxt then yes, they are. I grew up on a farm and we used herbicides; and you definitely don't want to be drinking the stuff out of the bottle, or rub it over your body. You'd be dead in no time. If those same chemicals are used in a combat situation then they would be considered chemical weapons.

Willem · March 27, 2003, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
BTW, the "dangerous defoliant" America is dropping on Colombia is Roundup. This "dangerous" chemical weapon is present on just about every farm in America. Hell, my dad has some in his garage. Better call in the weapons inspectors...

My father used to used it as well, and it can be very nasty stuff if not handled properly. Try taking a drink of it sometime and see how long you live. There have been calls over the years by enviromentalists to have it's used banned, since it a fairly nasty poison, and damaging to the soil and ecosystem if not applied correctly.

Drake Tungsten · March 27, 2003, 23:35

Quote:

If those same chemicals are used in a combat situation then they would be considered chemical weapons.

They're not being used in combat situations. Agent Orange was used in Vietnam to kill off the vegetation in the jungle to make US operations easier. Roundup is sprayed on coca fields in Colombia to kill the plants. They're herbicides, not chemical weapons.