NationStates Jolt Archive

There was a post running earlier in the week (which I can no longer find) that started off with the generalized theme of “hating America.” As the strings developed, three main themes seemed to emerge:

1. What about those artillery shells loaded with Sarin…did that constitute discovery of WMD?
2. Most of the “America-haters” making posts seemed to be, sad to say, Britons. Inevitably, the strings turned to discussions on just who saved whom during World War II, and some rather odd variations on this theme.
3. Finally, somebody posted what appeared to be the decisive argument: a photographic comparison of obesity levels between EU and US women.

Looking at all the entries in this topic (some of them thoughtful, some of them hateful, one of them visually-disturbing), here are some observations:

1. Those artillery shells containing Sarin really ARE significant, regardless of their age or origin. The fact that the terrorists have found them and are trying to use them prove that Sadaam didn't destroy them all after all, as he falsely claimed. We're just lucky that the savages who tried to turn them into IED's lacked the know-how to make them disperse the toxins properly. Next time, we may not be so lucky...the next shell may detonate--correctly this time--at a train station or shopping mall of a western nation. Not a good thing.

2. It's foolish to argue who saved who in WWII. Without Churchill's incredible leadership, the British people's brave defiance, and the Stalin's willingness to stop murdering his own people long enough to resist the Nazis at all costs, (helped somewhat by America’s massive Lend-Lease to both Britain and Russia), the outcome of the war could have been horribly different. The USA may have been able to fight Hitler to a stalemate, especially if the Manhattan project proceeded apace, but attacking fortress Europe without our British allies could have proved nigh impossible. Together, we all helped to save the French, and that's what really counts.

3. People from many nations were murdered on 9-11, but the attack was still directed primarily against America. I would ask our European friends to remember that point, and to please understand that many of our actions in the Global War on Terrorism (more properly termed the Global War Against Islamofascism, or perhaps even WWIII) must be seen through that prism.

4. I'm going on a diet!!!

---a slightly pudgy but proud American who is still grateful for the friendship of Britain

All consumerist developed nations are getting fat.
The fact that the attack was directed against the U.S shows it was against the world
Britain is a tiny island. It couldnt take on all of europe, it just held them off. The U.S saved their asses

If by signifigant you mean vindicates Bush then you are wrong. It went off right near the troops and it only got two of them. There wasnt much in the shell. Either they drained it to make it last, or they didnt even know what they had. If they had it would have been far more effective to deploy it as intended. If you want to call anyone a savage accuse H.W and Rumsfeld because they sold them to Iraq. The claimed state of Iraq's program works against your very assertion. If indeed it was desentralised and in a general mess then its very possible that some weapons slipped through the cracks. Iraq had very little that breached dictated terms. I dont think they even had any scuds.

What would be a vindication would be a large scale Active Wepons program producing large amounts of weapons in forms useful to terrorists. that is the Only acceptable definition of a threat to the U.S

if the u.s. hadn't been selling arms to the nazis, then perhaps everyone could have fought them off a little easier...

We may be a small islland, but we are keeping Order in basra, and we did quite well in the D-Day landings, and may I remind you (or tell you a completly umknown fact) that the only group to fail to take the place they landed on was an American one.

Russia is a very large nation, but they aren't the world isn't theirs, neither do they think it is, like America does. America is smaller than Russia. The UK may be small, but our army is alot better than many other nations, alot bigger than us.

Russia probably succeeded more because of politics than of resources. Or at least in stalingrad. Obviously when they started pushing back resources becomes important again.

And dont forget England also got pushed out of europe in a spectacualr fashion. England made a tremendous sacrifice in WW2. But just didnt have the resources to do the whole thing by themselves. I will speak no more on this.

Together, we all helped to save the French, and that's what really counts.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Wow, that was AWESOME. Really. I was rolling on the floor laughing, and its not an exaggeration, I really was. You have an awesome sense of humour, sir.

(May be a duplicate post. My apologies if it is...the server is cranky today)

We may be a small islland, but we are keeping Order in basra, and we did quite well in the D-Day landings, and may I remind you (or tell you a completly umknown fact) that the only group to fail to take the place they landed on was an American one.

