|
| quote: | Originally posted by ABTsportsline
actually that is incorrect, shelf life on some chemical weapons is damn near forever. Like anthrax, for instance - there is no expiration, which makes it extremely difficult to get rid of it.
And as for Saddam having enough chem/bio warfare to kill every person on this planet, it is proven but i hope you understand i cant give you access to the official DoD site. I haven't been to these places myself (they are in the heart of iraq), but have seen videos of these grounds, which had several armed guards walking around in HazMat suits around miles and miles (as far as the eye can see) of stored canisters of this stuff - and that was just one production facility.
As far as the hospitals with people and weapons in them, its quite hard to stage a "rescue" operation from a hospital in the middle of an enemy's stronghold - you could send 100 of your soldiers in there and they'd die, period dot! The US does not bomb every hospital and mosque, so don't be alarmed.... and however cruel saddam may be at storing weapons in hospitals and the like, usually he vacates them from patients, so its not an all-the-time thing that innocents get killed.
As far as tranced farmers question about the hospitals, etc in afghanistan, we can blame intelligence for that. We also learned our lesson from that. We relied heavily on afghani-intelligence b/c of their familiarity with the country (obviously). problem was, we didn't realize that there were hundreds of different warlords vying for control of the country once the taliban was overthrown, so we were getting false intelligence FROM their people! Again, i work in Intel. and i have seen these reports myself. Its unfortunate, and granted, the US should not have simply gone off word from some groups, but there was a lot more involved, and a lot of good intelligence offered to us first to earn our "trust" with bombings.
And, again, the US carries the brunt of the verbal assaults from news crews around the world, b/c seriously, would you be that upset about it if their own people caused the bombings? No, however your attention would be drawn if the USA had anything to do with it.
Again, back to the easily-adopted "Blame the US"-isms going on around here...
-ABT- |
im not talking about aghanistan... in iraq during the last ten years many civilian housing units, hospitals, businesses and non militrary targets have been hit... so many examples its mindboggling... and tonight, i will go into some archives and share some of this later... its hard to say that their choice of using missles fired from the sky is better than other forms of combat, cause either way people get injured or perish, but the amount of "mistakes" that they made and the amount of human beings that died is saddening.... there is a good deal of information on all of this out their... its heart-breaking to read about human beings being dealt with in such a way.. and for what... i have read stories and heard lectures by professors that have caused me to cry. i used to be much more socially conscious than i am now, but what i gained from all of my studies was not a hatred for the U.S. (even though i enjoy joking about it sometimes) but a frustraition with its actions towards others. in reality i have no reason to spam the United staets, its just another player in the game, and not the worst either. but i feel responsible to dictate my objection to continued offensives into a country that doesnt know whats coming... with no electronic communications in rural communities, mistakes happening, people unexpectedly dying, losing crops, losing their business, losing their water source... it blows me away... i dont think that iraq should be dealt with using violence... but, i also recognise that our world is addicted to violence, it sponsors growth and progress in many ways... economically, physically, even mentally...
i once read a book by one of my favorite authors, Thomas Merton, a Trappist Monk from Kentucky... It was a collection of essays on Non-Violence called The Non-Violent Alternative . It was published in the face of the Vietnam and "Cold war and discusses many of the issues we are discussing here.. check it out... he does not consider himself a pacifist, and that is what you will find most interesting about his veiws...
|
Ok, a joke...
