Printable View
Quote:
Good and I hope you get cancer
-----------------------Quote:
Go fuck off and go back to raping 5 year olds of whatever dolts like you do in their spare time
eh?Quote:
Calling somebody stupid during an argument you looked mentally challenged if you can't think of something smart don't say anything at all.
MN fully agree with you
Quote:
Or is it simply another case of not understanding different cultures?
Oh! yes it does when the word conflicting is put in as an addition.Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@16 December 2003 - 23:25
Oxymoronic doesn't mean stupid.
guys back on topic, leave the personal attacks and stupid remarks away...
pm's has been sent to the ones that needed to get one ;)
I hope he gets an international trial. Yes it will be long, maybe months or years, but it will give everyone time to go through the tones of evidence about how he actually committed the atrocities.
Prosecutor: "Saddam, you gassed the Iranians. Why?"
Saddam: "They shat me."
P: "So what did you do then?"
S: "Well, I asked the Americans if I could have some gas to kill the Iranians."
P: "And they said no, you can't have those sort of dangerous chemicals, didn't they?"
S: "No actually, they said they would sell me the chemicals on the provision that I knocked down the price of my oil. I thought, fair enough business is business, right?"
P: "Right. You also tortured tens of thousands of your own people. How did you accomplish this?"
S: "Well, a few years back, gee, it must have been...yeah, during the war with the Iranians! Anyway, this nice guy called Don came over here and said if I ever needed to learn how to torture people, he could get hold of some great people at the CIA."
P: "And you accepted?"
S: "Well I'd seen the great work they had done at the School of the Americas so I reckoned they knew what they were doing."
P: "And the Kurds?"
S: "They still shit me."
P: "So you gassed them. I'm beginning to see a pattern here..."
S: "Well the Americans had given me so many cool toys to play with I thought I'd try to invent some new ones. I needed to make sure they worked properly, see the American stuff has had lots of testing. Anyway, the Kurds were just there, which shat me, so I gassed 'em."
P: "And Kuwait? You invaded another country. Why?"
S: "Well, they've got a lot of oil and I wanted it."
P: "That's no reason to invade another...country...uh..."
S: "Yes it is actually. See, someone else has done that recently, you know like I did, saying they were a danger to my country."
P: "Call President Bush to the stand!"
:D
So it's someone else's fault not the person who committed the atrocities.
The argument is old hat and specious.
That would be like accepting that if no-one made guns there would be no murders. The knife does a really good job as well, as does a stick, poison, the bare hands. It is the person who commits the act who is responsible for committing it. Whether or not certain things should be made in the first place isan entirely seperate argument.
In my view, the person who buys the weapon and then uses it is the guilty party.
Here's what we'll do - Drunk driver kills someone, call Ford / Chrysler / whoever made the car, to the stand. We can't go blaming the piss head. Or should we call the brewer. Just as long as it isn't the guy who got drunk and drove the car.
Stabbing, let's find who made the knife and try them, not the person who wielded it.
Like I said, to just use this as another cheap way to have a pop at the American's is really rather dull and predictable. There are plenty of other threads on that line. Even ones about who supplied the Arms in the first place.
If the Americans did not know the possible side effects of Agent Orange when it was dropped then it ceases to become a Herbicide and becomes a possible chemical weapon. It should never have been dropped. It is no excuse to say I did not know.Quote:
Originally posted by bigboab+16 December 2003 - 10:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab @ 16 December 2003 - 10:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 December 2003 - 01:17
Agent Orange is a herbicide. The intent, when dropped, was to kill plants not people. Its' carcinogenic and teratogenic side effects were not known at the time.
Saddam 'testing' chemical weapons 'did not know' the results. Albeit he knew what he was doing and his targets were human.
Britain are also guilty of this ignorance by giving their untested antidotes* to their troops to combat chemical warfare. As a result many british troops are now seriously ill as a result. My attitude is if you dont know dont use.
* I dont know if I have used the correct word here. So my apologies.[/b][/quote]
Specious comparison, again. Saddam was honing his delivery of a known commodity. Agent Orange was inflicted upon friend and foe alike, knowing that it was an effective herbicide.
Scientific advancement is always one step ahead of experience. DDT was a great way to get rid of mosquitoes. It wasn't until the fish started popping up dead that we learned to appreciate the concentration of a toxin in the food chain.
In times of war, when results are the issue, it is difficult to tell people to study something for years, lest it have unforeseen side effects. Desperate times engender desparate actions, war is not civilized.
I did, of course, state that the Vietnamese should get reparations.
Sesame Street has been brought to you today by the word specious and the number 3.1428571428571428571428571428571
I think a knife is a bit different to tonnes of toxic chemicals. The scale of the weapon make the situation different. Would you be a responsible world leader if you handed over a nuclear bomb to another country saying "Well, Merry Christmas!"
And the other weapons bit. In Australia (Tasmania) a nutcase shot 35 people with automatic rifles. Days later, our version of the NRA said he could have done it with a spear. Not true. He had a superior weapon (than a spear) and was able to kill a greater number of people because of it. Soon after we banned them and deaths went down.
Australian Institute of Criminology
Now while there MAY be legitimate uses for assault rifles, I'd like to know about the many legitimate uses for anthrax and bubonic plague.
When you're dealing with bigger and badder weapons, the supplier has just as much responsiblity as the user.
What about cars.Quote:
Originally posted by Alex H@17 December 2003 - 02:55
I think a knife is a bit different to tonnes of toxic chemicals. The scale of the weapon make the situation different. Would you be a responsible world leader if you handed over a nuclear bomb to another country saying "Well, Merry Christmas!"
And the other weapons bit. In Australia (Tasmania) a nutcase shot 35 people with automatic rifles. Days later, our version of the NRA said he could have done it with a spear. Not true. He had a superior weapon (than a spear) and was able to kill a greater number of people because of it. Soon after we banned them and deaths went down.
Australian Institute of Criminology
Now while there MAY be legitimate uses for assault rifles, I'd like to know about the many legitimate uses for anthrax and bubonic plague.
When you're dealing with bigger and badder weapons, the supplier has just as much responsiblity as the user.
Easily kill 35 people with a car. Plough into a bus queue.
Better yet a bus itself, do 70 in one go. Piece of cake.
Or a plane - hundreds, a boat - thousands.
So who do we try. The person responsible, or the person who made the thing they used. I know who I chose.
That is just trying to support your argument by saying something ridiculous.Quote:
Would you be a responsible world leader if you handed over a nuclear bomb to another country saying "Well, Merry Christmas!"
He was quite right to shoot them if they had automatic rifles.Quote:
And the other weapons bit. In Australia (Tasmania) a nutcase shot 35 people with automatic rifles.
If banning the spear helped, then it was probably a wise thing to do.Quote:
He had a superior weapon (than a spear) and was able to kill a greater number of people because of it. Soon after we banned them and deaths went down.
Are you a mentalist at all.
Look mate I'm asking what a legitimate use for bubonic plague is. You're the one who started crapping on about knives and guns and stuff, and I pointed out that f there are less of these things then less people get hurt.
I will reluctantly admit that a boat is cartainly a dangerous weapon. It also has many other uses, like taking things from one place to another over the water. What else does anthrax do other than kill people? I could sell a boat with a clear conscience. Could you happily sell anthrax to someone?
Or is it ok to sell lethal chemicals, provied they are used to kill only certain groups of people?
I think you're getting vexatious litigation confused with arms dealing.