Russia is a very large nation, but they aren't the world isn't theirs, neither do they think it is, like America does. America is smaller than Russia. The UK may be small, but our army is alot better than many other nations, alot bigger than us.

I served with the British in the war. I was proud to be working daily with the good sailors of HMS Ark Royal and HMS Ocean. We're all proud to have a steadfast friend like the UK at our side during these difficult times.

I don't know of anyone who has been criticizing the British war effort. I think the point was that Churchill's statesmanship, British courage and America's aid were crucial in resisting Hitler until such time that the U.S. could enter the conflict.

Normandy was a hard-fought battle. Some units landed at more difficult sites than others; but plenty of Allied blood was shed all around.

thats the only thing you americans seem to care about.....size.
whether its the size of your country, weapons, ego or waistlines! Its all the same to you. I just wish that george bush will finally get over the fact that hes small and no matter how much he tries to be the tough guy, its just not gonna work.

Together, we all helped to save the French, and that's what really counts.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Wow, that was AWESOME. Really. I was rolling on the floor laughing, and its not an exaggeration, I really was. You have an awesome sense of humour, sir.

Awwww...shucks. Thanks for the kind comments. :?

But he's rich, He can buy penile substitutes

The fact that the attack was directed against the U.S shows it was against the world

If by signifigant you mean vindicates Bush then you are wrong. It went off right near the troops and it only got two of them. There wasnt much in the shell. Either they drained it to make it last, or they didnt even know what they had. If they had it would have been far more effective to deploy it as intended.

What would be a vindication would be a large scale Active Wepons program producing large amounts of weapons in forms useful to terrorists. that is the Only acceptable definition of a threat to the U.S

I agree with that first point, Astrolia, that the attack was against the world...the civilized western world at least, and probably the non-radicalized Islamic world as well.

As the media have reported, most chemical weapons require that they actually be fired from the artillery tube in order for the components to mix correctly prior to detonation. Blowing up a shell as an IED isn't going to be effective, normally. The mandate from the UN was to get rid of ALL of the weapons, and allow inspectors to verify the same. If one of these illegal weapons still exist in Iraq, more are probably there. The next time one of these things is detonated, it may not be in Iraq...

Concerning a mass finding of these things, I expect the stockpile is somewhere. The rumors persist that convoys were seen heading towards the Syrian border in the weeks leading up to the war. Wouldn't be the first time Sadaam tried to stash his weapons in another country...remember the en masse movement of his combat jets to Iran during the last show in an attempt to preserve them?

One sarin shell is not a significant find. It proves nothing because no one can prove where this shell came from. With the influx of foreign fighters entering the region the last year, how can anyone even be sure anymore that it was an Iraqi weapon? There is also something else that must not be forgotten:

Bush sold the war to the American public not by stating that Iraq had such weapons, but that they were an imminent threat to the American people. He spoke as though Iraq could launch a strike within 45 minutes of a decision to do such. Now, if there are buried stockpiles in the region, they hardly constitute an imminent threat to anyone. There is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, unless you believe some scrap metal found in a garden is dangerous. There is no evidence of any method in which Iraq could have posed an imminent threat to the United States. There is no evidence that Iraq was arming terrorists with such weapons. In fact, the only linkage between terrorist training and Iraq was in the Kurdish controlled region. A region that encompassed the northern no-fly zone. A region that was autonomous of Iraqi rule.

Yes, it is important to find if there are/were WMD. But to do such, we should have left this task to those who were the experts. Bush shouldn't have sent people to the UN to declare that Iraq posed an imminent threat. He shouldn't have sent people to the UN to declare that we knew where these weapons were. Hindsight shows the world that these were trumped up charges. The bottom line is that every justification for having invaded Iraq have never been proven. And a war without merit costs too much for each and every American. The cost will effect our lives for decades to come. The cost of each human life taken. The cost in dollars and equipment. The cost in respect. The cost in morale. And, the cost in divisiveness. Our unified people have become more divided than I can recall ever occuring in my lifetime.

