Thread: americans/Brits using depleted uranum in bombs and shells

Again... Iraq is in a transition phase. That is why the insurgent terrorists are doing what you are describing and forcing us to fight back. Yet, the people of Iraq just elected a prime minister. They have a democracy. The fact that the insurgent terrorists are acting out against democracy does not mean that the freedom is not there

you know its easy to call a person who shoots at an american soldier, a terroist . As for IED's. what would you do if you had limited capablities and teh enemy had more advanced weaponry and seemingly unending resources? You would plant bombs ofcourse. It just makes sense and calling people who use methods so as not to be killed terrorists dont work. Although those who kill other iraqi's in sectarian violence and otherwise, i would call "terrorist"

And to call Iraq a democracy wouldnt work so good i dont think. I dont think an occupied country should be called a "democracy" in any sense. There are just to many issues involving the occupying country(ies) to outright say it is a democracy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You assume way too much, and you didn't answer my questions. I don't see the relevance of what you are saying about Japan and Germany. We played a major role in saving the world's ass. What you are saying does not contradict that. War is a huge move, and there is a lot to consider before engaging in it. Being attacked is often the straw that breaks the camel's back. What about it?

"Formed alliance with" and "made deal with" are not synonymous with "fully supported". Think about how we allied with our supreme enemy (U.S.S.R.) in World War II. Would you throw the simple label of "supported" on that? We considered going to war with them as soon as World War II ended. Also, please tell me about the wonderful utopia of freedom the Contras were trying to form in the midst of our cold war considerations. Then tell me about how the Contras were in a more difficult sitation than the one I described regarding Iraq. Then please answer the questions I asked you in the other post, particularly the one about what your prediction would have been on when the people of Iraq would have somehow overthrown the Hussein regime without our help despite the circumstances I described.

What I meant about Japan is that they attacked us, in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, and other countries did not attack us first, we attacked them first, and only in Iraq there was a good reason to attack them, but that doesn't change the fact that there were better ways to handle it. Iraq had a very weak military, so bombing them was pointless and just killed lots of civilians.

Nicaragua had an oppresive regime that was supported by the USA, because we were making a profit. The people of that country were fed up with it, and huge movements to place to change that and war broke out. US business interest was threatened, so we came to the aid of that government. The US supplied them with weapons, gave their soldiers training, and did all that we could to stop the revolution. In the end, the government failed, and the people started to make their own government. The people were happy with it and were trying to make it better.

The US didn't give up yet though. The CIA helped form the Contras, who were mainly made up of the former Nicaraguan National Gaurd (they carried out the killings and such). There was virtually no support in Nicaragua, so their base was in a neighboring country. The US gave them aid to take out the new country. But, congress passed a law stopping the president from aiding the Contras. So, the president needed a new way to get them the money. Our government then sold weapons to Iran, who would sell them, and then give Nicaragua part of the profit, and they would release the hostages.

This is all true, and personally, it makes me sick that we did this. It would be like some other super power helping Britain stop the American Revolution.

About how long it would take the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam, I have no idea. But, they would eventually do it and when it is the people uniting together to overthrow him, then perhaps they would have a plan of how to run their new government before it was over. When the Iraqies defeated their own government by themselves like Nicaragua, then they may have been able to establish their own government.

Perhaps if a revolution took place, a new form of government could be invented. Maybe even one that was truly fair, and impossible to corrupt. America, despite what we would like to think, doesn't have that type of government. But, if we force others to have a government like our own, we are stopping humanity to progress. We need to be open to new ideas.

I don't know how long it would take Iraq to have overthrown Saddam, but they would have done it. No tyrant has ever held power for a long period of time. King Taurquin of Rome was defeated when the people revolted and overthrew him, despite the fact Eturia was helping Taurquin. They overthrew him and invented a new form of government, one that brought them into a golden age, and for a century the people were free. But then it became corrupt, and in the end it didn't work and the people were oppresed. So a new one was formed. This cycle will probably repeat for a long time, and it will not end with America's form of democracy.

