Mass destruction weapons in Iraq

I don't give a shit. None of these contains "by all means necessary" and I can give you an even longer list of violations by another state with weapons of mass destruction, you know which one I'm talking of: Israel.

And you don't answer me why it is more important the engineers have equipment with them to restore pipelines and oil installations while the burning ones aren't put out yet and the rebuilding hasn't started. Those trucks could contain food and supplies. And no answer either why speed is more important than the lives of soldiers, in turn more important than hundreds or Iraqi people, who it is supposed to be all about, starving of hunger, thirst and diseases due to the US bombing power plants and water pipelines and making food transports dangerous.

And before accusing me of the same (not answering something): I'm still looking for that documentary. I get too many hits on Google. Using Rocketshiki I found another documentary I saw on the BBC about their Russian equivalent.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
I can give you an even longer list of violation by another state with weapons of mass destruction, you know which one I'm talking of: Israel.

---

Israel isn't in violation of resolutions passed by the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
Israel isn't in violation of resolutions passed by the UN.

---

Oh reeeaaaallllyyyy?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
And no answer either why speed is more important than the lives of soldiers, in turn more important than hundreds or Iraqi people

---

Amelioration of American displeasure for their own government.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
Oh reeeaaaallllyyyy?

---

Yes reeeaaaallllyyy. Those are opinions, not orders, from the UN. And look at the source, you fool. Do you think that site is the place to get unbiased facts about Israel?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
Yes reeeaaaallllyyy. Those are opinions, not orders, from the UN. And look at the source, you fool. Do you think that site is the place to get unbiased facts about Israel?

---

Still reeeaaalllyyy?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
Still reeeaaalllyyy?

---

Okay, so Israel deported a few Palestinians, and Iraq wants to nuke the world.

Also, Israel's latest "crime" was over a decade ago. I tried looking for those citations on the un webpage (un.org), but trying to load the actual resolution documents kept freezing my computer. Doesn't my new optical mouse do anything to improve processor speed??

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
Okay, so Israel deported a few Palestinians, and Iraq wants to nuke the world.

---

I know Israel is supposed to be a democracy (although it is going fast downhill now), but Iraq wanting to nuke the world? just the US and Israel and you know pretty well there is a difference between wanting and being able, both by not having the means (fake Nigerian documents, non-existing IAEA report about those aluminium tubes) and by knowing what the response would be. Saddam didn't use WMD last time against Israel and the US, remember, and remember why?

And Israel has more or less a system of Apartheid, where Palestinians are systematically discriminated and held back, undisputedly. Not an example of a model democracy either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
Also, Israel's latest "crime" was over a decade ago.

---

You're even giving me more fuel. Bush said Iraq has defied the UN for 12 years as argument to show Saddam's evilness, Israel for even decades more. Deporting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (a few?!?!) in both 1948 and 1967 is not exactly a small crime either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
... knowing what the response would be. Saddam didn't use WMD last time against Israel and the US, remember, and remember why?

---

First of all, MAD is not proven to work. And if he did fire off a nuke, it would affect every living being on this planet, not just a few million people.

Additionally, Saddam did try to use WMD against Israel. He fired (I think this is the correct number, but not certain) 39 Scuds at Israel, many loaded with WMD cargo. And obviously he didn't do that to the US because he didn't (and doesn't) have the technology.

I think a huge problem here is that we're disagreeing on the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666

I know Israel is supposed to be a democracy (although it is going fast downhill now), but Iraq wanting to nuke the world? just the US and Israel and you know pretty well there is a difference between wanting and being able, both by not having the means

---

Add Iran and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and Syria (well maybe not just yet, they are buddy buddy right now)...the list of targets for SH is long and distinguished.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
First of all, MAD is not proven to work. And if he did fire off a nuke, it would affect every living being on this planet, not just a few million people.

---

First of all, scientifically one nuke affecting everybody on earth is crap. A nuke typically contains a few tens of kilos of fissile materials, in Chernobyl, tens of tons went up into the air. It would affect the minds and policies of everybody on earth however.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
Additionally, Saddam did try to use WMD against Israel. He fired (I think this is the correct number, but not certain) 39 Scuds at Israel, many loaded with WMD cargo. And obviously he didn't do that to the US because he didn't (and doesn't) have the technology.

---

Based on what? As far as I know, all these scuds had no WMD charge, some were only filled with concrete.

