The destructive power of a nuclear bomb

**no-one** · 03-23-2005

why do people have to be such dumbasses? Saddam had WMD's... period... he never showed or proved in any way he got rid of them... period... just cause they havn't been found doesn't mean they dont or do exist in Iraq, they went somewhere... period... where the ........ are they? why the hell is nobody looking for them?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?! oh yeah, they're to ........ing busy being idiots and haveing a Bush bashing party for the next 10 years. W00T!!!

bottom line is the CIA ........ed up, the Bush Administration ........ed up, the Britts ........ed up, they should have at LEAST had some lock on some WMD's before using that as justification, BUT they're assumtions were valid based on intelligence, etc... depending on your take on it.... hindsite is 20/20... put yourself in that place and time before you jump on your high horse... and under the resolutions passed by the U.N. the U.S. was theoretically justified in its attack for 10 years, and then depending on your take on it like eveything about this the U.S. theoretically did not have "full" U.N. support, and you might sway that as making it non justified...

> if we needed to wait for a vote from Congress to use the military (we need one to declare war however)

if im not mistaken the President has the power of an "emergency military action" for 90 days without Congressional approval.

I'm so tired of the unjustified commentary on Bush... you all are a bunch of ........ing losers... with nothing better to do but play a big stupid game follow the leader.

>But hey, George Bush is the devil for not wanting terrorists to have this stuff to play with.

not hes a fanatical monkey puppet controlled by cheney and the religious right... who only wants oil and revenge...

this thread is about Nukes btw... not how stupid you think bush is.

**Darkness** · 03-23-2005

Don't be a douche govt. I definitely didn't go that far, and maybe you didn't read that I friggin voted for Kerry. I'm hardly spreading right wing conservative bs, but it is good to get a different point of view on here. Although sang didn't actually do anything like it, I'm sick of people saying we did it for oil and junk like that. Oh well.

**sean** · 03-23-2005

WMD's, Schmubble ewe emm dee's. The dude had rape chambers in his palace, and he's the victim? That doesn't add up. WMD's weren't the only reason for attacking Iraq, whether you think they had them or not.

And sovereign countries with nuclear weapons are not the problem. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has held true for quite some time. The only time that threat need even be discussed is if security is a problem for that country, for instance, if that country were to be a likely source for the more-difficult-to-track terrorist organizations.

And by the way, Darkness, saying you voted for Kerry does not make you correct in the eyes of others who may have voted for Kerry, so don't use that as an excuse to spout forth crap.

**Darkness** · 03-23-2005

I actually did vote for Kerry, so when I give fair and objective arguments for Bush (not saying he did the right thing, but putting unfair people in their place) people do actually tend to listen. Maybe you don't, but others tend to. I think my point of view tends to be pretty realistic and fair.

I don't like the argument that we went in there to help the people or whatever. We don't just go into countries to 'help the people', it's pretty clear to me we did it because of the WMDs. Saying we went in there to help the people just tends to sound like politics, not something I'd actually expect reasonably intelligent people to believe...

**DeepFyre** · 03-23-2005

Originally Posted by no-one

why do people have to be such dumbasses? Saddam had WMD's... period... he never showed or proved in any way he got rid of them... period... just cause they havn't been found doesn't mean they dont or do exist in Iraq, they went somewhere... period... where the ........ are they? why the hell is nobody looking for them?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?! oh yeah, they're to ........ing busy being idiots and haveing a Bush bashing party for the next 10 years. W00T!!!

bottom line is the CIA ........ed up, the Bush Administration ........ed up, the Britts ........ed up, they should have at LEAST had some lock on some WMD's before using that as justification, BUT they're assumtions were valid based on intelligence, etc... depending on your take on it.... hindsite is 20/20... put yourself in that place and time before you jump on your high horse... and under the resolutions passed by the U.N. the U.S. was theoretically justified in its attack for 10 years, and then depending on your take on it like eveything about this the U.S. theoretically did not have "full" U.N. support, and you might sway that as making it non justified...

> if we needed to wait for a vote from Congress to use the military (we need one to declare war however)

if im not mistaken the President has the power of an "emergency military action" for 90 days without Congressional approval.

I'm so tired of the unjustified commentary on Bush... you all are a bunch of ........ing losers... with nothing better to do but play a big stupid game follow the leader.

>But hey, George Bush is the devil for not wanting terrorists to have this stuff to play with.

not hes a fanatical monkey puppet controlled by cheney and the religious right... who only wants oil and revenge...

this thread is about Nukes btw... not how stupid you think bush is.

why do you have to be such a dumbass? how the ........ do you know he had wmds? your just going off of what bush and the UN said, and neither found any wmds in bush's frenzy to scour iraq. even if he did have a substantial amount of wmds where the hell did they go? you clearly dont know so you clearly cant make conclusions that he had wmds

**Darkness** · 03-23-2005

Oh come on you guys aren't supposed to actually get worked up about this stuff...now that's really just plain silly. Oh yeah, mods close threads like this, fyi.

