War on Iraq

[patlajan]

YOUR EDUCATION CONTINUES

After swiftly changing the subject Mr. IQ wrote:

So we have to attack Saddam because of silly mustard gas and nerve agents? What about the U.S. and depleted Uranium? Surely someone should attack us for that, no?

READ THIS ARTICLE ABOUT DEPLTED URANIUM USED IN BUNKER BUSTING BOMBS:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/bunker-buster3.htm

U-238 is a radioactive metal that produces alpha and beta particles. In its solid form, it is not particularly dangerous because its half-life is 4.5 billion years, meaning that the atomic decay is very slow. Depleted uranium is used, for example, in boats and airplanes as ballast.

Surfer, forget it. It's like bouncing a ball off a wall here.

[Anonymouse]

Re: YOUR EDUCATION CONTINUES

I thought this was an interesting part of the link you posted. Perhaps that is why all those mutated babies were born in Iraq?

Perhaps 300 tons of DU weapons were used in the first Gulf war. When it burns, DU forms a uranium-oxide smoke that is easily inhaled and that settles on the ground miles from the point of use. Once inhaled or ingested, depleted-uranium smoke can do a great deal of damage to the human body because of its radioactivity.

You have yet to provide evidence Saddams threat. You post a silly one liner about mustard gas from 5 years ago and use that as trying to prove your case? I asked this a thousand times. If Bush and Co had to doctor 'evidence' to convince the UN to support their warmongering, what makes you think you have any more credibility by posting a small reference to mustard gas from 5 years ago? As I said the UN Inspection team overlooked the destruction of his alleged weapons and reported that none of the weapons Bush accused Saddam of having were present.

I think all neighboring countries of Iraq should learn from this war that if after you are accused of developing weapons of mass destruction, you submit to international inspection, get ready to be invaded anyway. If you say you don't have any such weapons you are lying. If inspectors can't find any you're hiding them. And if after invasion they still can't be found, you were just awfully good at both of the above.

[patlajan]

A ONE LINER? Turn off your X-files, and read the WHOLE ARTICLE.

[Anonymouse]

I did, I saw no proof of Saddam possessing anything worth a threat. Ive already been down this road. You clearly evade the issue of Bush and Co forging papers, and Hans Blix saying that Iraq poses no threat nor the inspection team finding anything remotely resembling a threat, nor now the U.S. after it has conquered Iraq. You just jammer about Saddam having WMDs because he has to have WMDs.

[surferarmo]

Where did you get this, "Bush is has forged papers" stuff. I have NEVER heard of that. Did you get that from CNN? Please dont tell me you did. Let me make an arguement similar to yours.

It was staged by the corporations of Canada. Ohh yes, Mr. Bush was set up. Those papers were only his every day bills, but they made it look like a malevolent attempt to portray forgery. Sounds kind of familiar doesnt it Anon?

[patlajan]

Forget it surfer, read my post. MR IQ contradicted himself. IT IS OVER. We can't compete with the voices in his head.


THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE. WOOHOOOO :P
This forum is all MR IQ has, he'll type to the death to defend it.

Slightly insane-conspiracy-theory-got no girlfriend-geeks need to have a hobby.

[Anonymouse]

You must be having trouble understanding this.

What patlajan presented were nothing more than minor mustard gas and nerve gas which won't even reach U.S. soil.

These weapons are not minor. Read the whole article instead of having a hissy fit about power politics in pre world war II Germany. And other conspiracy theory nonsense. But i guess Loss of consciousness, Convulsions ,Paralysis, Respiratory failure possibly leading to death of thousands is MINOR.
The poison can be delivered in ANY METHOD. In a rocket, in an artillery shell, or in a plastic bottle. Once the attacker has the poison they are only limited by their creativiry in ways it can be used. It can be anything from just plain walking up to you and throwing it in your face or poisoning the water supply of a major city, hurting and killing and unpredictable number of people.

