TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Reality Of War
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Great post yoepus!!! You have far more patience to research the details of facts than me. I do disagree with a few of your statements however

Ok lets get at them...

quote:

You misrepresent the purpose of depleted uranium shells.

You are right, it was not my intention. The paragraph you quoted, was incorrectly quoted in my reply and should be credit to Renegade. If you will follow the paragraph below that you will see my real thoughts. Regardless of their use in weaponized for, the use of depleted-uranium is also used on armor to strength it. Therefore, even if the US might not have fired depleted-uranium shells, the hulls of some Iraqi tanks perhaps contained this material and cause the supposed "contamination". In all fairness however as I pointed out, we don't know the effects of depleted uranium as not enough research has been done, and seond we don't know who actually did use it or not.

quote:

The second remark that I disagree with is poking fun at renegade for taking time to make a responsce . In all fairness we took some time to make our responces as well hehe.

I'll agree here too, although I did not mean it as a joke against Renegade... simply the length of my reply however made me damn well feel it should take a few days to reply I'd be insulted any other way, but I give Kudos to both you and Renegade for staying up with this thread .... just as its getting interesting, and horribly long-winded

Actually allow me to correct myself after doing more research in the matter. While DU rounds do not carry explosive or incindiary charges, the round itself relies on the pyrophoric properties of uranium to generate heat on impact. This heat aids the round in penetrating through steel plating into the interior of the vehicle. Seems like a bloody effective weapon against tanks.

And a lot of people post websites that seem to overdramatasize the effects of DU rounds and contain something like 5 paragraphs of content. I read the World Health Organizations's investigation into DU shells at Kosovo and I was actually surprised by the results. Essentially the conclusions reached were that the only real way that the DU can be POTENTIALLY harmful to civilans is if it were contaminate water supplies. However it concludes that this would be very unlikely since it is a solid, very slow degrading metallic form. The only real threat would be if a round were to fall directly into a village well or something like that, and no cases of such were found in Kosovo. Here's one quote:

quote:

Unnecessary speculation and anxiety about the potential for risks from depleted uranium, which, from what the mission can judge so far, are not present or minimal, are being fuelled by the different opinions expressed as a consequence of the normal process of scientific debate, as well as by the lack of a common communication strategy.

Here's the full report:

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiati...uranium_Eng.pdf

For the conclusions fast forward to pages 25-30. I might just change my mind on DU shells after all.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus You are right, it was not my intention. The paragraph you quoted, was incorrectly quoted in my reply and should be credit to Renegade.

Whoops my mistake.

quote:

I'll agree here too, although I did not mean it as a joke against Renegade... simply the length of my reply however made me damn well feel it should take a few days to reply

Haha yes a good argument does take a while to research.

quote:

I'd be insulted any other way, but I give Kudos to both you and Renegade for staying up with this thread .... just as its getting interesting, and horribly long-winded

If you ask me, when they start getting long-winded is when the threads get good. All the one-post flamers are gone and those that are actually interested in discussing the issue are left.

It is now becoming extremely shameful to live in this fucking country... i cant believe they are actually doing this.

these photos are media propoganda probably by some greasy french reporter.

The fact is iraqi children are dancing on american british and every other westerners grave who are captured and killed by them.

Who shot down that coalition helicopter. An iraqi farmer. Thats who. so fuck them and fuck everybody else who doesn't support our men and women out there.

What is on the front page of the scottish tabloids. iraqi children celebrating about the capture and inevitable excexution of our men. so fuck them.

quote:

Originally posted by chesco these photos are media propoganda probably by some greasy french reporter. The fact is iraqi children are dancing on american british and every other westerners grave who are captured and killed by them. Who shot down that coalition helicopter. An iraqi farmer. Thats who. so fuck them and fuck everybody else who doesn't support our men and women out there. What is on the front page of the scottish tabloids. iraqi children celebrating about the capture and inevitable excexution of our men. so fuck them.

makes you wonder why the US is in their the first place?.. if the iraqis feel this way aobut the allied troops it only shows that they do not want them invading their country.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit makes you wonder why the US is in their the first place?.. if the iraqis feel this way aobut the allied troops it only shows that they do not want them invading their country.

This may sound really childish, but the only reason bush sent his men in there is to finish the job his daddy started. It's not about protecting iraqi people, it's not about oil it's about bush trying to live up to daddy.

There was no talk of iraq until 9/11, so bush uses this to fire bogus claims on iraq about his part in these atrocities, and so has reason to go in and start bombing.

quote:

Originally posted by chesco This may sound really childish, but the only reason bush sent his men in there is to finish the job his daddy started. It's not about protecting iraqi people, it's not about oil it's about bush trying to live up to daddy. There was no talk of iraq until 9/11, so bush uses this to fire bogus claims on iraq about his part in these atrocities, and so has reason to go in and start bombing.

right... thats very logical... bush never mentioned iraq until 9/11 when all of a sudden he realized he has to start living up to his daddy and do him a favor. it couldnt be that simply after 9/11 bush realized we shouldnt wait to deal with threating countries and orginizations who would target the western world... naa that cant be, its too simple an answer...