DP

[quote=New Astrolia]
The fact that the attack was directed against the U.S shows it was against the world

If by signifigant you mean vindicates Bush then you are wrong. It went off right near the troops and it only got two of them. There wasnt much in the shell. Either they drained it to make it last, or they didnt even know what they had. If they had it would have been far more effective to deploy it as intended.

What would be a vindication would be a large scale Active Wepons program producing large amounts of weapons in forms useful to terrorists. that is the Only acceptable definition of a threat to the U.S

The ultimatum from the UN (resolution 1441) was for Sadaam to fully cooperate and prove that he got rid of the WMD. That's all he had to do!!! Why are you so quick to believe Sadaam's claim over what the UN says he has or at least had? I suggest you read the resolution (just do a search for UN resolution 1441) and ask yourself the obvious questions. It would seem prudent to ask, where did it go or where is it hidden, rather than assume that somehow this was some "plot" Bush cooked up on his ranch!

All consumerist developed nations are getting fat.
The fact that the attack was directed against the U.S shows it was against the world
Britain is a tiny island. It couldnt take on all of europe, it just held them off. The U.S saved their asses


Even without the US they would have won. Britian had held the Nazis at the chanel, the Solvets where pushing them back and we won the North African campagn by ourselves, by the time you joined in, the war was almost won. You sped it up, I reacon it would have taken the Solvets around 7 years to reach berlin after 1942 instead of 3, but it was still going to be won, now the Japs...Thats another matter.

2. It's foolish to argue who saved who in WWII. Without Churchill's incredible leadership, the British people's brave defiance, and the Stalin's willingness to stop murdering his own people long enough to resist the Nazis at all costs, (helped somewhat by America’s massive Lend-Lease to both Britain and Russia), the outcome of the war could have been horribly different. The USA may have been able to fight Hitler to a stalemate, especially if the Manhattan project proceeded apace, but attacking fortress Europe without our British allies could have proved nigh impossible. Together, we all helped to save the French, and that's what really counts.

We all saved democracy and freedom in Europe (apart from under Stalin of course. I've been studying Stalinist Russia recently = :cry: for the Russians). We should all be proud of that together.

I think it's just total speculation to suppose that Britain could have won without American help, as we had American help for most of the war. This is coming from an Englishman by the way. I resent the 'Britain's useless 'cos we saved their asses' statement though (that's what it implies in our eyes).

Prime Minister of JoopJoopland

2. It's foolish to argue who saved who in WWII. Without Churchill's incredible leadership, the British people's brave defiance, and the Stalin's willingness to stop murdering his own people long enough to resist the Nazis at all costs, (helped somewhat by America’s massive Lend-Lease to both Britain and Russia), the outcome of the war could have been horribly different. The USA may have been able to fight Hitler to a stalemate, especially if the Manhattan project proceeded apace, but attacking fortress Europe without our British allies could have proved nigh impossible. Together, we all helped to save the French, and that's what really counts.

We all saved democracy and freedom in Europe (apart from under Stalin of course. I've been studying Stalinist Russia recently = :cry: for the Russians). We should all be proud of that together.

I think it's just total speculation to suppose that Britain could have won without American help, as we had American help for most of the war. This is coming from an Englishman by the way. I resent the 'Britain's useless 'cos we saved their asses' statement though (that's what it implies in our eyes).

Prime Minister of JoopJoopland
Agreed, thats how I feel about the 'We saved your asses' comments. Hoiwever we could have done it without millatary help.

1. Those artillery shells containing Sarin really ARE significant, regardless of their age or origin. The fact that the terrorists have found them and are trying to use them prove that Sadaam didn't destroy them all after all, as he falsely claimed.


Well, they dont prove a thing actually. If you cast your mind back a few years you'll remember the Japanese cult "Aum" who made Sarin gas in less than 12 months and managed to do a lot more damge than the terrorists in Iraq. Now these Iraqis have also had just over 12 months to make the gas and get ready to disperse it, meaning there is a pretty damn good chance that it was homemade.