There were 42 missiles sent towards Israel. All analyses of Scud debris showed conventional warheads only. No evidence of any biological or chemical payload in any of the missiles...

I don't think arguing over whether Israel or Iraq is worse will help the situation. There's only one thing we can know about them for sure: they both start with 'I'. Wait a sec, does this mean both Iran and India have also been defying the Security Counsel?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
I think a huge problem here is that we're disagreeing on the facts.

---

And the fact that alot of people around the world are basing their opinions on things that are not _FACTS_. I like to stick with facts. It helps :)

Do not trust what is being reported to you is my motto :) :) :) Though I will make the occasional sarcastic comment. Please don't misconstrue that I actually believe any of the bunk (and it is bunk right now) that is being spewed from the media. I believe things that make sense but only truely believe them when I can see the evidence. I am not paranoid everyone is after me :)

Saddam having WMD makes sense. But until I snort a line of Anthrax I can't point a definiatve finger and say he has them. But I can put my opinion out that he does, based on the history of the man (I call him man so you'll understand, I prefer animal) and the history of his baath party.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
First of all, scientifically one nuke affecting everybody on earth is crap.

---

That's right. And the retalliation would be virtually harmless, right again?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
A nuke typically contains a few tens of kilos of fissile materials

---

Whoa whoa whoa there you go again Simon!! Check the facts. Maybe you have some baby nukes like that, but I certainly don't. The largest unclassified nukes the US possesses are hundreds of megatons. Besides, the effects of radiation from the two nukes off in Japan are still being studied.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
Based on what? As far as I know, all these scuds had no WMD charge, some were only filled with concrete.

---

There are reports that he had missiles loaded with chemical and biological weapons and groups which had orders to fire them if Iraq or Hussein was ever in danger. And don't you say "oh, it was only a report?" What do you think all the information you've ever seen is?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Add Iran and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and Syria (well maybe not just yet, they are buddy buddy right now)...the list of targets for SH is long and distinguished.

---

Even if, would you object? Iran is already considered part of the Axis of Evil, Syria is considered as a next target as considered a state that supports terrorism and Saudi Arabia is proven to house terrorist (15 of 19 hijackers, remember), problem with this despicable regime, as bad or even worse than Saddam, is that the US is rather buddy-buddy in spite of all.

I doubt him targetting Syria, as you say, they are buddy-buddy. Iran is even more unlikely as it is far more powerful now than in the eighties and as it looks now would have a nuke way before Saddam could if there would have been no second Gulf War. Strategically and tacticly this is not a good idea Mick. :D And Saudi Arabia, as far as I'm concerned, he can blow them to smithereens. I do not recall he had such serious issues with them that he intended to make war with them. Kuwait and Israel okay.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by galathaea
There were 42 missiles sent towards Israel. All analyses of Scud debris showed conventional warheads only. No evidence of any biological or chemical payload in any of the missiles...

---

There is much to be said for Saddam's "restrant" in the 91 war. Or the fact that Israel has nuclear capability though I for one was suprised by their restrant. I expected Israel to strike back and strike back hard. I expect them to do the same even more so, should the US fail and not prevent launches from western Iraq in the current conflict.

Lets not get bogged down in Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
Whoa whoa whoa there you go again Simon!! Check the facts. Maybe you have some baby nukes like that, but I certainly don't. The largest unclassified nukes the US possesses are hundreds of megatons. Besides, the effects of radiation from the two nukes off in Japan are still being studied.

---

You know I wouldn't be surprised if it had 'Made in Texas' stamped on them. You know, everything is big in Texas.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
There is much to be said for Saddam's "restrant" in the 91 war. Or the fact that Israel has nuclear capability though I for one was suprised by their restrant. I expected Israel to strike back and strike back hard. I expect them to do the same even more so, should the US fail and not prevent launches from western Iraq in the current conflict.

---

Well, Saddam wasn't nearly conquered in the Gulf War. He will be in this one. Israel didn't retalliate last time only because of US pressure to not respond. The US is obviously their huge ally, so they had to obey. Israel would have struck back hard, albeit not with nukes. At the moment, Iraq probably doesn't even have deployment systems powerful enough to reach Israel. And if they do, Israel have already vowed that this time the will fight back, and hard.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
That's right. And the retalliation would be virtually harmless, right again?

