PDA

View Full Version : Chemical Weapons Finally Found...



Outnumbered
01-11-2004, 11:19 AM
For all the anti-war crowd:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108046,00.html
Looks like you were wrong.
OL

Dr. Eagle
01-11-2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Old Lavey
For all the anti-war crowd:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108046,00.html
Looks like you were wrong.
OL
Yeah, put that in your peace pipes and smoke it.....BITCH! Naive to the end....the plight of the PEACENIK......
:p :p :p
He He....:D

ratso
01-11-2004, 12:00 PM
For all the non-believers and Bush haters...**** Ya'll,:D

Infomaniac
01-11-2004, 12:14 PM
Who needed proof?
http://marineassault.net/saddam.jpg

BoatFloating
01-11-2004, 12:16 PM
I'm 100% in favor of what we did in Iraq and Bush is the type of President we needed for the last 8 years instead of coat tail Bill Clinton. With that being said, this isnt your somking gun. These were left overs from Iraq/Iran war in the 80's and not weapons of mass destruction. Here is the quote The 120mm mortar shells are thought to be left over from the eight-year war between Iraq and neighboring Iran, which ended in 1988, U.S. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. and also here The shells were wrapped in plastic but had been damaged, and they appeared to have been buried for at least 10 years, the statement said.
We still went in for all the right reasons and we don't need any more reasons to prove that. Had we been this aggresive with Hitler, things would of been diferent in the 40's.

Dr. Eagle
01-11-2004, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by BoatFloating
I'm 100% in favor of what we did in Iraq and Bush is the type of President we needed for the last 8 years instead of coat tail Bill Clinton. With that being said, this isnt your somking gun. These were left overs from Iraq/Iran war in the 80's and not weapons of mass destruction. Here is the quote and also here
We still went in for all the right reasons and we don't need any more reasons to prove that. Had we been this aggresive with Hitler, things would of been diferent in the 40's.
With all due respect, I beleive that Mr. Saddam was to account for ALL WMDs no matter their vintage.
But, I suppose they could have forgotten about them.........no, seriously!
Not the smoking gun from the standpoint of an active program though...you are right!

jlnorthrup122
01-11-2004, 04:10 PM
Had we been this aggresive with Hitler, things would of been diferent in the 40's.
Your rite things would have been different in the 1940's. germany might have won the war. our waiting till we were attacked at pearl harbor was a godsent blessing! when we stormed the beaches of nomandy we were a fresh and strong force unlike our alies and the natzi coalition! I think if we had gotten involved in the beginning of WW2 our chances of winning would have been greatly lessoned!

Outnumbered
01-14-2004, 09:54 AM
Now they are saying that these may test negative. BUT, take a look at this new development.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108371,00.html
OL

Ducatista
01-14-2004, 10:00 AM
Geez.... that is some scary stuff!:mad: Thanks for the link...

INXS
01-14-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by jlnorthrup122
Your rite things would have been different in the 1940's. germany might have won the war. our waiting till we were attacked at pearl harbor was a godsent blessing! when we stormed the beaches of nomandy we were a fresh and strong force unlike our alies and the natzi coalition! I think if we had gotten involved in the beginning of WW2 our chances of winning would have been greatly lessoned! Just the reverse would have happened. Hitler had time to get stronger be the peace at any price liberals.
INXS

mirvin
01-14-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Infomaniac
Who needed proof?
http://marineassault.net/saddam.jpg
Hey Info, that's ****ing beautiful;)
Too bad people can't understand that "War does not equal no peace" and that "Peace does not equal no war"
Mirvin:cool:

Outnumbered
01-14-2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by RiverDave
Didn't we sell them the chemical weapons that they used against Iran (and there own people) back in the 80's?
RD
We probably GAVE them to them. Its what the CIA calls "Blow Back" When you are dealing with these third-world f@cked up people you never know who your real friends are. Eventully the shit is gonna come back and blow up in your face.
OL

mirvin
01-14-2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by RiverDave
Didn't we sell them the chemical weapons that they used against Iran (and there own people) back in the 80's?
RD
I guess no one wants to tackle that one RD;) How bout this:
Yes we did but they were our friends and we didn't like the Iranians then but now we like the IRanian ok enough and Iraq is not our friends anymore so It doesn't matter where they got anything it only matters that they have them and now we don't want them to so that makes them bad and us good;)
That outta fix things up real nice.:D
Mirvin

