Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

More fuel for the fire.

  1. Jan 12, 2004 #1

    amp

    User Avatar

  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 12, 2004 #2
    The search was going to be void as there is no WMD's if there had been any then it would have destroyed the world
     
  4. Jan 12, 2004 #3
    I'm sure i heard the other day on BBC news that WMD's had been traced to syria, but they havent found them either, but there is supposed to be evidence to support the claims.

    I feel another war coming on.
     
  5. Jan 12, 2004 #4

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hmmm means that we attacked Iraq for nothing, unless the weapons can be found. However we did get rid of Saddam Hussein so even if the reasons were unjust, we did the country a favour.
     
  6. Jan 12, 2004 #5

    amp

    User Avatar

    Another excuse for war...

    the already overextended military doesn't need. I saw a thread asking about the decline of the U.S. by Timejim. If the present Admin makes the unwise decision to open another front that decline may not be far.
     
  7. Jan 12, 2004 #6
    The weapons where moved from Iraq to Syria, or so i heard.
     
  8. Jan 12, 2004 #7
    Might be because the labs were movable i heard which can be easily shifted away from even UN inspectors
     
  9. Jan 12, 2004 #8

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think that the Bush administration is doing the right thing and i dont see why people get stressed cos they picked on Iraq. People dont seem to realise that this costs money and resources. Yes Iraq was first because he is fighting daddy's war but there are other countries in the firing line to create peace.
     
  10. Jan 12, 2004 #9
    Cant blame George W really, Saddam did plan on killing his mother.
     
  11. Jan 12, 2004 #10
    So Which Country might be next after Iraq.

    Any Idea????[b(]
     
  12. Jan 12, 2004 #11

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hopefully syria or lybia, they are always being uncooperative.....lol even better..FRANCE!!! hehe, id join up for the sake of that!
     
  13. Jan 12, 2004 #12
    Yea, heck mite aswell take on all of mainland Europe, apart from the spanish, they are too lazy to be uncooperative.

    But to be serious , i think it will be syria's haed next on the chopping block.
     
  14. Jan 12, 2004 #13
    After Europe Than Africa Than Asia Than Australia So A new Hitler in the rising
     
  15. Jan 12, 2004 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I've heard the speculation too, but the evidence is pretty thin.

    One thing though: people are asking the wrong questions: If the answer to "Does Iraq have WMD?" is no, then the followup should inevitably be: "where did they go?"

    For some reason, few people are asking the question. Its an important question, but I think its because its not a politically popular question for either side to ask. If Bush's side were to ask, they'd have to admit there are no wmd now. If the Democrat/French side were to ask, they'd have to admit that there still could be wmd out there somewhere. Neither side wants to make the concession and as a result, we leave tons and tons of wmd unaccounted for with no one looking for them.
    Actually, a couple of weeks ago, Ghaddafi made some huge concessions and INVITED international inspections. Apparently, Bush has him crapping his pants.
     
  16. Jan 12, 2004 #15

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    thats probably cos the countries are playinng pass the WMD, libya probably has them underneath their dark glasses.
     
  17. Jan 12, 2004 #16
    I think where have they gone is far more important than if they had them anyway, people need to understand that the iraqi's could hav destroyed them when they realised that the americans where definetly going in, or did they move them into syria? which is more scary as far as im concerned, can we trust the syrians not to use them or give them to the highest bidder?
     
  18. Jan 12, 2004 #17

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yeah who says the arab nations havent got a pact, they could so easily be playing the coalition for fools. It does make you worry if we have mined to far, without placing supports.
     
  19. Jan 12, 2004 #18
    Yea i agree, i mean no offence to any Arabs around here, but you cant trust them, i dont think they could care less about anyone other than themselves, because the man in the know (allah) tells them they are superior to anybody else.
     
  20. Jan 12, 2004 #19

    kat

    User Avatar

    Just a little FYI not all Arabs are muslims and not all muslims are Arabs. This is a very bigoted post.
     
  21. Jan 12, 2004 #20
    Arabs?! You can't trust arabs?!

    "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," -Dick Cheneyon August 26, 2002.

    "We know for a fact that there are weapons there," Ari Fleischer on January 9, 2003.

    "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more," -Colin Powell on February 5, 2003.

    "We know where they are (WMDs). They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad," -Donald Rumsfeld on March 30, 2003.

    "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons," - George W. Bush on February 8, 2003.

    "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," -George W. Bush on March 17, 2003.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: More fuel for the fire.
  1. Peak fossil fuels by 2017 (Replies: 475)

Loading...