1. Those artillery shells containing Sarin really ARE significant, regardless of their age or origin. The fact that the terrorists have found them and are trying to use them prove that Sadaam didn't destroy them all after all, as he falsely claimed.


Well, they dont prove a thing actually. If you cast your mind back a few years you'll remember the Japanese cult "Aum" who made Sarin gas in less than 12 months and managed to do a lot more damge than the terrorists in Iraq. Now these Iraqis have also had just over 12 months to make the gas and get ready to disperse it, meaning there is a pretty damn good chance that it was homemade.

Er, based on what? An arbitrary 12 month time frame? And why are they using mixing shells from back in the 80s? This is the most blatant and preposterous conjecture I have heard today.

2. It's foolish to argue who saved who in WWII. Without Churchill's incredible leadership, the British people's brave defiance, and the Stalin's willingness to stop murdering his own people long enough to resist the Nazis at all costs, (helped somewhat by America’s massive Lend-Lease to both Britain and Russia), the outcome of the war could have been horribly different. The USA may have been able to fight Hitler to a stalemate, especially if the Manhattan project proceeded apace, but attacking fortress Europe without our British allies could have proved nigh impossible. Together, we all helped to save the French, and that's what really counts.

We all saved democracy and freedom in Europe (apart from under Stalin of course. I've been studying Stalinist Russia recently = :cry: for the Russians). We should all be proud of that together.

I think it's just total speculation to suppose that Britain could have won without American help, as we had American help for most of the war. This is coming from an Englishman by the way. I resent the 'Britain's useless 'cos we saved their asses' statement though (that's what it implies in our eyes).

Prime Minister of JoopJoopland
Agreed, thats how I feel about the 'We saved your asses' comments. Hoiwever we could have done it without millatary help.

I don't really know about that.

I'm not saying that I think you're wrong, I just mean that I don't know too much about the subject! :wink:

For me, victory in the 2nd World War was one of the few moments in the 20th century, that we, the western democracies, can be truly proud of. The war invoked a level of terror, death and suffering the like of which the western world has not seen before and I hope will not ever be forced to experience again. Yet in spite of this, democracy, freedom and goodness have prevailed and that is something that I am very proud of. I only wish that more people would unite behind this view rather than taking pot shots at other nations concerning their level of involvement.

For me, victory in the 2nd World War was one of the few moments in the 20th century, that we, the western democracies, can be truly proud of. The war invoked a level of terror, death and suffering the like of which the western world has not seen before and I hope will not ever be forced to experience again. Yet in spite of this, democracy, freedom and goodness have prevailed and that is something that I am very proud of. I only wish that more people would unite behind this view rather than taking pot shots at other nations concerning their level of involvement.

There are better ways to dispense sarin than by an artillery shell, unless you actually plan on firing the shell down range. If this was, as you propose, a "Betty Crocker" home-made recipe for Sarin, why put it in a rusty old shell? Doesn't seem to make sense to me, unless I'm missing some important part of your argument.

If the sarin chemicals were in a round of chemical munition (no matter how old or recent that shell's manufacture might be), it seems to this typist that it was a dedicated weapon of mass destruction intended for battlefield use, but (unsuccessfully) modified for use as an improvised explosie device. Again, I for one am glad that these savages didn't have the know-how to actually pull it off...



1. Those artillery shells containing Sarin really ARE significant, regardless of their age or origin. The fact that the terrorists have found them and are trying to use them prove that Sadaam didn't destroy them all after all, as he falsely claimed.


Well, they dont prove a thing actually. If you cast your mind back a few years you'll remember the Japanese cult "Aum" who made Sarin gas in less than 12 months and managed to do a lot more damge than the terrorists in Iraq. Now these Iraqis have also had just over 12 months to make the gas and get ready to disperse it, meaning there is a pretty damn good chance that it was homemade.

For me, victory in the 2nd World War was one of the few moments in the 20th century, that we, the western democracies, can be truly proud of. The war invoked a level of terror, death and suffering the like of which the western world has not seen before and I hope will not ever be forced to experience again. Yet in spite of this, democracy, freedom and goodness have prevailed and that is something that I am very proud of. I only wish that more people would unite behind this view rather than taking pot shots at other nations concerning their level of involvement.
Exactly. Every nation did what they could. Some could do more than others, but it's no reason to seriously degrade the role of those who were able to do less.

