OOOH YEAH BABY BRING IT SADDAM

UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "can be absolutely confident" the UK is willing to use nuclear weapons "in the right conditions", and would use them "in extreme self-defence".



heheheheh... im sorry twat? you wanna threaten the world?? we can talk it up too =o)

when has saddam hussein ever threatened the world ?

The UK are just as fucked as the US. Talking about using nuclear weapons wtf is the world coming too?

The word is deterrent: d e t e r r e n t

The US and UK are in some ways just as fucked as Iraq. I find it so frustrating when every now and then the US comes out, guns blazing in the form of the world police. What is the point of the UN anyway if the UK and especially US see themselves above it.

Deterrent from what? If you put up a good fight we'll nuke you? It's a fucking threat. You can't possibly be defending yourself when you are the aggresor who starts a war.

styln, are you for real man?

It's a deterrent against Saddam using his WMD on UK troops.

I'm pretty sure you already know this so it seems very strange that you would post such a thing. What exactly is your motive here?

come on guys their are better things to argue about, I just logged into the wrong web site, www.biggie.com hehe now that shit is more interesting to look at!

A nuke will not only harm Iraq but the fallout alone will spread well past neighbouring contries. In a way they are making a promise to the world.

Why would they nuke Iraq when it's the sitting on the 2nd largest oil field in the gulf?

US world police?

who else is going to do it?

The UN wouldnt controll shit if the US didnt fork large donations and commit hundreds of thousands of troops at their disposal.

Frankly, thank god the US have balls to stand up to Saddam. The US have a good track record of standing up for democracy. Remember the Domino theories of the 70's, countless times standing up for the oppressed minorities. finacial, medical and food aid distributed through out the years.

And those self rightous human sheilds! Where do they get off, claiming to risk their lives for humanity. Question, where were they when Saddam attacked and murdered innocent civilians in 1991 (the likes of not seen since Nazi Germany), because of their religion, and the land they were born on?

Saddam went as far as capturing tourists and locking them up in his arms fatories to stop his enimies bombing them, they (human shields) are approching this from the wronge angle.

War might not be the answer, But Saddams regime of pillaging, rape and murder has got to go. Then can the true people Iraq flourish and contribute to the world. And i think the USA are the only ones who can make it happen.

I suggest you go and read some articles such as in Time magazines, to get a better understanding of Iraq's (Saddam's)history and true potential.

And dont let anyone convince you its about oil, that an ignorant persons arrgument! period.


whew, it was good to get that out.

Whatever bedtime... the US is shit at paying its share to the UN... check yer facts buddy

and I can think of more cases when the US has flown in the face of democracy than cases where it supported it...

Im no fan of the USA's foriegn policy but on this issue in isolation i think the US is doing a good thing pushing dragging and kicking a screaming UN into action.

There are some self interests at play in the american government but thats doesnt stop the fact that saddam out is better than saddam in.

Thats one of the biggest crocks of shit I've ever read bedtime. Its hard to know where to start in response. How about the fact that any genocide committed by saddam hussein was nowhere near the levels of pol pot in vietnam. Add East Timor as another example. The rest is just as bad, like where have the US supplied the UN with hundreds of thousands of troops. Go and get educated.

Yeah Bob Saddam out may be better than Saddam in but that's not reason enough to start a war so the US have been fabricating evidence about weapons of mass destruction or at least been responsible for propaganda. Britain and the US have not uncovered any new installations or new stock piles of chemical weapons but if they say they are there then they must be.

And Saddam is an arab even if the US put him there in the first place. Kind of shows that the US are dick heads with less than perfect judgement. The fact that Saddam is there in the first place is clearly the responsibility of the US. After all they supported him in Iraqs war against Iran in the 80's.