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy right... thats very logical... bush never mentioned iraq until 9/11 when all of a sudden he realized he has to start living up to his daddy and do him a favor. it couldnt be that simply after 9/11 bush realized we shouldnt wait to deal with threating countries and orginizations who would target the western world... naa that cant be, its too simple an answer...

they've always had something against iraq.. i think 9/11 was just an excuse to go back there


there is no link between iraq and al quaida... at least not yet.. think about it.. how many of the high jackers were iraqi.. i thought most of them were egyptian heh.. i hope egypt isnt next on the list!

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit they've always had something against iraq.. i think 9/11 was just an excuse to go back there

i'll agree, i was just argueing the arguement with chesco that bush never mentioned iraq before 9/11

quote:

there is no link between iraq and al quaida... at least not yet.. think about it.. how many of the high jackers were iraqi.. i thought most of them were egyptian heh.. i hope egypt isnt next on the list!

i can differentiate between the threat iraq poses and the threat al-qaeda poses. there may or may not be a link between the two, to me this is irrelevent. i think that 9/11 helped Bush realize that there are threats to the US and the western world and we must not sit idle and let them materialize. regardless of connections to 9/11 a threat is a threat and the US has chosen to eliminate those threats it deems nessaccary.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i'll agree, i was just argueing the arguement with chesco that bush never mentioned iraq before 9/11 i can differentiate between the threat iraq poses and the threat al-qaeda poses. there may or may not be a link between the two, to me this is irrelevent. i think that 9/11 helped Bush realize that there are threats to the US and the western world and we must not sit idle and let them materialize. regardless of connections to 9/11 a threat is a threat and the US has chosen to eliminate those threats it deems nessaccary.

that is still not an excuse.. 9/11 was terrorism.. how in the world is iraq going to attack the US.. he didnt even mention how they could do it.. and didnt even proove that they do have chemical weapons..

no immediate threat.. no reason to go to war.. conclusion

dont go to war really it is that simple.. the UN would have handled the situation fine.. in a more respectable humane manner

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit that is still not an excuse.. 9/11 was terrorism.. how in the world is iraq going to attack the US.. he didnt even mention how they could do it.. and didnt even proove that they do have chemical weapons.. no immediate threat.. no reason to go to war.. conclusion dont go to war really it is that simple.. the UN would have handled the situation fine.. in a more respectable humane manner

He didn't have to prove there were chemical weapons ... Iraq's lack of full compliance with inspections is reason enough to invalidate the truce agreement. There are no degrees of freedom in this. Iraq is either fully complying or they are not. They have played games the past 11 years ... finally, when directly threatened with stiff consequences they still play games. They give up supposed "concessions" only when tension builds up, when they are not even concessions at all. They were demands that they failed to uphold. If you call the UN taking 11 years to handle a situation just fine, without resolution, I would hate to see a situation that the UN is not handling fine. Also it's not a question about immediate threat. The situation demands that there be NO threat. None whatsoever as stipulated by the truce agreement! Saying otherwise would be similar to saying that acting against germany in 1936 would be wrong. That action should only be taken in 1939 when they actually CONSTITUTED a threat.

Yes yes, I know that Iraq is nothing like Germany, I'm merely using it as an example. In 1936 France had a MUCH larger army than Germany and could have defeated them easily when the rhineland was remilitarized. However, the French did nothing until ... well until Germany invaded France. The point I'm getting at is that it's negligent to await until IMMEDIATE threats occur. Because typically at that point immediate threats become actual threats.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The point I'm getting at is that it's negligent to await until IMMEDIATE threats occur. Because typically at that point immediate threats become actual threats.

YES IT IS

if someone is prone to murder someone you dont charge him guilty with murder.. you investigate and give counciling or something.. you dont give them the death sentance

When iraq is suspected of using weapons of mass destruction.. you go about the UN process and investigate.. if they dont comply.. slightly increase the intensity of investigations.. DO NOT go to war and eliminate their army/ take over the country

they were even complying.. they started destroying the missles and so forth


and how IS iraq a threat to the US.. compared to other countries

the fact is they are not.. and the reason for going to war was not justified

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit YES IT IS if someone is prone to murder someone you dont charge him guilty with murder.. you investigate and give counciling or something.. you dont give them the death sentance When iraq is suspected of using weapons of mass destruction.. you go about the UN process and investigate.. if they dont comply.. slightly increase the intensity of investigations.. DO NOT go to war and eliminate their army/ take over the country they were even complying.. they started destroying the missles and so forth and how IS iraq a threat to the US.. compared to other countries the fact is they are not.. and the reason for going to war was not justified

I've used this analogy before but, instead envisioning Iraq as an innocent man, envision it as a convicted felon that is out on parole. In such circumstances they either comply with the conditions of the parole or they go back to jail. There are no ifs, ands, buts about it ... if a you find that a parolee has a gun do you let me him off the hook if he offers to give it up and swears that he doesn't have anymore?

And I've never said that Iraq posed a threat to the US. He does however pose a threat to the region.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And I've never said that Iraq posed a threat to the US. He does however pose a threat to the region.

THATS NOT the reason however that the president has fooled the people into going to war about tho.. he is claiming that iraq is a danger to the western world

they are a long way from developing arms that would be able to accomplish this.. :P so it is totally not practical...

so when you are putting the person on parol back in jail.. make sure you have a reason for putting him back in jail instead of beating around the bush..

where is the evidence?

supicion is not enough

and as well.. war is a much bigger deal!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.