H2on22
01-14-2004, 11:43 PM
If you think we went into Iraq for all the right reasons...I would love to hear them. Considering we found Sadamm hiding in a hole...what the hell does that say about Iraq. If they were so powerfull and he was so dangerous why the hell didn't he fight back. He didn't even throw a punch. In a matter of days his statues were toppling over. So if he was such a threat, then why was it so easy. We have no business (but Oil Business) over there. Look at the faces of all those men and women who died over there for a BS cause. fallen heroes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm)
And check out this letter from a soldier on the field...letter (http://michaelmoore.com/)
I don't believe everything he says...but he's got some good points.

Outnumbered
01-15-2004, 12:41 AM
Michael Moore.com...you gotta be f@cking kidding. That guy is a poor excuse for an American.
As far as Saddam. We gave the guy several chances. He had his opportunity to avoid a conflict. He didn't think we would follow through because of what happened last time. Well he found out the hard way that we are not kidding any more. Bush Jr is a take no shit kinda guy and that is what we need. The more ass we kick the less people will want to f@ck with us.
Just my $.02
OL

Sleek26
01-15-2004, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by H2on22
If you think we went into Iraq for all the right reasons...I would love to hear them. Considering we found Sadamm hiding in a hole...what the hell does that say about Iraq. If they were so powerfull and he was so dangerous why the hell didn't he fight back. He didn't even throw a punch. In a matter of days his statues were toppling over. So if he was such a threat, then why was it so easy. We have no business (but Oil Business) over there. Look at the faces of all those men and women who died over there for a BS cause. fallen heroes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm)
And check out this letter from a soldier on the field...letter (http://michaelmoore.com/)
I don't believe everything he says...but he's got some good points.
Yea, he has some great points, alright. Lets look at some that struck me right off.
1. I’m writing it not knowing why, or knowing what I’m going to say.
2. I’m writing it not knowing if I’ll ever finish it or mail it.
3. I’m writing it from the trenches of a war (that’s still going on,) not knowing why I’m here or when I’m leaving.
4. the only light came from a red bulb.... I found myself moments away from a landing onto a pitch black airstrip (NOT A BAD IDEA, SINCE THE PURPOSE IS THAT RED LIGHT HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON YOUR NIGHT VISION)
5. I can't say I know what I believe.
6. I understand everything I believe may be wrong; that I believe for a reason, and that reason may not be reality.
7. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say.
Why am I not surprised that this guy is in love with Michael Moore??

Dr. Eagle
01-15-2004, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by Sleek26
Why am I not surprised that this guy is in love with Michael Moore??
Well said. READ MY LIPS:
MICHAEL MOORE IS A MISERABLE EXCUSE FOR A TRAITOR
He is Mr. Negative. He is an idiot. Hi is a liar. And he tries to be a traitor, but he even screws that up. I can't stand that douche bag.
BTW Posting an article from his web site just did away with any credibility in that post.

Dave C
01-15-2004, 09:35 AM
we weren't the only ones selling weapons to IRAQ back then. Look at the totals:
I think we will never know what the other countries were selling to Iraq.

Outnumbered
01-15-2004, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Dave C
we weren't the only ones selling weapons to IRAQ back then. Look at the totals:
I think we will never know what the other countries were selling to Iraq.
Looks like we were the smallest contributor. It doesn't surprise me that France is near the top.
OL

Dave C
01-15-2004, 10:16 AM
sorry its kinda hard to read. Source is stockholm international peace research institute.
I know conventional weapons proliferation numbers are more or less publicly available. there is quite a market in the world for arms and most the transactions are tracked. So its not to hard to find.
I am sure WMD and other secrets are clandestine and #'s are not available.

Dr. Eagle
01-15-2004, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Dave C
we weren't the only ones selling weapons to IRAQ back then. Look at the totals:
I think we will never know what the other countries were selling to Iraq.
Wow, now does that tell a story or what? The biggest foes to the invasion were Russia and France. I am a little surprised not to see Germany popping up on the list.