I completely agree that saddam was a mother of all fuck ups by america. But unlike you i dont believe that no proof yet that he is rearming proves he isnt. There has been no proof for sure either way agreed, but saddams actions would indicate he is hiding something. And we may get that proof shortly.

i guess that's the reason america KNOWS that saddam has these weapons. they gave them to them in the 80's.....

styln, The issue of newly made stockpiles of chemical weapons might be debatable but the issue of the missing old stockpiles is not. It is a fact. He had these weapons back in the early 90's, so either they have been destroyed or he still has them. He has provided no evidence that they have been destroyed, so it's pretty clear to any rational person that they are still there somewhere.

btw cactus_genie, what do we call someone who posts a statement he know to be false with the single purpose of extracting a predictable response? A troll.

Responce.

1 The US are the single biggest supplier of military aid according to UN fact sheets released to the media, (and apparently) support more than the entire global community together.

2 Yes Pol Pot was a manic, and he wasnt in Veitnam he was in Cambodia-get your facts right!

3 I ment the US have supplied Hundreds of thousands of troops globaly, not all at once, sorry for the missunderstanding.

4 The US did support Iraqs war in its war with Iranand did not put Saddam in power. He got there after his predessor resinged and he took over in 1979.

Justahalf. Please, if you want me to consider you argument you must get you facts right.-go get educated.

That is a valid point Neilarmstrong, but I still think that the US have taken more reasponsability than any other nation for peoples Individual rights.

Like there own civil war for instance. This event kind of set the standard of US mentality of politians for generations, Im still convinced as far as super powers go, that the US have been alright so far.

But I know they will lose alot of face, for going in to Iraq with out UN support. War is unfortunate and I wished there was some other way, but somtimes force is the only option, Saddam has bad diplomatic record in case.

News stockplies of chemical weapons in Iraq no, weapons inspectors have found NO evidence that saddam has tried to start up his old chemical weapons factories which were supplied by britain and the usa. As to old hell the US has ten times the amount of old chemical weapons sitting around. As to deterrent maybe hes using them which are less deadly than nuclear weapons as a deterrent against invasion as trapper said "It's a deterrent against Saddam using his WMD on UK troops" maybe its a detreent against us and britain using thier WMD on iraqi troops i just think its fair. There has not yet been any evidence that Iraq has not complied with inspections. All evidence supports iraq is complying all be it grudgingly but they are complying. I tend to think weapons inspectors are good they should stay its cheaper way to solve the crisis that amrica started and no one has to die either. The only one wanting to stop inspections is the countries that demanded them in the first place. Someone tell me they are doing that please???

Inorrect. They have by all indications (and theres no reason to suspect otherwise) with current WMD treaties. Also America doesnt have a habit of using them on opposition forces. (bringing up agent orange here will even further damage your credibility)

Incorrect again. UN weapons inspections have been blocked in many ways.

<"It's a deterrent against Saddam using his WMD on UK troops" maybe its a detreent against us and britain using thier WMD on iraqi troops i just think its fair.> You really think anyone is going to use chem or bio weapons on the iraqis? (At least trying and find some reasonable statements to back up your claims)




Your forgetting what got the UN weapons teams back in there in the first place. The threat from the US without the US there would still be no UN inspections.

and now there are UN inspections the US doesn't seem to care about helping them, by supplying the weapons inspectors with all this evidence the US officials prattle on and on and on and on about in all media.

Now the US and allies have so many troops and materials in the Gulf perhaps they have to wage war to justify the expense of such a huge troop build up and until the beat Iraq they can't claim reparations....

no i didnt say that but america and britain have both threatened iraq with nuclear weapons and as trapper said they said that as a deterrent isnt it the same for iraq to use les deadly weapons as a deterrent as well? Please supply me witht he evidence that iraq has hampered the un inspectors? Hans blix has stated that"The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt."
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5902627%255E13140,00.html

America let iraq use them on opposition forces and dint complain when they used them on civilian either. It was donald rumsfeld who organised and tried to keep secret the iraqi use of chemical weapons. America still has the kargest stocks of chemical weapons in the world

Again youve misquoted. USA & Britain have said they would respond with WMD is they were used by saddam. They havent threatened iraq with them at all.

