EU Banning Violent Games?

[Ockie]

Living in (assumingly) the US is better where one person out of 250+ million thought it'd be a good idea to send a bunch of troops to Iraq and keep them there way too long?

You seem so certain that only one person promted a war.

How about the 72% backing of the public support? Oh wait, they don't count. Well how about the law makers who had to approve it, nope, not their responsibility.

 

[GJSNeptune]

Learn to read a joke and move on. I was simply parallelling the post about living in Europe. Loosen up.

 

[Draax]

1) I In reference to the Iraq war I don't think anyone thought it would have gone on this long and at its start the nation was pretty much evenly divided on the issue (Though it all depended where you polled) its not like it is now where everyone flipped flopped and now most people are against it AFTER the fact which of course makes it too little too late

I think people flip flopping has a whole lot to do with being lied to.

 

[HighHardOne]

Why not ban all video games that don't meet a special and vascilating criteria which requires a piece of software to have redeeming social and educational value? In fact, lets push for legal bans of other forms of entertainment that might erode the moral and ethical fiber of the EU nations: music, literature, film, television. It should all go ... erect great bonfires in the town square of every city, in every village in every nation.

Let Government decide for you. Let Government be your guardian and protector ... from yourself. You simply cannot be trusted with the well-being and development of your children, so why not let a monolithic authority do it for you.

But lets not stop there. Lets ban alchohol, satire, political opposition, tricycles, mini-vans, SUVs, singing, dancing and unapproved religious worship.

Video games are just the beginning, but they represent everything that's wrong with the world, and thus we must FIRST concentrate on defeating this vile hegemony of evil. Lets ignore third world debt, famine, genocide, AIDS and general social unrest. VIDEO GAMES people. Lets make certain we're on the same page. VIDEO. GAMES.

Lets make a stand. The bans begin here--form an orderly line and relinquish your autonomy.

Signed,
People for the Eradication for Choice

 

[w1retap]

I think people flip flopping has a whole lot to do with being lied to.

Dam liars.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998


"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others


"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998


"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998


"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002


"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002


"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003


"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998


"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002


"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002


"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002


"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002


"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002


"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002


"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002


"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002


"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002


"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998


"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002


"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002


"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

 

[Draax]

I really enjoy all those quotes about nuclear weapons, and yet none have ever been found, nor any indication that Saddam had restarted his nuclear program. Then again we everyone knew this, as that is what IAEA former head, and UN weapons inspector to Iraq Hans Blix said in his speech to the President prior to the invasion.

That is beside the fact that resolution 1441 did not give anyone the right to invade Iraq. A seperate UN resolution supported by a super majority vote was needed, which did not happen, therefore the Iraq invasion is classfieid as an illegal war of aggression.

 

[Draax]

I cant help but think www.rightwingnews.com is a credable and non-bias source, since those quotes are a copy/paste from the front page.

 

[w1retap]

lol, of course left wing bias doesn't count. Reguardless, the quotes are real quotes by those people, not just made up.

 

[Draax]

I find it rather telling that quotes, from before the first invasion of Iraq, are somehow applied to the justification for the second invasion. The Ritter quote is just a glaringly obvious example.

 

[Ockie]

I cant help but think www.rightwingnews.com is a credable and non-bias source, since those quotes are a copy/paste from the front page.

How about you disprove it with counter facts? Oh wait, you can't unless if you had to make up something.

Anyone can put anything on their site, doesn't make the factual information false.

 

[BladeVenom]

Here's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk

 

[Draax]

How about you disprove it with counter facts? Oh wait, you can't unless if you had to make up something.

Anyone can put anything on their site, doesn't make the factual information false.

In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, Iraq did not have nuclear weapons.

 

[BladeVenom]

Oops. Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk

 

[Ockie]

In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, Iraq did not have nuclear weapons.

Incase you haven't been derailing the argument, we are not talking about those facts.

What we are talking about is the fact that you quickly tried to discredit that post simply because you found it on some website... in fact, I'll post it on my website too... heck, many websites has those quotes.

You try to cover up your dirt by derailing the argument. The argument is not about if they had them or not, it's about people who lied through their teeth and claimed bush was the only person who claimed so.

 

[Draax]

Incase you haven't been derailing the argument, we are not talking about those facts.

What we are talking about is the fact that you quickly tried to discredit that post simply because you found it on some website... in fact, I'll post it on my website too... heck, many websites has those quotes.

You try to cover up your dirt by derailing the argument. The argument is not about if they had them or not, it's about people who lied through their teeth and claimed bush was the only person who claimed so.

Have you even taken a look as to the context of those quotes? A number of those quotes are prior to the first invasion of Iraq. Im not sure what "Bush" being the only one who lied has to do with anything as such a suggestion is asinine.

