Coffeehouse Thread

30 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    raymond

    In the process of eliminating the Hizbollah threat,
    I suspect that the Israel Defense Forces will soon be going after Iraq's weapons of mass destruction currently located in Syria. 






    http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php


    http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/24135.htm


    http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-24.htm

    I think the Israel Defense Forces should go after the weapons of mass destruction now, rather and wait and have Syria hand them over to Hizbollah.

    What are your thoughts on the subject?








  • User profile image
    ScanIAm



    Aaaah!  That's were I left them.

  • User profile image
    Jason Cox

    Right now Israel is really in a gray area, they're attacking Lebanon but they claim they're only going after the militant group. This is the gray area, but if Israel attacks Syria's military that's an open act of war to which the UN will have to respond against Israel and in defense of Syria.

    To be honest if Israel attacks another Arab state, I dont see the Iranians sitting on their hands much longer, they'll move in and take back all of Palestine's land from Israel and drive the Israeli govt into the sea.

  • User profile image
    Shark_M

    What WMDs?

    I think US should preemtively strike Israel. To remove its WMDs and to disarm it for world peace's sake. Israel is showing irresponsible behaviour by attacking another country in the middle east.



    How is Olmert different than Saddam when he invaded Kuwait?

  • User profile image
    Larsenal

    Israel has had WMDs for a very long time, but so far they have not nuked any of their enemies.  I would say this is responsible "use" of  WMDs so far.

    How long do you think it would take for Hezbollah or Hamas to nuke Israel if they had them?  Would they be "responsible" with them (ie, not use them except for intimidation)?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Larsenal wrote:
    How long do you think it would take for Hezbollah or Hamas to nuke Israel if they had them?  Would they be "responsible" with them (ie, not use them except for intimidation)?


    So it's perfectly alright for other countries to intimidate others with WMD?

    ...why not just a conventional invasion?

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    Larsenal wrote:
    Israel has had WMDs for a very long time, but so far they have not nuked any of their enemies.  I would say this is responsible "use" of  WMDs so far.

    Heh...the USA has had nukes even longer and HAS nuked it's enemies...Are we really the ones who should be deciding this?

    Larsenal wrote:

    How long do you think it would take for Hezbollah or Hamas to nuke Israel if they had them? 

    I don't know.  Nor do you.  There is a big difference between launching a rocket over a wall and dropping a nuke or gassing a city block.
    Larsenal wrote:

    Would they be "responsible" with them (ie, not use them except for intimidation)?

    I don't know.  Nor do you.  Intimidation is not responsible use, either.

  • User profile image
    Shark_M

    Larsenal wrote:
    Israel has had WMDs for a very long time, but so far they have not nuked any of their enemies.  I would say this is responsible "use" of  WMDs so far.

    How long do you think it would take for Hezbollah or Hamas to nuke Israel if they had them?  Would they be "responsible" with them (ie, not use them except for intimidation)?


    Well we did not try, but we were willing to give Israel WMDs at a time when they were clearly committing terror against British troops, for political and religious reasons, simply to establish a religious state for the Jews. How was that different from what Zarqawi was calling for? or what the Taliban was?



    Pakistan has nuclear weapons and so far they have not nuked any. But Israel was turning heavens and earth and tried to strike their nuclear facility but they failed.

    Lets face it, its not about sanity, Israel wants to intimidate its neighbors into submission. Its that simple.

    I mean if Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons, and never used them, there still be a call by Israel to invade Saudi Arabia , like what happened to Iraq. Bush said that he took Saddam out of power in the name of world peace, but what he did destabilized the whole region and made Iraq a terror stronghold and a swarm. What makes you think if israel invaded Lebanon that this would make Israel safer?

    What is happening here goes back to the times of the crusades, it goes back deep in history. So its not new. The only thing that changed is the new "nice-sounding" explanations to legitimize state-sponsored terrorism.

    If the US did have interest in the middle east in terms of oil, believe me They would have taken out Israel along time ago simply for its genocide of the Palestinian people in much the same way that is happening in Darfur.

    The sad part in all of this is that civilians who simply want to live and go to work like the rest of us are caught in the middle of it. This religious fanaticism is the plague. I say revoke any state that employs the use of religious believes in their constitution or foundation. They are the plague of humanity today because they kill innocent lives more than AIDS and more than Malaria.

    Now is the time for responsible leaders to effect a total take over by the UN of the land of Jerusalem and let innocent people on both sides live in peace without bullets or rockets being fired. Olmert is not getting hurt by the  rockets or the shells from both sides, its the innocent Palestinians that are, and the innocent Israelis that are.

    End it I would say. Just End it in the name of world peace and name of humanity!v

  • User profile image
    Unoriginal​Guy

    Larsenal wrote:
    Israel has had WMDs for a very long time, but so far they have not nuked any of their enemies.  I would say this is responsible "use" of  WMDs so far.

    How long do you think it would take for Hezbollah or Hamas to nuke Israel if they had them?  Would they be "responsible" with them (ie, not use them except for intimidation)?


    Hypocrite.

  • User profile image
    pacelvi

    UnoriginalGuy wrote:
    
    Larsenal wrote: Israel has had WMDs for a very long time, but so far they have not nuked any of their enemies.  I would say this is responsible "use" of  WMDs so far.

    How long do you think it would take for Hezbollah or Hamas to nuke Israel if they had them?  Would they be "responsible" with them (ie, not use them except for intimidation)?


    Hypocrite.


    How can a rhetorical question be evidence of hypocrisy

  • User profile image
    jsampsonPC

    I'm glad none of you are actually heading up our intelligence program Smiley I mean, really. You are basing all of your judgment, and all of your opinions off your neighborhood news channel, no?

    Suffice it to say, nobody here really can be sure they know what they think they "know".

  • User profile image
    pacelvi

    jsampsonPC wrote:
    I'm glad none of you are actually heading up our intelligence program I mean, really. You are basing all of your judgment, and all of your opinions off your neighborhood news channel, no?

    Suffice it to say, nobody here really can be sure they know what they think they "know".


    There's enough reasonable doubt in my mind that says it's probable that some quantity of wmd was sent to Syria.   Par for the course really.  I assume that Syria probably had/has chemical wmd anyway.  A scan of the google headlines is interesting .. not that it's conclusive of anything .

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+syria+wmd

  • User profile image
    Shark_M

    pacelvi wrote:
    
    jsampsonPC wrote: I'm glad none of you are actually heading up our intelligence program I mean, really. You are basing all of your judgment, and all of your opinions off your neighborhood news channel, no?

    Suffice it to say, nobody here really can be sure they know what they think they "know".


    There's enough reasonable doubt in my mind that says it's probable that some quantity of wmd was sent to Syria.   Par for the course really.  I assume that Syria probably had/has chemical wmd anyway.  A scan of the google headlines is interesting .. not that it's conclusive of anything .

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+syria+wmd


    There is probably cause to beleive the WMDs are inside saddam's bowels;)

  • User profile image
    Unoriginal​Guy

    pacelvi wrote:
     jsampsonPC wrote: I'm glad none of you are actually heading up our intelligence program I mean, really. You are basing all of your judgment, and all of your opinions off your neighborhood news channel, no?Suffice it to say, nobody here really can be sure they know what they think they "know".There's enough reasonable doubt in my mind that says it's probable that some quantity of wmd was sent to Syria.   Par for the course really.  I assume that Syria probably had/has chemical wmd anyway.  A scan of the google headlines is interesting .. not that it's conclusive of anything .http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+syria+wmd
    You can't use "reasonable doubt" to prove a positive, only disprove a negative. There is no actual evidence of any WMD, unless you have some to present? Plus, assuming there are WMD in Syria, what exactly has that got to do with the Israeli situation? Not a whole lot. It is just the US justifying its future actions though its two favourite demons, terrorism and WMD... The US could kill millions more and it would all be ok to the American public because they had "teh WMDs." The only difference between the US and (I need to watch my language) Germany is that one of them left more evidence.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    pacelvi wrote:
    A scan of the google headlines is interesting .. not that it's conclusive of anything .

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+syria+wmd


    The first result reads:

    "Report finds no evidence Syria hid Iraqi Arms" - Washington Post

    And most of the sites suggesting Syria does hold some Iraqi weapons (invariably reported as being of the "Massive Destruction" type) are right-wing.

    We need more nonpartisan press. Does the US have anything like the UK's "Independent"?

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    pacelvi wrote: A scan of the google headlines is interesting .. not that it's conclusive of anything .

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+syria+wmd


    The first result reads:

    "Report finds no evidence Syria hid Iraqi Arms" - Washington Post

    And most of the sites suggesting Syria does hold some Iraqi weapons (invariably reported as being of the "Massive Destruction" type) are right-wing.

    We need more nonpartisan press. Does the US have anything like the UK's "Independent"?


    No, we use the BBC Smiley

  • User profile image
    alwaysmc2

    ScanIAm wrote:
    



    Aaaah!  That's were I left them.


    ^_^ I lol'd

  • User profile image
    pacelvi

    UnoriginalGuy wrote:
    
    pacelvi wrote:  jsampsonPC wrote: I'm glad none of you are actually heading up our intelligence program I mean, really. You are basing all of your judgment, and all of your opinions off your neighborhood news channel, no?Suffice it to say, nobody here really can be sure they know what they think they "know".There's enough reasonable doubt in my mind that says it's probable that some quantity of wmd was sent to Syria.   Par for the course really.  I assume that Syria probably had/has chemical wmd anyway.  A scan of the google headlines is interesting .. not that it's conclusive of anything .http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+syria+wmd
    You can't use "reasonable doubt" to prove a positive, only disprove a negative. There is no actual evidence of any WMD, unless you have some to present? Plus, assuming there are WMD in Syria, what exactly has that got to do with the Israeli situation? Not a whole lot. It is just the US justifying its future actions though its two favourite demons, terrorism and WMD... The US could kill millions more and it would all be ok to the American public because they had "teh WMDs." The only difference between the US and (I need to watch my language) Germany is that one of them left more evidence.


    Guy, like chill out.  I expressed my opinion that if the WMD happened to be in Syria I wouldn't be surprised. That's all.  I didn't say I know for a fact they're there.

    Regarding your question abuot what if they were in Syria and what does that have to do with anything....   exactly my point too. That's why I said par for the course. It was sort of a shrug of the solidiers.

    And then as far as your quite bombastic America-bashing,  I know one thing.. America will never be responsible for a body count anywhere near that Europe is historically responsible for.  EUtopia is a dying culture , the vitality sucked out of it by European fraticide that basically spanned the entire 20th Century. 

    Now that we have to clean up the global mess that is the result of 400 years of Europe's almost total global domination and then culture implosion and embracing of nihilism and the destruction of their own will to keep their nations alive they turn on us.

    Your arguments ring hollow to me.  We're the ones who fight and sacrifice for people on the other side of the earth, over and over and over again. We know the things we have, we have because for whatever reason the human condition necessitates that evil must be fought and that some things are worth dying for.

    It's clear Europe has nothing that its people will fight for... other than welfare and cultural demise.



Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.