All sites yes, but again half truth or selective hesaring on your part. They have had repeated trouble talking to scientists and locking down areas where they are inspecting.

Also the supposed complete stae of WMD info and stockpiles was lacking in certain areas, iraqs promise to come clean has fallen well short.

No wheres your proof or reason to suspect that america has ten times as much? Or that it isnt complying with UN resolutions or peace treaties?

a few more points. Oil is a major factor, the supply of that is a key reason for this action. To call people ignorant for thinking that shows your ignorance. The fact they ignore the tibet situation amongst others shows that they are only concerned about human rights where it suits them, often where oil is involved.

The US have overthrown democratically elected govts to install other govts, eg Chile. They only like democracy where it suits there ends. They have been happy to support dictatorships in some countries.

you then follow by saying the US have taken more responsibility than any other nation for peoples individual rights. They only do this when it suits them. What have they done for the rights of tibetans for starters. What about the rights for countries to determine their own outcomes, eg afghanistan.

I do agree we could have worse than the US as the worlds police, but we could also have a lot better.

Lets specify what part of the oil thing this is about. I think its about oil supply and price continuity. I dont believe america is going to pillage iraqis oil or even get overly favorable terms on it.

Bob why does bringing up agent orange affect any ones credibility? Are you some kind of expert on the Vietnam war and the use of agent orange or is this just your way of trying to prevent people exploring what weapons the US have used in the past?

As far as the oil goes, the USA is sitting on some pretty big fields in Texas, and its no secret that they plan to controll the oil market in 100yrs time when the middle east dries up. The main concern I belive for the Bush administration, is that Saddam would supply chemical weapons to terorist organisations, and provide a safe haven for muslim extremists. This is why, I belive, pre 11/09 that no moves were made on the unstable states of the so called 'axis of evil' were made. Because they saw no threat.

I think war on Iraq would be to cut the terrorist organisations out of an arms supplier. What do you guys think?

I think Bob is trying to say that the herbicide agent orange was used to destroy tree foliage thus destroying enemy cover. But it has been missconcieved that it was used against actual humans. He was comparing it to the chemical warfare ability of present day US and Iraq

You may as well call round up a chemical weapon if you think agent orange was chemical warfare in any real sense.

Bob some of the US vets from Vietnam who have suffered a number of different illnesses and complaints might beg to differ. The US used depleted uranium shells during the Gulf War and even hit some of their own troops who surprise surprise went on to develop complaints, sickness and in some cases cancer.

USA still refuses to recognise any symptoms in its own soldiers. Maybe it's ok for them to use non conventional weapons and depleted uranium shells are definitely non conventional.

Those same vets (gulf war)were also exposed to traces of destroyed chem weapons so it is hard to pin point causation. Im not expert on it. Spray round up on people and they will get some pretty nasty effects too agent orange wasnt used to kill or injure troops directly hence it (tho controvesial) was not a chemical weapon.

Depleted uranium bullets are used to bust armour. Im not sure there was wide spread use of them (they were digging up sand in some places to retrieve them) again while controvercial not in the same sphere as chemical or biological weapons. (no one said war was safe even if you dont get killed)

I'm fuly with bob on this one. Agent orange was not a chemical weapon, no doubt about it. Unless you are a tree of course, and I'm taking it you're not styln.

Bob the depleted uranium shells were used in the large scale tank battle during the gulf war. And yes while they are primarily used for armour piercing there would still be some kind of traces of radiation left.

Theyre ussually fired from A 10 tank busters rather than from ground based guns? I dont know specifics but again i think your being a little pedantic arguing that depleted uranium is in the same sphere as anthrax or mustard gas or any other number of bio or nerve agents.

Another thing about the vietnam war there are suggestions that the enemy were lacing toxins in the drugs they were supplying to the americans that may be a confounding factor too. Im no expert but i would think in the land of lawyers if they could prove agent orange was to blame for helath defects there would be some very rich vets about.

Ive learnt some interesting things from this thread.