 

[Ockie]

Have you even taken a look as to the context of those quotes? A number of those quotes are prior to the first invasion of Iraq. Im not sure what "Bush" being the only one who lied has to do with anything as such a suggestion is asinine.

A number? How many is that? Perhaps you want to start providing statistics here.

 

[Draax]

A number? How many is that? Perhaps you want to start providing statistics here.

Im curious as to why you are unable to determine this yourself? Anyone with any knowledge of Iraq and the invasions of Iraq would know that the first Iraq invasion occured 1990-1991 and the second 2003-present.

 

[Ockie]

Im curious as to why you are unable to determine this yourself? Anyone with any knowledge of Iraq and the invasions of Iraq would know that the first Iraq invasion occured 1990-1991 and the second 2003-present.

I didn't make blatant statements You did. AFAIC, you are trying to save face by trying to derail. Just admit that they said those things and be done with it... there is nothing else to it.

 

[Draax]

I didn't make blatant statements You did. AFAIC, you are trying to save face by trying to derail. Just admit that they said those things and be done with it... there is nothing else to it.

Why exactly does it matter if these people said those statements? That issue is not relevant to the FACT that the second invasion of Iraq was justified with lies, and defined as an illegal war of aggression as according to international law.

 

[Ockie]

Why exactly does it matter if these people said those statements? That issue is not relevant to the FACT that the second invasion of Iraq was justified with lies, and defined as an illegal war of aggression as according to international law.

There you go again....

But wait, you just said that some of those quotes were from before the first war... geeze...

 

[Draax]

There you go again....

But wait, you just said that some of those quotes were from before the first war... geeze...

This is correct, some of those quotes are from before the first war, and as such do not apply to the second invasion of Iraq, which was the issue as I stated. Once again the issue is not if those people made said statements. I have already stated, in fact my first post, and once again in my previous, that the justification for invading Iraq was based on lies.

Im not sure what you issue is. You seem intent on proving the point that Bush was not the only person who made false claims, something which I do and have not refuted.

 

[Ockie]

This is correct, some of those quotes are from before the first war, and as such do not apply to the second invasion of Iraq, which was the issue as I stated. Once again the issue is not if those people made said statements. I have already stated, in fact my first post, and once again in my previous, that the justification for invading Iraq was based on lies.

Im not sure what you issue is. You seem intent on proving the point that Bush was not the only person who made false claims, something which I do and have not refuted.

You politically charge a debate that didn't need to be politically charged... you swung right over to your own bush bashing agenda.

My point is that you don't seem to get was that those things were said and you tried to discredit those things by claiming they were from a biased website... sure the website is biased... but anyone can take legitimate content and paste it on their website. This is something that you don't seem to understand. Now since somone copied this onto the hardforums, they must be slanted and biased too because I found it here.

 

[Farva]

Why not ban all video games that don't meet a special and vascilating criteria which requires a piece of software to have redeeming social and educational value? In fact, lets push for legal bans of other forms of entertainment that might erode the moral and ethical fiber of the EU nations: music, literature, film, television. It should all go ... erect great bonfires in the town square of every city, in every village in every nation.

Let Government decide for you. Let Government be your guardian and protector ... from yourself. You simply cannot be trusted with the well-being and development of your children, so why not let a monolithic authority do it for you.

But lets not stop there. Lets ban alchohol, satire, political opposition, tricycles, mini-vans, SUVs, singing, dancing and unapproved religious worship.

Video games are just the beginning, but they represent everything that's wrong with the world, and thus we must FIRST concentrate on defeating this vile hegemony of evil. Lets ignore third world debt, famine, genocide, AIDS and general social unrest. VIDEO GAMES people. Lets make certain we're on the same page. VIDEO. GAMES.

Lets make a stand. The bans begin here--form an orderly line and relinquish your autonomy.

Signed,
People for the Eradication for Choice

Thanks Hitler....and Stalin

In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, Iraq did not have nuclear weapons.

They actually had the complete plans on how to make one. That in itself is dangerous enough. Which can, and probably would have been sold to someone.

 

[Ockie]

Thanks Hitler....and Stalin

They actually had the complete plans on how to make one. That in itself is dangerous enough. Which can, and probably would have been sold to someone.

To add to this, they did also refine quite a lot of uranuim and they had the reactors to enhance their uranuim. They had the plants and plans.... they were capable and their reactors proved to be positive.

But I'm sure Draax is going to refute your point by saying he is talking about the current situation.

 

[Draax]

You politically charge a debate that didn't need to be politically charged... you swung right over to your own bush bashing agenda.

