Comments on: Smoking Gun Images Of Syria Nuke Reactor?

Video Made By U.S. Intelligence Claims N. Korea Secretly Helped Syria Build A Reactor, Which Was Nearly Operational

[hungry1968]

Hungry so what you are saying is that poison gas is ineffective in large densely populated cities. ZOnly out in the desert is it dangerous killing a fewthousand lives. Do you ever read what you write? What good does it do to midigate a chemical weapons attack? What is the purpose of your statement?

Posted by notblue at 11:55 AM : Apr 25, 2008




No - what I''m saying is that Iraq NEVER posed a threat to us, and he NEVER threatened to use them against us. He never had WMD''s - AND OUR GOVERNMENT KNEW THAT.

Even if he did have the chemicals necessary, he never had a way of delivering them to America.

Do you EVER think, before you write, or do you let the christian, non-thinking side of your brain do the reasoning for you?

[joecoolswat]

mascarponi, this is old news. The destruction of the Syrian power plant was news from way back in October2007, there is no secret conspiracy by the Bushies to announce it now. The reason its comming out now, is because the Nuclear regulatory commission denouced the U.S. and Israel for acting without telling them first. Psst..(Israel and US don''t announce airstrikes anymore) we just act. No more nuclear weapon plant in Syria.

[hungry1968]

CHLORINE GAS !!! were did you get the disinformation? I guess you haven''''t seen the dead Kurks, in the thousands. That was no clorine gas from a chopper. and if I am not mistaken, he also used it against Iran, in the Iran/Iraq war.

Posted by JoeCoolSwat at 11:55 AM : Apr 25, 2008





SO WHAT?!?!

That is NO JUSTIFICATION to invade Iraq - NONE!!

WE ARE NOT THE WORLD POLICE!!! PERIOD!!!

If the chemical weapons used against Iran, the kurds, or anyone else was an issue, then it should have been the UN that addressed it - NOT AMERICA. WE ARE NOT THE WORLD POLICE!!!!

And if it was a violation of the UN Human Rights Council, then why didn''t the UN do something about it?

[joecoolswat]

No war ends, if the surrendering country does not keep up with it''s surrender agreements, then the war is back on, regardless if it is 10+ years.

[hungry1968]

Hungry..I may agree that Iraqi''''s themselves, there is not proof that they were performing Jihad on the U.S. mainland, but the point is that we were not going to wait around and find out, with another 9/11-part 2, backed by Iraq

Posted by JoeCoolSwat at 11:44 AM : Apr 25, 2008





And that is EXACTLY the fear that Bush played on. He planned on invading Iraq from day one of his presidency. In fact, "invading Iraq" should have been his 2000 campaign platform.

[joecoolswat]

forget it... even common sense escapes you. Your hatred for Bush (and Israel) is clouding even the simplist of points...Thanks for the discussion..

[hungry1968]

We don''''t just uni-laterally invade countries ! Name one (other than Iraq) because The Iraqi invasion was backed by Congress and was a follow up with obvious authorization from the 1st Iraq War.

Posted by JoeCoolSwat at 11:42 AM : Apr 25, 2008





What the hell do you mean "name one besides Iraq"? Iraq is what we''re talking about stupid!!

And there was no continuation of the first gulf war - the first Gulf War ended on February 28, 1991. How do you figure that the US had the right to break the cease fire agreement?

And Congress voted on the war authorization in spite of the fact that Bush was withholding the information from Germany and France that "curveball" was a liar and shouldn''t be believed. And since that was the ONLY PROOF of WMD''s, that should have been enough to stop the invasion.

[notblue]

Hungry so what you are saying is that poison gas is ineffective in large densely populated cities. ZOnly out in the desert is it dangerous killing a fewthousand lives. Do you ever read what you write? What good does it do to midigate a chemical weapons attack? What is the purpose of your statement?

[joecoolswat]

CHLORINE GAS !!! were did you get the disinformation? I guess you haven''t seen the dead Kurks, in the thousands. That was no clorine gas from a chopper. and if I am not mistaken, he also used it against Iran, in the Iran/Iraq war.

[hungry1968]

Question: Did Saddam or Did he not, gas his own people? That is fact..therefore how do you gas people ? WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS !!!!!!! Chemical weapons are WMD''''s..why do you idiotically keep claiming he did not have any WMD''''s (not in the amounts suspected), but large cache''''s of Chemical suits and masks have been found, during the invasion.