1. Those artillery shells containing Sarin really ARE significant, regardless of their age or origin. The fact that the terrorists have found them and are trying to use them prove that Sadaam didn't destroy them all after all, as he falsely claimed.


Well, they dont prove a thing actually. If you cast your mind back a few years you'll remember the Japanese cult "Aum" who made Sarin gas in less than 12 months and managed to do a lot more damge than the terrorists in Iraq. Now these Iraqis have also had just over 12 months to make the gas and get ready to disperse it, meaning there is a pretty damn good chance that it was homemade.

Er, based on what? An arbitrary 12 month time frame? And why are they using mixing shells from back in the 80s? This is the most blatant and preposterous conjecture I have heard today.

Despite your apparant lack of manners Im still gonna respond to you. There are several possible reasons-

1) Black marketeers selling outdated goods to inexperienced users
2) Stole mixing shells
3) Sources getting it wrong (sounds outlandish but still possible)
4) mixing shells provided by another country/group

As the media have reported, most chemical weapons require that they actually be fired from the artillery tube in order for the components to mix correctly prior to detonation. Blowing up a shell as an IED isn't going to be effective, normally. The mandate from the UN was to get rid of ALL of the weapons, and allow inspectors to verify the same. If one of these illegal weapons still exist in Iraq, more are probably there. The next time one of these things is detonated, it may not be in Iraq...

Concerning a mass finding of these things, I expect the stockpile is somewhere. The rumors persist that convoys were seen heading towards the Syrian border in the weeks leading up to the war. Wouldn't be the first time Sadaam tried to stash his weapons in another country...remember the en masse movement of his combat jets to Iran during the last show in an attempt to preserve them?

I dont mean that it doesnt work if its not fired into the air. But the chemicals can only disperse effectivly if shot into the air. As I said. For all intensive purposes, they did. They cant get rid of weapons they didnt realise existed. If they were forgotten about then thats a technicality and not a justification for war.

And there are lotsa rumours abot ltsa stuff. Thats why they are rumours. I suspect this is on par with the "secret Iraq underground Nuke testing ground" Its not as If troops suddenly appeared and attacked. They were always around Iraq. A little known fact is that Coalition forces had been periodically bombing Iraq since the end of the Gulf war and in the months leading up to the Iraq war there was a massive bombing campaign to destroy IRaq's Air defences. If Iraq were transferring weapons in a convoy that the U.S knew about theywould have had ample time and means to destroy it, Assuming they wanted to and didnt want it to cross the border.

Iraq is not as willful as people think. What reason would they have for transferring them to Syria? I think that explaination is really more grasping for straws then a plausible possiblty. More a possible justification to Vindicate the war rather than a objective theory to explain what hapened. The Gulf war left Iraq's military in ruins through such ungentlemanlike behavior like the "Highway of death" incidents. They knew they were treading on thin Ice. Why risk provoking The U.S? what would they have to gain? Even Iraqs own neighbours didnt Mind that Much If Hussein Stayed in power.

And finally I think that the term WMD aplied to chemical, if not biological weapons is flawed. The Military term NBC is more applicable. Chemcials weapons dont spread by disease. And are frankly no more "killy" than a conventional Bomb. Note: Chemical "weapons" have been found. But not Biological.
I dont mention Nuclear because any assertion that Iraq was going to get Nuclear weapons isnt worth discussing.

The picture was proven false, based on obvious facts.

And there are lotsa rumours abot ltsa stuff. Thats why they are rumours. I suspect this is on par with the "secret Iraq underground Nuke testing ground" Its not as If troops suddenly appeared and attacked. They were always around Iraq. A little known fact is that Coalition forces had been periodically bombing Iraq since the end of the Gulf war and in the months leading up to the Iraq war there was a massive bombing campaign to destroy IRaq's Air defences. If Iraq were transferring weapons in a convoy that the U.S knew about theywould have had ample time and means to destroy it, Assuming they wanted to and didnt want it to cross the border.
I don't think it would be that hard to get trucks and things over the border, given that the Iraqis and neighboring countries (Like Syria) were regularly abusing the oil-for-food program and cheating it. If it were to be one big convoy a mile long the airforce would probably spot it, but given that Saddam had a long time to know about all of this, it probably wouldn't be hard to do it in much less noticable movements.