---

Iraq is not that big. If you would use everything you had it would be overkill. A strikeback against strategic targets or a couple of cities would even then release much less radio-active material than in the Chernobyl blast. Not that that was harmless either, but did you notice anything? I didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
Whoa whoa whoa there you go again Simon!! Check the facts. Maybe you have some baby nukes like that, but I certainly don't. The largest unclassified nukes the US possesses are hundreds of megatons. Besides, the effects of radiation from the two nukes off in Japan are still being studied.

---

Check the above about overkill and such. A probable nuclear counter attack would consist probably of tens or hundreds of kilos, not tons. The smallest amount of plutonium needed for an atom bomb is classified though estimated at around 8 kilo. The amount of radio-active material is also coming from other stuff than plutonium, such as materials around the bomb holding it together, but their half lifes are shorter. Complex stuff, but nevertheless, it would not be worse than Chernobyl. And people are living pretty much "normal" again in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cancers are much higher ofcourse.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
There are reports that he had missiles loaded with chemical and biological weapons and groups which had orders to fire them if Iraq or Hussein was ever in danger. And don't you say "oh, it was only a report?" What do you think all the information you've ever seen is?

---

I did hear that too and I think it is true. But what you said about those landing on Israel is not true. And even if it is true (probable), than we're back at point one: were these weapons really destroyed and if not, can they still cause harm so that action would be necessary?

Anyway, see you guys tomorrow. I'm off. It is 0.30 in the morning here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666

Even if, would you object? Iran is already considered part of the Axis of Evil, Syria is considered as a next target as considered a state that supports terrorism and Saudi Arabia is proven to house terrorist (15 of 19 hijackers, remember), problem with this despicable regime, as bad or even worse than Saddam, is that the US is rather buddy-buddy in spite of all.

I doubt him targetting Syria, as you say, they are buddy-buddy. Iran is even more unlikely as it is far more powerful now than in the eighties and as it looks now would have a nuke way before Saddam could if there would have been no second Gulf War. Strategically and tacticly this is not a good idea Mick. :D And Saudi Arabia, as far as I'm concerned, he can blow them to smithereens. I do not recall he had such serious issues with them that he intended to make war with them. Kuwait and Israel okay.

---

Do you know why I am cool with Iran and China? Because there are outspoken dissidents.. There is a freedom movement going on in both countries...check it out. If you can't do it for yourselfs (Iraq) we will do it for you (that one is just for you Simon) :)

God Bless America Land that I Love (sing it with me now!)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
Anyway, see you guys tomorrow. I'm off. It is 0.30 in the morning here.

---

Night Simon!!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
Iraq is not that big. If you would use everything you had it would be overkill. A strikeback against strategic targets or a couple of cities would even then release much less radio-active material than in the Chernobyl blast. Not that that was harmless either, but did you notice anything? I didn't.

---

Are you saying that if a nation launched a nuclear weapon it wouldn't be a big deal?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
Cancers are much higher ofcourse.

---

Okay, so let's just find a cure for cancer and then we can nuke whomever we want.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
were these weapons really destroyed and if not, can they still cause harm so that action would be necessary?

---

I agree with you here, that is improbable.

[edit: removed inaccurate statistics on Fat Boy and Little Man]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666

Iraq is not that big. If you would use everything you had it would be overkill. A strikeback against strategic targets or a couple of cities would even then release much less radio-active material than in the Chernobyl blast. Not that that was harmless either, but did you notice anything? I didn't.

Check the above about overkill and such. A probable nuclear counter attack would consist probably of tens or hundreds of kilos, not tons. The smallest amount of plutonium needed for an atom bomb is classified though estimated at around 8 kilo. The amount of radio-active material is also coming from other stuff than plutonium, such as materials around the bomb holding it together, but their half lifes are shorter. Complex stuff, but nevertheless, it would not be worse than Chernobyl. And people are living pretty much "normal" again in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cancers are much higher ofcourse.

I did hear that too and I think it is true. But what you said about those landing on Israel is not true. And even if it is true (probable), than we're back at point one: were these weapons really destroyed and if not, can they still cause harm so that action would be necessary?

---

I hope we never reach the day where we have to check just how much radiation was released from a nuclear warhead. Alot of people forget that the firebombing of tokyo killed more than both atomic bombs combined. But back in that day, it was ok to bomb civilian targets and yes the nazi's were the first to bomb civilian targets if we are talking WWII, doesn't make it right, nor do I think the allies would have hesitated to bomb civilian targets first. I was a mind set back then, the worlds thinking has changed for the better since.

