It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

our weapons

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   
i thought of this point when watching south park or some other show. bush was saying "even though we've found no WMD i think we should bomb them with our WMD" no matter what the reasons are now the war started because of these imaginary weapons of mass destrucktion and now were attacking them with weapons of mass destruction




posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
No.
No the US is not using WMD in Iraq. You need to look up the definition of what constitutes a WMD.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Your post gave me a headache...edit it. And south park is hardly a reliable news source. (it is funny tho)



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
The compounded effect of 200 "smart" bombs would surely outweigh that of one "WMD".



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirello
i thought of this point when watching south park or some other show. bush was saying "even though we've found no WMD i think we should bomb them with our WMD" no matter what the reasons are now the war started because of these imaginary weapons of mass destrucktion and now were attacking them with weapons of mass destruction
Our military is so big it may as well be considered a WMD, but the reality is the political definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction does not include regular bombs, missiles, and ammunition. Even if they contain depleted uranium.

Oh, and your quote was from:

South Park
Episode 612 - A Ladder to Heaven
Randy Marsh: "If Saddam is building weapons, we have to stop him. With our weapons."

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wansu
No.
No the US is not using WMD in Iraq. You need to look up the definition of what constitutes a WMD.

no we're not but we didnt use them in vietnam either. that was one of our mistakes and it would be a hell of a lot easier in iraq if we did use them



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Yes you did use them in Vietnam.

The definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction is: a biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear weapon.

Agent Orange
Its a chemical biological agent for destroying tree leaves.

Use them in Iraq? don't u see the hypocrisy of that? The war is claimed to be about stopping the use of WMD.



[Edited on 15-4-2004 by mrsteve]



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by wansu
No.
No the US is not using WMD in Iraq. You need to look up the definition of what constitutes a WMD.


Actually, you need to look up what constitutes a WMD:

"In security and foreign policy analyses, “weapons of mass destruction” is a term that generally encompasses nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with radiological weapons occasionally included. Contemporary international legal analysis generally follows this conventional definition of WMD, even though neither treaty law nor customary international law contains an authoritative definition of WMD. "

From: www.asil.org...

Many states, even the UN have a borderline stance on whether or not Depleted Uranium ordinance constitutes a WMD. For example:

"A rapid examination of compliance with this obligation over the past decade indicates that two countries that are permanent members of the Security Council, namely the United States and the United Kingdom, have on many occasions openly and deliberately violated their obligations under the United Nations resolutions on environmental protection. They likewise violated their obligations under the disarmament and arms limitation agreements by using more than 800 tons of munitions containing depleted uranium in their 1991 aggression against Iraq. In
1999 they used them again, this time in Kosovo against Yugoslavia, despite their prior knowledge of the catastrophic damage the use of this radiological weapon does to health and to the environment in the areas in which it is used."

From: www.un.org...

Also, a paper on the UN website indicates:

"the four established humanitarian law principles by which weapons are to be considered banned, namely:
(a) If their use has indiscriminate effects (no effective distinction between civilians and belligerents);
(b) Their use is out of proportion with the pursuit of legitimate military objectives;
(c) Their use adversely affects the environment in a widespread, long-term and severe manner; and
(d) Their use causes superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering."

and

"Several scientific studies on DU are alluded to, including one where the researcher addresses the “whys” of DU use and concludes that the use of a radiological weapon in the first Gulf war had broken a 46 year military taboo and could be invoked as a precedent to justify the eventual use of “mini nukes”"

From:www.unhchr.ch...$File/G0314479.doc?OpenElement

So, basically...don't go callin' folks out w/o a clear understanding of your own position.




top topics



 
0

log in

join