But still. As I said. Iraq was being softened up and surveiled for an invasion months in advance. Even while Bush was claiming (Although falsely, but then its not as If anyone believed him anyway) that they werent looking for a fight and were searching for a peaceful solution.
And why would Iraq do it? And what would it have to gain?

The reason people hate America is because we're considered snobs in the world for being the greatest superpower.

And why would Iraq do it? And what would it have to gain?
I don't know. I agree with you that the possibility is highly unlikely and you are most likely right in this regard. Saddam was a bit of a nut in that, if he didn't have WMD, he was still purposely doing things in material breach of UN resolutions.

if the u.s. hadn't been selling arms to the nazis, then perhaps everyone could have fought them off a little easier...
link?

if the u.s. hadn't been selling arms to the nazis, then perhaps everyone could have fought them off a little easier...Can you offer any proof that the US was selling arms to Nazi Germany, or is this just your own conspiracy theory? If any portion of Europe had been prepared to defend themselves in any way US or Soviet interevention would'nt have bneen needed.

And why would Iraq do it? And what would it have to gain?
I don't know. I agree with you that the possibility is highly unlikely and you are most likely right in this regard. Saddam was a bit of a nut in that, if he didn't have WMD, he was still purposely doing things in material breach of UN resolutions.

Just because he is a dictator doesnt mean he is a nut. Normally I would say being a dictator makes him very rational, just unscrupulous. But the fact that he was a contract killer may weaken this argument. It depends how he dealt with dehumanising himself in that situation. But It may also strengthen it, and play into my main point that this war was unjustified.

After the uprising was over and done he would have more or less just settled back and retired from his Maniacal schemes. The north was no longer under his control, he was well in control of the south and the middle was satisfied with his rule. Iraq was still fairly in ingenius in jury rigging plans. Case in point: The Tanker pipeline to Turkey. There was no need to repress people on a large scale. So the crimes he was accused of would be the ones he commited the past. They had already happened and so were in the past. I feel revenge is not a good justification for war.

This is one of the questions that still has everyone scratching their heads... The previous U.S. administration was certainly convinced that the Iraqis not had WMDs, but that they were actively pursing programs to protect what they still had and trying to produce more. The intellegence may have been faulty in some cases (such as the famous uranium yellowcake report), but the overall signals being sent from Iraq was that they definitely had something to hide. And...they most assuredly had a gruesome track record of using it with ruthless abandon on their enemies (ask the Iranians or the Iraqi Kurds) in the past.

Sadaam gained stature and status throughout the Arab world each day he defied the UN and kept standing. Even if he didn't actually have weapons (and I still think he did) he might have thought that he was gaining some sort of odd third world brownie points by behaving as if he did have them and thumbing his nose at the civilized world.

The claims many people are making that the current U.S. administration completely faked the reports, cooked up lie upon lie, all to justify the invasion in support of U.N. sanctions, seems to me to be a pretty big stretch. Ultimately the conclusions made by two U.S. administrations may have been lamentably faulty, but that's considerably different than saying they purposely tried to mislead everyone.

And why would Iraq do it? And what would it have to gain?
I don't know. I agree with you that the possibility is highly unlikely and you are most likely right in this regard. Saddam was a bit of a nut in that, if he didn't have WMD, he was still purposely doing things in material breach of UN resolutions.

An interesting point brought up earlier...do the chemical artillery shells that the terrorists have been using against coalition forces qualify as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), or "merely" as Nuclear/Biological?Chemical (NBC) munitions?

Sadaam wasn't supposed to have either under the UN mandates, so possession of NBC munitions still qualifies him as being in material breach, I do believe...