Yea they have a prime minister but hes under the control of the US. You admited yourself we put a puppet government in charge to help the transition. That is not free. Saddam was elected president but as you so clearly said before they weren't free under him.

As for the insurgent, why are they fighting? They are Iraqis too. Clearly they don't feel free or they wouldn't be attacking.

As for WMD, there are none. Its been proven, they are no where to be found. Nothing is there. Some how I wouldn't be surprised if 20 years from now people are still saying he had WMD. Its obvious he didn't.

Originally Posted by Alric

Saddam was elected president but as you so clearly said before they weren't free under him.

As for the insurgent, why are they fighting? They are Iraqis too. Clearly they don't feel free or they wouldn't be attacking.

As for WMD, there are none. Its been proven, they are no where to be found. Nothing is there. Some how I wouldn't be surprised if 20 years from now people are still saying he had WMD. Its obvious he didn't.

Saddam kinda killed every other person running, so they had no one else to vote for, so they definately were not free(I'm not disagreeing with, just wanted to add that). Americans are not free aswell. In the words of Hellen Keller "We get to pick between 'Tweedledum' and 'Tweedledee' ". We only have 2 real choices for who to vote for. The thing neither party wants to do could be what the people want, but we can't get it because we can't vote for anyone who will.

Also, are the insurgents attacking the soldiers, or religious targets mainly? I think they are fighting for freedom, but it may just be religion.

Also I agree about the WMDs. Bush made it up. He connected the dots that were not there to blame Saddam for 9/11. He planed the invasion before 9/11! Bush was definately lying to go to Iraq.

On a side note, the election will be interesting if Ron Paul can get the nomination for the republicans. He would easily win the election if the republicans backed him except he was against the war so they won't.

Also, are the insurgents attacking the soldiers, or religious targets mainly? I think they are fighting for freedom, but it may just be religion.

well its imporant to keep in mind that the insurgents aren't all fighting as one group. There are many factions and each does as it pleases or as the head guy orders.

Though they are attacking americans as best they can. It also looks like they are attacking "relegious targets"
but personaly I have a theory that it is the us behind the majority of the attacks on mosques/ relegious leaders. To distabilize the area and put fear in the people. So that when they have there AK47 or otherwise they will aime it at a Sunni/Shia as apposed to an american. It works for good disemption and i cant see why the americans wouldnt use that tactic.

I wonder if there is anyone here who understands the relationship between shia and sunni in iraq? could probably give us good insight

What I meant about Japan is that they attacked us, in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, and other countries did not attack us first, we attacked them first, and only in Iraq there was a good reason to attack them, but that doesn't change the fact that there were better ways to handle it. Iraq had a very weak military, so bombing them was pointless and just killed lots of civilians.

Nicaragua had an oppresive regime that was supported by the USA, because we were making a profit. The people of that country were fed up with it, and huge movements to place to change that and war broke out. US business interest was threatened, so we came to the aid of that government. The US supplied them with weapons, gave their soldiers training, and did all that we could to stop the revolution. In the end, the government failed, and the people started to make their own government. The people were happy with it and were trying to make it better.

The US didn't give up yet though. The CIA helped form the Contras, who were mainly made up of the former Nicaraguan National Gaurd (they carried out the killings and such). There was virtually no support in Nicaragua, so their base was in a neighboring country. The US gave them aid to take out the new country. But, congress passed a law stopping the president from aiding the Contras. So, the president needed a new way to get them the money. Our government then sold weapons to Iran, who would sell them, and then give Nicaragua part of the profit, and they would release the hostages.

This is all true, and personally, it makes me sick that we did this. It would be like some other super power helping Britain stop the American Revolution.

About how long it would take the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam, I have no idea. But, they would eventually do it and when it is the people uniting together to overthrow him, then perhaps they would have a plan of how to run their new government before it was over. When the Iraqies defeated their own government by themselves like Nicaragua, then they may have been able to establish their own government.

