Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq

fishbob said:


How many Americans, Brits, Poles, Aussies were killed in Iraq over the 12 year investigation? How many billions of dollars less were spent each year? How many more Iraqis were killed or tortured in prisons during those 12 years?

Zero, 80ish billion per year, about zero. I vote for investigations.
Click to expand...


Errr.

Did you say about zero Iraqis killed or tortured in prisons from 1991 to 2003? I would be very interested to see your evidence for that.

Also , any other comments on the social welfare implication of the trade embargo and the criminal tyranny of the oil for food program?
 
Drooper said:



Errr.

Did you say about zero Iraqis killed or tortured in prisons from 1991 to 2003? I would be very interested to see your evidence for that.

Also , any other comments on the social welfare implication of the trade embargo and the criminal tyranny of the oil for food program?
Click to expand...

I think an economist should be able to work out that no matter your political views are, the ROI on this venture is about 0. May as well have dub a big Keynsian hole and filled it with dollar bills.
 
a_unique_person said:


I think an economist should be able to work out that no matter your political views are, the ROI on this venture is about 0. May as well have dub a big Keynsian hole and filled it with dollar bills.
Click to expand...


This nonsense is relevant to my question how?



[edited]

If you want to pretend to have some academic ability, please provide some working for your claim.
 
Tmy said:
Can you count this thing as a WMD?? The thing actually explodes and the result is what........... 2 soilders treated for exposer?

Doesnt sound very mass destroying.
Click to expand...

The reason it did not work as designed is two-fold:

1) The shell had no markings and it is unlikely the terrorists knew what type of artillery shell they had when they wired it up. The two reagents are designed to mix at a controlled rate and ratio while in the air on its way to the target.

2) The shell was wired with an independant explosive device so that it could be used as a roadside bomb. Instead of a big explosion like you get with an HE shell, all the independent explosive device probably did was rip open the shell casing. Any mixing of the reagents would be minimal and uncontrolled.
 
Drooper said:
Also , any other comments on the social welfare implication of the trade embargo and the criminal tyranny of the oil for food program?
Click to expand...
I have; they stink. But bombing what little infrastructure the Iraqis had left and opening up their country to infiltration by fundamentalist terrorists seems a bit of a price to pay. And who was behind the embargo and oil for food program, exactly?
 
BillyTK said:

I have; they stink. But bombing what little infrastructure the Iraqis had left and opening up their country to infiltration by fundamentalist terrorists seems a bit of a price to pay. And who was behind the embargo and oil for food program, exactly?
Click to expand...

Who opened up the country for fundy jihadists?!? :eek:

Care to explain that, or offer evidence?
 
Kodiak said:


Who opened up the country for fundy jihadists?!? :eek:

Care to explain that, or offer evidence?
Click to expand...

Sadam Hussein was a murdering f***head but he was a secular murdering f***head and as such no great friend to Bin-Laden and his ilk; IIRC the only evidence of Al-Queda (poss. spelling mistake) infiltration into Iraq was in the Kurd homelands over which Hussein had no influence anyway. We are led to believe that the current violence against USUK forces is to some extent the result of fundamentalist agitation which in part can be attributed to foreign nationals entering into Iraq (see here: Al-Qaeda 'seeking base in Iraq' for instance).

I think it's useful to remind ourselves that after the first Gulf War, when Bush the First exhorted southern Shi-ites and Republican Guards to rise up against Hussein, loyalist forces were allowed access to restricted air space to suppress the former and the latter were refused access to weapons. A conclusion one might draw from this was that Bush preferred a secular murdering f***head in charge to the possibility of a fundamentalist murdering f***head, and that the former would be useful in preventing the rise of the latter.
 
a_unique_person said:


That has been one of the big negatives of the war. Saddam was secular, fundies are not. The jihadists were not in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Now they are having a picnic.
Click to expand...

I do not dispute that the jihadists have gone where the targets are. What I dispute is the assertion that the coalition is responsible for allowing them into the country.

Syria has had sanctions imposed on it by the U.S. for either their incompetence or their collusion regarding the movement of fundy terrorists into Iraq from that country.