An interesting point brought up earlier...do the chemical artillery shells that the terrorists have been using against coalition forces qualify as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), or "merely" as Nuclear/Biological?Chemical (NBC) munitions?

Sadaam wasn't supposed to have either under the UN mandates, so possession of NBC munitions still qualifies him as being in material breach, I do believe...

in answer to the question: no, I think we settled that already, read the previous posts.

...why the perception that Gringoes are a bunch of tubbies? They may be on to something...even our poor people look like they've never missed a meal! :wink:

...why the perception that Gringoes are a bunch of tubbies? They may be on to something...even our poor people look like they've never missed a meal! :wink:

Nyuk nyuk! :P

And there are lotsa rumours abot ltsa stuff. Thats why they are rumours. I suspect this is on par with the "secret Iraq underground Nuke testing ground" Its not as If troops suddenly appeared and attacked. They were always around Iraq. A little known fact is that Coalition forces had been periodically bombing Iraq since the end of the Gulf war and in the months leading up to the Iraq war there was a massive bombing campaign to destroy IRaq's Air defences. If Iraq were transferring weapons in a convoy that the U.S knew about theywould have had ample time and means to destroy it, Assuming they wanted to and didnt want it to cross the border.
I don't think it would be that hard to get trucks and things over the border, given that the Iraqis and neighboring countries (Like Syria) were regularly abusing the oil-for-food program and cheating it. If it were to be one big convoy a mile long the airforce would probably spot it, but given that Saddam had a long time to know about all of this, it probably wouldn't be hard to do it in much less noticable movements.

I think a lot of people are missing the point. What possible motivation would Syria have for accepting WMDs from Saddam Hussein? Aside from the fact that there was no love lost between the two nations, I think after witnessing the demise of Saddam Hussein the Syrian government would be none to willing to be seen to have collaborated with him in hiding the weapons, it would have been a very risky policy with little or no gain to be had.

And there are lotsa rumours abot ltsa stuff. Thats why they are rumours. I suspect this is on par with the "secret Iraq underground Nuke testing ground" Its not as If troops suddenly appeared and attacked. They were always around Iraq. A little known fact is that Coalition forces had been periodically bombing Iraq since the end of the Gulf war and in the months leading up to the Iraq war there was a massive bombing campaign to destroy IRaq's Air defences. If Iraq were transferring weapons in a convoy that the U.S knew about theywould have had ample time and means to destroy it, Assuming they wanted to and didnt want it to cross the border.
I don't think it would be that hard to get trucks and things over the border, given that the Iraqis and neighboring countries (Like Syria) were regularly abusing the oil-for-food program and cheating it. If it were to be one big convoy a mile long the airforce would probably spot it, but given that Saddam had a long time to know about all of this, it probably wouldn't be hard to do it in much less noticable movements.

I think a lot of people are missing the point. What possible motivation would Syria have for accepting WMDs from Saddam Hussein? Aside from the fact that there was no love lost between the two nations, I think after witnessing the demise of Saddam Hussein the Syrian government would be none to willing to be seen to have collaborated with him in hiding the weapons, it would have been a very risky policy with little or no gain to be had.

And It would give the coalition an excuse to Invade syria.

It's possible that some of those WMDs were smuggled into Syria...don't forget that Syria and Iraq were both controlled by Baathist Party types at the time. Syria isn't on the Terrorist-Sponsor list for nothing...they could think of plenty of uses for those weapons, I'm sure...

Here's Mark Steyn weighing in on obesity in America and Britain, and European reaction to it: A broadside in the war on blubber (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/06/01/do0102.xml).

Notable for the use of the word "nannytollah" in reference to the "nanny state".

So which is it? Are we enforcing "negative body image" by telling children to be thin? Or should we send the little porkers to fat camp, because not being a blimp helps your self-esteem more than being told you are fat hurts it?

o.0

NEWSFLASH:

Coalition Troops invade Syria for "Looking Kinda Fishy"


As For WWII?

We owe that victory to the Soviet Winter, if it hadn't been for that, the eastern front would have dissappeared, the troops would reinforce on the West, and we'd all be speaking german.

Let's here it for Cold! Yeah!