Perhaps if a revolution took place, a new form of government could be invented. Maybe even one that was truly fair, and impossible to corrupt. America, despite what we would like to think, doesn't have that type of government. But, if we force others to have a government like our own, we are stopping humanity to progress. We need to be open to new ideas.

I don't know how long it would take Iraq to have overthrown Saddam, but they would have done it. No tyrant has ever held power for a long period of time. King Taurquin of Rome was defeated when the people revolted and overthrew him, despite the fact Eturia was helping Taurquin. They overthrew him and invented a new form of government, one that brought them into a golden age, and for a century the people were free. But then it became corrupt, and in the end it didn't work and the people were oppresed. So a new one was formed. This cycle will probably repeat for a long time, and it will not end with America's form of democracy.
__________________

well said.

Also Guatemla and UFCO are a shining example to.

woohoo my 200th post!!

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

well its imporant to keep in mind that the insurgents aren't all fighting as one group. There are many factions and each does as it pleases or as the head guy orders.

Though they are attacking americans as best they can. It also looks like they are attacking "relegious targets"
but personaly I have a theory that it is the us behind the majority of the attacks on mosques/ relegious leaders. To distabilize the area and put fear in the people. So that when they have there AK47 or otherwise they will aime it at a Sunni/Shia as apposed to an american. It works for good disemption and i cant see why the americans wouldnt use that tactic.

I wonder if there is anyone here who understands the relationship between shia and sunni in iraq? could probably give us good insight

That actually makes alot of sense. Good theory.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

well said.

Also Guatemla and UFCO are a shining example to.

Thanks, and also El Salvador is a good example.

There is a ton to respond to, and once again, I'm arguing this stuff alone. I'll make a few points that hopefully cover everybody.

1. The Central American and other countries we had issues with in the 1980's and before (like Vietnam) were caught up in our Cold War mess. It was a very messy situation, and I'm sure mistakes were made, but we won the Cold War, and the Soviet conquest threat is dead and buried. That was the goal, so our overall strategy worked. It is the most important victory in human history, next to or tied with the defeat of the Nazis world conquest.

2. Freedom is a virtue. Sometimes freedom of the few gets trampled when freedom for the vast masses is under threat, but as much overall freedom as possible should be the goal. No alternatives involving too much government control are viable alternatives because no government has the right to impose that on people. Freedom is never an imposition. If you were locked up in a cage, I would not be imposing on you if I let you out. But if you were an Islamofascist, you might think it is, but you would have no right to demand that freedom not be given to your neighbors. Islamofascists oppose freedom for everybody. Their ultimate goal is for every country in the world to have the Koran as its only law book. Those people hate every bone in your body. The goal of the U.S. is to protect you from them. If they ever injure or kill you or somebody you love, you will regret having taken up for them.

3. The fact that money is a tool or any other kind of consideration in a situation is not proof that it is the most important consideration, much less the only consideration.

4. A transition phase in a country that was recently liberated is not a reflection of what that country will be like for the rest of the time the country exists. A country can be both a democracy and in a transition phase, after which it can be a fully independent democracy.

5. Not being able to find something is not proof that it never existed. Should we call off all searches for children that have been missing for four years? There is always the possibility that they are in Syria. Is there not? When you can't find your car keys, are you convinced that they never existed?

6. People who mindlessly kill the innocent without reasonable expectation of direct results substantially in the direction of the greater good are terrorists.

7. The Iraqi insurgents are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting against freedom, and they admit it. Zarqawi, their former leader, called democracy "evil" and said he was determined to prevent it. That is what the insurgency is about. The insurgents have no right to impose lack of freedom on the innocent. The insurgents are not fighting for freedom.

8. Bush did not make up the WMD information. The Clinton Administration talked about it before Bush was elected, and so did the CIA and Senate, Democrats included (such as Hilary Clinton and John Kerry). The intelligence was given to them from the U.N. and five other governments. Therefore, Bush did not make it up. Furthermore, it would have been irresponsible not to act on it.

