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?

He doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, but he is working on developing them.

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.

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.

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.

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!

I've never heard anyone call it a bombing besides you.

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.

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.

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!

Originally posted by Sayonara³

 

Do you mean 'nuke', or just 'attack'?

 

Either one. I'm starting to forget what we were talking about.

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.

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.

Rather than create hate, perhaps liberating Iraq from a brutal dictator might be welcomed by some Iraqis.

Things did not turn out as you indicated falfalone.

What exactly are you getting at here?

 

edit: nevermind

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.