This is something that all governments in the world possess. I don't see how having such weapons makes a great case for war and mind you the article as I said was in refernece to 1997. As we've been through this there have been no evidence of anything found under the UN Inspection team and yes Hans Blix repeatedly stated that there is no case for war. The U.S. forces have not found the smoking gun either. So you are left with nothing other than desperate attempts to make a case for war.

BUT WAIT WAIT!!. I THOUGHT THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

The recent UN Inspection team under Hans Blix reported no such things and in fact overlooked the destruction of many of his "boogie man" weapons.

Why is there something to destroy MR IQ??? ARE THERE OR AREN'T THEY THERE?

I clearly stated there are no weapons of mass destruction. What is so hard to comprehend about that? You keep jammering about Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction by using some article in reference to 1997, which was 5 years too long ago. There was nothing in recent news that would suggest he had anything. Again, the UN is the prime authority on it, not you, nor ABC from 5 years ago.


[quote="patlajan"]But before you wrote:

Evidence of weapons of mass destruction do not exist. Otherwise the U.S. wouldn't have been caught with forged papers. Why do you think they did this?

But even BEFORE THAT you wrote:

The only thing he did was gas Kurds, and he doesn't consider him his people, and there is even speculation as to the degree of seriousness it involved.

Your point? I'm only stating the obvious? Do you think you have a case for war by bending semantics? That is a pretty desperate attempt on your behalf. Youre posts are resembling more of desperate, as opposed to substance, much like surfers posts.


[quote="patlajan"]SO WHICH IS IT MR IQ? GAS ATTACKS WITH GAS THAT DOES NOT EXIST? Wow, that is some trick.

This makes no sense, using two different contexts of my speech in reference to two different times and you try to come out with a contradiction. This has no evidence. Youre argument has been degenerating into ambiguity.

Those are silly weapons to use as a premise for war

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/vx/basics/facts.asp

Loss of consciousness, Convulsions ,Paralysis, Respiratory failure possibly leading to death

ONLY THE INSANE ARE UNAFRAID

You know I've never denied him killing Kurds but to use that as a pretext to go to war is silly, as there are all sorts of governments worldwide killing people. That in itself is not a pretext for U.S. intervention. Why didn't the U.S. intervene in Rwanda or Indonesia? Once again.

The original government premise was that Saddam possessed all the weapons alluded to. You posted the link for the article that referred to Iraqs chemical weapons in 1997, mind you still no nuclear weapons. In any event, Iraq has been cleared of having any weapons of mass destruction prior to the war by the UN inspection team. What part of this don't you understand? Now no weapons have been found, even though Iraq has been subjugated by the U.S. As I said the only country to possess nuclear weapons, which by far pose the biggest threat to the world in the Middle East is Israel. And again Saddam has no missile capabilities to reach the U.S. so even assuming if he had the mustard gas or nerve agents, it was not a threat to the U.S. Once again your points are all made moot.

[Anonymouse]

Forget it surfer, read my post. MR IQ contradicted himself. IT IS OVER. We can't compete with the voices in his head.


THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE. WOOHOOOO :P
This forum is all MR IQ has, he'll type to the death to defend it.

Slightly insane-conspiracy-theory-got no girlfriend-geeks need to have a hobby.

Hahaha ad homenim attacks. The last refuge of the pointless.

You are either speakenglishordie or surferarmo. It's pretty obvious that nonsensical people have to create another alias to have someone validate their delusional claims.

Youre a funny asset to the boards. I wish you a long stay here.

[Anonymouse]

And I see you spotted a spelling error. How quaint. Do you think that makes your position any more valid? While that has nothing to do with proving your case, it has everything to do with your desperation and the fact that you must deviate from the topic at hand and go off on making me the subject. I feel quite honored.

Attempting to create contradictions where there are none, evading the issue where you know you have lost, using 5 year old references to mustard gas that has no capability of reaching the U.S., trying to compensate for your lack of comprehension in "What part of the fact that Hans Blix and the UN Inspection team saying that Iraq poses no threat, don't you understand?", with trying to name call.

How many times do you have to go in circular logic to know youre defeated?

[jahannam]

does this mean Anonymouse wins?
:mrgreen: