More banned munitions found in Iraq

Discussion in 'Wasteland' started by LethalWolfe, Mar 10, 2003.

  1. macrumors demi-god

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    Apparently inspectors found cluster bombs modified to be used as B/C weapons. The article is a bit on the long side.

    Link


    Lethal
     
  2. macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #2
    I'm wondering how much more that the World needs before it will act. I pray that it won't take an attack on Bonn or Paris.
     
  3. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    Actually these two cities are about the LEAST likely to be hit :rolleyes:
     
  4. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #4

    Faux News must be strapped for cash.
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    #5
    and this has something to do with this topic how?
     
  6. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #6
    Exactly. I love how liberals attack Fox news, but fail to realize that it is the #1 news channel. Must mean there are more people wanting fair and balanced news than just liberal propaganda :)

    Off topic, sorry
     
  7. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    Face it , we have fools in the world who are so dead set in their own beliefs that Saddam could kill , lie , torture and rape right in front of them and they would still think he is a good guy. Didnt France do this with Hitler. Yes they did. History is repeating its self. Im just glad that we have a few Leaders that wont be duped. Tony Blair and George Bush. Funny how we just keep finding more and more of Saddam ignoring the U.N. and then the U.N. ignores itself. France you and your leader sucks! Your Leaders are taking you down the path of ruin, just as in 1939 just as now.
     
  8. Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #8
    Back it up, there, bucko.

    What are you talking about? France was occupied by Germany after their defenses failed (whether or not you feel their defense was "good enough" or not, or if the acquiesced too quickly is another matter entirely).

    When did France, as a nation, officially think Hitler was a "good guy"? Just because they were occupied doesn't mean they condoned Hitler's actions, just as the Iraqi people don't condone Saddam's actions but are powerless to stop him.
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    #9
    Actually France showed itself not too highly when it came to the Nazis either. You'll remember from history class France was not the first country invaded by Germany. While Germany was conquering Poland (quite easily) and sending people off to camps, the French government cared not. They did not want to involve themselves wiht the issue, until Germany invaded them then they really had no choice.

    "The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
    --David Letterman
     
  10. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #10
    I think he is refering to the appeasement that took place before WWII.
     
  11. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #11
    Wake rower you liberal! France ignored hitler and would be speaking German if not for us. They ignored everything Hitler did prior and were appeasing him too. Sorry bunch of pacifist. Tyrants dictators love pacifist because they are so easy to controle or take over. They hardly had any defenses, they didnt have any weapons that could do anything and they had country of pacifists. Well you add this up and it came out to looser next to germany. Then came the U.S. Good men scacrificed there lifes for us and the French! We Freed France! not Iraq! Not some Damn communist! Russia was on Hitlers side until he turned on them. Hello! And its not a matter of sorry defence its a matter of sorry attitude and appeasement.
     
  12. Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #12
    leprechaunG4 and B2TM-

    Appeasement is one thing. Calling Hitler a "good guy" is quite another.

    France did not have the support of Great Britain at the time and the European community was not in a position to stop Germany.

    What started out as reparations for lands taken away from Germany after WWI, turned into Hitler's plan for domination.
     
  13. Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #13
    See above.

    You just said yourself that they weren't in a position to defend themselves. Rather than face certain destruction of life and property they chose to be occupied. No, it's not the most noble choice. But it was the most pragmatic choice.

    And somehow the lives of the French, British and European soldiers were meaningless and it's only the US soldiers that mattered in WWII?
     
  14. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #14
    It's the #1 news channel alright... #1 at SUCKING! Aharharharhar! Come on, we can fight our Republican illnesses together! You've got a liberal streak in you, everybody knows it, the test confirmed it. We can fight it out!
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    IndyGopher

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    #15
    When did British and French soldiers stop being European soldiers? Not sure what the point was there. If the question is, do the lives of people from other countries mean less than the lives of people from your own country, then the obvious answer is yes.

    Now before you liberals blow a gasket, you will kindly note that I did NOT say that their lives were meaningless or without value.
     
  16. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #16
    In reference to good guy, hitler was doing all sorts of crap in germany and france CHOOSE to ignore it, and appeased him before he invaded their ass, Hence good guy. and no i dont mean to ignore all those europeans that died in WWII but am simply making a point that if we had gone with the popular vote and stayed out of europe at the time they all would be speaking German today. If all those nations would have paid attention to the tyrant they may have been better prepared for him. Look at all those countries that he ran through, they thought he was their buddy but in essence he was anything but. Just as France today, making deals and going against the U.S. at every chance when Saddam Keeps telling lies, keeps building his weapons, ignores the U.N. resolution after resolution and the U.N. does well nothing. Saddam has had his chance a dozen times over and he didnt take it . France wants to go down again in history siding with a killer/murder dictator so be it. Maybe Saddam will Bomb their ass as Hitler did in WWII.
     
  17. Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #17
    Sorry, I should have added "other" before European.

    The question isn't whether lives of people from other countries mean less (they're equal in my view). It's the delusion that some people (Dont Hate Me) have the the US was the only country to make scarifices during WWII. In fact, the losses suffered by the US were minimal compared with those suffered by the countries who had the war fought right on their doorstep.
     
  18. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    Umm, small detail here: you lot came rather late to that particular party, and many of your wonderful corporations were supporting the Nazi war machine even after that. Whereas France (except Vichy) and Great Britain, not to mention Czechoslovakia, Greece, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Poland and many others each put what they could into the effort from the beginning. Even Russia saw the light before the US, and from their perspective it wasn't the Second World War, it was the Great Patriotic War. So can we have a bit less of this gung-ho chest-thumping and a little more humility? A lot of innocent people are likely to die, and the arrogance and baseless swaggering being displayed by some posters is shameful. It is precisely this kind of insensitivity and intolerance of other cultures which is making it so hard for other countries to persuade themselves that the US is not the greatest threat to peaceful co-existence.
     
  19. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #19
    skunk,
    Among the things that smell in your post is the idea that Russia "came around" before the US. The USSR had a treaty with Hitler. It held until the summer of 1941, when Hitler invaded Russia. Russia didn't see the light, they smelled the cordite.

    In Iraq today, a lot of innocent people are dying. Every day that passes, more of them die under Saddam's brutality. I would point out that there is nothing peaceful about coexistance with Saddam.

    It is not arrogant to state the following:

    It was not America's choice to go to war in WWII, and many countries contributed, but the war would not have been won without American blood and treasure.
     
  20. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    I think you'll find this was not a statement I objected to.
     
  21. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    #21
    maybe the reasons nobody stopped hitler at first were:

    there was a global depression at the time

    germany had a powerful army
     
  22. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    STRANGE BEDFELLOWS, Part 2

    Molotov-Ribbentrop II?

    What is the Bush administration willing to trade off for Russian and Chinese votes in favor of a Security Council resolution against Iraq?

    Disturbing signals are emerging that certain unsavory trade-offs may be in the works to avoid Chinese and Russian vetoes against a future U.N. Security Council resolution, which would authorize an U.S. invasion of Iraq. The sort of signals that bring back memories of some infamous trades in the not-too-distant past, such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and President Roosevelt's selling off the independence of the Baltic States at Yalta.

    For those younger readers unfamiliar with the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, this was the non-agression pact between Stalin and Hitler, signed by their respective foreign ministers (from whom the pact takes its name) in August 1939. A secret codicil split eastern Europe into spheres of influence: the western two-thirds of Poland and Czechoslovakia to Hitler, Estonia and Latvia (later also Lithuania) to Stalin. Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, starting the Second World War. Stalin demanded military bases in Finland and the Baltic countries, the latter being eventually occupied and annexed by the then Soviet Union.

    After Bush's speech in Congress a year ago on September 13, where he declared a "war on terrorism" and designated Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the three countries forming the "axis of evil" (which since then seems to have been reduced to a point--Iraq only), Russian president Vladimir Putin lost no time in declaring his brutal suppression of the Chechen independence movement as fighting "terrorism."

    In the months following, Putin has been charging that Chechen rebels (who are Muslim, but not Arab) have been using Georgia's Pankisi Gorge as an across-the-border refuge in their attacks on Russian troops occupying Chechnya. Indeed, Russian warplanes have made a number of attacks on targets in the Gorge, in one case killing a Georgian farmer.

    A few days before Bush's recent speech at the U.N., Putin declared that Russia reserved the right to invade Georgia's Pankisi Gorge and other alleged hideouts as its right of self-defense under the same U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized the Bush-the-Elder to throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and that Bush-the-Younger claims as sufficient authority for a new invasion of Iraq.

    Georgia, since its break-off from the disintegrating Soviet Union, has had internal troubles of its own. In its western part bordering on the Black Sea, a Russian minority (aided by old-Soviet-line generals of the Russian army) has been in rebellion against Georgian rule. The tenuous cease-fire is presently being secured by Russian "peacekeepers," who are also not-so-secretly supplying the rebels, and whom Georgian president Edvard Shevardnadze's government would dearly like to get rid of.

    Although the U.S. has sent its special operations troops to train and assist Georgia in controlling its northern border with Russia, and although the Georgian government states that it is in full control of the area and that there is no evidence that the Gorge is used as a haven for terrorists, Russian sabers are being rattled. Russian right-wingers blame Shevardnadze (who resigned as Soviet president Gorbachev's foreign minister) for precipitating the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Putin would dearly like to bring Georgia back into the Russian fold, because a future Caspian Sea oil pipeline is very likely to run through Georgia.

    The other trade-off seems already to have taken place, when the U.S. government designated the Uighur "East Turkestan Islamic Movement" as a terrorist group. The Uighurs are now a minority in their own land, the western part of the Chinese province of Xinjiang. In-migration by the Han Chinese have pushed the local Uighurs into the lowest-level jobs, as well as being oppressed politically and culturally. This has given rise to underground independence movements, which are seeking freedom from the heavy-handed Chinese rule.

    The U.S. declaration has been met with skepticism by scholars and other governments, because it seems to have been based largely on a one-sided Chinese government report, not confirmed by independent evidence.

    Yet, as a result, the funds of the East Turkestan Movement have been frozen and the Chinese given diplomatic cover for their suppression of the Uighurs.

    So what's next? Turning a blind eye on mainland China's making a "pre-emptive" attack on Taiwan? Russia invading the Baltic States to "free" the sizeable ethnic Russian minorities in those countries? After all, it doesn't take much to cause "terrorism." A bomb in a car or the basement of an apartment house. Prior to the most recent invasion of Chechnya, three apartment buildings were blown up in Russian cities, with a loss of life of 300. The attacks were immediately blamed on Chechen rebels, now "terrorists," although no proof exists of it to this day, and some suggest that it may have been a provocation of extreme right-wingers in the Russian security service (formerly the KGB), to justify breaking the cease-fire negotiated between former president Yeltsin and Chechnyan president Aslan Maskhadov.

    The Bush administration, in its single-minded zeal of "finishing the job" in Iraq, is playing a dangerous game. A game which could jeopardize the lives and fortunes of peoples in many other parts of the world, who've never done America any harm.
    © Copyright 2000 Quivis Magazine
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #23
    Sorry dude, but at that point I have to tell you some stuff about the history of WWII since you seem to not know a lot about it.

    When the US joined the war, Germany already had no chance to win it anymore. It was just a question of time when they would have been run over by the red army.

    The main reason why the US joined was because they didn't want to see entire Europe become communistic. It scared the **** out of them because Europe was the most important trading partner at that time. Stalin was a tough guy and they were not sure if he would have stopped at the french-german border.

    THAT was the reason. So don't come always with that bull-**** about freeing the French and the Germans from Hitler. Wonna talk about the war-crimes the allies committed in the last few years of the war? The totally unnecessary napalm bombing of big german cities, killing hundreds of thousands of inncocent people, mostly women and children (e.g. 80% of all buildings in Berlin were totally detsroyed). Not to forget that there was never a majority in the german population backing Hitler. Or what about all the german soldiers that had to fight a war they didn't want to? I lost my grand-father in WWII in Stalingrad and I can tell you that he was anything but a nazi. But he had no choice than marching into his death, because otherwise they would have shot him right away.

    If the US wouldn't have joined WWII, the French would probably talk Russian today, but definately not German. Stop telling fairy-tales just to make you feel better.

    So if you wonna tell me that the US is joining a war when it is in their national (mostly economical) interest, than I totally agree. But to claim any moral motivation for the actions of the US is (in most cases) not more than a joke considering their actions the last 150 years.

    groovebuster

    P.S.: I totally forgot... How can you expect the other nations to be perpared for someone like Hitler when even the german population didn't know what was going on exactly in the beginning?
     
  24. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #24
    Skunk, I was going to blast that post, but since it is not your writing, I will dismiss it as propaganda. Since you believe though ;)

    Seriously, it is called diplomacy, and no, we would not turn a blind eye to Taiwan. $ would not let that happen alone. This isn't hard to figure out.


    Hey Alex, I tested liberal, and you republican. Go figure.:p
     
  25. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    No, it's called being unprincipled.
     

Share This Page