humor - How much does it cost to disarm a country?

MobyDog SG

How much does it cost to disarm a country?
- Military Personnel $30 Billion
- Combat Weapons $72 Billion
- Rebuilding the country $8 Billion
- The look on the victims faces when they learn there was No Weapons Of Mass Destruction afterall PRICELESS

There are some justifications for war that money can't buy
For everything else, there's MasterCon

KumSioJui SG

the weapons are there lah, it's just that they cannot find it.

SilverPal SG

He was joking...

Salman SG

I use common sense.

If I can hide a pack of cigarettes in my room as a teenager, Saddam can certain hide WMDs in the deserts of Iraq and Syria.
Only fools will believe that there was no WMDs in Iraq.

KumSioJui SG

Everybody knows you can’t destroy chemical weapons overnight, you will need years to do that, and saddam made tonnes and tonnes of those poisons, it will take decades if not centuries. So the only other way to dispose of it if you in a hurry? just dig a big hole and dump it.

Salman SG

Wow! So easy ah!

Well, Iraq is a big country. I'm sure they can find a place to dig a hole in the ground and hide WMDs somewhere.

actually, its not difficult to destroy chemical weapons if it doesn't leak. Just dumb it into an incinerator that is in the middle of a desert.
Its atomic weapons that are more troublesome.

KumSioJui SG

yeah if saddam were that honest to begin with they might have let him burn his own weapons.

But seriously we talking abt having weapons disarmament programs because you cant trust him, first inspectors have the old data how much raw material he imported the equipment that he used to manufacture those chems multiply by the number of years and use that quantity as a benchmark, next they had to search all the stockpiles of unused munitions sort out the ones that are chems to the ones that are not then tally it, then they have to estimate how much of it was used against the iranians and kurds. Then only they can arrive at the conclusion if he was telling the truth abt his stockpiles.

Next they have to burn it and guard it to make sure while they burning it the monkey dun try to steal it back when their backs are turned. Laughing

MobyDog SG

But, but, but.....

Bush himself admitted there were no WMD... No matter how big Iraq is... it's a desert.. for crying out loud. Besides, I thought it was for Nuclear Weapons to begin with...

Chemical weapons... guess who's the initial and major supplier was... why else would Saddam be tried on the murder of about one hundred plus people, in an insurgency situation, where the whole village tried to assissinate him.

Salman SG

They couldn’t find. Thats does not mean it wasn’t there.

MobyDog SG

Are you communist..

By your same logic...

He lied ans accuse, doesn't mean it's must be there..

gosh...

Salman SG

If there wasn’t any WMDs, why didn’t Saddam cooperate with inpsectors?

MobyDog SG

He did , but were told it is not enough.. wants total access... Then they charge him with 16 resolutions with X16 " I don't have wmd". He actually wanted to compromise later, US ignored him and invaded..

What's wrong with not letting them gain full military access, esp from a determine party keeps accusing you.. They also must keep their military secrets also what. Anyway, Iraq does have chemical weapons left behind from Iranian war wat... wat if they use this and say " wa lao.. a few Arti shells of chemical weapon found in some old crates... become Chemical weapon cache found" you know the trick... lah. Anyway, The inspector might be mapping out target .. for all u know.

You are like Cheney.. the burden of proof lies with saddam... wah,, that is like "I can anyhow accuse you, but you must proof yourself innocent" .. communist..!

UandMe SG

great common sense Laughing

saddam should hide himself with his WMD, then he won't be caught even till now

Salman SG

Saddam is living, he can't be buried under ground and not breathe air or eat.
Does that make any sense to you?

ndmmxiaomayi SG

Do you know that everything is possible?

It is possible that there is no WMDs in Iraq. It could be right in Israel. It could also be right in US. It could also be in Singapore.

lwflee SG

You argument is very disingenuous. It is a fact that it is very difficult to prove a negative. Hence, yes you are right. That we haven't seen something does not mean it is not there. It simply means that we have not seen it. Taken to its logical extreme, i can claim that there is, in fact, an elephant in your room.

No, not there. You're just not looking in the right places. Given time, i'm sure you will find the sneaky lill elephant. Laughing

Salman SG

Did Saddam use WMDs? Why did Saddam not cooperate fully with UN inspectors for 12 years?

Ito_^ SG

Easy – Scare tactics.

Salman SG

How do you know its scare tactics?

MobyDog SG

Salman,

Did Saddam use WMDs? Why did Saddam not cooperate fully with UN inspectors for 12 years?

Wah.. bian.. a, If you had followed this 12 yr serial drama, we would have notice that every time that is new allegations and every demand met is never enough... one place don't have .. they say another place might have .. another place don't have ... they say this place will have. ah, then wants full access to all military sites without notification, of course, Iraq would say no ..lah.. then US say they are not co-operating.

Ayah.. this tactic is so common... well after Iraqis x16 " I don't have WMD" .. got invaded, oil plundered by CPA specifications planted into Iraq's new constitution.... then say " No WMD in Iraq"... we blame " false intel" when it is obvious, now that the Nigeria yellow cake (Uranium) documents were forgery, with a high US official name plastered all over it..

Before this, they even try to them others for trying to rewrite history.