Activity Stream
227,828 MEMBERS
11057 ONLINE
greengrassforums On YouTube Subscribe to our Newsletter greengrassforums On Twitter greengrassforums On Facebook greengrassforums On Google+
banner1

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 75
  1.     
    #21
    Senior Member

    Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

    Quote Originally Posted by killerweed420
    So they got a little mustard gas? Who doesn't. We probably sold it to them. We used chemical weapons in Iraq. So its pretty hypocritical to say we can have them but you can't.
    White phosphorous,napalm,uranium sabots.

    Big difference when you use weapons of that nature against hundreds of thousands of unarmed men, women, and children, as opposed to using them against armed, uniformed, soldiers that are actually fighting.
    They are still finding mass graves and bodies, piles and piles of them.

  2.     
    #22
    Senior Member

    Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

    Quote Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
    Big difference when you use weapons of that nature against hundreds of thousands of unarmed men, women, and children, as opposed to using them against armed, uniformed, soldiers that are actually fighting.
    They are still finding mass graves and bodies, piles and piles of them.
    A lot of this was used against civilian populations. Kind of hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys in Iraq.

  3.   Advertisements

  4.     
    #23
    Senior Member

    Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

    Quote Originally Posted by killerweed420
    A lot of this was used against civilian populations. Kind of hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys in Iraq.
    Please define, "alot of this", and "civillian populations", I must have missed when this happened.:jointsmile:

    OK, I am calling BULLSHIT.
    I know that there are unintentional civilian casualties in every war, there hasn't ever been a war that hasn't happened in.
    That's not what Saddam did, and he wasn't confused when he wiped out entire towns of citizens of his own nation. Trying to equivicate what WE have done in Iraq to Saddam, Hitler, is just a little beyond ridiculous. It is also a predictable, factually false, and boring counter. I would be happy to post and match incident by incident of examples of Saddam doing just what I have described, and you could post comparable examples of us doing the same right?:wtf: Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. But seriousely that is really reaching, and vague at best.
    So lets review, is there a difference between civillian casualties in the act of war that are un-intentional as compared to a small armed group from your own government rolling into town, raping women and children, then executing all person and throwing them in a giant hole? Is gassing an entire village of unarmed, unknowing, citizens of your own country just because, not even during any declared war the same as collateral damage during a declared war the same? Is this what you are saying?:wtf::wtf:

    If you could find a way to make "kinda of hard to tell the civillians from the enemy" rhyme or fit on a bumper sticker then you would be in business!:thumbsup:

  5.     
    #24
    Senior Member

    Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

    What Sadamm did was absolutely horrible. But we did the same in the name of freeing the Iraqi people.We used white phosphorus bombs and napalm the first couple of years and as usual a lot of civilians died.
    Just one quote but there are numerous available.
    BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq
    I think Americans get a little sanctimonious about everything we do is the right thing to do. I think a lot of times we are more wrong than we are right and history tends to prove it.

  6.     
    #25
    Senior Member

    Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

    Quote Originally Posted by killerweed420
    What Sadamm did was absolutely horrible. But we did the same in the name of freeing the Iraqi people.We used white phosphorus bombs and napalm the first couple of years and as usual a lot of civilians died.
    Just one quote but there are numerous available.
    BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq
    I think Americans get a little sanctimonious about everything we do is the right thing to do. I think a lot of times we are more wrong than we are right and history tends to prove it.
    It does not say we used it for a couple years. It said during the battle of Falluja, and ONLY against insurgents (I guess these are civilians to the left).
    \"I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.\"
    Benjamin Franklin
    i\'d rather not be told by the all powerful state how far i may rise and how much i can accumulate. i\'d rather have the freedom to fail than the mediocrity of an enforced comfortable poverty. a free market allows such a life. all else is slavery.DelusionsofNormalty
    .

