the GardenGnome Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Oh yeah, it's much better to wait until Saddam nukes us before we do something about him. If Saddam wanted to nuke anyone he would he have done it. Why now?
fafalone Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 He doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, but he is working on developing them.
Sayonara Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by Piccolo Does anyone know what gass the russians used against the rebels in the recent hostage situation in a opera? Im curious. I didnt want to post a thread just for this question. It was a gas based on fentanyl, a strong opium-based drug used for putting people to sleep before operations.
the GardenGnome Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone He doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, but he is working on developing them. They don't necesserely need to be nuclear weapons.
Sayonara Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by the GardenGnome They don't necesserely need to be nuclear weapons. A weapon that is used to nuke somebody is, by definition, a nuclear weapon.
the GardenGnome Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ A weapon that is used to nuke somebody is, by definition, a nuclear weapon. Look at September 11. They did not use bombs or nuclear weapons and they still refer to it as bombing the World Trade Center. So it does need to be a nuclear weapon!
fafalone Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 I've never heard anyone call it a bombing besides you.
the GardenGnome Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone I've never heard anyone call it a bombing besides you. Whatever you want to call it bomb, attack. My point is if Saddam wanted to harm anyone wouldn't he have not done it earlier? I don't support him or anything I jsut find it interesting that all of the sudden they decide to search for weapons. If I'm correct in the Iran Iraq war didn't the the states supply Saddam with weapons. And the same with Afganistan when they where in war against Russia.
fafalone Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 They didn't search for weapons before because Iraq refused to let them. Only now with the imminent threat of a US attack have they let them into the country, and they're now on a wild goose chase. Iraq is misleading them and racing to sanitize facilities and hide weapons before inspectors get there.
Sayonara Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by the GardenGnome If Saddam wanted to nuke anyone he would he have done it. Why now? Originally posted by the GardenGnome Look at September 11. They did not use bombs or nuclear weapons and they still refer to it as bombing the World Trade Center. So it does need to be a nuclear weapon! Do you mean 'nuke', or just 'attack'? You're confusing things!
the GardenGnome Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Do you mean 'nuke', or just 'attack'? Either one. I'm starting to forget what we were talking about.
fafalone Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 We were talking about your flawed logic that Saddam would attack if he could. Why did al qaeda wait until 2001 to attack? why didn't they do it the second commercial jetliners existed? why did japan wait until ww2 to attack? why didn't every single conflict in history happen the second life formed? things take time to plan and develop.
the GardenGnome Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone We were talking about your flawed logic that Saddam would attack if he could. Why did al qaeda wait until 2001 to attack? why didn't they do it the second commercial jetliners existed? why did japan wait until ww2 to attack? why didn't every single conflict in history happen the second life formed? things take time to plan and develop. Good point but I mean now Saddam will not attack when there are millions U.S investigators on his ass. And this whole war on Iraq will only place more hate on the west then there alread y is! Violience will not solve the problem.
Aardvark Posted February 14, 2003 Posted February 14, 2003 Rather than create hate, perhaps liberating Iraq from a brutal dictator might be welcomed by some Iraqis.
Nevermore Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Things did not turn out as you indicated falfalone.
Hellbender Posted April 27, 2005 Posted April 27, 2005 What exactly are you getting at here? edit: nevermind
Sayonara Posted April 27, 2005 Posted April 27, 2005 Don't encourage him. This thread was started as a joke and mainly continued as a farce - not entirely surprised that justice did not pick up on that.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now