Posted by JoeCoolSwat at 11:36 AM : Apr 25, 2008





What were the "chemical weapons", and how did he deliver them?

It was chlorine gas, which is very common, and it was delivered by helicopters.

Now exactly WHAT THREAT was that to America?

[joecoolswat]

Hungry..I may agree that Iraqi''s themselves, there is not proof that they were performing Jihad on the U.S. mainland, but the point is that we were not going to wait around and find out, with another 9/11-part 2, backed by Iraq

[joecoolswat]

We don''t just uni-laterally invade countries ! Name one (other than Iraq) because The Iraqi invasion was backed by Congress and was a follow up with obvious authorization from the 1st Iraq War.

[joecoolswat]

The Jihad against the Jews and Americans and America''s interest in the Persian Gulf region has no borders ! when will you understand that ? Samalia, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc. etc.

[speakinup]

fedupwithit1 - when did President Bush lie - please give me a date. Are you referring to the "yellow cake" incident ?

[joecoolswat]

Question: Did Saddam or Did he not, gas his own people? That is fact..therefore how do you gas people ? WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS !!!!!!! Chemical weapons are WMD''s..why do you idiotically keep claiming he did not have any WMD''s (not in the amounts suspected), but large cache''s of Chemical suits and masks have been found, during the invasion.

[hungry1968]

Yesterday, you said " You can''''t just attack a country whenever you want " and went on about requiring the UN security council votes. Remember ? I thought it was hilarious when I responded. "you can''''t Jihad Europe and the America''''s like that. You have to go to the UN and get Jihad permission. see my point ? They don''''t ask permission to attack us, nor do we need it.

Posted by JoeCoolSwat at 11:27 AM : Apr 25, 2008





You CAN NOT unilaterally decide to invade a country any time you want.

We are not Nazi German, and Hitler is not our president.

And your analogy about the jihadi''s NOT SEEKING permission from the UN is not only stupid, but irrelevant too. Iraq had nothing to do with jihad against America, UNTIL we invaded. If we didn''t invade, jihad would STILL NOT BE WAGED AGAINST US BY IRAQI''s.

Please post ANY PROOF of jihad being waged against America, BY IRAQI''S, before we invaded.

[joecoolswat]

Interpol warns of ''Real possibility'' of attack at Olympics, MSN 4/25/08

"They want to hit the transit system, no question about it%u201D ticking off transit attacks across the globe: Moscow and Madrid in 2004, London in 2005 and Mumbai in 2006. Locally, Shahawar Matin Siraj was convicted in May 2006 of conspiring to place an explosive device in the Herald Square subway station in 2004. NY Daily News 4/25/08

I thought all this terrorism scare was made up ?

[joecoolswat]

Again... What army and forces do the UN deploy ? the answer is: None...They don''t have any ability to enforce any resolution, without the U.S. military backing, especially against the 5th largest military in the world. (former Iraq)..so why do you keep suggesting that the UN deal with it. HOW ?

[skydrifter1]

Let''s say all this story is factual.

Look to the history of Saddam''s Reactor, "super-gun" and this facility. The "powers-that-be" allow massive amounts of money to be spent - see the vendors'' list - if you can find it. Then, when the device is becoming dangerous, Israel bombs it, costing the hosting country massive capital & leaving the ''offending'' country asking if they want to try it again.

However, whatever the case, Iran''s facilities would require some powerful nuclear bombs to destroy that much of the facility - at what expense to the attacker?

AND - What would that do to the otherwise sacred prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons, as devices of aggression.

Like it or not, the Geneva Conventions still prohibit "Preventative War," whether
Bush & Israel like it or not.

The hassle being that there''s no mouse, save Russia &
China, big enough to ''bell'' the "Coalition of the Willing" mouse. There''s the rub!

America wallows in as much shame, as selective ignorance - Nazi Germany, deja vu.

[joecoolswat]

Yesterday, you said " You can''t just attack a country whenever you want " and went on about requiring the UN security council votes. Remember ? I thought it was hilarious when I responded. "you can''t Jihad Europe and the America''s like that. You have to go to the UN and get Jihad permission. see my point ? They don''t ask permission to attack us, nor do we need it.