  7.     
    #26
    Senior Member

    Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

    Quote Originally Posted by killerweed420
    What Sadamm did was absolutely horrible. But we did the same in the name of freeing the Iraqi people.We used white phosphorus bombs and napalm the first couple of years and as usual a lot of civilians died.
    Just one quote but there are numerous available.
    BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq
    I think Americans get a little sanctimonious about everything we do is the right thing to do. I think a lot of times we are more wrong than we are right and history tends to prove it.
    Just so we are clear, the fact the you are claiming "as usual lots of civilians died" is not supported anywhere in the link that YOU provided. Also not supported is YOUR claim that we used these legal weapons the FIRST COUPLE YEARS. It actually says the contrary. I am going to post the entire article you are siting so that someone can show me where it says "as usual lots of civilians were killed".
    Did you even read this article?:wtf:

    US used white phosphorus in Iraq
    US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

    "It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
    The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
    BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
    Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

    White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon
    Col Barry Venable
    Pentagon spokesman

    Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.
    The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.
    Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".
    'Incendiary'
    The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.
    Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.
    "However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

    WHITE PHOSPHORUS
    Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
    Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
    Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
    Protocol III not signed by US



    And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.
    It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.
    He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.
    "The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.
    San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.
    However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.
    'Particularly nasty'
    White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.
    Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."
    A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.
    But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.
    He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people." When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

    Story from BBC NEWS:
    BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq

    Published: 2005/11/16 11:25:36 GMT

    © BBC MMVIII

    So again, I fail to see how this supports yours, or anyone else's claim that we or that GWB is just as horrible as Saddam?
    I do appreciate the lively debate, and the maturity that you have, it is far beyond the way most handle these discussions, so I applaud you for that. With all do respect though, you are dead wrong with what you are saying.:jointsmile: And nothing in this article supports what you are saying, it actually contradicts what you are saying.

  8.     
    #27
    Senior Member

    Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

    Quote Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
    Big difference when you use weapons of that nature against hundreds of thousands of unarmed men, women, and children, as opposed to using them against armed, uniformed, soldiers that are actually fighting.
    They are still finding mass graves and bodies, piles and piles of them.

    So we are back where we started killerweed.:jointsmile: Big ass world of difference between us and them.:thumbsup:

  9.     
    #28
    Senior Member

    Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
    How could anyone state that Saddam didn't need to be removed? Well, I guess Obama and his supporters would. :wtf:

    Have a good one!:s4:
    Your understanding of the issues at hand here isn't any deeper than that which led you to post a story that didn't even have its facts straight.

    If you'll look back at news stories and voting records, you'll find that the actual events of history go against your ridiculous statement above. Dems have known since before the first Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was awful. Bush the First did and the opposing party members of the legislature acknowledged that during his administration. Clinton knew well that he was dangerous. No one on either side of the aisle has ever disputed that. Our allies in Israel and Jordan have known this for ages, too. Again, that was never in dispute, just like the existence of this yellowcake wasn't.

    What Dems did dispute is what Dragonrider explained earlier--a war based on the lies about the obtaining of enriched nuclear material from Niger. On lies to damage the ambassador whose report denied the existence of stockpiled weapons (this yellowcake was moot in that inventory and we've been aware of it for years). On the Addington-Cheney-driven scramble to create intelligence that fostered circumstances under which we could go to war.

    Read your history. Read about Kurdistan. Read something from a legitimate news source. Please. You'll be better prepared. And you'll see that no Dem with any understanding of these issues has ever believed anything else other than that Saddam Hussein was a crazy, murdering SOB. Was that justification for a war? Well, it hasn't been justification for a war against the countries in the hands of the other crazy SOB dictators of the world that the Bush administration has been fine to leave in place. So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems. Since there were vast amounts of oil at stake here, though, it had to be justified by the Repubs.
    [SIZE=\"4\"]\"That best portion of a good man\'s life: his little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and love.\"[/SIZE]
    [align=center]William Wordsworth, English poet (1770 - 1850)[/align]

