Your thoughts on American troops stationed in Australia?

@Turambar said:

@doublezeroduck said:

America needs to bring all the troops stationed abroad home. Why does Australia need American troops there? Why does the US need them there? They don't. It doesn't serve much of a purpose as far as I can tell.

Think about what the environment actually is in East Asia before you say all troops stationed abroad should be sent home. The only reason why South Korea and Taiwan still exist as independent states is because of the American military bases in the areas. The reason for the base in Australia is pretty simple. It further reinforces the US military's ability to respond against any military move made by China against Taiwan (and SE Asia as a whole.) It has nothing to do with Australia itself since its not a nearly an influential enough of a country that is threatening China's ambitions of making Asia its zone of influence.

oh come the fuck on, the likelyhood of china going after Taiwan in any sort of military operation is dumb and China is smarter than that, not to mention them going after any more of SE asia would be even sillier. (they have no incentive to take control of vietnam, thailand, etc.)

@Clinkz said:

@mylifeforAiur said:

Please remember to keep it civil, lads. By the way, the first person to make a "convict joke" is getting a swift jab in the eye with a knife... An Australian knife.

Why do they need to protect a bunch of convicts?

Australian knives are better known as shivs.

@doublezeroduck said:

America needs to bring all the troops stationed abroad home. Why does Australia need American troops there? Why does the US need them there? They don't. It doesn't serve much of a purpose as far as I can tell.

Exactly. We need our boys back on our shore.

I'm with ron paul on this one. I don't know why we're surprised when other countries shit ends up at our door step in the form of terrorism when we go around trying to police the world.

@mylifeforAiur said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Sezzilla said:

@konig_kei said:

IT'S GOOD THEY CAN KEEP ALL THE ABOS IN LINE.

*Thumbs up to you*

Mods, this is racist talk. It's the Australian equivalent of the N-Word.

Yeah, also (I can't properly edit my previous post, so I apologise for creating another.) this type of behaviour is completely offensive and has absolutely no bearing on anything I was referring to in the OP. It's not funny; however, it is immensely vacuous.

I will add my voice that the mods need to take care of this ........ it is extremely offensive and racist.

@BlinkyTM said:

@Contrarian said:

@BlinkyTM said:

@Contrarian said:

It is just a consolidation of the ANZUS alliance and no big deal. No-one is threarening to invade Australia, so it isn't about protecting the country. Despite Indonesia's 300 million population, they are no position to invade and China isn't really a colonial power. Australia has far too many powerful friends, like the USA, Canada and the UK, for any country to risk an invasion over. I am no fan of America, but they are a good friend, so strengthening that relationship is only a good thing, as long as we stop following them into stupid wars like Vietnam and Iraq.

Both were warranted, I can assure you. I'll explain why if you want.

I don't need it explained to me, but thank you. They were both follies that achieved nothing and killed too many young people on both sides. History pretty much has agreed this on Vietnam and future history will very likely agree on this in the not so far future. All are entitled to there view though.

History has not agreed that Vietnam and Iraq were both "follies"....the Vietnam War began when the French (Who occupied that territory) were attacked by NVA troops. After the attack they pulled out and left non-communist South Vietnam vulnerable. The belief was that if South Vietnam fell it would open a gateway that would inevitably lead to more nations becoming Communist. The reasons the Vietnam War failed lie with Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon. Their horrendous policies, lack of basic military understanding, no communication with generals on the frontline, and the fact that they crumbled under anti-war protests is disgusting. Numerous accounts from generals on the battlefront (I can give you the titles of the books I got my information from) stated that we were on the verge of capturing Hanoi when the troops were pulled out. I don't know how you can say Iraq was a "folly." In my books toppling a genocidal dictator and establishing a Democracy are both very important to ensuring stability in that area.

To each their own I guess...

History has agreed that Vietnam was a folly and it is wrong to deny that. You would struggle to find anyone who believes the loss of 58,000 Americans was worth it. It was a silly ideological war with communism, that cost far too much life. Australia followed American into the war, not the French. Previous French rule was irrelevant to participation. The protestors were genuinely great people, who could not support a bad war and in effect, are heroes for assisting in bringing the war to a close. A democratic nation is supposed to listen to its people, so "crumbling" is simply a fact of democracy and a good thing.

The Iraq war was a folly simply because it was based on a lie and dind't serve any purpose whatsoever. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and what Hussein did was an internal issue. However, he did deserve to be toppled, but not by invasion, but by methods similar to the successful campaign in Libya. Just assist the locals with air support and equipment and allow it to be played out internally. Not one single US loss was worth it. Foreign troops on a sovereign nation with the aim of change and control is always a mistake and history has proven it to be so, over and over again. You cannot enforce democracy at gunpoint as it is silly as it sounds. The people of the country must determine therir own destiny for it to have a lasting impact.

We are all still entitled to our views though.

Troops abroad = less unemployment home

History has agreed that Vietnam was a folly and it is wrong to deny that. You would struggle to find anyone who believes the loss of 58,000 Americans was worth it. It was a silly ideological war with communism, that cost far too much life. Australia followed American into the war, not the French. Previous French rule was irrelevant to participation. 1).The protestors were genuinely great people, who could not support a bad war and in effect, are heroes for assisting in bringing the war to a close. A democratic nation is supposed to listen to its people, so 2)."crumbling" is simply a fact of democracy and a good thing.

3). The Iraq war was a folly simply because it was based on a lie and dind't serve any purpose whatsoever. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and what Hussein did was an internal issue. However, he did deserve to be toppled, but not by invasion, but by methods similar to the successful campaign in Libya. Just assist the locals with air support and equipment and allow it to be played out internally. Not one single US loss was worth it. Foreign troops on a sovereign nation with the aim of change and control is always a mistake and 4). history has proven it to be so, over and over again. You cannot enforce democracy at gunpoint as it is silly as it sounds. 5). The people of the country must determine therir own destiny for it to have a lasting impact.

We are all still entitled to our views though.

I never said the French followed America into the War...

