Printable View
knoledgesponge nuclear warheads do not launch they are in explosive devices like a fire cracker. In order for saddam to "launch" anything at the us he would have to have an ICBM which he does not have. All that saddam does have is a scud missile which as this link illustrates is only slightly modernized WW2 technology.Quote:
you can launch a nuke from thousands of miles away it doesnt have to be launched from a plane. but thanks for stateing your opinion
Do you really expect any educated person to believe that!
This is really pathetic, an iraqi site quoting UN regulation.
Hey knoledgesponge! Compleate this slogan by JFK "Ask not...."
That is an American flag your flying, right !?!
I wouldn't trust a geocities site to explain Bushes plan for war with Iraq. Goto CNN.com to check first, it's a lot more reliable than a geocities site.
Also, IF we used a nuke, it would be a last resort. If sadam proved to tough to beat the president may use it. The chances of a nuke being fired by the US is slim though.
Britain and America do not, a coalition make...it's about the OIL. It'a always about the oil. Look up Haliburton(Dick Cheney's company), they've been trading with Iraq. But why would we want to mention that when there's more "money" to be made? As long as we pay a buck and a half for our 10 mile a gallon SUVs.....
If one got honest news from CNN and FOX then we wouldn't be in this situation. Do your own research...."the truth is out there",...but are you strong enough to accept it?
Also who the **** are we to decide who runs Iraq?!?!?! Much like who the **** are the Chinese to decide who's Prez in America!
Mahakaal I do agree with you that the real driving force behind any military action in Iraq will be oil. I also havent investigated Haliburton but I wont doubt it for a second that GW and Cheney and alot of other people would benefit financially from a new Iraqi government which is friendly to the U.S. Just look at the situation with North Korea who have openly admitted that they have nuclear devices and they are going to move into full scale production of those devices. Will we invade North Korea as a result of these relevations? Probably not. But I do believe that the U.S. as a world power does have a moral obligation to help out those in need. That is why I would support military action in Iraq with a broad coalition and international support including the UN. However action with anything other than a broad coalition would simply be irresponsible. :D
all_smiles, Scud is a very short range missile, around 180 km. Saddam does have missiles with range of around 3,000 km but you hit the nail in that he definitely doesn't have intercontinental ballistic missiles. See HERE if you want to know more about Iraqi missiles and their coverage.
I think the whole idea of attacking Iraq is a bit dull, just like Mahakaal said, "who the **** are we to decide who runs Iraq?!?!?!". I believe Saddam will leave the world in peace if he's not attacked. Bush is just trying to complete something that his dad failed to do. Iraq has even announced that the UN weapon inspectors can freely come and check the places for weapons of mass destruction. Sure, they can hide them but this is a big step anyway.
ntsa, the missing "w" in knoledgesponge's name is probably the least of his problems. ;)
/me giggles at www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles10/nuke.htm
even the address seems really official >_<;
might go sign up and with geocities and make a site proclaiming that I am a God, Souleman & ntsa are the joint heads of an orginisation which rules the whole planet & Greekgoddess is actually just a very pretty man with a femine voice ;)
but because it would be on the web it would all be true - lol
/me wlaks off shaking head & giggling
v_Ln
What is true and untrue is ambiguous at times and everyone has a different train of thought upon this subject( as you can see by reading these posts and by also watching the news on TV. One argument after the other. I do not like the idea of war so many innocents will die. I had a Muslim woman for a patient once, she told me that jihad (or holy war) is allowed only if someone if trying to take your home or land or trying to force you to change your religion. The Koran teaches much the same as our Bible. As she said many people will use their religion as an excuse to destroy. However, if war does come I would definitly support our cause with all my effort. I thank God that I don't live in Afganistan or any other third world country(my husband says I would be dead within the week for opening my mouth. LOL) I am thankful to be free and would fight for that priviledge Auntie
Correction for you, Jihad does NOT translate as "holy war". But I can understand why we would choose to refer to it as that. What with so many muslim loonies declaring Jihad left, right and center :D . But Jihad means "(to) struggle".Quote:
Originally posted here by auntie
I had a Muslim woman for a patient once, she told me that jihad (or holy war) is allowed only if someone if trying to take your home or land or trying to force you to change your religion.....I thank God that I don't live in Afganistan or any other third world country(my husband says I would be dead within the week for opening my mouth. LOL) I am thankful to be free and would fight for that priviledge Auntie
Also a question for you...what "third" World countries have you been to? Or your husband?
Thx in advance for replying :)
LOL.....CNN?! The propaganda machine of the US. I'd be more likely to believe something scrawled on the wall of a public toilet than anything CNN report.... ;)Quote:
Originally posted here by l33tp3t3y
I wouldn't trust a geocities site to explain Bushes plan for war with Iraq. Goto CNN.com to check first, it's a lot more reliable than a geocities site.