9. The people of Iraq didn't have a prayer of ever overthrowing Saddam Hussein or his legacy. The government was way too oppressive and ruthless for the possibility of that to even make a peep.

please bare with me im trying to make a reply but every time i press submit it says im loged out and i have to restart.

please bare with me im trying to make a reply but every time i press submit it says im loged out and i have to restart.

. The Central American and other countries we had issues with in the 1980's and before (like Vietnam) were caught up in our Cold War mess. It was a very messy situation, and I'm sure mistakes were made, but we won the Cold War, and the Soviet conquest threat is dead and buried. That was the goal, so our overall strategy worked. It is the most important victory in human history, next to or tied with the defeat of the Nazis world conquest.

The US has had a long history of Interventions and influence in Latin america before the cold war. Besides the missle crises. The US used relations with moscow as a scapegoat for implementing its own influence. Whether fabricated or not.

Freedom is a virtue. Sometimes freedom of the few gets trampled when freedom for the vast masses is under threat, but as much overall freedom as possible should be the goal. No alternatives involving too much government control are viable alternatives because no government has the right to impose that on people. Freedom is never an imposition. If you were locked up in a cage, I would not be imposing on you if I let you out. But if you were an Islamofascist, you might think it is, but you would have no right to demand that freedom not be given to your neighbors. Islamofascists oppose freedom for everybody. Their ultimate goal is for every country in the world to have the Koran as its only law book. Those people hate every bone in your body. The goal of the U.S. is to protect you from them. If they ever injure or kill you or somebody you love, you will regret having taken up for them.

Generalizing a group of people (militants) as islamo fascists doesn't work that well. The fact is they are a fare flung sort of people sperated into many factions with different beleifs as a whole. I suggest you stop watching so much CNN. You make it sound like all "militants" want to fly a 747 up the statue of liberties ass.

3. The fact that money is a tool or any other kind of consideration in a situation is not proof that it is the most important consideration, much less the only consideration.

I disagree, it is a very compelling considereation and so is resources (oil)

4. A transition phase in a country that was recently liberated is not a reflection of what that country will be like for the rest of the time the country exists. A country can be both a democracy and in a transition phase, after which it can be a fully independent democracy.

In iraqs case it will never be a "full independed democracy" the usa will have for long time being permament military bases and a monoply on oil. eg halberton (dick cheneys company) has a monoply on oil. There is also Iran which is a bit complicated for me to get in.

5. Not being able to find something is not proof that it never existed. Should we call off all searches for children that have been missing for four years? There is always the possibility that they are in Syria. Is there not? When you can't find your car keys, are you convinced that they never existed?

aha, your refering to yellow cake (uranium). I dont think its debated that Iraq had WMD's. but i think it is dipsputed that it had those of the nuclear variety.
Do you suggest that Geroge Bush goes into Syria next and looks for "WMDS"?

7. The Iraqi insurgents are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting against freedom, and they admit it. Zarqawi, their former leader, called democracy "evil" and said he was determined to prevent it. That is what the insurgency is about. The insurgents have no right to impose lack of freedom on the innocent. The insurgents are not fighting for freedom.

Links please???
Plain and simple the insurgency is a complicated thing but in a nutshell is fighting to end the occupation

Bush did not make up the WMD information. The Clinton Administration talked about it before Bush was elected, and so did the CIA and Senate, Democrats included (such as Hilary Clinton and John Kerry). The intelligence was given to them from the U.N. and five other governments. Therefore, Bush did not make it up. Furthermore, it would have been irresponsible not to act on it.

Agreed upon

The people of Iraq didn't have a prayer of ever overthrowing Saddam Hussein or his legacy. The government was way too oppressive and ruthless for the possibility of that to even make a peep.

true

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

6. People who mindlessly kill the innocent without reasonable expectation of direct results substantially in the direction of the greater good are terrorists.