Previous French rule is completely relevant to America's participation. Did you read my post past the first sentence or two?

This is why: "In 1954, after the defeat of the French at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the Geneva Accords of 1954 split the country geographically, with the DRV to the north of the 17th parallel and the SoV in the south. The Geneva Accords imposed a deadline of July 1956 for the governments of the two Vietnams to hold elections, with a view to uniting the country under one government. By 1962 the situation in South Vietnam had become bad enough that Diem submitted a request for assistance to the United States and its allies in order to counter the growing insurgency and the threat that it posed to South Vietnam's security."

Based solely on this, how can you say the war wasn't justified, at least relating to the beliefs at the time?

You realize Australia only had 30 troops in Vietnam in 1962 right? At the peak there were 7,000 with only 500 casualties overall. Australia had a great deal of support and went into the war for the same reasons the United States did. They feared the spread of communism if South Vietnam fell. Again, after the increased involvement the war lost support among civilians and the Government decided to pull out 2-3 years before the end of the war.

3). The Iraq War was not based on lies. In 2004, radioactive materials were found that could have been used to make a bomb. Iraq was thought to be harboring Osama Bin Laden, you don't think toppling a dictator that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was a justification? Sure, that's not the sole reason we went to Iraq, but it is certainly a beneficial outcome for the people living there.

"The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.

The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday."

Link: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-07/world/iraq.nuclear_1_nuclear-materials-tuwaitha-nuclear-research-center-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD

Elections are not taking place "at gunpoint." Thousands of Iraqis willingly turned out for democratic elections; I take this as a sign that they want a democratic government and no longer wish to be ruled by a dictator.

The war in Libya violates the U.S. constitution. The Constitution requires the approval of Congress before the United States is involved in aggressive military action. Obama bypassed this and sought the approval of the U.N. Security Council.

1). What are you basing this on?

2). True enough in civil cases, not when it pertains to war. If the government pulled out during WWI and WWII I think the world would be in a very different place right now.

4). You keep reiterating this but you never give any examples.

5). This hasn't worked out in many cases. Kosovo, the First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, genocide in Darfur etc...

America is evil.

The evil must be spread.

“The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.” -- Cicero , 55 B.C.

@BlinkyTM said:

History has agreed that Vietnam was a folly and it is wrong to deny that. You would struggle to find anyone who believes the loss of 58,000 Americans was worth it. It was a silly ideological war with communism, that cost far too much life. Australia followed American into the war, not the French. Previous French rule was irrelevant to participation. 1).The protestors were genuinely great people, who could not support a bad war and in effect, are heroes for assisting in bringing the war to a close. A democratic nation is supposed to listen to its people, so 2)."crumbling" is simply a fact of democracy and a good thing.

3). The Iraq war was a folly simply because it was based on a lie and dind't serve any purpose whatsoever. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and what Hussein did was an internal issue. However, he did deserve to be toppled, but not by invasion, but by methods similar to the successful campaign in Libya. Just assist the locals with air support and equipment and allow it to be played out internally. Not one single US loss was worth it. Foreign troops on a sovereign nation with the aim of change and control is always a mistake and 4). history has proven it to be so, over and over again. You cannot enforce democracy at gunpoint as it is silly as it sounds. 5). The people of the country must determine therir own destiny for it to have a lasting impact.

We are all still entitled to our views though.

I never said the French followed America into the War...

Previous French rule is completely relevant to America's participation. Did you read my post past the first sentence or two?

This is why: "In 1954, after the defeat of the French at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the Geneva Accords of 1954 split the country geographically, with the DRV to the north of the 17th parallel and the SoV in the south. The Geneva Accords imposed a deadline of July 1956 for the governments of the two Vietnams to hold elections, with a view to uniting the country under one government. By 1962 the situation in South Vietnam had become bad enough that Diem submitted a request for assistance to the United States and its allies in order to counter the growing insurgency and the threat that it posed to South Vietnam's security."

Based solely on this, how can you say the war wasn't justified, at least relating to the beliefs at the time?

You realize Australia only had 30 troops in Vietnam in 1962 right? At the peak there were 7,000 with only 500 casualties overall. Australia had a great deal of support and went into the war for the same reasons the United States did. They feared the spread of communism if South Vietnam fell. Again, after the increased involvement the war lost support among civilians and the Government decided to pull out 2-3 years before the end of the war.

3). The Iraq War was not based on lies. In 2004, radioactive materials were found that could have been used to make a bomb. Iraq was thought to be harboring Osama Bin Laden, you don't think toppling a dictator that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was a justification? Sure, that's not the sole reason we went to Iraq, but it is certainly a beneficial outcome for the people living there.

"The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.

The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday."

Link: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-07/world/iraq.nuclear_1_nuclear-materials-tuwaitha-nuclear-research-center-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD

Elections are not taking place "at gunpoint." Thousands of Iraqis willingly turned out for democratic elections; I take this as a sign that they want a democratic government and no longer wish to be ruled by a dictator.

The war in Libya violates the U.S. constitution. The Constitution requires the approval of Congress before the United States is involved in aggressive military action. Obama bypassed this and sought the approval of the U.N. Security Council.

1). What are you basing this on?

2). True enough in civil cases, not when it pertains to war. If the government pulled out during WWI and WWII I think the world would be in a very different place right now.

4). You keep reiterating this but you never give any examples.

5). This hasn't worked out in many cases. Kosovo, the First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, genocide in Darfur etc...

I never said America followed the French into the war, I said Australia never followed the French, but rather the Americans. Misunderstanding there. Justifications are just rewriting history to suit an outcome. 58,000 American lives cannot be justified.

3) Nothing changes the fact that the Iraq War was a lie. It was a war of convenience and completely oil driven. What they eventually found was not relevant to the original lie. America and its allies had no place there.

1) They disagreed with the government and protested legally and eventually gave into the will of the people. They are heroes for standing up to the government against police violence, tear gas e cetera.

2) Not relevant. The will of the people in a democracy is more important and WWI and WWII are simply a diversion from this, as they were supported by the masses.

