If they ceased, then UN inspectors had no reason to be denied access then huh??Bertster7 wrote:
You mean the weapons programs that the Iraq survey group concluded had ceased in 1991?usmarine2007 wrote:
Ummm...remember the scuds? No need for him to improve on that.Bertster7 wrote:
Which weapons were those then?
No, not really.lowing wrote:
If they ceased, then UN inspectors had no reason to be denied access then huh??Bertster7 wrote:
You mean the weapons programs that the Iraq survey group concluded had ceased in 1991?usmarine2007 wrote:
Ummm...remember the scuds? No need for him to improve on that.
But then maybe Saddam was right and there were evil US spies amongst the inspectors.
Nevertheless, he stopped making weapons in '91 and destroyed his stockpiles.
Right. No need to destroy something the UN paid for.Bertster7 wrote:
You mean the weapons programs that the Iraq survey group concluded had ceased in 1991?usmarine2007 wrote:
Ummm...remember the scuds? No need for him to improve on that.Bertster7 wrote:
Which weapons were those then?
not according to this http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/missile.htmlBertster7 wrote:
No, not really.lowing wrote:
If they ceased, then UN inspectors had no reason to be denied access then huh??Bertster7 wrote:
You mean the weapons programs that the Iraq survey group concluded had ceased in 1991?
But then maybe Saddam was right and there were evil US spies amongst the inspectors.
Nevertheless, he stopped making weapons in '91 and destroyed his stockpiles.
Really?lowing wrote:
not according to this http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/missile.htmlBertster7 wrote:
No, not really.lowing wrote:
If they ceased, then UN inspectors had no reason to be denied access then huh??
But then maybe Saddam was right and there were evil US spies amongst the inspectors.
Nevertheless, he stopped making weapons in '91 and destroyed his stockpiles.
All sounds ok to me.Under UN Resolution 687, Iraq was prohibited from possessing or developing any missile with a range beyond 150 km. Iraq responded by investing its resources in efforts to build missiles within the permitted range.
Ridiculous.m3thod wrote:
Why do you use the UN when it only fits your own little arguments?!lowing wrote:
The UN bud.m3thod wrote:
The world would include France and Russia. Well, there goes that little theory.
What about me? I fink Bush is a Oil Nazi and he's unfortunately got your country a tad buggered.
Nope, no one is "buggered" here except the liberals that will do anything and say anything, even at the cost of national security and soldiers lives to get the white house back.
Fact: UN did not percieve Iraq a threat to US National Security. Dress it up all you want in you cute little neo con cowboy outfit. Doesn't make a difference.
Then you have sand in your ears and eyes.Bertster7 wrote:
Really?lowing wrote:
not according to this http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/missile.htmlBertster7 wrote:
No, not really.
But then maybe Saddam was right and there were evil US spies amongst the inspectors.
Nevertheless, he stopped making weapons in '91 and destroyed his stockpiles.All sounds ok to me.Under UN Resolution 687, Iraq was prohibited from possessing or developing any missile with a range beyond 150 km. Iraq responded by investing its resources in efforts to build missiles within the permitted range.
from the same article.
"Long-Range Missile Work
Prior to the second Gulf War, it seemed highly unlikely that Iraq had abandoned its quest for long-range missiles. Iraq had reportedly conducted computer design studies for missiles with proscribed ranges (including IRBM and ICBM missiles), and it had tried to buy components for such missiles, including the 1995 purchase of 120 gyroscopes and accelerometers for long-range missiles from a Russian firm."
Last edited by lowing (2007-01-22 18:27:50)
No he does not. That stuff is false, it was really brownies and milk.lowing wrote:
Then you have sand in your ears and eyes.Bertster7 wrote:
Really?All sounds ok to me.Under UN Resolution 687, Iraq was prohibited from possessing or developing any missile with a range beyond 150 km. Iraq responded by investing its resources in efforts to build missiles within the permitted range.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/missile.html
Iraq deemed Kuwait as a threat, since it was stealing it's livelyhood with slant drilling. period.lowing wrote:
It isn't the same, but the US will do what it deems neciessary for our own security. Iraq and its non-compliance was deemed as threat to us and our allies. period.
Care to back that up with a link?
Saddam was a great guy. . .
Invaded a neighboring country, used bioweapons on his own civilians, killed hundreds of thousands of people, tortured hundreds of thousands more, violated specific UN ceasefire resolutions hundreds of times. . .raised two psychotic sons (question when Saddam were to relinquish power, who do you think would have run that country?? Would they side with al-Qaeda? would they have further developed nuclear weapons?? guess we'll never know. . .they're dead!) who raped, tortured, killed Iraqi civilians. . .shall I go on?
Invaded a neighboring country, used bioweapons on his own civilians, killed hundreds of thousands of people, tortured hundreds of thousands more, violated specific UN ceasefire resolutions hundreds of times. . .raised two psychotic sons (question when Saddam were to relinquish power, who do you think would have run that country?? Would they side with al-Qaeda? would they have further developed nuclear weapons?? guess we'll never know. . .they're dead!) who raped, tortured, killed Iraqi civilians. . .shall I go on?
I live in Australia were we all share and u dont bring your religion to the table or the party.
But if u do your a fool as we aussies live very well and want to share.
Bring religious stupidity to our partys and bbqs and u and your mates can go sit at home and not enjoy cold beers, good company and good food.
AMEN
But if u do your a fool as we aussies live very well and want to share.
Bring religious stupidity to our partys and bbqs and u and your mates can go sit at home and not enjoy cold beers, good company and good food.
AMEN
I live in America where we embrace our differences and invite engaging conversations. How you handle them is what may get you kicked out of party.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Amended Fact: The UN security council did not perceive Iraq as an immediate threat to the national security of the United States of America.lowing wrote:
FACT.....Yer wrong............... http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18252.pdfm3thod wrote:
Why do you use the UN when it only fits your own little arguments?!lowing wrote:
The UN bud.
Nope, no one is "buggered" here except the liberals that will do anything and say anything, even at the cost of national security and soldiers lives to get the white house back.
Fact: UN did not perceive Iraq a threat to US National Security. Dress it up all you want in you cute little neo con cowboy outfit. Doesn't make a difference.
for more of your security council reading enjoyment, just read the headlines... http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
1441 is a load of horsehit. I bet Powell feels like a used muppet.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Oh my god... 20 pages...
this is ridiculous.
I was gonna post some discussion, but theres just too damn much to read. Sorry!
this is ridiculous.
I was gonna post some discussion, but theres just too damn much to read. Sorry!
Well theres the 'we hate muslims: little brother' thread that started up yesterday and is only 2 pages so fardjphetal wrote:
Oh my god... 20 pages...
this is ridiculous.
I was gonna post some discussion, but theres just too damn much to read. Sorry!
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=61629&p=2
Sweet!crimson_grunt wrote:
Well theres the 'we hate muslims: little brother' thread that started up yesterday and is only 2 pages so fardjphetal wrote:
Oh my god... 20 pages...
this is ridiculous.
I was gonna post some discussion, but theres just too damn much to read. Sorry!
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=61629&p=2
Saddam was a paranoid monster........fadedsteve wrote:
Saddam was a great guy. . .
Invaded a neighboring country, used bioweapons on his own civilians, killed hundreds of thousands of people, tortured hundreds of thousands more, violated specific UN ceasefire resolutions hundreds of times. . .raised two psychotic sons (question when Saddam were to relinquish power, who do you think would have run that country?? Would they side with al-Qaeda? would they have further developed nuclear weapons?? guess we'll never know. . .they're dead!) who raped, tortured, killed Iraqi civilians. . .shall I go on?
Steve, the invasion you speak of. Was that Iran which was USA backed and funded or Kuwait which wasn't?
Was that killing of hundreds of thousands of people done when the Kurds revolted thinking we would come to their rescue, but instead we stopped in Kuwait leaving them to their fate?
No they wouldn't side with Al Qaeda, they want a Muslim supper state/world as such. which would have meant Saddam loosing power.
who says we ( europeans ) are not fighting terrorism ? We have laws designed to protect us from violent radicals ( of every background, btw, not just the islamists ) and our various law enforcement agencies keep a close eye on them.lowing wrote:
And they are combating all those other problems, are they not? Why ignore the Muslim issues?Bubbalo wrote:
They also have problems with crime, employment, literacy and a slew of other things. In fact, the problems of any country are innumerable. The question is whether any one problem outweighs others.ATG wrote:
Not all Muslims are bad, but to deny England, and indeed all of Europe have a Muslim problem is to deny the obvious.
We do what we can within the limits of our own laws and the framework of the international community, including the war on terror.
For example, a lot of european countries are part of the NATO mission in Afghanistan.
Seriously, what else do you want us to do ? Pre-emptively invade some muslim country ?
It actually amazes me the bullshit you American guys and talking and believe. Wow. Just wow. Seriously what is wrong with your country that it produces people like you?
I think we all agree that Saddam was a monster. But that doesn't mean that the souvereign nation of Iraq posed a direct threat to the national security of the United States in 2003. Years of sanctions, stripped of most of his military power, UN inspectors, countless satellites cruising the skies over Iraq; Saddam couldn't have done shit without you guys knowing within minutes.fadedsteve wrote:
Saddam was a great guy. . .
Invaded a neighboring country, used bioweapons on his own civilians, killed hundreds of thousands of people, tortured hundreds of thousands more, violated specific UN ceasefire resolutions hundreds of times. . .raised two psychotic sons (question when Saddam were to relinquish power, who do you think would have run that country?? Would they side with al-Qaeda? would they have further developed nuclear weapons?? guess we'll never know. . .they're dead!) who raped, tortured, killed Iraqi civilians. . .shall I go on?
Your ignorant chavtastic post doesn't help your cause private.Sh4d0wF0x14 wrote:
what makes you think i am a chav, and i am actually in the services.m3thod wrote:
I bet i contribute more to the British economy than your chav ass.Sh4d0wF0x14 wrote:
danm right, get em out
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
edited for safety of topic
Last edited by Sh4d0wF0x14 (2007-01-23 08:13:52)
Blahdeblah.Vilham wrote:
It actually amazes me the bullshit you American guys and talking and believe. Wow. Just wow. Seriously what is wrong with your country that it produces people like you?
We're having a debate here. Do you mind?
Really know just becuase there's one racist guy in the RAF doesn't mean that the RAF sucks or anything. You're just doing what he's doing. Generalising shit and putting everyone in the same basket.