Congressman: 'Take out' holy sites If terrorists nuke U.S. - Page 5




 
--
 
August 3rd, 2005  
Locke
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
If saddam gave a WMD weapon to a terriost group, which was then used on a major US city and the public found out we had "slam dunk" evidence he had/developing WMDs and we didn't do shit.
that is a very big if, especially considering no slam dunk evidence has been produced, nor have his nuclear weapons
August 3rd, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
If saddam gave a WMD weapon to a terriost group, which was then used on a major US city and the public found out we had "slam dunk" evidence he had/developing WMDs and we didn't do shit.
that is a very big if, especially considering no slam dunk evidence has been produced, nor have his nuclear weapons
Yes it sort of reminds me of telling a cop thats stopped you for speeding that you were only speeding to the gas station so that you could get there before you ran out of gas.

Its an argument that sounds perfectly plausable until you put some thought into it.
August 3rd, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Well based on the fact my first sentence in the post admitted we had bad intelligence (in part thanks to 8 years of neglect by the clinton adminstration) i thought it was pretty widely known that, that our intelligence was wrong. I used the evidence the president was presented only to explain why he had no choice but military action. Only later did we find this evidence to be false, sorry for the mis-understanding.
--
August 3rd, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
i seem to remember plenty of voices saying that the iraqi's were co operating, that inspections were being given access.

i am not condoning saddams regieme, but what i am saying is even a twisted despot can see the writing on the wall.

no UN inspections = mighty US armoured fists coming over his borders.



and then rabs, you blame the last democrat president, well how much time in office did dubya have before gulf war II? plenty of time i would've thought considering that there were UN men crawling all over iraq.
and well, if we are going backwards i may as well mention;

bush snr not finishing saddam when he had the chance (and after promises to iraqi dissidents...who were slaughtered)

rumsfield visiting iraq. and the many republican presidents who DID BUSINESS with saddam.


the fact is, many many countries did business with a dictator and were quite happy as long as the oil, and the money kept flowing, and they're all guilty of the end result....a god awful mess
August 3rd, 2005  
DTop
 
 
Stay on topic please.

We know some of you think that no WMD=no justification for the war in Iraq and others of you think that UN sanctions in place since 1990 allowed plenty of time for WMDs to be exported for the purpose of hiding them and that oil-for-food was a joke.

We also know that the topic here has do do with one Senator's comments on possible retaliatory strike targets. Can you all stick to that train of thought please?

I really don't want to have to lock this thread but.......

Go ahead and start new threads, just stay on topic, thank you.
August 3rd, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTop
Stay on topic please.

We know some of you think that no WMD=no justification for the war in Iraq and others of you think that UN sanctions in place since 1990 allowed plenty of time for WMDs to be exported for the purpose of hiding them and that oil-for-food was a joke.

We also know that the topic here has do do with one Senator's comments on possible retaliatory strike targets. Can you all stick to that train of thought please?
Exactly, this line could go on forever. Let me ask anyone what an alternative strike would be in the Middle East. I mean without picking out certain countries and nuking them for effect.
August 3rd, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
i think the manin issue for me is this;


terrorists have no state to call their own.


say al quida detonates either a full nuke or a dirty bomb in a major US city. which country do you nuke in retaliation? pakistan? Saudi? iran?

did the governments and people of those countries knowingly sanction or participate in the terrorist act?

so when you start talking about "nuking mecca" what you are really saying is that you're willing to punish an entire religion PLUS a country, for the actions of a terrorist group.

put it this way, should the UK have bombed the vatican for the actions of irish catholic terrorists?


the 9/11 hijackers were mostly from saudi
the london underground bombers were from pakistan and somalia
August 3rd, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Couldn't have said it better myself, Chewie. I completely agree with you.

I will add this however, if such an attack did take place. All kid gloves would be off and if you were connected to any of those organizations it would be a shoot to kill for all order. Any of their camps we find get fried entirely, etc., etc.
August 4th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Its not so much retaliation, its more of a threat. If the islamo-nazis know were going to nuke there holy sites if they attack us, they might think twice.
August 4th, 2005  
Locke
 
 
i really dont think they are going to intimidated by that threat. thier version of religion is so warped and they are filled with such concerntrated hate that it really wont do much