Actually, they were around 15 and 22 kiloton devices, respectively. But I am not defending Simon666's line of reasoning here (in fact I think with 200,000+ immediate deaths, the thinking goes the other way)...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by galathaea
Actually, they were around 15 and 22 kiloton devices, respectively. But I am not defending Simon666's line of reasoning here (in fact I think with 200,000+ immediate deaths, the thinking goes the other way)...

---

Yes those numbers are right, mine are wrong... I was thinking of something else at the time I typed it, sorry. But there were fewer than that many immediate deaths, although the exact number is a petty detail.

Yes and I think our newest tac nuke is 100x the power of the aforementioned atomic explosions. 100 times, think about that, and that's just what we classify as a tactical nuke. I'm sure some of you have at least watched documentaries on hiroshima and nagasaki lets not try and put anyone through that again. I still have to go back to strangelove for some reason...is this some wierd fetish I have, I don't know ;) Would Freud look at me and just say remarkable (think little rascals)....

Quote:

---

We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when
But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day
Keep smiling through, just like you always do
Till the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away
So will you please say hello to the folks that I know
Tell them I won't be long
They'll be happy to know, that as you saw me go
I was singing this song...

---

And for those that love pink.

Quote:

---

Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn?
Remember how she said,
That we would meet again,
Some sunny day.
Vera!
Vera!
What has become of you?
Does anybody else in here feel the way I do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
whoa whoa whoa there you go again Simon!! Check the facts. Maybe you have some baby nukes like that, but I certainly don't. The largest unclassified nukes the US possesses are hundreds of megatons. Besides, the effects of radiation from the two nukes off in Japan are still being studied.

---

I'd like to see a missile able to carry a megaton of fissil material!!!!!!!!!!!!! It would allow us to send the ISS in space in one shot. How good!

Megaton is not a unit of weigth here! It's the equivalent dynamite (I think) you need for an explosion of same intensity. I don't have a clue how much fissil material is required for that, be kilo is probably a better unit for that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Do not trust what is being reported to you is my motto :) :) :) Though I will make the occasional sarcastic comment. Please don't misconstrue that I actually believe any of the bunk (and it is bunk right now) that is being spewed from the media. I believe things that make sense but only truely believe them when I can see the evidence. I am not paranoid everyone is after me :)

---

Since the beginning, every thing that goes with your point of view makes sense, and everything that doesn't does not make sense. It seems that everything you don't like MUST be propaganda.

Yes, SH having some WMD does make sense. And I even agree with that. It makes sense, but it doesn't mean he has them. If he doesn't have them, it probably be because he didn't manage to be able to create it, or because he decided to spend his money otherwise (even if probably not wisely), ... but he may still have no WMD, even if it seems more likely that he have some (and definitely NOT because of the evidences the US has shown).

But the US targetting anything else than very highly military objectives doesn't (you never gave to Simon a straight answer about that missile lost in or near Iran). Having civilian people living in government building is SO incredible that it must be propaganda as well, ...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elrond


I'd like to see a missile able to carry a megaton of fissil material!!!!!!!!!!!!! It would allow us to send the ISS in space in one shot. How good!

Megaton is not a unit of weigth here! It's the equivalent dynamite (I think) you need for an explosion of same intensity. I don't have a clue how much fissil material is required for that, be kilo is probably a better unit for that.

---

You are correct. the original intention was to equate it with tons of trinitrotoluene.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
Are you saying that if a nation launched a nuclear weapon it wouldn't be a big deal?

---

What do you mean with not a big deal? Politically, it would be one big mess, people around the world would be furious on the countries doing these things. But technically, it would not be a big deal for the world, yes, only for the countries involved and some of the neighbouring countries where there is fallout. But some parts of Ukrain and large parts of Belarus (where dimm_coder is living) that received doses from Chernobyl that would make rehousing recommended are just continued to be inhabited. And so are Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Death toll would be huge, there would be a large number of wounded for a pretty long time, cancers and other diseases would be much higher during a very long time, but they probably could remain to be inhabited.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
Okay, so let's just find a cure for cancer and then we can nuke whomever we want.