My point is that you don't seem to get was that those things were said and you tried to discredit those things by claiming they were from a biased website... sure the website is biased... but anyone can take legitimate content and paste it on their website. This is something that you don't seem to understand. Now since somone copied this onto the hardforums, they must be slanted and biased too because I found it here.

Actually no I did not politically charge the debate, that occured before I posted anything, which is obvious by re-reading the thread. Further more I did not bash bush, I said the second of Iraq was justified with lies. You seem intent on labeling me as a Bush basher, which I have refuted numerous times already.

I did not try to discredit, I simply said that www.rightwinnews.com is not likely to be a a non-bias source. For instance they quote Ritter, using a quote from before the first invasion, and then fail to show any of his quotes in respect to the 2003 invasion. Ritter is a very vocal opponent of the second invasion of Iraq, as he was the former UN weapon inspector and thus knows exactly what UN weapon inspector found and what they did not find before and after the first invasion, and before the second.

This clearly show a bias, which is what I suggest at the onset, and which I have very clearly proven.

 

[Draax]

They actually had the complete plans on how to make one. That in itself is dangerous enough. Which can, and probably would have been sold to someone.

This is correct they did in the late 80s early 90s. Now having the plans, and making a bomb are two seperate issues entirely. Iraq was working on an implosion device, which is a much more complicated design. Iraq has not overcome many of the hurdles in designing said device.

For example Iraq did not have the ability to produce HEU from a domestic source, nor did they have any sort of delivery device. In fact Iraq only ever came into possesion of HEU enriched to around 30-40%. HEU needs to be enriched to around 93% before it can even be used in a nuclear weapon. By the way this all occured before Iran bombed Iraqs reactor in 1991 ... which is sometime before any of the invasion. Further more weapons inspectors came to the conclusion that Saddam had NOT restarted his nuclear program after the bombing on Iraqs reactor.

 

[Ockie]

Actually no I did not politically charge the debate, that occured before I posted anything, which is obvious by re-reading the thread. Further more I did not bash bush, I said the second of Iraq was justified with lies. You seem intent on labeling me as a Bush basher, which I have refuted numerous times already.

I did not try to discredit, I simply said that www.rightwinnews.com is not likely to be a a non-bias source. For instance they quote Ritter, using a quote from before the first invasion, and then fail to show any of his quotes in respect to the 2003 invasion. Ritter is a very vocal opponent of the second invasion of Iraq, as he was the former UN weapon inspector and thus knows exactly what UN weapon inspector found and what they did not find before and after the first invasion, and before the second.

This clearly show a bias, which is what I suggest at the onset, and which I have very clearly proven.

And you know for a fact that rightwingnews fabricated this list and it wasn't an email chain list, it wasn't a list off another site, it wasn't a compilation of statements from other sites? What if a liberal site hosted that page? Would the oppinion of yours be any diffrent? Would you still have made that post?

My point is that you didn't need to say that, by saying that you tried to discredit it... so you must be able to defend your position with facts... something which you have failed to do so.

 

[Draax]

And you know for a fact that rightwingnews fabricated this list and it wasn't an email chain list, it wasn't a list off another site, it wasn't a compilation of statements from other sites? What if a liberal site hosted that page? Would the oppinion of yours be any diffrent? Would you still have made that post?

My point is that you didn't need to say that, by saying that you tried to discredit it... so you must be able to defend your position with facts... something which you have failed to do so.

I cannot take the blame for any false assumptions you make about my motives. I have made them clear from the onset, and then gone on to show the bias of said website.

Further more I said nothing about the list of quotes being fabricated, im not sure why you keep bring this up. I said from that start, only that there was a bias, and the quotes have no context, which they do not.

 

[Ockie]

This is correct they did in the late 80s early 90s. Now having the plans, and making a bomb are two seperate issues entirely. Iraq was working on an implosion device, which is a much more complicated design. Iraq has not overcome many of the hurdles in designing said device.

For example Iraq did not have the ability to produce HEU from a domestic source, nor did they have any sort of delivery device. In fact Iraq only ever came into possesion of HEU enriched to around 30-40%. HEU needs to be enriched to around 93% before it can even be used in a nuclear weapon. By the way this all occured before Iran bombed Iraqs reactor in 1991 ... which is sometime before any of the invasion. Further more weapons inspectors came to the conclusion that Saddam had NOT restarted his nuclear program after the bombing on Iraqs reactor.

Actually Iran didn't bomb it, Israel did. And it wasn't completley destroyed in all of the strikes.

A researching agency confirmed that iraq was one to two years away from having a sucessful design, I believe that the UN krew confirmed this aswel. As you can be sure now, if they didn't have one completed in the mid 90's, surely they would have now with Iran next door.

