PDA

View Full Version : NFT... 500 Chemical Weapons Found In Iraq....


recxjake
06-21-2006, 08:08 PM
1

Bob Dole
06-21-2006, 08:19 PM
So they found 500 foreign cars in Iraq?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 08:24 PM
lambs

SPchief
06-21-2006, 08:30 PM
clean up on isle 6 please

hypersensitiveZO6
06-21-2006, 08:30 PM
Whoa.

Bush comments to Americans:
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/bushfingers.jpg

hyperliteZO6

Bwana
06-21-2006, 08:49 PM
Heh! It will be fun to watch the spin from people like JiZ and meme on this one.

tiptap
06-21-2006, 09:00 PM
They found traces of 500 munitions. Well gee were they spent or discarded because they were left over from the Iran/Iraq conflict. That would be the weapons we furnished Iraq. Everyone expected to find those but obviously Iraq wasn't manufactoring and let these munitions deteriorate. WHERE THEY FUNCTIONING MUNITIONS or discarded ones. Pretty pathetic evidence of an active chemical warfare program. Just evidence of the success of the embargo.

JBucc
06-21-2006, 09:04 PM
Not a whole lot of details there.

SBK
06-21-2006, 09:07 PM
It don't matter what they find, the left will never have reason to justify the war. Ever.

NaptownChief
06-21-2006, 09:12 PM
It don't matter what they find, the left will never have reason to justify the war. Ever.


You are exactly right...There has never been a war and will never ever be a war that while it is going on that the liberal left will agree with. War is never fun, it is never easy. It is like hard work, it sucks big time while you are doing it but often times the fruit it bares after the fact makes it worth it.

noa
06-21-2006, 09:19 PM
You are exactly right...There has never been a war and will never ever be a war that while it is going on that the liberal left will agree with. War is never fun, it is never easy. It is like hard work, it sucks big time while you are doing it but often times the fruit it bares after the fact makes it worth it.


If we had actually planned for the aftermath of the war, the public would be much more supportive. Polling data from WWII shows that, despite what Tony Snow says, the public (across the entire spectrum) supported the war even during the Battle of the Bulge. The "liberal left" would not be complaining if we had done the proper planning and reconstruction management.

Bwana
06-21-2006, 09:22 PM
They found traces of 500 munitions. Well gee were they spent or discarded because they were left over from the Iran/Iraq conflict. That would be the weapons we furnished Iraq. Everyone expected to find those but obviously Iraq wasn't manufactoring and let these munitions deteriorate. WHERE THEY FUNCTIONING MUNITIONS or discarded ones. Pretty pathetic evidence of an active chemical warfare program. Just evidence of the success of the embargo.

Nice start on the spin Ace. There were several of the hard core tree huggers that kept asking, Where are the WMDS? OOOPS, some just turned up. So Damn Insane also claimed there were none in the country, surprise, he told a fib.

Anyone who thinks that's all there are is a fool.

NaptownChief
06-21-2006, 09:29 PM
If we had actually planned for the aftermath of the war, the public would be much more supportive. Polling data from WWII shows that, despite what Tony Snow says, the public (across the entire spectrum) supported the war even during the Battle of the Bulge. The "liberal left" would not be complaining if we had done the proper planning and reconstruction management.

WWII was a different era without the internet and cable news talk shows running the spew non-stop but despite that the US didn't get involved in WWII for a couple years primarily because it wasn't a popular decision. Another big factor is the "liberal left" didn't really rear their ugly heads as a political entity until the Vietnam, free love, acid tripping days.

pak1983
06-21-2006, 09:30 PM
good response, lowest all time rating, then kill zarqawi, now wmds, looks like hes turning it around eh? yeah ****ing right. just bullshit to help get his numbers back up. this has a distinct stench much of that as incestco field.

Logical
06-21-2006, 09:31 PM
Wrong forum clearly this is political

NaptownChief
06-21-2006, 09:33 PM
good response, lowest all time rating, then kill zarqawi, now wmds, looks like hes turning it around eh? yeah ****ing right. just bullshit to help get his numbers back up. this has a distinct stench much of that as incestco field.


Not like he is trying to get re-elected....So nice try. Much like William The Impeached tossing out pardons left and right when he was headed out the door, once you have been re-elected to your second term public opinion isn't of great concern like it is when trying to win a second four years.

noa
06-21-2006, 09:35 PM
Not like he is trying to get re-elected....So nice try. Much like William The Impeached tossing out pardons left and right when he was headed out the door, once you have been re-elected to your second term public opinion isn't of great concern like it is when trying to win a second four years.


So do you think Bush is a good president?

Cochise
06-21-2006, 09:36 PM
Nice start on the spin Ace. There were several of the hard core tree huggers that kept asking, Where are the WMDS? OOOPS, some just turned up. So Damn Insane also claimed there were none in the country, surprise, he told a fib.

Anyone who thinks that's all there are is a fool.

Get used to it. I don't think any amount being discovered will change the tenor of the debate at all. Whatever amount are found will be deemed 'not enough to justify', it wouldn't matter if you could fill arrowhead with all the shells.

KCBOSS1
06-21-2006, 09:37 PM
"I hate war, My wife Eleanor hates war.......but we are in war." - Teddy Roosevelt

A nation divided cannot stand. War against terrorists on the terrorists' turf is better than war against the terrorists on our turf. It's either or.

Support our troops whether you like our president or not.

Saddam would have loved to blow us up...everybody knows it. He has had weapons and has made every attempt to get nuclear weapons....Everybody knows it. Islamic terrorists would walk through your house and cut the throat of your kids in a heartbeat and will if given the opportunity. This is an inevitable war and has been avoided for as long as possible.

They believe that all that will not convert to Islam must die.

NaptownChief
06-21-2006, 09:39 PM
So do you think Bush is a good president?


Well the two best things he did for our country was beat Al Gore and John Kerry. For that we as a country should be for ever indebted to the guy. Outside of that he has been a bit of a disappointment but primarly because he spends like a drunken sailor and has made too many concessions with the left.

Logical
06-21-2006, 09:40 PM
Not like he is trying to get re-elected....So nice try. Much like William The Impeached tossing out pardons left and right when he was headed out the door, once you have been re-elected to your second term public opinion isn't of great concern like it is when trying to win a second four years.Well now lets be reasonable here, it is likely an attempt to not drag the Republican party down with him in the upcoming elections. I think you knew that when you posted this statement.

Logical
06-21-2006, 09:43 PM
"I hate war, My wife Eleanor hates war.......but we are in war." - Teddy Roosevelt

... I am pretty sure Eleanor was married to Franklin, not Teddy. The rest of you post was about on par with that.

NaptownChief
06-21-2006, 09:43 PM
Well now lets be reasonable here, it is likely an attempt to not drag the Republican party down with him in the upcoming elections. I think you knew that when you posted this statement.


absolutely...but it is a far lesser concern once they have rung the bell for a second go round.

SPchief
06-21-2006, 09:45 PM
Wrong forum clearly this is political


gee, ya think??

Cochise
06-21-2006, 09:46 PM
I think it's foolish for any of us to pretend the debate was really about WMD to begin with. It was partisanship and little else, IMO.

noa
06-21-2006, 09:47 PM
Well the two best things he did for our country was beat Al Gore and John Kerry. For that we as a country should be for ever indebted to the guy. Outside of that he has been a bit of a disappointment but primarly because he spends like a drunken sailor and has made too many concessions with the left.


Fair enough. Just glad to hear you're willing to see his faults and stand up to defend what you see as his strengths. Can't say that I agree, but I respect that. Personally, I think Bush would be a hell of a lot more popular if he had taken enough time to plan for the occupation and if he figured out a way to get spending under control. I'm also upset with all the signing statments he has done rather than vetoing bills. It takes the power away from Congress. Not that I have much faith in Congress' ability to make laws in the best interest of their constituents, but still...I think his current popularity and how the history books will view him all hinge on Iraq.

KCBOSS1
06-21-2006, 09:49 PM
So do you think Bush is a good president?

Truthfully, I believe that he will go down in history as being one of the most effective presidents in history. I believe it remains to be seen as to what has actually been done and we are purposely kept in the dark on a ton of stuff.....Afterall, we are in war. There is no accurate way to assess the overall situation while bullets are flying over your head, but time will tell.

Most, if not all of the most honored presidents in history were hated during their terms...Lincoln, JFK, Roosevelt, etc. It's just that now opinions are spread as fast as hitting an "Enter" button.

Yes, I do think he is a good president.

Logical
06-21-2006, 09:50 PM
gee, ya think??Asswipes like recxjake make it more difficult on the rest of us who want to post topics that are not political but are remotely related. Like when I posted a thread on bureaucrats. We all suffer from nitwits like him.

KCBOSS1
06-21-2006, 09:51 PM
I am pretty sure Eleanor was married to Franklin, not Teddy. The rest of you post was about on par with that.

Sorry, I'm fifty minutes past my bedtime....and it shows. appreciate the correction.

I Have No Imagination
06-21-2006, 09:51 PM
Asswipes like recxjake make it more difficult on the rest of us who want to post topics that are not political but are remotely related. Like when I posted a thread on bureaucrats. We all suffer from nitwits like him.All ya have to do is put 'NFT' at the top. Sheesh....

Logical
06-21-2006, 09:53 PM
All ya have to do is put 'NFT' at the top. Sheesh....Not the way it works here, you are new. Purely political topics go in the DC forum.

I Have No Imagination
06-21-2006, 09:55 PM
Not the way it works here, you are new. Purely political topics go in the DC forum.It was a joke
nevermind

Logical
06-21-2006, 09:57 PM
It was a joke
nevermindAre your jokes always so lame?

SPchief
06-21-2006, 09:59 PM
Asswipes like recxjake make it more difficult on the rest of us who want to post topics that are not political but are remotely related. Like when I posted a thread on bureaucrats. We all suffer from nitwits like him.


Ohh, I have no problem with threads in the lounge that promote dicussion on current politics. BUT this thread is clearly trying to promote a pissing match between the left and the right and should have been posted in DC.

I Have No Imagination
06-21-2006, 09:59 PM
Are your jokes always so lame?yes

SPchief
06-21-2006, 10:01 PM
heh, has anybody noticed ChiefsPlanet's location??

Logical
06-21-2006, 10:02 PM
No... this should be posted here because it is very important... the whole basis for the Iraqi war was WMD... Saddam said he didn't have any... he lied and he's gonna die....You are simply a fool. We knew he had the weapons we gave him, all this is evidence that some of them remained. Come back when you have evidence of newly produced weapons.:rolleyes:

SPchief
06-21-2006, 10:02 PM
No... this should be posted here because it is very important... the whole basis for the Iraqi war was WMD... Saddam said he didn't have any... he lied and he's gonna die....

dude stfu

Logical
06-21-2006, 10:02 PM
heh, has anybody noticed ChiefsPlanet's location??Scottsdale AZ why?

recxjake
06-21-2006, 10:06 PM
dude stfu

ahh what does stfu mean

SPchief
06-21-2006, 10:06 PM
Scottsdale AZ why?


Maybe I was just slow to get the joke

I Have No Imagination
06-21-2006, 10:07 PM
Maybe I was just slow to get the jokeMy jokes aren't funny anyway

SPchief
06-21-2006, 10:07 PM
ahh what does stfu mean


Would you like me to sound it out for you??

memyselfI
06-21-2006, 10:12 PM
This is such a huge story that as of this moment, hours after Santorum's press conference, Drudge Report's front page is featuring stories about a raped puppy, the World Cup, and a violent peace gathering. :hmmm:

ROFL ROFL ROFL


Copied and pasted at 10:12 pm CST

Red Cross admits Israel as a member -- ending decades-long exclusion...

SCORCH IN SEDONA ON FIRST DAY OF SUMMER

MOONVES 'SORRY' OVER RATHER'S UNCEREMONIOUS CBS EXIT...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran Won't Respond to Offer 'Til August...

Saudi Arabia: Iran war 'could triple oil price'...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'PEACE' GATHERING TURNS VIOLENT IN COLORADO FOREST...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Film with Religious Theme Causes Massive Stink for MPAA...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawking Warns: Earth 'might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade; raining sulfuric acid'...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SICK: Man arrested for sex assault with 14-week old puppy...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nebraska Heat Bursts: Nighttime temperatures soar in the mid 90s....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L.A. JITS: SOUTHERN END OF SAN ANDREAS FAULT 'WAITING TO EXPLODE'...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FATHER'S DAY PUSH PUTS RUSSERT IN TOP BOOKSCAN SALES SLOT. 'WISDOM OF OUR FATHERS' SELLS 109,692 -- UP FROM 33,563 THE PREVIOUS WEEK. COULTER'S 'GODLESS' COMES IN AT #2 SELLING 67,343 -- ALSO JUMP FROM LAST WEEK SALES (48,408)... COOPER'S 'DISPATCHES' HOLDS AT #4 (24,956)... DEVELOPING...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABCNEWS: Send Us Your Global Warming Horror Stories...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRAN MUSTERS A TIE...

UPDATE: Nike attacked over Rooney 'warrior' picture...

WORLD CUP WIRE...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Marines and one sailor charged with murder, other offenses in April death of Iraqi civilian..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.: All options open if North Korea tests missile...

Kim Jong-Il's son and heir apparent follows Eric Clapton on tour in Germany...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAN GETS 20 YEARS IN MENTAL HOSPITAL FOR TRYING TO THROW INTERNET 'SUICIDE PARTY'...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TV producer Aaron Spelling suffers stroke in L.A...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tape: Customer Service Rep Won't Let Customer Quit AOL...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teacher-proof high-pitched ring tone latest buzz in US classrooms...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANDELA Hired by De Beers to Defend Star-Encrusted Hollywood Hit-Film...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFRESH DRUDGE REPORT FOR LATEST...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

noa
06-21-2006, 10:14 PM
1st I am simply not a fool.