---

There is still the political thingy and some conventions not to cause harm to civilians in war, which dropping nukes on cities would do unquestionably.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Yes and I think our newest tac nuke is 100x the power of the aforementioned atomic explosions. 100 times, think about that, and that's just what we classify as a tactical nuke. I'm sure some of you have at least watched documentaries on hiroshima and nagasaki lets not try and put anyone through that again. I still have to go back to strangelove for some reason...is this some wierd fetish I have, I don't know Would Freud look at me and just say remarkable (think little rascals)....

---

What do you mean with yes? What and who are you reacting to? To the fact that these would cause much more radio-activety? Actually, it is not that simple. I read once the Russians planned to test a 100 Megaton bomb (I think the heaviest tested is around 50 Megaton, correct me if I'm wrong), which was estimated to cause less radio-activity problems.

In order to be maximum effective, an atom bomb should be detonated at a certain height, just as an ordinary grenade is more dangerous when it explodes a little above ground. For a 100 Megaton bomb this would mean the radio-activity is spread over a much larger area. Considering that the amount of radio-activity does not increase linearly with the strength of the bomb, it would mean less radio-activity per unit of surface. There is also the fact that then large amounts of radio-activity would rise up high into the stratosphere. This air in this layer of our atmosphere contains very little turbulence - and thus mixture -unlike the troposphere (where we live in) and moves pretty much horizontally. This ensures that particles such as from volcanoes can stay for several years over there. Radio-active vapor from this bomb (there would be no radio-active particles due to the necessary height of a 100 Mton blast) would stay in for thousands of years and be gradually released spread over the maximum available area, the entire earth, probably at levels below natural radiation.

A 100 megaton bomb would be much cleaner per amount of explosive power because nearly all energy would come from fusion and not fission, unlike other, smaller A- and H-bombs. For more info on the Tsar Bomba, go here and here. They claim however that the effect of this bomb at full yield on global fallout would have been tremendous. It would have increased the world's total fission fallout since the invention of the atomic bomb by 25%. For more info on testing a 50 Megaton version of it, go here. Militarily, it is rather useless as too big and dropping multiple smaller bombs it much more effective to destroy an area. Same probably goes for conventional munitions of more than one ton. The non linearity of the increase in destruction is becoming more clear then, as bombs destroy pretty much a volume ~r³ instead of an area ~r². So basically, an 8 times heavier bomb will destroy only a 4 times bigger area. (4 = pow(8,3/2))

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elrond


Since the beginning, every thing that goes with your point of view makes sense, and everything that doesn't does not make sense. It seems that everything you don't like MUST be propaganda.

Yes, SH having some WMD does make sense. And I even agree with that. It makes sense, but it doesn't mean he has them. If he doesn't have them, it probably be because he didn't manage to be able to create it, or because he decided to spend his money otherwise (even if probably not wisely), ... but he may still have no WMD, even if it seems more likely that he have some (and definitely NOT because of the evidences the US has shown).

But the US targetting anything else than very highly military objectives doesn't (you never gave to Simon a straight answer about that missile lost in or near Iran). Having civilian people living in government building is SO incredible that it must be propaganda as well, ...

---

Ohh simon had a question :) Where did I state that we can hit a target 100% of the time? Missles can and do go off target, did you expect us to be perfect. I admit, at least it's better than what is being fired towards Kuwait, but it is still not without error. Asking the question about civilians living near goverment buildings is pretty much ridiculous...nobody lives near goverement buildings...what are you thinking? I mean DC is just full of wide open space where the civilians are seperated from the goverment offices.

PS: I'm not the one buying into the propaganda :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elrond
Megaton is not a unit of weigth here! It's the equivalent dynamite (I think) you need for an explosion of same intensity. I don't have a clue how much fissil material is required for that, be kilo is probably a better unit for that.

---

It is actually not that much. I think a simple Trident missile has an explosive power in the Megaton range. It is probably not possible to have a missile that carries that much fissile material in case of an A-bomb, but for an H-bomb it is no problem whatsoever. There is also fusable (or what is the opposite of fissile) material in an H-bomb, and hydrogen fusion is much more explosive per amount of weight than plutonium (or uranium) fission.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Ohh simon had a question :) Where did I state that we can hit a target 100% of the time? Missles can and do go off target, did you expect us to be perfect. I admit, at least it's better than what is being fired towards Kuwait, but it is still not without error. Asking the question about civilians living near goverment buildings is pretty much ridiculous...nobody lives near goverement buildings...what are you thinking? I mean DC is just full of wide open space where the civilians are seperated from the goverment offices.