4) Afghanistan, any part of Africa, any part of Asia, any part of the Middle East, Europe .......... which part of failed occupations and forced change to suit the will of the invaders do you miss throughout history. Empire after Empire has tried it.

5) That still doesn't make it any of our business. Would you have it reasonable for foreign intervention during the American Civil War? It would be justified by your standards. The UN has a responsibility to protect people, not the US unilaterally. Most of the worlds problems have US and European intervention at its core, going back over the last century or so. We need to mind our business a lot more.

The assistance of the US in Libya was simply strategic, they were no more involved in the assistance than they were to England during the Falklands. If it were illegal, then where are the court proceedings, the impeachments?

We simply have a different view on world matters. I think I am right and you think are right. I believe history supports my position on most of this.

@Contrarian said:

@BlinkyTM said:

I never said the French followed America into the War...

Previous French rule is completely relevant to America's participation. Did you read my post past the first sentence or two?

This is why: "In 1954, after the defeat of the French at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the Geneva Accords of 1954 split the country geographically, with the DRV to the north of the 17th parallel and the SoV in the south. The Geneva Accords imposed a deadline of July 1956 for the governments of the two Vietnams to hold elections, with a view to uniting the country under one government. By 1962 the situation in South Vietnam had become bad enough that Diem submitted a request for assistance to the United States and its allies in order to counter the growing insurgency and the threat that it posed to South Vietnam's security."

Based solely on this, how can you say the war wasn't justified, at least relating to the beliefs at the time?

You realize Australia only had 30 troops in Vietnam in 1962 right? At the peak there were 7,000 with only 500 casualties overall. Australia had a great deal of support and went into the war for the same reasons the United States did. They feared the spread of communism if South Vietnam fell. Again, after the increased involvement the war lost support among civilians and the Government decided to pull out 2-3 years before the end of the war.

3). The Iraq War was not based on lies. In 2004, radioactive materials were found that could have been used to make a bomb. Iraq was thought to be harboring Osama Bin Laden, you don't think toppling a dictator that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was a justification? Sure, that's not the sole reason we went to Iraq, but it is certainly a beneficial outcome for the people living there.

"The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.

The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday."

Link: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-07/world/iraq.nuclear_1_nuclear-materials-tuwaitha-nuclear-research-center-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD

Elections are not taking place "at gunpoint." Thousands of Iraqis willingly turned out for democratic elections; I take this as a sign that they want a democratic government and no longer wish to be ruled by a dictator.

The war in Libya violates the U.S. constitution. The Constitution requires the approval of Congress before the United States is involved in aggressive military action. Obama bypassed this and sought the approval of the U.N. Security Council.

1). What are you basing this on?

2). True enough in civil cases, not when it pertains to war. If the government pulled out during WWI and WWII I think the world would be in a very different place right now.

4). You keep reiterating this but you never give any examples.

5). This hasn't worked out in many cases. Kosovo, the First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, genocide in Darfur etc...

I never said America followed the French into the war, I said Australia never followed the French, but rather the Americans. Misunderstanding there. Justifications are just rewriting history to suit an outcome. A).58,000 American lives cannot be justified.

3) Nothing changes the fact that the Iraq War was a lie. It was a war of convenience and completely oil driven. What they eventually found was not relevant to the original lie. America and its allies had no place there.

1) They disagreed with the government and protested legally and eventually gave into the will of the people. They are heroes for standing up to the government against police violence, tear gas e cetera.

2) Not relevant. The will of the people in a democracy is more important and WWI and WWII are simply a diversion from this, as they were supported by the masses.

4) Afghanistan, any part of Africa, any part of Asia, any part of the Middle East, Europe .......... which part of failed occupations and forced change to suit the will of the invaders do you miss throughout history. Empire after Empire has tried it.

5) That still doesn't make it any of our business. Would you have it reasonable for foreign intervention during the American Civil War? It would be justified by your standards. The UN has a responsibility to protect people, not the US unilaterally. Most of the worlds problems have US and European intervention at its core, going back over the last century or so. We need to mind our business a lot more.

The assistance of the US in Libya was simply strategic, they were no more involved in the assistance than they were to England during the Falklands. If it were illegal, then where are the court proceedings, the impeachments?

We simply have a different view on world matters. I think I am right and you think are right. B).I believe history supports my position on most of this.

A). By this logic no war can be justified. Many more died in WWI and WWII, do you think these wars were unjust?

B). How so?

1). Assaulting police officers with rocks and smoke bombs. They continued beating an officer over the head resulting in a severe spinal cord injury: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/17/newsid_2818000/2818967.stm

This was just one instance of violence, if you want more I'm sure I could find them.

2). How is it not relevant? The Vietnam War was supported by the masses as well. Over 50% supported the war, it wasn't until the tail end of the war that support dropped below 50%.

3). Interesting since the U.S. recieved no oil from Iraq:

Source: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

They found materials used to create a "dirty bomb". This kind of bomb could destroy New York City and the surrounding area and make it uninhabitable for decades. What was this supposed "lie"? The original purpose was because intelligence revealed materials that could have created a nuclear warhead, while there were no actual warheads discovered, they still found enough material to justify their concerns.

4). Your argument is that "all forced occupations" result in failure? This is a universalization. I know of many "forced occupations" that have not resulted in failures, quite the opposite actually. How about we take an extreme case where the U.S. didn't want to "forcibly occupy" an area, such as Rwanda. The United States refused to even acknowledge the genocide until hundreds of thousands were already dead. South Ossetia; the U.S took the stance of state sovereignty and that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths. Had we intervened the outcomes of both of these may have been drastically different. I can provide more examples if you want.

5). There was foreign intervention in the Civil War. Not enough to shift the outcome of the war, but it was still present.

The United States was fairly involved during the recent events in Libya. Look up Operation Unified Protector and Operation Odyssey Dawn. I don't now why there hasn't been any action taken against the President. Maybe we're getting used to him passing over Congress; this was the third or fourth time he's done it since his inauguration.

