The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
This is incorrect. Iraq was not only probably manufacturing refined Uranium as soon ago as 1998 but one of the worlds leading figures on Nuclear weapon design and manufacture is Iraqi. true, he defected in the 90s but merely saying Iraq had no capability to make nukes is ignorant.
Plus, having nukes is one thing. Delivering them in bomb form is another. The level of technology Iraq had in the late 90s was comparable to America in the early 40s. With enough time Iraq could have easily produced a Nagasaki scale bomb (different in many ways to the Hiroshima one).
But again, I have learned from the past lol internet argument doesnt fly round here so Ill let it go. apparently I am a fucking retard for having a well informed decision on world events. go figure.
So, in the 90's he could have made a bomb if we weren't vigilent.
Then the guy who was helping him left in the 90's.
And he could have delivered a bomb similar to the US in the 40's... except we have global satellites and could see him trying to do so and he'd get nowhere near the US nor would he ever try it because he'd be toast in a second.
So, basically, your points are all retarded.
His nuclear program was destroyed. His WMD program was decades old and defunct.
He was not a threat. We said that then we say it now.
Plus, having nukes is one thing. Delivering them in bomb form is another. The level of technology Iraq had in the late 90s was comparable to America in the early 40s.
I'm confused. When you say "nukes", I (perhaps foolishly) assumed that you MEANT "bomb form." There is apparently a wide variety of forms that a "nuke" can take. Please tell me what they are. Are we talking about "nukes" that are actually Uranium-infused bottles of shampoo? Or radioactive Hostess Fruit Pies? So far the only time I've heard the term "nuke" used is when describing a thing that explodes, either in a suitcase, on the tip of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or dropped from a plane. This is also known as a "bomb."
And in the 40's, America had the "nukes in bomb form." They dropped one of them on a branch of my father's family. Iraq, on the other hand, had no "nukes in bomb form." They in fact had no "nukes" in any form, unless you mean to include radium-enhanced watch faces as some kind of "nukes in Timex form." Even the man who was working their nuclear program, Imad Khadduri, who had every reason to hate Saddam and defected here with the help of the CIA, insists that at no time since 1996 was Iraq anywhere NEAR having a "nuke in reactor form," "nuke in bomb form," or nuke in "any form other than the fevered imaginings of Saddam Hussein."
So please, do tell me your "well-informed world view." I used to do articles for a military magazine, and have been following this war rather closely. Do you have, as the kids today say, game? Because I would submit that you, in fact, do not own so much as a console in this field of debate.
I'm confused. When you say "nukes", I (perhaps foolishly) assumed that you MEANT "bomb form." There is apparently a wide variety of forms that a "nuke" can take. Please tell me what they are. Are we talking about "nukes" that are actually Uranium-infused bottles of shampoo? Or radioactive Hostess Fruit Pies? So far the only time I've heard the term "nuke" used is when describing a thing that explodes, either in a suitcase, on the tip of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or dropped from a plane. This is also known as a "bomb."
And in the 40's, America had the "nukes in bomb form." They dropped one of them on a branch of my father's family. Iraq, on the other hand, had no "nukes in bomb form." They in fact had no "nukes" in any form, unless you mean to include radium-enhanced watch faces as some kind of "nukes in Timex form." Even the man who was working their nuclear program, Imad Khadduri, who had every reason to hate Saddam and defected here with the help of the CIA, insists that at no time since 1996 was Iraq anywhere NEAR having a "nuke in reactor form," "nuke in bomb form," or nuke in "any form other than the fevered imaginings of Saddam Hussein."
So please, do tell me your "well-informed world view." I used to do articles for a military magazine, and have been following this war rather closely. Do you have, as the kids today say, game? Because I would submit that you, in fact, do not own so much as a console in this field of debate.
If only news sources had a handy ignore function like here nowadays. I do not want to hear about Britney Spears shaving her head in every news source I go to today.
Posts
So, in the 90's he could have made a bomb if we weren't vigilent.
Then the guy who was helping him left in the 90's.
And he could have delivered a bomb similar to the US in the 40's... except we have global satellites and could see him trying to do so and he'd get nowhere near the US nor would he ever try it because he'd be toast in a second.
So, basically, your points are all retarded.
His nuclear program was destroyed. His WMD program was decades old and defunct.
He was not a threat. We said that then we say it now.
Sixteen words.
I'm confused. When you say "nukes", I (perhaps foolishly) assumed that you MEANT "bomb form." There is apparently a wide variety of forms that a "nuke" can take. Please tell me what they are. Are we talking about "nukes" that are actually Uranium-infused bottles of shampoo? Or radioactive Hostess Fruit Pies? So far the only time I've heard the term "nuke" used is when describing a thing that explodes, either in a suitcase, on the tip of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or dropped from a plane. This is also known as a "bomb."
And in the 40's, America had the "nukes in bomb form." They dropped one of them on a branch of my father's family. Iraq, on the other hand, had no "nukes in bomb form." They in fact had no "nukes" in any form, unless you mean to include radium-enhanced watch faces as some kind of "nukes in Timex form." Even the man who was working their nuclear program, Imad Khadduri, who had every reason to hate Saddam and defected here with the help of the CIA, insists that at no time since 1996 was Iraq anywhere NEAR having a "nuke in reactor form," "nuke in bomb form," or nuke in "any form other than the fevered imaginings of Saddam Hussein."
So please, do tell me your "well-informed world view." I used to do articles for a military magazine, and have been following this war rather closely. Do you have, as the kids today say, game? Because I would submit that you, in fact, do not own so much as a console in this field of debate.
Indeed you should.
That almost hurt to watch.
Can I skull fuck you now?
J. Grant's is going to be much better than mine. I don't have the time to pull up the articles to prove this guy wrong.
:winky:
:winky:
:winky:
<splort splort splort>
That's sorta relevant to Iraq, right?
thus proving it was not a waste of time and effort!
*shakes fist*
I always enjoyed that particular comic
Republican Guard bullets whizzing all over the place but never hitting a damn thing.
OIL!
OIL!
OIL!
Well, that news was acceptable when it came with pictures.
HYPROCRITE!
.... seriously though guys, the plague.
Because we raped her face.
FALLACY
AD HOMINEM ATTAX!