|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-07 11:22:56
"Some ghastly weapons Saddam claimed he didn't have".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html
Snippet;
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday.
NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were "not just trace elements."
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 15:40:58
Don't give the latest news until it is confirmed in several places... I also heard today that the US forces found a few barrels of chemical weapons, which, a few hours later, were confirmed to be pesticides...
In three days, if what you talking is still true, then i will believe you... but not before.
Even if they find WMD's it does not mean that the war would now all of a sudden be legal...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-07 18:05:01
Yeah what was I thinking, it will probably take until next week. Lol...
The war is legal... The U.N. did not vote to condemn it. ;)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-08 02:10:30
That trick again... :) So if i steal something at a local store and i don't get caught, it means its legal?
p.s : Today in the news Saddam is dead, we'll see how he is tomorrow...:)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-08 10:59:09
..."p.s : Today in the news Saddam is dead, we'll see how he is tomorrow...:)"...
Yeah, lets see if we finally got him. :)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-08 14:19:18
I know you want a reaction from me, but I'll answer with a question for you, which is vaguely related, are you for the death penalty?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-08 19:12:02
I am not for the death penalty as it stands in the U.S. currently. One of the big problems I have is the percentage of innocent people getting convicted.
On the other hand, it doesn't bother me at all that Chemical Ali has been killed.
So it is hard to say. Do you think Chemical Ali should have been killed?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 11:05:13
So you're telling me you are for the death penalty in the judicial system.
Who are we to decide on who should die and who should not??
So i guess Saddam should be put to court, and then sentenced to death, right?
There is a big difference for me in trying to get rid of someone so as to shorten the war or for strategic reasons in time of war, but its another trying to kill someone because he is 'evil'or when the war is over.
So as for killing Chemical Ali, if killing him had a strong strategic value, i guess this is part of war... Otherwise its murder.
I'm not fully against the death penalty, but i'm not for it either... since it is not for us to decide who should die and who should not.
On the other hand, when our prison system is like a club Med... I also have a problem. For me prison, for the worst offendors, should be a place where they can reflect on their actions with as little pleasure as possible ...
For those people, it should be a bit like the bread and water prisons of the middle ages (probably a *bit* less harsh, because that would violate the UN prisoners convention)...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-09 12:55:05
..."Who are we to decide on who should die and who should not?? "...
Well a police officer may.
Scenario, codc01 is in 7/11 or Mac’s store buying a bug gulp drink, maniac busts into the store with a shot gun blasts the clerk, the clerk fall behind the counter out of sight.
An officer just happens to arriving on the scene, and sees codc01 lift his head above the center isle.
Maniac levels gun at codc01’s head and pumps the shot gun to fire.
In you view does the officer?
A. shoot maniac down with lethal force to prevent codc01 certain demise.
B. Wait for maniac to blasts codc01 in the head to be legally certain of the situation?
A or B?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 15:47:15
I don't consider that assasination or murder, but using legitimate force for for protecting others and yourself... I would not hesitate a second at shooting, even though, if possible, i would not try killing the individual (that may not be at all possible in the heat of the moment though)...
The sentence:
..."Who are we to decide on who should die and who should not?? "...
should be applied to the justice system and assasination (should have clarified the context in my last post). As for the rest of my point of view i stand by it.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-09 11:20:48
Just to clarify, I support the U.S. death penalty more so today then say 10 years ago. This is partly due to the increase in technology tools for investigators such as the use of DNA, etc...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-08 13:06:10
Actions in Iraq under Saddam's regime could be deemed illegal because the authorities don't want those actions taken. just because its illegal, would not mean that it wasn't the right thinf to do.
Illegal acts are distinct from immoral acts.
That something is illegal can sometimes mean that the laws are screwed up.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-08 14:24:27
"Actions in Iraq under Saddam's regime could be deemed illegal because the authorities don't want those actions taken."
Sorry I don't understand this sentence. Can you clarify please, who's actions?? The 'coalition' action's or the actions of Saddam's regime to their people?
"Illegal acts are distinct from immoral acts. "
I totally agree with you... Sometimes there are laws which are immoral!! But, if the laws are agreed to by most countries of the world - then why would one country revoke that law all of a sudden? For me, if a clear majority of the world population (i think its more difficult to apply to a country) approves a law, then it should at least minimally moral..
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-09 00:32:52
The "Coalition's" actions in invading Iraq are neither legal or moral.
like Codco, I have no idea what you are trying to say. What is your point.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 11:16:02
I guess its complex, since if they were going into Iraq for actually liberating the people of Iraq, I'd say its moral, but it would still be illegal, so i would still disapprove.
But we all know that the main reason for invading is something else (I have no idea which ones though, middle-east presence, friendly israel neighbour, oil, showing an exemple to other countries, etc, a terrorist threat according to the US) - then in that case its neither moral (but this depends on the eye of the beholder) nor legal.
If they would have invaded in 1988, even though i would still feel it was illegal, at least the moral justification would be much stronger than it is now.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-09 11:52:02
Sorry, it was a bit complicated. I'll try again:
Authorities set laws. They decide what is and isn't legal. Prohibition for example, made selling and consuming alcohol illegal, because authorities did not want people drinking alcohol.
So, that an act would be called illegal says nothing of its moral status. Moreover, sometimes what authorities deem illegal says more about those authorities than the actions they are trying to prevent.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-12 02:45:24
Not a very good example as drinking alcohol is not that moral. The act was repealed because illegal interests were profitting and flourishing because the people wanted to consume alcohol whether it was immoral, illegal or not.
Allowing alcohol to be sold legally was seen as the least of two evils.
The same could be applied to illegal drugs; we could legalize and sell them legally and that would effectively get rid of drug dealers; I do not suggest we go that route but it is a similar stand. Hopefully legalizing hard drugs will not be seen as the lessor of two evils.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-14 15:51:27
Well, your points only re-inforce what I am saying: making things lawful or unlawful is a calculus entirely different from moral/immoral.
And, I am just saying that by saying the war is "illegal" you are not calling into question the war, you are calling into question the process for legalizing warfare.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-14 22:01:57
Thats right. I think it is very important; don't you. Otherwise any country could decide that it is their best interest to attack another country without justifying it. That is the reason the USA , the Soviet Union, Britain, and other countries decided to form the UN; where disputes could be settled peacefully. The UN may not be perfect, It may be slow, the countries within it misuse it and their vetoes; but it is still a relatively young organization; It needs to be updated and strengthened. Perhaps this crisis will strengthen the collective resolve to make the UN more effective.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-12 15:55:19
I agree cfallon; Second example; if a law in Iraq says that speaking against Saddam initiates the penalty of a death sentence. Then that law is not just and obviously there is something wrong with it.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-08 04:49:46
already proven not to be relevant. not chemicals of WMD.
These days you can't believe anything you hear. all is not as it appears to be. We are all confused.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: vvvvvvv
Date: 2003-04-08 10:27:04
If they would really have these chemical stuff they would use it these hard times of the war.
If they do not use it now - why they produce it at all?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-08 10:56:01
The leadership of Saddam wanted to use it, but due to a lot of "work" and the "convincing" of the troops on the ground not to use the WMD, the weapons have not being used.
Do keep in mind; the country is not entirely out of Saddam's hands, so we will stay vigilant against WMD.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-08 22:13:07
Where did you get that information from Barrett. If Iraq had or wanted to use the WMD; they would have. They wouldn't wait and talk to the enemy first. Admit the truth; Iraq was not in possessions of the great store of WMD that Bush and Blair claimed; There was no proof; that is why The "coalition" members produced several fraudulent "proofs"
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-11 15:04:32
Sorry Fatmomma, You are on some sort of crusade and not honest debate. If you ever come clean then I will consider replying to you. As I have done in the past.
I will post this link, I think given the fact that Saddam may still be alive, it is a valid for my response.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&en=ea21e8c88feae21c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: 1254
Date: 2003-04-08 18:02:57
Nazi Germany never used WMD: know why? They were too afraid of retaliation. Same with Iraq. One Nerve Gas bomb, and kiss Baghdad goodbye. Learn some history before posting.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-08 19:19:31
I think your talking about not using chemical weapons on civilians; Germany did use chemical weapons on the battle fields. I think they didn't use chemical weapons on civilians, but I could be wrong.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-08 21:43:53
Actually, Barret, you have it backwards. The German Military never used chemical weapons on the battlefield, only in the extermination camps. Zyklon B was, in effect, a WMD. Their actual production of battlefield WMD's such as Tabun, outstripped British production, but they did not ever use it on the battlefield. Partly it was the fear of retaliation, for the Brits were using a new kind of terrorism, the mass killing of civilians through bombing, and also Hitler was the victim of gas warfare in WWI, so he himself did not want to see that kind of history repeated.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-09 10:37:47
Yes you’re right, I have been pressed for time in the last two weeks, I didn't realize my error untill after I quickly posted. (no darn edit in this forum!!) /joking/
Thanks for clearing that up Fleabag. :)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-09 10:53:17
---Just to add, as I gave it further thought. This is the error I made. In WWI Germany used chemical weapons on the battle field but not on civilians.
---In WWII, Germany used chemical weapons against civilians but not on the battle field.
That's where I should have been clearer. Would you say that is correct fleabag? (Thanks)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-10 23:07:02
Yes, that would be more correct. Barret. I myself, have been guilty of writing too quickly, and I never proofread myself, so often I only see my mistakes after they have been posted. That's life, I guess. We can't ever say 'time out' in life, for time marches on with or without us.
WWI was the last real war where WMD were used as a matter of course, without fear of 'war crimes' charges. In WWII, WMD were also used, but the user's side won, so no charges could ever be brought to bear. Mustard Gas was also used in Ethiopia by the Italians just before WWII, but this was never brought before the Nuremberg trials. A sad oversight, I think.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 02:51:33
From what i know, the Germans used chemicals on the battlefield during WWI only...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 02:49:49
Ahhh... so if a country uses WMD's, the other countries are also allowed to use WMD's... Cool!
You should also learn some history... We don't live in 1945 anymore...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-10 23:01:15
No defense and they kissed Baghdad goodbye. WMD are not exclusively Chemical. The Americans use of cluster bombs is very irresponsible. They may not yet be banned but should be. There was some indication the the Americans may have used napalm bombs which are banned. I have no proof but I hope this will be investigated.
Reply to this message
|
|