I'm not an Australian but I can see why it might be a good idea for America to have some troops stationed there. Forward military bases act as a rapid response to emergencies or disasters and such. Even though I think the Australian military is more than capable of defending its own land, it would prove helpful to have some American presence on their soil.

That or you can take it the Germany way as: why the hell are Americans still stationed at Germany.

@konig_kei: haha wow, all aboriginals are not nice people and are super racist? nice racism.

@konig_kei said:

@SeriouslyNow I was shortening aboriginal but uhhh, ok. No one gonna pick up on greggd using "kraut" then? A term of war... Quite offensive... Anyway by saying they could keep the aboriginals in line I was just referring to how the crime rates in NT are far higher than Amy other state in Australia, also it has the most aboriginals so link there. Fun fact aboriginals are not nice people and are super racist, I've been to Alice Springs and I would not want to go back. Surely American troops might act as a foreign and internal deterrence to both possible aggression and crime?

Rubbish. You were being racist and you're still being racist. You're even painting Aborigines (for that is what they call themselves in English, not Aboriginals which is the scientific term referring to native peoples) as some hopeless rabble which the US army could 'keep in line'. 'Quite offensive' is the very definition of your approach. Blinkered Ignorance would also apply too because the crime rate in the highest for Australia in both the ACT and the NT. Now, the ACT is where Canberra is situated so, by your logic, all of the politicians are directly affecting our National Crime Rate? No. On the other hand, what is directly skewing the crime rate in terms of violent crime like assaults in the NT is the concentration Motorcycle gangs in that area; they are the single largest groups with the highest rate of criminal activity in the area and they are mostly white. All of this is easily backed up by research should you actually care to look it up, unlike your racist crap.

America has spent most of the second half of the last decade attempting to be the "older brother" for dozens of other nations. They haven't always succeeded, nor have they always done so with the best intentions. But the world would be a much worse-off place in not for that nation.

It has troops stationed in a few hundred countries, both war-torn and peaceful. From Vietnam to Libya, from France to Liberia, from Germany to Afghanistan.

It cannot be argued against that America has done a great deal of good for the world. It has toppled tyrannical dictators, upheld and suppressed rebellions, stabilized economies, and rescued millions of civilians from natural disasters.

That said, I think America should begin to focus on America. I realize that it sounds cold and globally nearsighted, but a doctor with an illness must first heal himself so that he may better heal others.

@Contrarian: In 1999, America imported 725,000 barrels of petroleum from Iraq. In 2009, America imported 450,000 barrels from Iraq. This "war for oil" is certainly a bizarre one...

As for your belief that 58,000 American lives cannot be justified, in WWII Russia lost 23,400,000 citizens. Without that sacrifice, Europe would not exist. I would say that, despite the horror and gravity, their sacrifice was proper and noble.

@BlinkyTM: The materials to make a dirty bomb are the same as those used to make a working fission reactor and Iraq had a neutered (via US embargoes) nuclear energy plan. The evidence for a dirty bomb was specious at best.

Good for the local 'Women Of the Night" and pimps in general.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM: The materials to make a dirty bomb are the same as those used to make a working fission reactor and Iraq had a neutered (via US embargoes) nuclear energy plan. The evidence for a dirty bomb was specious at best.

Why take the chance? If they had the materials what's going to stop them from making a bomb.

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM: The materials to make a dirty bomb are the same as those used to make a working fission reactor and Iraq had a neutered (via US embargoes) nuclear energy plan. The evidence for a dirty bomb was specious at best.

Why take the chance? If they had the materials what's going to stop them from making a bomb.

Clear and Present Danger was a work of fiction. In reality US supplied nuclear materials which are made useless via a US driven embargo does not equate to a potential dirty bomb, it equates to a stuff in a warehouse which is expensive and useless.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM: The materials to make a dirty bomb are the same as those used to make a working fission reactor and Iraq had a neutered (via US embargoes) nuclear energy plan. The evidence for a dirty bomb was specious at best.

Why take the chance? If they had the materials what's going to stop them from making a bomb.

Clear and Present Danger was a work of fiction. In reality US supplied nuclear materials which are made useless via a US driven embargo does not equate to a potential dirty bomb, it equates to a stuff in a warehouse which is expensive and useless.

Source I have stated the materials could be used to create a bomb.

"Radiological sources for medical, agricultural or industrial purposes were not removed, the department said. Less-sensitive materials were repackaged and remained in Iraq."

"The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.

The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday."

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-07/world/iraq.nuclear_1_nuclear-materials-tuwaitha-nuclear-research-center-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD

You can take it up with the Energy Department if you want. I'm more inclined to believe them over a random person on a video game forum.

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM: The materials to make a dirty bomb are the same as those used to make a working fission reactor and Iraq had a neutered (via US embargoes) nuclear energy plan. The evidence for a dirty bomb was specious at best.

Why take the chance? If they had the materials what's going to stop them from making a bomb.

Clear and Present Danger was a work of fiction. In reality US supplied nuclear materials which are made useless via a US driven embargo does not equate to a potential dirty bomb, it equates to a stuff in a warehouse which is expensive and useless.

Source I have stated the materials could be used to create a bomb.

"Radiological sources for medical, agricultural or industrial purposes were not removed, the department said. Less-sensitive materials were repackaged and remained in Iraq."

"The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.

The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday."

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-07/world/iraq.nuclear_1_nuclear-materials-tuwaitha-nuclear-research-center-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD

You can take it up with the Energy Department if you want. I'm more inclined to believe them over a random person on a video game forum.

And any car could also be used to drive people over too. Having the materials to make a weapon doesn't mean that you definitely have a weapon, if so every American farmer would be like Timothy McVeigh.

There were no WMDs, certainly not those of the Chemical and Incendiary variety which the Bush regime proposed existed as the sole reason to go to war with Iraq. And with that I'm out because discussing this with a person like you is redundant.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM: The materials to make a dirty bomb are the same as those used to make a working fission reactor and Iraq had a neutered (via US embargoes) nuclear energy plan. The evidence for a dirty bomb was specious at best.

Why take the chance? If they had the materials what's going to stop them from making a bomb.

Clear and Present Danger was a work of fiction. In reality US supplied nuclear materials which are made useless via a US driven embargo does not equate to a potential dirty bomb, it equates to a stuff in a warehouse which is expensive and useless.

Source I have stated the materials could be used to create a bomb.

"Radiological sources for medical, agricultural or industrial purposes were not removed, the department said. Less-sensitive materials were repackaged and remained in Iraq."

"The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.

The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday."

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-07/world/iraq.nuclear_1_nuclear-materials-tuwaitha-nuclear-research-center-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD

You can take it up with the Energy Department if you want. I'm more inclined to believe them over a random person on a video game forum.

And any car could also be used to drive people over too. Having the materials to make a weapon doesn't mean that you definitely have a weapon, if so every American farmer would be like Timothy McVeigh.

There were no WMDs, certainly not those of the Chemical and Incendiary variety which the Bush regime proposed existed as the sole reason to go to war with Iraq. And with that I'm out because discussing this with a person like you is redundant.

Going back to my original statement: Why take the chance? If they had the materials what's going to stop them from making a bomb.

That's a weak analogy. I don't think I need to explain why...

Alright, nice cop out.

what ever happens. we do have troops living around the world, you know. 
 
obama said that we are going to have the troops out of iraq at the end of the year. i'll believe that when things actually start happening.

I wish Australia was neutral militarily.

We really had no business in any of the wars we've been in, and our money and lives could be better spent elsewhere.

um...US troops are always going in and out of Darwin.

Hell, I grew up in Alice Springs and there are tonnes of defence yanks there.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Sezzilla said:

@konig_kei said:

IT'S GOOD THEY CAN KEEP ALL THE ABOS IN LINE.

*Thumbs up to you*

Mods, this is racist talk. It's the Australian equivalent of the N-Word.

Noted.

@mlarrabee said:

@Contrarian: In 1999, America imported 725,000 barrels of petroleum from Iraq. In 2009, America imported 450,000 barrels from Iraq. This "war for oil" is certainly a bizarre one...

As for your belief that 58,000 American lives cannot be justified, in WWII Russian lost 23,400,000 citizens. Without that sacrifice, Europe would not exist. I would say that, despite the horror and gravity, their sacrifice was proper and noble.

They are rebuilding the oil infrastucture that was destroyed as a result of the illegal invasion.

23.4 million Russians died defending their own country. That isn't remotely the same thing. They had no choice - fight or surrender. The Russians were the real heroes of WWII and caused the downfall of Hitler. Hitlers occupation of Europe, if successful would never had lasted. No country as small as Germany could control so much land, so even if they won, they would have eventually failed. As for the 58,000 Americans who died trying to prop up a country they had no right being in, how can that be justified? Tell the families of the dead it was worth it. It didn't defend any freedom, like in WWI and WWII, it was just a waste of life of far more than the 58,000 Americans.

@BlinkyTM said:

A). By this logic no war can be justified. Many more died in WWI and WWII, do you think these wars were unjust?

Almost every war in modern history cannot be justified, exceptions for WWI & WWII. When you have an aggressor like Germany, you can only meet them with force. You have no choice.

Protestor were inflicted with uninmaginable violence by the police. The fact that some reacted with violence is only to be expected. Violence begets violence. Generally the media reports more on police getting some of their own back, so no, I don't to cherry pick stories.

It is easy to trick the masses into war, it happens all the time:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Quote - Hermann Goering.

That is how it still happens and the US did exactly this in Vietnam and Iraq.

As for the rest, I am tired of you. You sound like a mouthpiece of the extreme right and I don't care to continue this with a warmonger and supporer of death.

@Aas said:

I'm pretty sure America has like 50 000 troops in Germany of all places. Just in case, I guess.

A top notch military hospital is on that base. It makes sense to have it there in case an American soldier is injured anywhere in Europe, Asia, or Africa. Makes more sense than sending the injured back to the US.

My outback brings all the yanks to the yard, and they're like It's better than yours. Damn right its better than yours. We can teach you but we have to charge.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM: The materials to make a dirty bomb are the same as those used to make a working fission reactor and Iraq had a neutered (via US embargoes) nuclear energy plan. The evidence for a dirty bomb was specious at best.

Why take the chance? If they had the materials what's going to stop them from making a bomb.

Clear and Present Danger was a work of fiction. In reality US supplied nuclear materials which are made useless via a US driven embargo does not equate to a potential dirty bomb, it equates to a stuff in a warehouse which is expensive and useless.

Source I have stated the materials could be used to create a bomb.

"Radiological sources for medical, agricultural or industrial purposes were not removed, the department said. Less-sensitive materials were repackaged and remained in Iraq."

"The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.

The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday."

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-07/world/iraq.nuclear_1_nuclear-materials-tuwaitha-nuclear-research-center-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD

You can take it up with the Energy Department if you want. I'm more inclined to believe them over a random person on a video game forum.

There were no WMDs, certainly not those of the Chemical and Incendiary variety which the Bush regime proposed existed as the sole reason to go to war with Iraq.

I love assertions that are not supported.

Oh and uh..yes there were. While they may not have been as threatening as they were made out to be, they were certainly there.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

I hope you don't find this to be redundant as well.

:)

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM: The materials to make a dirty bomb are the same as those used to make a working fission reactor and Iraq had a neutered (via US embargoes) nuclear energy plan. The evidence for a dirty bomb was specious at best.

Why take the chance? If they had the materials what's going to stop them from making a bomb.

Clear and Present Danger was a work of fiction. In reality US supplied nuclear materials which are made useless via a US driven embargo does not equate to a potential dirty bomb, it equates to a stuff in a warehouse which is expensive and useless.

Source I have stated the materials could be used to create a bomb.

"Radiological sources for medical, agricultural or industrial purposes were not removed, the department said. Less-sensitive materials were repackaged and remained in Iraq."

"The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.

The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday."

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-07/world/iraq.nuclear_1_nuclear-materials-tuwaitha-nuclear-research-center-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD

You can take it up with the Energy Department if you want. I'm more inclined to believe them over a random person on a video game forum.

There were no WMDs, certainly not those of the Chemical and Incendiary variety which the Bush regime proposed existed as the sole reason to go to war with Iraq.

I love assertions that are not supported.

Oh and uh..yes there were. While they may not have been as threatening as they were made out to be, they were certainly there.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

I hope you don't find this to be redundant as well.

:)

@MikeinSC said:

@Aas said:

I'm pretty sure America has like 50 000 troops in Germany of all places. Just in case, I guess.

A top notch military hospital is on that base. It makes sense to have it there in case an American soldier is injured anywhere in Europe, Asia, or Africa. Makes more sense than sending the injured back to the US.

That's a good point, though 50 000 stills seems a bit excessive.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@BlinkyTM: The materials to make a dirty bomb are the same as those used to make a working fission reactor and Iraq had a neutered (via US embargoes) nuclear energy plan. The evidence for a dirty bomb was specious at best.

Why take the chance? If they had the materials what's going to stop them from making a bomb.

Clear and Present Danger was a work of fiction. In reality US supplied nuclear materials which are made useless via a US driven embargo does not equate to a potential dirty bomb, it equates to a stuff in a warehouse which is expensive and useless.

Source I have stated the materials could be used to create a bomb.

"Radiological sources for medical, agricultural or industrial purposes were not removed, the department said. Less-sensitive materials were repackaged and remained in Iraq."

"The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.

The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday."

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-07/world/iraq.nuclear_1_nuclear-materials-tuwaitha-nuclear-research-center-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD

You can take it up with the Energy Department if you want. I'm more inclined to believe them over a random person on a video game forum.

There were no WMDs, certainly not those of the Chemical and Incendiary variety which the Bush regime proposed existed as the sole reason to go to war with Iraq.

I love assertions that are not supported.

Oh and uh..yes there were. While they may not have been as threatening as they were made out to be, they were certainly there.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

I hope you don't find this to be redundant as well.

:)

That's interesting. And by interesting I mean irrelevant and thus yes, I do find it redundant. If those weapons had been effective and of any relevance they would've been used as evidence to support the war in the media, but they weren't, they were tiny caches of low yield weapons. When the 2008 election was being drummed up you'd think that the GOP would've been able to use some this evidence to support McCain and Palin and yet they chose not to because while technically it is evidence of WMDs, effectively it's also evidence that the US forces were wasting money chasing the bigger smoking guns which never existed in the first place.

"The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War."

I guess it was waste of time to go after the remnants of Saddam's personal arsenal as well. "Experts say Saddam launched about 280 chemical attacks against the Kurds". In all likelihood the remnants of his arsenal contained weaponized chemical agents.

Even small amounts of chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, are highly potent, "Mustard gas, a chemical agent that attacks the skin, eyes, and lungs, is one of the most notorious, and most potent, chemical weapons.

Experts say mustard gas is "especially insidious" because victims suffer tissue damage before they even realise they need treatment."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8353787/Libya-mustard-gas-most-potent-chemical-weapon.html

"The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion."

"In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed."

"Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city."

These documents were released by Wikileaks. The report was posted in 2010. Thus, one is led to infer that the documents were leaked at some point between 2009-2010. Otherwise such a report would have been posted earlier. The media did not report on them at large because the war was already unpopular and troops were being sent home.

Effectively the article is evidence of what was stated, "There are WMDs in Iraq". Thus, it is not redundant.

Your claim of "redundancy" is then contradicted by your response. If it was so redundant why bother using the article as evidence in your post to refute the very article you stated was irrelevant and redundant?

Why respond to irrelevancy at all? Are you not then propagating the irrelevancy and giving it legitimacy by acknowledging it?

If anything, your statement regarding the 2008 elections,which truly are irrelevant to the discussion, is redundant.

I would even go as far as saying that it is a Red Herring.

My statement was about WMDs in Iraq and I provided evidence for that.

Your statement regarding the elections has nothing to do with evidence of WMDs in Iraq. While it may be valid in and of itself, it is not a refutation of my statement and the subsequent evidence that there are WMDs in Iraq.

While, as I stated, the weapons found may not be as substantial as the media or the President stated, there were still WMDs in Iraq. Thus, they should be neutralized as they may be used potentially in terrorist attacks.

Need I suggest you consider the effects of mustard gas in say, Grand Central Station in New York City?

Sure, it is no chemical bomb or anything, but the effects of it in such a crowded space would result in a large amount of casualties.

@Contrarian said:

@BlinkyTM said:

A). By this logic no war can be justified. Many more died in WWI and WWII, do you think these wars were unjust?

Almost every war in modern history cannot be justified, exceptions for WWI & WWII. When you have an aggressor like Germany, you can only meet them with force. You have no choice.

Protestor were inflicted with uninmaginable violence by the police. The fact that some reacted with violence is only to be expected. Violence begets violence. Generally the media reports more on police getting some of their own back, so no, I don't to cherry pick stories.

It is easy to trick the masses into war, it happens all the time:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Quote - Hermann Goering.

2).That is how it still happens and the US did exactly this in Vietnam and Iraq.

As for the rest, I am tired of you. 1).You sound like a mouthpiece of the extreme right and I don't care to continue this with a warmonger and supporer of death.

Way to completely avoid the rest of my post....

Wait, earlier you said there was "no justification for the death of 58,000 americans." Now you're changing your stance on this matter while also introducing convenient "exceptions"? I guess I'll reiterate why we went into Vietnam again...There was the very real threat that if the French pulled out and left South Vietnam exposed it would be a gateway for Communism in Asia. Whether or not you feel this was actually the case is irrelevant, given the time and place, it was the United States responsibility to prevent the spread of Communism. North Vietnam, China, and Russia were all aggressors that provoked the War.

Great article on this: http://www.jstor.org/stable/655420

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

"Cherry Picking stories." That's a pretty weak argument. Would you like me to post more cases for you, or would all of those be "cherry picked" as well? How can you say the media only reports on "police getting some of their own back." Let us consider the recent events of the Occupy Wall Street movement. A majority of the articles are based on "police brutality" or "needless use of force by officers." Are you saying that during the Vietnam War this was the case? This would also be false, many outlets wanted the support of the people and provided coverage favoring protestors, portraying them as "peace loving." "An eye for an eye" is not a justification for violence.

You're quoting one of the lead members of the Nazi party as a reliable source of information on how the United States and other Democratic nations "goad" the populace into war? I don't think Nazi Germany was a Democracy, as far as I know the German populace had no say in whether or not Germany went to war. At the peak the Nazi party membership only consisted of a tenth of the population. This is hardly majority rule, which a Democracy is based on. If you feel that Goering was correct, please provide an example for me in the case of Vietnam and Iraq.

1). We're resorting to Ad Hominem now?

Ad Hominem abusive: "(also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."

I've hardly come across as a "Warmonger" and "Supporter of death." Also, your attempt at disproving my argument by labeling me as part of the "extreme right" is weak at best. I'm not advocating violence against other countries, merely stating why we were involved in Vietnam and why we are currently involved in Iraq. I'm also trying to state why both of these wars were/are justified considering the time period, events that took place during/leading up to the war, and ideology.

2). The American people were not told that they were being attacked and if anything the media outlets and other sources supported pacifism. People were hardly brought to the will of the leadership in America. As I stated before, support for the war was almost split 50/50, if the Government controlled the people the war would have had a majority of the support throughout the conflict. Can you give me some examples of when pacifism was denounced as "unpatriotic" and "exposing the country to danger" in the case of Vietnam?

I have no problem with them being here. The US pays for most of their equipment and resources that they need to maintain the base. Australia will bear some of the cost, but it's a good deal for us: We can rely on the US to protect us, thereby spending less on defence.

The question should be whether or not US citizens are alright with maintaining really expensive military outposts all around the world. US troops keep to themselves in Australia and I can't see them doing any damage - China doesn't like US bases in Australia, sure, but China isn't going to do anything about it. They're much more sensitive about US bases in Japan and Korea. I don't think they'd care, since we're very close allies anyway, and besides, it's not like our government would ever agree in hell for Chinese bases in Australia. The Chinese are big-boys on these matters - I'm sure someone somewhere has been paid by the Chinese government to write an angry editorial in the Shanghai Daily or the China Daily newspaper... that's what they do, it's a matter of form, it's what's expected. China can't say nothing, but they sure as hell ain't gonna do anything serious. It's a matter of saving face for them - they are not going to cut off economic ties with Australia over this. They'll make one or two angry speeches, like they always do, and then they'll do nothing about it, because in actual fact, they don't really care. They know the US isn't going to attack them. That's what their Nuclear Missiles are for. They know Australia is already a US ally. They don't care.

So US bases in Australia - they won't change anything for us. But it'll be another unnecessary expense for them. Hey, I'm not complaining. Mostly free protection is mostly free protection, and at the end of the day, every US dollar spent on bombs and bullets is one less Australia dollar spent on bombs and bullets. I have no problem with them being here. We're pretty much the 51st State anyway. I just wonder why they do it. It's not like they get much out of the deal.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Still_I_Cry: No.

Slap fight.

@mylifeforAiur: But everyone knows that iocane powder comes from Australlia which entirely populated by criminals, and criminals are not used to being trust just as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly NOT choose the wine in front of me.

@BlinkyTM: Yea, we TOTALLY GOT THOSE WMDS! WOOOO! USA! USA!

What..no WMDs? Hmmm...Al Queida..not until AFTER we invaded you say..hmm..

Ok, comments on the first few posts I read aside, I don't have a huge problem with it...but I do question the why. It could have something to do with Okinawa maybe? I would imagine that our next conflicts will most likely occur in either Asia or Africa, so its a bit closer....lots of space?

Hopefully this will lead to much cheaper flights to Australia..

@Contrarian said:

Hitlers occupation of Europe, if successful would never had lasted. No country as small as Germany could control so much land, so even if they won, they would have eventually failed.

Napoleon, Alexander III, and Genghis Khan are just a few of the notable examples; men from relatively small countries gaining consistant control of most of Europe and Asia. You needn't control the conquered people; you need only control their children, as Hitler did very well.

Almost every war in modern history cannot be justified, exceptions for WWI & WWII. When you have an aggressor like Germany, you can only meet them with force. You have no choice.

During his reign Saddam Hussain killed 800,000-1M Iraqi citizens, as well as 300,000-1M Iranians during his unprovoked invasion. "When you have an aggressor like Saddam Hussain, you can only meet them with force. You have no choice."

As for the rest, I am tired of you. You sound like a mouthpiece of the extreme right and I don't care to continue this with a warmonger and supporer of death.

War is the greatest horror ever to befall man. But to allow evil to rise up, for the sake of peace, is a crime in itself. As long as there are evil men, there must be good men to stand against them. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

American troops in Australia? What gave us away?

@Still_I_Cry: @BlinkyTM: I take both of you know nothing of Iraq besides the situation we're currently involved in. You both cite Western news media as your sources and refuse to hear out a second opinion. You should realize that Iraq under Hussein started a nuclear program in the late 70's that Israel soon found out and bombed to Hell. The remnants of radioactive materials are probably those from their same program 30 years ago. There's no denying that Iraq before 2003 had possessed some form of nuclear materials and chemical weapons were used on the Kurdish minority in Iraq, but to go so far as to claim that Iraq had the capability to bomb the US is absolutely absurd. Did Hussein ever consider the prospect of nuking the US? Maybe, but that is something we will never find out.

As for Libya, Congress only needs to authorize WAR. Not minor participation in some civil war in a third-world country. The US is a part of NATO and NATO was a major player enforcing UN mandate 1973. Yes, the US has the largest army in NATO and is a major financial supporter, but it clearly was not alone in this endeavor. The US was certainly pushing for such a bill in the UN, but again it was passed by many other countries. You might as well call every action the military takes that involves conflict illegal. You probably should call the US operation in Pakistan to execute OBL illegal too. Congress wasn't even notified beforehand.

@lazyturtle said:

@BlinkyTM: Yea, we TOTALLY GOT THOSE WMDS! WOOOO! USA! USA!

What..no WMDs? Hmmm...Al Queida..not until AFTER we invaded you say..hmm..

Ok, comments on the first few posts I read aside, I don't have a huge problem with it...but I do question the why. It could have something to do with Okinawa maybe? I would imagine that our next conflicts will most likely occur in either Asia or Africa, so its a bit closer....lots of space?

Hopefully this will lead to much cheaper flights to Australia..

I'm fairly certain I stated that there were materials that could have been used to create a "dirty bomb."

as a US Navy sailor I'm all for it...australia has more sea stories about its women than any other country in the world.

Nothing ever happens in Australia, it's the Canada of the Southern Hemisphere, so, what's the big deal? Hopefully the soldiers don't party too hard.

@deathstriker666 said:

@Still_I_Cry: @BlinkyTM: I take both of you know nothing of Iraq besides the situation we're currently involved in. You both cite Western news media as your sources and refuse to hear out a second opinion. You should realize that Iraq under Hussein started a nuclear program in the late 70's that Israel soon found out and bombed to Hell. The remnants of radioactive materials are probably those from their same program 30 years ago. There's no denying that Iraq before 2003 had possessed some form of nuclear materials and chemical weapons were used on the Kurdish minority in Iraq, but to go so far as to claim that Iraq had the capability to bomb the US is absolutely absurd. Did Hussein ever consider the prospect of nuking the US? Maybe, but that is something we will never find out.

I didn't state anything about Libya. I cited the portions about mustard gas. So that portion of your post is irrelevant.

I refuse to hear a second opinion? I'm sorry but I have to scoff at this because no such opinion has been offered. Unless you're referring to the assertions and unsupported statements by SeriouslyNow. I'm sorry if I don't take an argument about a subject that has been covered extensively seriously if it has no sources to back it up.

Your statement regarding the nuclear reactor is also incorrect. As per your article, the reactor was not totally destroyed until the early 90s.

"but to go so far as to claim that Iraq had the capability to bomb the US is absolutely absurd" Did I state this? No.

I stated that the mustard gas may have been used in a terrorist attack on a subway(such attacks have happened in the past, though I believe it was with a different kind of gas).

"You both cite Western news media as your sources" Uh..ok. This was an empty statement. Unless you're willing to post sources from the east to counter or at least "show the other side" why bother stating this?

"You should realize that Iraq under Hussein started a nuclear program in the late 70's that Israel soon found out and bombed to Hell." So this is relevant to my posts how?

Oh, the mustard gas came from this?

Or did the chemical weapons from Hussien's arsenal spring into existence as a result of this?

My posts were specifically about chemical weapons, nowhere did I make a statement about Iraq possessing nuclear weapons.

So as it turns out, most of your post was not directed towards mine.

@BlinkyTM said:

@lazyturtle said:

@BlinkyTM: Yea, we TOTALLY GOT THOSE WMDS! WOOOO! USA! USA!

What..no WMDs? Hmmm...Al Queida..not until AFTER we invaded you say..hmm..

Ok, comments on the first few posts I read aside, I don't have a huge problem with it...but I do question the why. It could have something to do with Okinawa maybe? I would imagine that our next conflicts will most likely occur in either Asia or Africa, so its a bit closer....lots of space?

Hopefully this will lead to much cheaper flights to Australia..

I'm fairly certain I stated that there were materials that could have been used to create a "dirty bomb."

It is impossible to prevent the production of a dirty bomb. You could construct a dirty bomb. Its a far cry from a WMD.

@Still_I_Cry said:

@deathstriker666 said:

@Still_I_Cry: @BlinkyTM: I take both of you know nothing of Iraq besides the situation we're currently involved in. You both cite Western news media as your sources and refuse to hear out a second opinion. You should realize that Iraq under Hussein started a nuclear program in the late 70's that Israel soon found out and bombed to Hell. The remnants of radioactive materials are probably those from their same program 30 years ago. There's no denying that Iraq before 2003 had possessed some form of nuclear materials and chemical weapons were used on the Kurdish minority in Iraq, but to go so far as to claim that Iraq had the capability to bomb the US is absolutely absurd. Did Hussein ever consider the prospect of nuking the US? Maybe, but that is something we will never find out.

I didn't state anything about Libya. I cited the portions about mustard gas. So that portion of your post is irrelevant.

I refuse to hear a second opinion? I'm sorry but I have to scoff at this because no such opinion has been offered. Unless you're referring to the assertions and unsupported statements by SeriouslyNow. I'm sorry if I don't take an argument about a subject that has been covered extensively seriously if it has no sources to back it up.

Your statement regarding the nuclear reactor is also incorrect. As per your article, the reactor was not totally destroyed until the early 90s.

"but to go so far as to claim that Iraq had the capability to bomb the US is absolutely absurd" Did I state this? No.

I stated that the mustard gas may have been used in a terrorist attack on a subway(such attacks have happened in the past, though I believe it was with a different kind of gas).

"You both cite Western news media as your sources" Uh..ok. This was an empty statement. Unless you're willing to post sources from the east to counter or at least "show the other side" why bother stating this?

"You should realize that Iraq under Hussein started a nuclear program in the late 70's that Israel soon found out and bombed to Hell." So this is relevant to my posts how?

Oh, the mustard gas came from this?

Or did the chemical weapons from Hussien's arsenal spring into existence as a result of this?

My posts were specifically about chemical weapons, nowhere did I make a statement about Iraq possessing nuclear weapons.

So as it turns out, most of your post was not directed towards mine.

It wasn't. I grouped you together mainly because of your refusal to hear out Seriously Now's post. The second opinion so to speak. If you feel that way I won't argue with you, it's not what I was trying to argue against. So sorry about that :3