Ducatista
01-15-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by H2on22
If you think we went into Iraq for all the right reasons...I would love to hear them. Considering we found Sadamm hiding in a hole...what the hell does that say about Iraq. If they were so powerfull and he was so dangerous why the hell didn't he fight back. He didn't even throw a punch. In a matter of days his statues were toppling over. So if he was such a threat, then why was it so easy. We have no business (but Oil Business) over there. Look at the faces of all those men and women who died over there for a BS cause. fallen heroes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm)
And check out this letter from a soldier on the field...letter (http://michaelmoore.com/)
I don't believe everything he says...but he's got some good points. Dude, I would like to give you a dollar so so can go buy a clue........have you had your head in dark places lately?

eliminatedsprinter
01-15-2004, 01:56 PM
The best information we can get hold of seems to show we were not a major supplier of arms to Iraq. We did support them in their war with Iran, but that was just a case of "My enemy's enemy is my friend". We thought we were supporting the lesser of 2 evils. Believe me, as a voter out here on the Left Coast I know that feeling well.:yuk: :rolleyes:
Taking out Saddam's government was a move that was long overdue. The creep was openly sending money to the familys of suicide bombers. He housed terrorist training camps in his country. Our fighters reported being shot at by his troops on almost every patrol over the "No Fly Zones". Does anybody in their right mind think Truman, or Ike would have tolerated that kind of crap from post war Japan after we allowed Hirohito to stay in power?
I am so sick of hearing that lie that this was an "unprovoked unilateral attack" that it makes me want to barf on all the crooked public figures who parrot it.

Dr. Eagle
01-15-2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by eliminatedsprinter
The best information we can get hold of seems to show we were not a major supplier of arms to Iraq. We did support them in their war with Iran, but that was just a case of "My enemy's enemy is my friend". We thought we were supporting the lesser of 2 evils. Believe me, as a voter out here on the Left Coast I know that feeling well.:yuk: :rolleyes:
Taking out Saddam's government was a move that was long overdue. The creep was openly sending money to the familys of suicide bombers. He housed terrorist training camps in his country. Our fighters reported being shot at by his troops on almost every patrol over the "No Fly Zones". Does anybody in their right mind think Truman, or Ike would have tolerated that kind of crap from post war Japan after we allowed Hirohito to stay in power?
I am so sick of hearing that lie that this was an "unprovoked unilateral attack" that it makes me want to barf on all the crooked public figures who parrot it.
Couldn't agree more. The last 13 years were stupid, and meanwhile he is killing tens of thousands of people to consolidate his power....and the Peaceniks think he should have been left alone...:confused: :mad: :mad: :mad:

CA Stu
01-15-2004, 02:48 PM
1) Saddam entered into an treaty with NATO to end a previous war.
2) He repeatedly violated the the terms of his surrender.
That alone is plenty of reason for military intervention from NATO, but since some members of NATO (France for one) were involved in helping him violate his treaty, they didn't have the gumption to take action and expose their own dirty dealings.
Just the way the world works, unfortunately.
And H2on22, you have got to be kidding. If the US would have gotten involved in WWII earlier, about 6 million fewer people would have been exterminated through Hitler's genocidal ethnic cleansing.
If that's not reason enough for you, I don't know what is...
Peace out
CA Stu

eliminatedsprinter
01-15-2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Couldn't agree more. The last 13 years were stupid, and meanwhile he is killing tens of thousands of people to consolidate his power....and the Peaceniks think he should have been left alone...:confused: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Not wanting us to remove a murdering, warlike dictator who violates our treaties, shoots at our planes, invades and or blackmails the rest of the gulf states, and even attempts to assasinate one of our presidents, makes me think they have a very strange definition of peace.:rolleyes:

H2on22
01-15-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Sleek26
Yea, he has some great points, alright. Lets look at some that struck me right off.
1. I’m writing it not knowing why, or knowing what I’m going to say.
2. I’m writing it not knowing if I’ll ever finish it or mail it.
3. I’m writing it from the trenches of a war (that’s still going on,) not knowing why I’m here or when I’m leaving.
4. the only light came from a red bulb.... I found myself moments away from a landing onto a pitch black airstrip (NOT A BAD IDEA, SINCE THE PURPOSE IS THAT RED LIGHT HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON YOUR NIGHT VISION)
5. I can't say I know what I believe.
6. I understand everything I believe may be wrong; that I believe for a reason, and that reason may not be reality.
7. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say.
Why am I not surprised that this guy is in love with Michael Moore??
First I never said 'in Love with' with him, just that he raised some good points and second...fact before fiction...that letter is from a soldier in Iraq, not Moore himself. All I'm saying is do some research before forming opinions. The American media is full of BS and if you believe most of what is said on TV then it's like lambs to the slaughterhouse. Believing everyhting Moore has to say is the same. That's why we should think independently instead of following the heard. I don't disagree that Sadamm was a ******** and a menace to many, but don't believe the lies we are fed everyday that...
1. He is in bed with Al Queda so we must get him-BS, we all know that.
2. He has WMD-Jury is still out
3. He was trying to buy Uranium-BS and confirmed by the CIA who told the Bush Admin. not to use the intel because it was untrue, but he used it anyway and spoke about it in his 'State of the Union' address
3. We need to free the people of Iraq-Yeah right, we never gave a damn about those people over there. Ask yourself how many Americans really care about freeing the people of Iraq? Not many.
So I think it's a good thing Sadamm is done, but at what cost? How many lives? How much money? etc.

H2on22
01-15-2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by CA Stu
1) Saddam entered into an treaty with NATO to end a previous war.
2) He repeatedly violated the the terms of his surrender.
That alone is plenty of reason for military intervention from NATO, but since some members of NATO (France for one) were involved in helping him violate his treaty, they didn't have the gumption to take action and expose their own dirty dealings.
Just the way the world works, unfortunately.
And H2on22, you have got to be kidding. If the US would have gotten involved in WWII earlier, about 6 million fewer people would have been exterminated through Hitler's genocidal ethnic cleansing.
If that's not reason enough for you, I don't know what is...
Peace out
CA Stu
Never said a thing about WWII...Pull your head out of your poop chute. Try comparing apples to apples. If you think Sadamm and Hitler can be in the same book you should study a little more. I think alot of people would take offense to that comparison.

***boat2
01-15-2004, 09:21 PM
First off, relax. This is a tough issue for all. Some have very strong opinions on one side of the coin, and some the other. I dont do words of wisdom nor do i argue politics or which beer is the best. But i will say that something needed to be done, what that is, is not my job to figure out. And this argument won't be over for many years to come.

H2on22
01-16-2004, 12:04 PM
TASTES GREAT!!!

CA Stu
01-16-2004, 01:36 PM
Hitler invaded Poland to start his campaign and because he met no resistance, he kept on a rollin'.
Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia to start his campaign, we stepped up and stopped him.
He signed a treaty to end the Gulf War, he violated his treaty repeatedly. We had a choice, H2, we could either enforce the treaty or roll over like sheep. I guess we should have sat on our hands and let him do whatever he wanted, huh?
Here's a newsflash: Saddam is not a nice guy, he is a murderous dictator.
I think we should behead the cocksucker on the Whitehouse lawn.
Cheers
CA Stu
PS Tastes Great.

H2on22
01-16-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by CA Stu
Hitler invaded Poland to start his campaign and because he met no resistance, he kept on a rollin'.
Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia to start his campaign, we stepped up and stopped him.
He signed a treaty to end the Gulf War, he violated his treaty repeatedly. We had a choice, H2, we could either enforce the treaty or roll over like sheep. I guess we should have sat on our hands and let him do whatever he wanted, huh?
Here's a newsflash: Saddam is not a nice guy, he is a murderous dictator.
I think we should behead the cocksucker on the Whitehouse lawn.
Cheers
CA Stu
PS Tastes Great.
I'm with you on that...I'll hold the bucket for the head. All I'm saying is that I think there is more to the story than what we are fed by the media. Some people are making a lot of money from the 'Re-building of Iraq' look to see who those people are and see if they are close to the Bush family...I think you know the answer to that one. I'm just fed up with being lied to. Let's take care of Americans and America first. The job market is down, the economy is barely making a comeback, and who's getting the tax-breaks? George's friends the ultra rich. How about the middle guys...us?