2nd... Saddam said he didn't have any WMD... he told the United Nations... they sent in inspectors and didnt find any.... and we find 500 WMD... I feel much better that Saddam is out of power and withouth his 500 WMD...

Just think how much better we would be doing in Iraq if all the cry baby liberals supported the war on terror instead of trying to bash it for political gain... it is simply disgusting


Make no mistake, liberals support defending America and support our troops. The problem is when we use vague terms like "the war on terror." What is the war on terror? How will we ever win? Is it like the war on drugs, which we clearly haven't won? Liberals will support defending American from our enemies, but when we use terms like "war on terror" everything becomes blurry. If we had won the war in Iraq and Afghanistan quickly and successfully, I am willing to bet we would still be engaged in this "war on terror."
We Americans like to declare war on a lot of things. We've had the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on hate, the war on communism, and now the war on terror. It really doesn't mean that much.
To me, a good way to think about this is to look at our terror alert system. We are always on orange alert or red alert or something. The reason for this is not that we are about to get attacked every single day. Its that we don't know when the next attack will occur or how, but now that we've implemented a color-coded system for terror, we constantly have to be under alert. If an attack occured and we weren't under orange alert, everyone would blame the administration for not havin galerted us. Therefore, we are always under alrert. It will never end. Just like the war on terror.

Logical
06-21-2006, 10:19 PM
1st I am simply not a fool.

2nd... Saddam said he didn't have any WMD... he told the United Nations... they sent in inspectors and didnt find any.... and we find 500 WMD... I feel much better that Saddam is out of power and withouth his 500 WMD...

Just think how much better we would be doing in Iraq if all the cry baby liberals supported the war on terror instead of trying to bash it for political gain... it is simply disgusting

No Saddam said he was not producing WMD, we knew he had them Reagan and Bush gave them to him. Are you really so bereft of knowledge that you did not know that?

recxjake
06-21-2006, 10:20 PM
retreating for Iraq like the Democrats want is not the answer.... of course they try to spin it as "Redeployment"... but they won't do much good in Japan and Germany when the shit hits the fan will they....

recxjake
06-21-2006, 10:20 PM
No Saddam said he was not producing WMD, we knew he had them Reagan and Bush gave them to him. Are you really so bereft of knowledge that you did not know that?

WRONG... he said he didn't HAVE any....

Bwana
06-21-2006, 10:21 PM
blah blah blah

spin dodge, spin spin.

noa
06-21-2006, 10:21 PM
retreating for Iraq like the Democrats want is not the answer.... of course they try to spin it as "Redeployment"... but they won't do much good in Japan and Germany when the shit hits the fan will they....


Staying the course is also not an answer. Neither side has an answer cause we did absolutely no planning for the occupation.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 10:22 PM
No Saddam said he was not producing WMD, we knew he had them Reagan and Bush gave them to him. Are you really so bereft of knowledge that you did not know that?

If breathing were not an involuntary response, I'd worry about Recx's health.

Logical
06-21-2006, 10:24 PM
do you have hairy armpits?This is the most irrelevant question I can imagine, are you looking to have sex with someone with hairy arm pits.

recxjake
06-21-2006, 10:26 PM
Staying the course is also not an answer. Neither side has an answer cause we did absolutely no planning for the occupation.

It's not staying the course... it's finishing the job

Logical
06-21-2006, 10:31 PM
WRONG... he said he didn't HAVE any....

Link, you are clearly wrong, we gave them to him.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1213-02.htm

KC Jones
06-21-2006, 10:31 PM
I have to totally agree with the right wingers here.

First, it's a known fact that no liberals have ever served in the armed forces or died fighting for our country. 100% of all enlistees and draftees have always been of the god fearing right wing stock. Second, it was obvious on 9/11 that we had been attacked by Saddam Hussein and his next attack was imminent and involved the use of WMDs. Finally, the discovery of these spent chemical weapon shells completely and totally vindicates the Haliburton plan for democratizing the entire middle east by invaing Iraq and creating a utopian american empire of democracy throughout the world. There can be no questioning of this line of reasoning, because to do so is entirely unAmerican and cowardly.

:thumb:

Saggysack
06-21-2006, 10:33 PM
1st I am simply not a fool.

2nd... Saddam said he didn't have any WMD... he told the United Nations... they sent in inspectors and didnt find any.... and we find 500 WMD... I feel much better that Saddam is out of power and withouth his 500 WMD...

Just think how much better we would be doing in Iraq if all the cry baby liberals supported the war on terror instead of trying to bash it for political gain... it is simply disgusting

Actually, the UN was never allowed to finish their inspections. There was no final outcome of the inspections. War was imminent, the inspectors had to leave because of that.

Bush was never going to let the inspections to finish. The WH knew if the final ruling of the inspections turned up no WMD their coalition and support to in invade Iraq would have dwindled..

noa
06-21-2006, 10:35 PM
It's not staying the course... it's finishing the job


But what's our plan to finish the job? How are we going to stop the insurgency? I haven't seen a plan from the Republicans, other than "just trust us."
Normally, I would trust our military to do the job right because we have the best military in the world, but we were not trained to be an occupying force. Until someone can explain how we are going to occupy Iraq in peace, I am not convinced of either side.
The Republicans offer us false choices, like "Is it a vote for America or a vote for Al Qaeda?" which was asked on the House floor last week. The Democrats also offer no solutions. Neither side has an answer because this is not a task our military was geared for.

noa
06-21-2006, 10:38 PM
I have to totally agree with the right wingers here.

First, it's a known fact that no liberals have ever served in the armed forces or died fighting for our country. 100% of all enlistees and draftees have always been of the god fearing right wing stock. Second, it was obvious on 9/11 that we had been attacked by Saddam Hussein and his next attack was imminent and involved the use of WMDs. Finally, the discovery of these spent chemical weapon shells completely and totally vindicates the Haliburton plan for democratizing the entire middle east by invaing Iraq and creating a utopian american empire of democracy throughout the world. There can be no questioning of this line of reasoning, because to do so is entirely unAmerican and cowardly.

:thumb:


Very nice.

jAZ
06-21-2006, 10:44 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

ROFL

irishjayhawk
06-21-2006, 10:49 PM
I have to totally agree with the right wingers here.

First, it's a known fact that no liberals have ever served in the armed forces or died fighting for our country. 100% of all enlistees and draftees have always been of the god fearing right wing stock. Second, it was obvious on 9/11 that we had been attacked by Saddam Hussein and his next attack was imminent and involved the use of WMDs. Finally, the discovery of these spent chemical weapon shells completely and totally vindicates the Haliburton plan for democratizing the entire middle east by invaing Iraq and creating a utopian american empire of democracy throughout the world. There can be no questioning of this line of reasoning, because to do so is entirely unAmerican and cowardly.

:thumb:

Very, very nice!

Also, in the Yahoo! Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060622/pl_afp/uscongressiraqweapons_060622014432) , it mentions this quote:

A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

Such an accomplishment, and what a justification to go to war!

noa
06-21-2006, 10:54 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

ROFL


Thanks Jaz, that article pretty much says all that needs to be said. The fact that Fox News would tout this as justification to go to war is very telling.

jAZ
06-21-2006, 10:57 PM
Rick Santorum is a tool, and rexjake is his tool...

This is the official Bush Administration report on the findings in Iraq... from 2004...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

|Zach|
06-21-2006, 11:00 PM
Good ol Jake...

Some people just really don't care what goes in one ear as long as it is what they want to hear.

I Have No Imagination
06-21-2006, 11:00 PM
Stoopid RWNJ's.

SBK
06-21-2006, 11:23 PM
Rick Santorum is a tool

Hearing you say this means to me he's probably one of the best that we have.

ROFL

And I'm sure when I say that Murtha, Ol Teddy, Kerry or Shillary are tools you will say the same thing..... :)

Ugly Duck
06-21-2006, 11:46 PM
I dunno.... this latest from Faux News has a familar ring to it....

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/information_minister_fox_sm.jpg

Rausch
06-21-2006, 11:48 PM
I dunno.... this latest from Faux News has a familar ring to it....

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/information_minister_fox_sm.jpg

Hey now, Fox doesn't lie.







They just fail to report $#it that doesn't jive with their message...

the Talking Can
06-22-2006, 12:20 AM
.....

Jayhawkerman2001
06-22-2006, 12:20 AM
"I hate war, My wife Eleanor hates war.......but we are in war." - Teddy Roosevelt

A nation divided cannot stand. War against terrorists on the terrorists' turf is better than war against the terrorists on our turf. It's either or.

Support our troops whether you like our president or not.

Saddam would have loved to blow us up...everybody knows it. He has had weapons and has made every attempt to get nuclear weapons....Everybody knows it. Islamic terrorists would walk through your house and cut the throat of your kids in a heartbeat and will if given the opportunity. This is an inevitable war and has been avoided for as long as possible.

They believe that all that will not convert to Islam must die.

I bow to thee. Every bit of what yuo just said has much truth to it. People cant see what doesnt effect their own lifes. Look at 9/11, if we didnt ****ing go after osama or suddam who knows how many more times that could have happened to us. Its just the beginning, those people have hated us for a long time, now they're just trying to rid that area of those people so our ****ing people dont have to worry anymore.

Jayhawkerman2001
06-22-2006, 12:26 AM
Make no mistake, liberals support defending America and support our troops. The problem is when we use vague terms like "the war on terror." What is the war on terror? How will we ever win? Is it like the war on drugs, which we clearly haven't won? Liberals will support defending American from our enemies, but when we use terms like "war on terror" everything becomes blurry. If we had won the war in Iraq and Afghanistan quickly and successfully, I am willing to bet we would still be engaged in this "war on terror."
We Americans like to declare war on a lot of things. We've had the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on hate, the war on communism, and now the war on terror. It really doesn't mean that much.
To me, a good way to think about this is to look at our terror alert system. We are always on orange alert or red alert or something. The reason for this is not that we are about to get attacked every single day. Its that we don't know when the next attack will occur or how, but now that we've implemented a color-coded system for terror, we constantly have to be under alert. If an attack occured and we weren't under orange alert, everyone would blame the administration for not havin galerted us. Therefore, we are always under alrert. It will never end. Just like the war on terror.

You say stuff about the war on drugs like they havent done anything about it. If we just sat there and didnt do anything about drugs, hm... things would go to shit, if everybody sits there and doesnt do anything about terrorism, hm... things, again, would go to shit. We are nearly the only country in the world that has the power to go after terrorism, and from what i can tell so far its going ok, aside from a few losses to our military, everything is ok. its war, people die in wars.

jAZ
06-22-2006, 12:29 AM
They believe that all that will not convert to Islam must die.
"They" is Anne Coulter, and she said "...kill their leaders and convert them to 'Christianity' (http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2001/091301.htm)", not "Islam".

Rausch
06-22-2006, 12:31 AM
"They" is Anne Coulter, and she said "...kill their leaders and convert them to 'Christianity' (http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2001/091301.htm)", not "Islam".

Despite the fact she's an idiot, I don't believe she's beheaded, tortured, kidnapped, or shot at anyone...

recxjake
06-22-2006, 06:14 AM
i now have no doubt why the Democrats control no part of the United States Goverment after reading some of your comments....

memyselfI
06-22-2006, 06:15 AM
Well, this is great news on the heels of AZ...

perhaps DUHbya will get another 1 point bump and now only 59% of the country will think he and his job in Iraq suck. :thumb:

StcChief
06-22-2006, 06:19 AM
Great news. So when do we start digging in Syria where they really are.

recxjake
06-22-2006, 06:20 AM
Well, this is great news on the heels of AZ...

perhaps DUHbya will get another 1 point bump and now only 59% of the country will think he and his job in Iraq suck. :thumb:

Actually Bush's approval rating is 42% according to Rasmussen....

And the Democrats approval rating is still in the 30's!

Inspector
06-22-2006, 07:24 AM
I found an old bottle of Oxy 10 in the hall bathroom.

Chemical weapons are everywhere.

chagrin
06-22-2006, 07:30 AM
Actually Bush's approval rating is 42% according to Rasmussen....

And the Democrats approval rating is still in the 30's!

ROFL

Dude, do NOT confuse these people with numbers

chagrin
06-22-2006, 07:31 AM
I heard a audio clip of John Kerry last night in the Hannity radio show, hilarious - he was stating that he knows Iraq and Saddam had been developing WMD and planned on using them, etc. very funny shit. I just really enjoy hearing the flip flop, nobody does it better than him.

Dartgod
06-22-2006, 07:35 AM
Why is this crap in the main forum?

htismaqe
06-22-2006, 07:43 AM
Sorry, I didn't log in last night. Otherwise it would have been moved right away.

recxjake,

This DOES NOT belong in the Lounge. You've been warned.

the Talking Can
06-22-2006, 08:01 AM
the intelligence in this thread...

recxjake
06-22-2006, 09:53 AM
Sorry, I didn't log in last night. Otherwise it would have been moved right away.

recxjake,

This DOES NOT belong in the Lounge. You've been warned.

This is important news... it belongs in the main lounge

memyselfI
06-22-2006, 10:47 AM
Well as impressive as 42% is (bahaaaa ROFL ) those same numbers are not duplicated by any other poll according to this site.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Regardless, a point or two jump in his approval is NOT impressive considering two of his stated objectives were met within the same week.

jiveturkey
06-22-2006, 10:52 AM
I don't get it.

Did we go into Iraq because of WMD's that are from before 1991 or did we go in to build the idea of democracy in the Middle East?

How many times have we read about WMD's being found in Iraq only to find out that it really wasn't proof that an ongoing weapons program was underway? These threads always turn into RW circle jerks and then go away as the news turns. The focus of the RW circle jerk involves statements like "see, I told all of you libs that they had WMD's". Once the news dissolves the RW returns to the previous argument of Democracy building.

It also now seems like Presidential approval ratings are important since their up.

I certainly hope for the best out of Iraq but I don't understand what we have left to accomplish. Is the end goal honestly ending all violence?

Cochise
06-22-2006, 11:23 AM
This is important news... it belongs in the main lounge

No it doesn't you douche.

Why don't you do your side a favor in every debate and not participate.

|Zach|
06-22-2006, 11:25 AM
No it doesn't you douche.

Why don't you do your side a favor in every debate and not participate.
ROFL

Radar Chief
06-22-2006, 11:33 AM
I don't get it.

Did we go into Iraq because of WMD's that are from before 1991 or did we go in to build the idea of democracy in the Middle East?

Oh, so now that the “no WMD’s in Iraq” mantra has been proven false the target is moved to “no WMD’s made after ‘91”?
C’mon JT, I know you’re better than this.

jiveturkey
06-22-2006, 11:36 AM
Oh, so now that the “no WMD’s in Iraq” mantra has been proven false the target is moved to “no WMD’s made after ‘91”?
C’mon JT, I know you’re better than this.I do know better than that, I'm just tired of reading these thread and watching everyone jump up and down only to find out that there still isn't any evidence of an active program.

The evidence that we were presented with before the war and this evidence are not the same thing.

I think that we should stick to the democracy angle because 500 spent munitions from over 15 years ago doesn't make a very strong case.

jspchief
06-22-2006, 11:37 AM
I don't get it.

Did we go into Iraq because of WMD's that are from before 1991 or did we go in to build the idea of democracy in the Middle East?

How many times have we read about WMD's being found in Iraq only to find out that it really wasn't proof that an ongoing weapons program was underway? These threads always turn into RW circle jerks and then go away as the news turns. The focus of the RW circle jerk involves statements like "see, I told all of you libs that they had WMD's". Once the news dissolves the RW returns to the previous argument of Democracy building.

It also now seems like Presidential approval ratings are important since their up.

I certainly hope for the best out of Iraq but I don't understand what we have left to accomplish. Is the end goal honestly ending all violence?In light of all the "where are the WMDs?" and "Bush's approval ratings" threads and posts from Dems, I think it's pretty understandable that the other side would respond.

The RW circle jerk that you're witnessing looks eerily familiar to the LW circle jerks that routinely occur when the news on these topics goes the other way.

jiveturkey
06-22-2006, 11:41 AM
In light of all the "where are the WMDs?" and "Bush's approval ratings" threads and posts from Dems, I think it's pretty understandable that the other side would respond.

The RW circle jerk that you're witnessing looks eerily familiar to the LW circle jerks that routinely occur when the news on these topics goes the other way.Touche.

Circle jerks are ugly regardless of the participants.

It is funny to see how retarded both sides are. Side A celebrates bad news and then side B decries their tactics. Opposing news comes out the next week and side B adopts the same tatics only to have side A make the opposite argument.

I'm just as retarded as the next person.
:doh!:

Radar Chief
06-22-2006, 11:42 AM
I do know better than that, I'm just tired of reading these thread and watching everyone jump up and down only to find out that there still isn't any evidence of an active program.

The evidence that we were presented with before the war and this evidence are not the same thing.

I think that we should stick to the democracy angle because 500 spent munitions from over 15 years ago doesn't make a very strong case.

It’s proof of a stockpile that was never destroyed, as claimed, no?

Radar Chief
06-22-2006, 11:44 AM
Touche.

Circle jerks are ugly regardless of the participants.

It is funny to see how retarded both sides are. Side A celebrates bad news and then side B decries their tactics. Opposing news comes out the next week and side B adopts the same tatics only to have side A make the opposite argument.

I'm just as retarded as the next person.
:doh!:

Oh no! You’re a special kind of “retard” that makes my return’n to the Planet fun. :thumb:

go bowe
06-22-2006, 01:30 PM
. . .free love, acid tripping days.hey, those were good days...

very very good days... :) :) :)

go bowe
06-22-2006, 01:37 PM
It’s proof of a stockpile that was never destroyed, as claimed, no?absolutely...

but according to the linked article, there is no evidence of any ongoing wmd program ater '91...

and it quotes some defense department official who said this is not the wmd we went to war for, if i read the article correctly...

you never know about these things...

go bowe
06-22-2006, 01:39 PM
Oh no! You’re a special kind of “retard” that makes my return’n to the Planet fun. :thumb:no, no, no...

it's retart...

retarT...

genious :rolleyes:

patteeu
06-22-2006, 03:09 PM
They found traces of 500 munitions. Well gee were they spent or discarded because they were left over from the Iran/Iraq conflict. That would be the weapons we furnished Iraq. Everyone expected to find those but obviously Iraq wasn't manufactoring and let these munitions deteriorate. WHERE THEY FUNCTIONING MUNITIONS or discarded ones. Pretty pathetic evidence of an active chemical warfare program. Just evidence of the success of the embargo.

