Thread: Nuclear bombs against Iraq
View Single Post
Unread 3 Apr 2003, 17:04   #65
acropolis
Vermin Supreme
 
acropolis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
acropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better place
Quote:
Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue

You may be right about the Geneva convention not being signed after 1949, well spotted, so that makes the targetting of civillians alright I suppose? My point is that the use of Nuclear weapons against civillians should be recognised as a grave crime against humanity, unless you believe the purpose of human indeavour is to eventually anihilate each other in more and more devastating ways.
That's just silliness.

PS: I'm pretty sure no iraqis died from America's use of chemical weapons on the vietcong.

PPS: the real question being: if we were to nuke iraq, what effect would the radiation have on the oil supply? would it still be usable? would we have to decontaminate it? why does no one else consider the effects of this type of attack...
acropolis is offline   Reply With Quote