Now that I think about it, we should have left them, Iran and Iraq building up an arms race = grab your bag of popcorn and kick back.

 

[Draax]

Actually Iran didn't bomb it, Israel did. And it wasn't completley destroyed in all of the strikes.

A researching agency confirmed that iraq was one to two years away from having a sucessful design, I believe that the UN krew confirmed this aswel. As you can be sure now, if they didn't have one completed in the mid 90's, surely they would have now with Iran next door.

Now that I think about it, we should have left them, Iran and Iraq building up an arms race = grab your bag of popcorn and kick back.

UN weapon inspectors did know about the reactor and they also stated that Iraq DID NOT restart its nuclear program after the reactor was bombed. Iraq was not one or two years away. Iraqs bomb design was to heavy, they had no delivery method, nor did they have any nuclear fuel.

Im glad you brought up Israel though, thank you, as Israel has not signed the NPT and yet is in possesion of a number of nuclear devices. A rather hypocritical mid-east stance, dont you think?

 

[Ockie]

UN weapon inspectors did know about the reactor and they also stated that Iraq DID NOT restart its nuclear program after the reactor was bombed. Iraq was not one or two years away. Iraqs bomb design was to heavy, they had no delivery method, nor did they have any nuclear fuel.

Im glad you brought up Israel though, thank you, as Israel has not signed the NPT and yet is in possesion of a number of nuclear devices. A rather hypocritical mid-east stance, dont you think?

They did not restart it right away, however, if they heard Iran was going to... they would have jump started it... it's a simple fact... it's an arms race.

No delivery method? They could just use a truck or a train... heh, everyone around them hated them.

I don't think it's an unfair stance, I think they have to if they want to survive... I don't know about you, but if I was surrounded by people who makes a living drivng into markets and killing themselfs (short careers, lol) I would also want to pack a little punch. Last time I checked, Israel didn't announce to the word that they need to obliterate their enemies... where Iran did.

 

[stabilep]

I was simply trying to point out that its was not just one man out of 250 million decided to goto war it was something that the majority supported at the beginning that was all I was saying

 

[LoneWolf]

Wow...what was this thread about again? Something about Pac-Man being banned in Europe because of the Iraq war?...or...wait.

Can we not turn every political thread into something about Iraq? Geez.

 

[GJSNeptune]

Living in (assumingly) the US is better where one person out of 250+ million thought it'd be a good idea to send a bunch of troops to Iraq and keep them there way too long?

I was simply trying to point out that its was not just one man out of 250 million decided to goto war it was something that the majority supported at the beginning that was all I was saying

Again...

Learn to read a joke and move on. I was simply parallelling the post about living in Europe. Loosen up.

Can we not turn every political thread into something about Iraq? Geez.

Are you frickin' kidding me? Take it as a sign that it's an important political topic at the moment. And by 'at the moment' I mean many years ago up to now and for many years to come.

 

[Draax]

They did not restart it right away, however, if they heard Iran was going to... they would have jump started it... it's a simple fact... it's an arms race.

No delivery method? They could just use a truck or a train... heh, everyone around them hated them.

I don't think it's an unfair stance, I think they have to if they want to survive... I don't know about you, but if I was surrounded by people who makes a living drivng into markets and killing themselfs (short careers, lol) I would also want to pack a little punch. Last time I checked, Israel didn't announce to the word that they need to obliterate their enemies... where Iran did.

The only legal "reason" Iraq could be invaded, was because Iraq "had" nuclear weapons and United States was directly threatened. So not only do we know now, and we did before hand, that they had no delivery method for there bomb (which wasn't complete), hell there longest range missle was 150km, they did not have nuclear waepons grade fuel. So it is now, and was before hand, very obvios that the United States illegally invaded Iraq and thus is the aggressor.

Now we have Israel (by the way the president was just charged with rape and abuse of power, this comes after the top military player was fired), who has nuclear weapons, and has not signed the NPT. This is a directly hypocritical stance to the justification for invading Iraq. Lets not pretend Israel is some victim over in the middle east, either. The second most advanced military in the world is hardly a victim.

As to Iran, they, as the NPT states "have an inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes". Now we can pretend they want some bomb now, even though we supplied Iran with their nuclear know-how, a plutonium extraction plant (much mroe dangerous then uranium), and helped them build two reactors, but the real reason is much easier to understand. Iran has wanted a nucelar power plant for decades now. Iran realized that their oil is not going to last forever, in fact they are currently in an energy crisis. Iran has long since wanted to use its oil for high value products, instead of selling it off for an ever decreasing profit. So put two and two together, and we can clearly see why it would be detremental for Iran to stop selling its oil.