---

Ok, are you evading the question again? I don't see why DC having no civilian implies it does not make sense there are civilians in and near Iraq's governement building! Or do you think all countries in the world are like the US?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Ohh simon had a question :) Where did I state that we can hit a target 100% of the time? Missles can and do go off target, did you expect us to be perfect. I admit, at least it's better than what is being fired towards Kuwait, but it is still not without error.

---

Then stop ridiculising it is impossible the US set a couple of oil wells on fire due to misses if you're saying it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Asking the question about civilians living near goverment buildings is pretty much ridiculous...nobody lives near goverement buildings...what are you thinking? I mean DC is just full of wide open space where the civilians are seperated from the goverment offices.

---

So why use cluster bombs in Basra? Do you know what cluster bombs are? Would you like you sun or daughter playing with these colored toys coming back home with an arm or a leg ripped off, if coming back at all because their head is blasted off? Would you like to go to work driving through a minefield of unexploded submunitions?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
PS: I'm not the one buying into the propaganda

---

I put this line in my translator from English to Simonish and pressed the button for Simonish to English and the following line appeared:

I'm not buying Iraqi propaganda but I'm buying the US propaganda because it makes me feel good and because then I don't have to think for myself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elrond


Ok, are you evading the question again? I don't see why DC having no civilian implies it does not make sense there are civilians in and near Iraq's governement building! Or do you think all countries in the world are like the US?

---

No, I'm sorry, it didn't make sense to you :) We have plenty of civilians around goverment buildings. My point was you are stating the obvious. Do you need to state the obvious? Please state the obvious one more time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
PS: I'm not the one buying into the propaganda :)

---

I didn't said you where. But listenning to you, EVERYTHING that does not support your point of view is propaganda. That's not really open minded and can't be right.

So may be you are, finally! :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666

Then stop ridiculising it is impossible the US set a couple of oil wells on fire due to misses if you're saying it yourself.

---

Ok kids, here we go, we have a couple of thousand square miles, Ok now listen up, now listen back there johnny, we are going to miss, here me, we are going to miss, and in that couple of thousand sqaure miles, we are just going to happen to hit an oil well. You kids listen up back there!!! now back to the oil well, yes it is strategic....yawn...flip...back to the enquierer...this just in, Micheals nose is fake..

Quote:

---

So why use cluster bombs in Basra? Do you know what cluster bombs are? Would you like you sun or daughter playing with these colored toys coming back home with an arm or a leg ripped off, if coming back at all because their head is blasted off? Would you like to go to work driving through a minefield of unexploded submunitions?

---

Yep I know what a cluster bomb is, do you? Lets see, hmm media, ohh cluster bomb, I'm a reporter, I know what that is. Do you know what it is? Do you know why it wouldn't be used in a city? Why not just cluster f it all?

Quote:

---

I put this line in my translator from English to Simonish and pressed the button for Simonish to English and the following line appeared:

I'm not buying Iraqi propaganda but I'm buying the US propaganda because it makes me feel good and because then I don't have to think for myself.

---

I know, it's evident :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elrond


I didn't said you where. But listenning to you, EVERYTHING that does not support your point of view is propaganda. That's not really open minded and can't be right.

So may be you are, finally! :)

---

Only things that aren't conspiracy theorys or just plain bunk. So far they fall in the two previous categories. Talk about not being open minded, from what I have seen, there isn't alot of open minds here. It's more anti-US in any form or fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Ok kids, here we go, we have a couple of thousand square miles, Ok now listen up, now listen back there johnny, we are going to miss, here me, we are going to miss, and in that couple of thousand sqaure miles, we are just going to happen to hit an oil well.

---

Very funny. In entire Iran, a country a lot bigger than France, you managed to nearly hit or hit an oil refinery. Bingo.

And that was a missile that went out of course and landed in Iran. Let alone what can happen with missiles landing of course in Iraq itself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Yep I know what a cluster bomb is, do you? Lets see, hmm media, ohh cluster bomb, I'm a reporter, I know what that is. Do you know what it is? Do you know why it wouldn't be used in a city? Why not just cluster f it all?

---

Do you call this an answer? Have you more pathetic ones than this or is this your current record?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666

Very funny. In entire Iran, a country a lot bigger than France, you managed to nearly hit or hit an oil refinery. Bingo.