  10.     
    #29
    Senior Member

    Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

    I don't get it.
    From what I know, there were multiple, multiple, reasons for invading, not just 1 single piece of intel. If this debate is framed in such a manner as to limit the reasons for going to war to just that 1 item then I guess you have a point. That was not the sole reason though. I could be wrong.
    One point worth mentioning that is never brought up, invading, toppling the Saddam government has given a huge geo-political advantage in the mid east, which we can use as leverage against Iran. N. Korea has shown in recent days progress through diplomatic channels, (though how much who really knows).
    How long was it after the fall of Saddam that the little tyrant in Libya(sp), I want to say Kadafi, basically threw up his hands and confessed to having WMDs himself simply out of fear. (I am sorry for some reason my memory is failing me at the moment so if anyone knows what I am referencing just jump in.)
    But the point is, that would not have happened had we not invaded and conquered. Unless you believe it was just a coincedence.:wtf:
    Oil is a big deal you are right, for the world not just us. Yet as we speak I just filled up for 4.67 per gallon, so again I fail to see the benefits of all that oil we are getting.
    Strategery!
    We cannot be everywhere all at once, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything. If that's the argument (that we aren't taking on other evil doers so why did we go to Iraq?) That's kind of weak. So it would be ok to take out Saddam as long as we also toppled every other single government that was being ran by a tyrant. Somehow I don't think the left would support that, as well as the fact that it is not realistic. You have to choose your battles. How comfortable do you think the mullahs in Iran are right now, knowing that they now have a fledgling democracy forming next door. And that the influence of that alone may topple Iran as it is today.
    Strategery.
    We had a tyrant, whom had already demonstrated that he was willing to kill hundreds of thousands of his own innocent people with WMD's, and had expressed a desire to do the same to us. Not such a big deal until we are hit at home on 9/11 by terrorists. From that point on we have a situation where we have a world leader with the means to supply these terrorists with all sorts of nice things. We have a man that is paying 10s of thousands of dollars to people to blow themselves up in public places for the sole purpose of killing Jews, and bragging about it. Does anyone still think it was a needless military action, and that he couldn't do anything to us? Personally himself likely not, but I bet my last bowl that he would go way out of his way to help anyone else that wanted to kill infadels in America. Like I said, he was already doing it to Israel.
    If we weren't justified in taking action, then what would it take exactly to justify taking action?
    In closing, I challenge anyone that believes the world would be better off if we would have never gone in their to explain exactly how we would be better off. Not to mention the people that actually live in Iraq, how would they be better off today with Saddam in power still? I am sure they would strongly disagree.:jointsmile:

  11.     
    #30
    Senior Member

    Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

    Quote Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
    Just so we are clear, the fact the you are claiming "as usual lots of civilians died" is not supported anywhere in the link that YOU provided. Also not supported is YOUR claim that we used these legal weapons the FIRST COUPLE YEARS. It actually says the contrary. I am going to post the entire article you are siting so that someone can show me where it says "as usual lots of civilians were killed".
    Did you even read this article?:wtf:

    US used white phosphorus in Iraq
    US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

    "It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
    The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
    BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
    Col Venable denied that white phosphorous constituted a banned chemical weapon.

    White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon
    Col Barry Venable
    Pentagon spokesman

    Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.
    The US state department had earlier said white phosphorus had been used in Falluja very sparingly, for illumination purposes.
    Col Venable said that statement was based on "poor information".
    'Incendiary'
    The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.
    Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.
    "However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

    WHITE PHOSPHORUS
    Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
    Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
    Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
    Protocol III not signed by US



    And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was a "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.
    It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.
    He said US forces could use white phosphorus rounds to flush enemy troops out of covered positions.
    "The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.
    San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.
    However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.
    'Particularly nasty'
    White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.
    Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."
    A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.
    But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.
    He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people." When an Italian TV documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

    Story from BBC NEWS:
    BBC NEWS | Middle East | US used white phosphorus in Iraq

    Published: 2005/11/16 11:25:36 GMT

    © BBC MMVIII

    So again, I fail to see how this supports yours, or anyone else's claim that we or that GWB is just as horrible as Saddam?
    I do appreciate the lively debate, and the maturity that you have, it is far beyond the way most handle these discussions, so I applaud you for that. With all do respect though, you are dead wrong with what you are saying.:jointsmile: And nothing in this article supports what you are saying, it actually contradicts what you are saying.
    The catch here is this is how many times the Pentagon says these chemicals were used. How often does the Pentagon tell the truth? The 100's of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died are reported in numerous web sites. Of course no way to know how many really died because all the infrastucture was destroyed. Estimates are anywhere from 40,000 civilians to over a million.
    Iraq Body Count
    Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Are You A Lefty Or A Righty?
    By wholapola in forum GreenGrassForums Lounge
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 09-20-2007, 01:58 AM
  2. Men: Lefty or Righty?
    By jdub61 in forum Sexuality and Relationships
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-06-2007, 05:29 AM
  3. Metric or Imperial? I like a healthy mix
    By canuck grower in forum Growing Information
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-29-2007, 01:50 AM
  4. Bush Administration lied
    By BlueCat in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-07-2005, 06:37 AM
  5. The Metric System
    By Tilde in forum GreenGrassForums Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-15-2004, 06:42 PM
Amount:

Enter a message for the receiver:
BE SOCIAL
GreenGrassForums On Facebook