I guess the U.S. was responsible for the NVA being in South Vietnam, too... :rolleyes:
 
Kodiak said:


What I dispute is the assertion that the coalition is responsible for allowing them into the country.
Click to expand...

Well they are in control of the country. Its up to them to monitor the borders. They havent purposly let them in but they are at fualt in their negligence.
 
BillyTK said:


Sadam Hussein was a murdering f***head but he was a secular murdering f***head and as such no great friend to Bin-Laden and his ilk; IIRC the only evidence of Al-Queda (poss. spelling mistake) infiltration into Iraq was in the Kurd homelands over which Hussein had no influence anyway.
Click to expand...

Al-Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group out there. Saddam provided aid and comfort to several different Islamic terrorist groups, included, but not limited to, Hezbollah (sp?).
 
Kodiak said:


I do not dispute that the jihadists have gone where the targets are. What I dispute is the assertion that the coalition is responsible for allowing them into the country.

Syria has had sanctions imposed on it by the U.S. for either their incompetence or their collusion regarding the movement of fundy terrorists into Iraq from that country.

I guess the U.S. was responsible for the NVA being in South Vietnam, too... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Considering the NVA was in Vietnam, and the North/South construct was a totally artificial one, I guess the US was not responsible for them being there. They were just in their own country. I think the US was responsible for the US being there, however.
 
Kodiak said:


Al-Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group out there. Saddam provided aid and comfort to several different Islamic terrorist groups, included, but not limited to, Hezbollah (sp?).
Click to expand...

Yeah but Hezbollah aint OUR terrorists. They're more of Israels problem. You dont see US troops going after Chechnyia terrorists. Thats Russias deal.
 
Tmy said:


Well they are in control of the country. Its up to them to monitor the borders. They havent purposly let them in but they are at fualt in their negligence.
Click to expand...

A nicely biased spin you put on that, choosing the word 'negligence'.

While coalition efforts have been unsuccessful in keeping the borders completely sealed off, I'd love for you to provide evidence of the neglect your word implies.
 
a_unique_person said:


Considering the NVA was in Vietnam, and the North/South construct was a totally artificial one, I guess the US was not responsible for them being there. They were just in their own country. I think the US was responsible for the US being there, however.
Click to expand...

Fine.

I guess the U.S. was responsible for the Chinese and Soviets being in Korea, too...
 
Tmy said:


Yeah but Hezbollah aint OUR terrorists. They're more of Israels problem. You dont see US troops going after Chechnyia terrorists. Thats Russias deal.
Click to expand...

The President's WOT makes no such distinctions. Israel is a much closer ally than Russia.

As far as Chechnyia is concerned? Do not think that because U.S. troops haven't invaded that no steps are being taken against other terrorist groups around the world.
 
Kodiak said:


A nicely biased spin you put on that, choosing the word 'negligence'.

While coalition efforts have been unsuccessful in keeping the borders completely sealed off, I'd love for you to provide evidence of the neglect your word implies.
Click to expand...

My spin? You said it was Syria's incompetence. Ever think that maybe both sides are to blame. THe wackos have to come in from somewhere.
 
Kodiak said:


The President's WOT makes no such distinctions. Israel is a much closer ally than Russia.
Click to expand...

Bullflop I say.

There are all sorts of terror groups all around the world. Do we have troops and aid going to all these places? No. Theres probably some terror groups we want around.

We are concearned with the ones after the US, rightfully so.
 
Tmy said:


My spin? You said it was Syria's incompetence. Ever think that maybe both sides are to blame. THe wackos have to come in from somewhere.
Click to expand...

Yes. Your word. Your spin.

Yes, they are coming in from somewhere. The SYRIAN border.

The movement of terrorists across Syria's border has been widely reported and, as I've already posted, resulted in an official diplomatic backlash from the United States, namely trade sanctions.

I've backed up my claim about Syria's role in allowing the emtrance of terrorists into Iraq.

Care to back up your claim of border neglect by coalition forces?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom