Anti-War 100,000 - Pro-War 400

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by gworld, Sep 25, 2005.

  1. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #721
    Thank you :)
     
    GRIM, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  2. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #722
    The stupidity of your posting are amazing, I didn't say that discussed Union Carbide, I said just because they killed thousands, it doesn't mean that they were producing WMD.

    Nobody said that the terrorists SHOULD NOT BE ARRESTED or convicted or they did not plan to kill people, what I said was that THE CHEMICALS THAT THEY WERE PLANNING TO USE WAS NOT WMD. NOT EVERYTHING THAT KILLS PEOPLE IS WMD.

    IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  3. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #723
    Gworld's post that I just replied to just filtered into the display, AFTER posts under it were already there. Sort of like a delayed posting, as if the forum cannot get them posted to the threads fast enough.

    I'm not going to hound you. I stated I did not delete any posts. I thank you for the apology and hope you understand the veracity in which I defended myself.

    Let's move on!
     
    GTech, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  4. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #724
    I agree and would have to, again I'm sorry and next time if it happens I'll try to be more direct to simply get a statement if the post was indeed made :) At least you've found out a new trick and I something as well.
     
    GRIM, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  5. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #725
    Yes, I enjoyed the one where I made reference to chemical wmds to mouthwash. Oh wait, that wasn't me :D

    That is your opinion. Mixed together, chemicals make chemical wmd. Is that not why they are called "chemical wmd?"

    Sure, but it doesn't mean your opinion is correct!
     
    GTech, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  6. GTech

    GTech Rob Jones for President!

    Messages:
    15,836
    Likes Received:
    571
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #726
    Cool. Seriously, no hard feelings. I always have fun with the debates!

    But I do need to get back to work. I have a project due in a few hours.

    Warm regards to all (even you, gworld :p ),

    GTech
     
    GTech, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  7. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #727
    I am now removing all my posts made to this, not to cover my tracks but since I was incorrect which I now admit you do not deserve to have the posts directed at you. Your posts and quotes will remain however for prosperity :) Damn I should get some work done myself, how time flies.
     
    GRIM, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  8. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #728
    THIS PROVES THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT.

    You are WRONG, this is not the reason they are called CHEMICAL WMD. Chemical WMD are certain group of chemicals specially designed to kill people and there is a defined list of these materials that is used by different countries for inspection.

    Gasoline and oil can be mixed to cause fire but neither Gasoline, oil or the combination is a WMD. Combination of alcohol and sleeping pill can kill you but sleeping pills or alcohol are not WMD. Asbestos and Lead can cause different health problem but those are not WMD either.

    What was taken from terrorists according to your link and the specialist in Jordanian court, was a bleach that can be used in laundry detergent, mouth wash and also for killing people but it does not make it WMD. :)
     
    gworld, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  9. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #729
    gworld, if a mixture can kill 80,000 people and you do not consider it a WMD, then how many deaths does it take to be considered a WMD?
     
    zman, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  10. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #730
    I agree it is a WMD, my only problem with it though is when some have tried to insinuate that it directly proves Saddam involvement, there simply is no proof or at least that us common citizens know about as of yet. It also is not a 'professional' wmd if you will, but a WMD non the less.
     
    GRIM, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  11. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #731
    Involvement in what? Sorry, but this thread has gotten a bit confusing. If you are speaking of his involvement in the many that were killed in his own country, I believe he is going on trial for that and there is overwhelming proof that he was indeed invlolved.
     
    zman, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  12. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #732
    It got nothing to do with the number of dead people. Let's say that you have a room filled with 1000 people, you flood the room with water and kill everybody in the room, does this make water a chemical WMD? NO, it doesn't.

    You have in another room, 2 person and you release in the room VX or mustard gas or other Chemical WMD and kill 2 persons, is VX or mustard gas a chemical WMD even if it only kills 2? YES, It is.

    If we go back to the industrial accident in India, some etimate the number of death at over 100,000, was that a WMD because so many died? NO, it wasn't.
     
    gworld, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  13. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #733
    I don't dispute his involvement in Iraq and using WMD there. My problem is simple those trying to link the VX which has yet to be proven from what I can find to the Jordan terror op, which would link Saddam to helping fund this plot, this however has not been proven. I actually agree with much of what you say, it's simply some of the technical merits. And when I say you, I don't mean you in particular but those who are on your side of the argument.

    I also however believe much of what those such as Gworld say :) As I've said before I actually am split in the middle, it's the far reaches on both sides that trips my trigger.
     
    GRIM, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  14. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #734

    ummm, first of all, I find it sad that you can so comfortably compare 1,000 deaths to 80,000. There is a difference to the tune of 79,000 people.

    In my opinion, any method of weapon that can kill 80,000 people is a weapon of MASS destruction.

    So again I ask you g, and for a second stop being so obvious that you support terrorism over innocense, how many deaths does it take for you to consider it a weapon of MASS destruction?

    Obviously you feel that 80,000 dead is not massive enough. So what is?
     
    zman, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  15. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #735
    Of course it doesnt to you. :rolleyes:
     
    zman, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  16. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #736
    Well I do agree with Gworld on what he's trying to say he may not be saying it correctly and I may not be either. I believe what he's simply trying to say is that the chemicals were dangerous but not a weapon that would be considered a WMD that is professionally made by an actual government such as Iraq, the US, China, etc. Such as Sarin, VX, etc.

    I do not believe for a minute he actually disputes how dangerous they are, or is trying to defend the terrorists, just the actual merit of what the chemicals were.
     
    GRIM, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  17. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #737
    Ok I see now. Unfortunatly I dont know a lot about that so cant comment on it as much as I would like to.

    I am in support of the war because I feel that what Saddam has done in the past is bad enough and he needed to be removed.

    Now that he is gone terrorism in the form of suicide bombers are the only force we are fighting against and if we leave they will be free to wreak havoc on the Iraqi people.

    We simply cannot leave.

    My little sister says the people (Iraqi) that surround her every day are very greatful for us being there. They do not wish us to leave and are much happier with some hope in a better future.

    She is so confident in this that she just re-enlisted for another 4 years. Now why would she do that?

    It is easy for us to sit thousands of miles away from the scene and argue about opinions without being there. But I believe that if we were actually there we would see things in a whole new light. This is something that people like gworld simply refuse to explore.
     
    zman, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  18. ferret77

    ferret77 Heretic

    Messages:
    5,276
    Likes Received:
    230
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #738
    its a mixture and shit load of explosives
     
    ferret77, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  19. zman

    zman Peon

    Messages:
    3,113
    Likes Received:
    180
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #739

    Well I am not in the chemical debate. I never jumped onto that one. I simply stated that 80,000 deaths should not be taken lightly, something gworld wishes to do.
    A weapon of mass destruction is a weapon that causes mass destruction is it not? I would think anyone could figure that out.

    Gworld just wants to justify his support of the wrongdoers of those who wish to only lead a peacefull life and he does so by keeping the subject on something that in my opinion is completely irrelevant.

    Let me ask you this...

    If man were able to take a banana peel and cause that peel to somehow kill 80,000 people would you consider that a weapon of mass destruction? Would the practice not be banned?

    I have not once mentioned chemical WMD, go back and read my posts, I have only mentioned WMD.
     
    zman, Sep 30, 2005 IP
  20. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #740
    Obviously your opinion is not very smart and that is the reason there are international treaties that define such objects instead of going after your opinion. :rolleyes:

    If we put 100,000 people in a big room and then flood the room with water and kill everyone, DOES THIS MAKE WATER A WMD? SHOULD USA ATTACK EACH COUNTRY THAT HAS WATER? :rolleyes:

    You can read this and learn what you are actually talking about.

    Chemical Weapons Convention

    look at schedule 2:

    toxic enough to be used as chemical weapons, or
    precursors of other listed substances.

    These chemicals also have no large-scale industrial uses: however, they may have legitimate small-scale uses.

    The acid mentioned by Gtech is the most produced chemical in the world after the water.

    Why international treaties so different from Gtech and your postings? Because they know what they are taking about. ;)
     
    gworld, Sep 30, 2005 IP