---

So they say. But there you go again, you know exactly what happened. Stay tuned.

Quote:

---

And that was a missile that went out of course and landed in Iran. Let alone what can happen with missiles landing of course in Iraq itself.

Do you call this an answer? Have you more pathetic ones than this or is this your current record?

---

Did you call that a question?

Oh, even better, I looked it up once. Apparenly, in Iran, a country bigger than France to repeat myself, it appears two missiles actually hit the oil refinery depot. Tell me, if you're the expert, what is the statistical chance on that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Did you call that a question?

---

Yes. I find it very interesting to know how you would justify using a cluster bomb in a city like Basra, provided it is true (which you seem to doubt). I and many others think it is, maybe if someone has pictures we would know it is true. Could someone reading this help looking for pictures or reports?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666
Oh, even better, I looked it up once. Apparenly, in Iran, a country bigger than France to repeat myself, it appears two missiles actually hit the oil refinery depot.

---

Dude keep surfing, your there!!! You've got everything at your fingertips. Everything has been confirmed. Try acutally waiting until people know what happend. This is my point with you. Try calming yourself and stop relying on what you don't know and what people feed you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Dude keep surfing, your there!!! You've got everything at your fingertips. Everything has been confirmed. Try acutally waiting until people know what happend. This is my point with you. Try calming yourself and stop relying on what you don't know and what people feed you.

---

Tell me what is the chance of it NOT being a US missile? Iraq couldn't hit an open desert with a missile if it wanted too, it's missiles are that inaccurate and they haven't launched that many to have a statistical chance. The US and British probably launched hundreds. If the Iranians could have launched it themselves, they would know and if there was such a chance, certainly not put themselves in the focus as they think they might be next on target. They have too much to lose if they believe there is a reasonable chance the missile is NOT from the US. Think strategical Mick, as you taught me. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666

Tell me what is the chance of it NOT being a US missile? Iraq couldn't hit an open desert with a missile if it wanted too, it's missiles are that inaccurate and they haven't launched that many to have a statistical chance. The US and British probably launched hundreds. If the Iranians could have launched it themselves, they would know and if there was such a chance, certainly not put themselves in the focus as they think they might be next on target. They have too much to lose if they believe there is a reasonable chance the missile is NOT from the US. Think strategical Mick, as you taught me. :D

---

:) :) :) I haven't taught you anything :) :) :)

I don't think it is unreasonable that a missle has landed in Iran, or that a missle has struck a bus on the border of Syria. I just point out that I would like to have the facts, not some reporter that is giddy to get the latest sound bite in.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
I don't think it is unreasonable that a missle has landed in Iran, or that a missle has struck a bus on the border of Syria. I just point out that I would like to have the facts, not some reporter that is giddy to get the latest sound bite in.

---

It is not just a reporter, it is the state of Iran that is pissed a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon666

It is not just a reporter, it is the state of Iran that is pissed a bit.

---

Let them be. Maybe they are next :) But back to reality, lodge a complaint. What do you want them to do about it? Attack the coalition troops? S happens. Just what exactly do you expect? A antiseptic war? And this goes to the point of civilians, lets get back to why we are there, a brutal dictator defied the UN. And if you don't think it's legal, I'll see you in a court of law, I suspect you would lose. Will you call Saddam as a witness?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Let them be. Maybe they are next :) But back to reality, lodge a complaint. What do you want them to do about it? Attack the coalition troops? S happens. Just what exactly do you expect? A antiseptic war? And this goes to the point of civilians, lets get back to why we are there, a brutal dictator defied the UN. And if you don't think it's legal, I'll see you in a court of law, I suspect you would lose. Will you call Saddam as a witness?

---

First of all: you're talking around the point here. Point is it very likely happened, by analysing the facts and statistics, the reports (yes, those horrible reporters, those commie bastards) and the reaction of a state.

But if you want an answer in order to talk around the point of it having happened very likely: I know a brutal idiot in charge of WMD who defied the UN. I know a country brutally destroying civilian homes defying the UN for decades. And I like to call Kofi Annan as witness. Saddam would come in very handy too as witness however. Could we know first hand how your country supported him, Rumsfeld included. But I guess directives have already been given from Rummy to the Pentagon to under no circumstance capture him alive. So even if I would like to call him, Mick, I couldn't.