Then one of the greatest group of terrorists is the USA. We helped El Salvador kill 30,000 innocenct people, and I don't think I even need to point out what we did to North and South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos!!!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

9. The people of Iraq didn't have a prayer of ever overthrowing Saddam Hussein or his legacy. The government was way too oppressive and ruthless for the possibility of that to even make a peep.

Can you prove that? Like I said before, no dictatorship has lasted for ever, and I don't think Saddam is any different. He was terrible and evil, but eventually he would fall. It would take a long time, but in the end his soldiers may stop following orders and fight back. Then Saddam would have no chance with no one to command. I said before that this might have taken a long time, but eventually. The US could use other ways to stop him then bombing his country a whole bunch of times. Our last 3 presidents all bombed Iraq, and killed many innocent people.

Saddam was evil and should have been stopped, but the US has through out history, helped people for the wrong reasons.

Since the other two covered the answers so well I won't bother repeating them, I will add a few comments though.

Saddam did have WMD but we are talking about 10-15 years ago. Its highly unlikely he had anything when we invaded. As for all the sources we had saying he did, did you ever actually look at it? I mean you just said the CIA got the information from the UN. You also quoted Bush, Clinton and congress as 3 sources, even though they all get their reports from the same people, the CIA. As for the other 5 countries, where did they get the report? Likely it was from either the UN or for us(With the help from the CIA). So really your dozens of sources that said he had WMD is more like 1-3 sources.

Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction. This is a fact. We already know he used Sarin gas-bombs to kill 6000 Kurds in Northern Iraq. I do believe this was in 1 day of bombing, too.

As to Universal's claim that the people of Iraq could not stand up to Saddam, this is true. After the first gulf war, those who wanted to fight him did. It didnt go so well.

Btw, whats up with all this circumstancial stuff? I dont think anybody can say that Bush ONLY cares about oil and money with any certainty, yet it is being passed off as a fact. I am not saying he DIDNT want oil, but i am willing to bet he wouldnt send people to die for that sole reason. If you want to make fun of bush, make fun of him for being a former coke-head. Atleast that is a fact

No one said he never had them. We are talking about if he had him just before we went to war with them. It seems highly unlikely he had any at that point. Like I said before, he gassed them but that was 15 years before we went to war in iraq.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for WMD, there are none..

JK, i know what you meant. I dont think it has been proven that there are no WMDs in Iraq. I doubt US troops have walked over every square inch of desert on hands and knees looking for doors to bunkers. Saddam could have hidden them anywhere. I am also pretty sure he didnt use his entire supply.

Well if you don't take care of them, they become useless as well. As for hiding them, you can't actually dig a ditch and place them in the ground and cover it with sand. Weapons like that will corrode and stuff.

Even if you were right, the only way they would be able to hide every single one of them was if they were very few of them to start with. Which means even if you were right they weren't a threat anyway. Really though, we been there for so long, and there hasn't been any signs of WMD at all. The only thing we have found are the stuff left over from 20 years ago that is basicly just junk and totally harmless from when he did have them, which we already knew about before we went to war.

well, i was implying that he had them available, then hid them when we invaded.

There is nothing to back that up however. I mean we been there for years, we captured all the top people, how come we havn't found a single one? Even if they were fairly well hidden someone had to have hidden them there. They can't just disappear. So it looks really doubtful that he had anything at all leading up to the invasion.

he did keep UN officials out of certain areas. Did you forget that? This is why everybody was so tense just before the invasion!! Maybe it wasnt WMD's, but he was hiding something. You know, something less terrible. Like torture chambers or something.

I think WMDs can "just dissapear". Even a nuke can be taken apart and destroyed. Btw, we did find Uranium there.

Yea its all over the place in the form of bullets and exploded tank shells. As for letting the UN to check everything, no country allows them free access to walk around as they please, and everyone is hiding something.