**~~cgod~~** · 03-23-2005

Originally Posted by nvoigt

He's more devilish for invading a country that he accused of having WMDs without proof and without even finding them after conquering said country. As far as WMDs go, this war is waged on the wrong battlefield.

Terrorist don't care much for their cause. I don't think killing children is especially good for their cause and they still do. If you go out to kill yourself and take 3K people with you, I guess you would also go kill yourself when you can take 300K with you.

Why would the US nuke the middle east ? The terrorist itself is probably dead by then. Who do you nuke ? The guys who sold the bomb ? Very convincing, I don't think even Bush would nuke the former USSR or India or even Israel or France. It's not like you can build a bomb in a tent at night right between a goat and a camel.

BTW: I read "Debt of Honor" by Clancy in school. Back then, crashing an airliner into a capital building was considered fiction. "The sum of all fears" isn't that bad either. Watch the movie if you have to, for a 90 minutes movie of a 500 pages book it's quite ok.

We should have left the middle-east and places like it alone we gave 21st century technology to people who had a 12th century mentality they would have been happy with thier camels and now we are probly going to pay the price when some fanatic blows himself up taking 1000s with him and start's a nuclear war.

**sean** · 03-23-2005

where the hell did they go?

Jordan

edit: And yes, this thread likely will be closed if it turns into a flame war. I don't think there's a problem with it turning from some information on the effects of a nuclear bomb into a discussion of WMD's, but let's keep it civil.

**no-one** · 03-23-2005

>how the ........ do you know he had wmds?

we gave them to him...

:edited for civility:

**major_small** · 03-23-2005

Originally Posted by no-one

>how the ........ do you know he had wmds?

we gave them to him...

:edited for civility:

just to let you know, he did let us know he didn't have them. he did let the inspectors in, and he did dismantle his weapons. sure, there was a shady period before the attack* that we didn't know what he was doing, but the attack proved one thing: whatever he was doing, it wasn't stockpiling weapons.

*by 'attack', I mean the terrorist attack on Iraq headed up by the United States.

**no-one** · 03-24-2005

>he did let us know he didn't have them:

cliaming he doest have them != not having them;

>he did let the inspectors in

letting the inspectors into the country != letting them inspect;

>and he did dismantle his weapons

claiming to have dismantled them != having dismantled them;

>whatever he was doing, it wasn't stockpiling weapons.

not being able to find weapons known to once exist != weapons not existing;

not being able to find weapons known to once exist == saddam did something with them, the question is what.

taking Saddams word for anything == ........ing retarded.

:edited for succinctness and clarity:

**major_small** · 03-24-2005

»cliaming he doest have them and not accounting for what happened to them != not having them;

but how do you explain the inspectors seeing evidence of dismantled weapons?

»letting the inspectors into the country != letting them inspect;

so, you're saying the inspectors made up their reports?

»claiming to have dismantled them and neither showing nor having any evidence of this != having dismantled his weapons;

again, the inspectors are lying?

»not being able to find weapons known to once exist != weapons not existing;

no, but knowing that he was (albeit very slowly) making progress towards disarmament and no evidence of wmd's anywhere == good possibility they don't exist

»not being able to find weapons known to once exist == saddam did something with them, the question is what.

did you forget that the very country that first made these claims already admitted it was wrong?

**no-one** · 03-24-2005

>
but how do you explain the inspectors seeing evidence of dismantled weapons?
<

if i remember correctly they only found evidence of the dismanteling that the previous inspectors had done, i dont remember EVER hearing of ANY evidence of Saddam dismantling anything except people.

>so, you're saying the inspectors made up their reports?

no, im saying i heard a lot of complaints from the inspectors...

>again, the inspectors are lying?

see first paragraph...

>no, but knowing that he was (albeit very slowly) making progress towards disarmament and no evidence of wmd's anywhere == good possibility they don't exist
<

no he showed no progress... there was evidence of they're existence, compounded by the fact that he REFUSED to account for the missing WMD's...

>did you forget that the very country that first made these claims already admitted it was wrong?

about what? about being able to find them... about being able to prove that he still had them and was stockpiling them? yes, but that doesnt prove he didn't bury them in the ........ing desert now does it? doesnt prove that he didnt have them does it? no it only proves that NOBODY knows where the ........ they are and nobody can find them.

edit: lemmie make a note of the fact that a key part of the U.N.s resolutions were that Saddam ACCOUNT for the WMD's he was KNOWN to have, or to have had... he FAILED to do this.