It's strong evidence that Saddam did not comply with UN disarmament demands as some apologists have claimed.

the Talking Can
06-22-2006, 04:13 PM
people are still trying to cook up a justification?

why...you have 20 or 30 to chose from...just pick one at random...Bush does every other week or so...

I mean, if you're going to be this dishonest, have some flair at least.

mlyonsd
06-22-2006, 04:15 PM
people are still trying to cook up a justification?


You are correct to question why anyone would still be talking about justification since it's already been proven and that horse is dead.

Logical
06-22-2006, 04:48 PM
This is important news... it belongs in the main lounge

Look a moderator just told you it does not, I hope the next time you do not heed a warning you get a ban for at least a week. Maybe then you will learn.

Valiant
06-22-2006, 04:58 PM
It don't matter what they find, the left will never have reason to justify the war. Ever.


Considering Bill Clinton wanted to go into Iraq, but was blocked by Congress should tell them something... You need to own all the branches to get something done in our government.. Them bitching about the war is spilt milk, when their leaders wanted to do it when they were in office...

the Talking Can
06-22-2006, 05:23 PM
You are correct to question why anyone would still be talking about justification since it's already been proven and that horse is dead.

so that's what "ignorance is bliss" means....

never ceases to amaze me how every single word Bush spoke was refuted, by his own government hacks, and still we have people like you....

that's ok...long after you're dead the facts remain

Adept Havelock
06-22-2006, 05:44 PM
Considering Bill Clinton wanted to go into Iraq, but was blocked by Congress should tell them something...



Link?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-22-2006, 06:44 PM
Adept, he's probably thinking of the push the neocons made to Clinton to get him to go into Iraq, but hasn't gotten his facts straight.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

recxjake
06-22-2006, 09:54 PM
Look a moderator just told you it does not, I hope the next time you do not heed a warning you get a ban for at least a week. Maybe then you will learn.

I'm sorry, but some of you guys take this website a little to seriously.... a "ban" would not effect my life one bit.... i think you all talke posting in certain places way to seriously as well....

Logical
06-22-2006, 10:12 PM
I'm sorry, but some of you guys take this website a little to seriously.... a "ban" would not effect my life one bit.... i think you all talke posting in certain places way to seriously as well....
Good then just go away period, we won't miss you we have MarcBulger to play the retart (misspelling intentional) in your abscence.

recxjake
06-22-2006, 10:31 PM
Good then just go away period, we won't miss you we have MarcBulger to play the retart (misspelling intentional) in your abscence.

out of everyone on chiefsplanet you are by far the dumbest person.... i can't believe that you are defending Saddam by saying oh well the WMD we found is from 91 so it doesnt matter... wake up you fool... HE HAD WMD... he said he didnt have any! he told the U.N. that he had destroyed it all!!!!.... the entire mindwashing from the liberals saying the war was a mistake becuase he didnt have WMD has been completely destroyed....

Valiant
06-22-2006, 10:41 PM
Adept, he's probably thinking of the push the neocons made to Clinton to get him to go into Iraq, but hasn't gotten his facts straight.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm


Considering you were not even in middle school yet when he wanted to go into Iraq you might get your facts straight..

96-97ish, Clinton was on TV talking about wanting to go into Iraq and set out a plan but was blocked by the Republican House.. Why do I remember this, cause I had a governmental college class and we talked about it as an assignment...

Thanks for acting as an authority Jenson...

Adept Havelock
06-22-2006, 10:45 PM
out of everyone on chiefsplanet you are by far the dumbest person
:rolleyes:

After the "gems" you and MurkVulgar have graced us with this is absolutely priceless. Thank goodness the Planet has a few conservatives who, unlike you, are able to contemplate and post concepts posessing more substance than your endless supply of soundbites.

From where I'm sitting, it looks like Daddy's not getting much of a return on his investment in sending you to an institution of higher learning. Oh well, the world can always use more cube fodder. ROFL

BTW- Not that Vlad needs me to defend him, but I'm fairly certain he could debate you into a palpitating puddle of putrescent protoplasm with one lobe tied behind his back.

Adept Havelock
06-22-2006, 10:48 PM
Considering you were not even in middle school yet when he wanted to go into Iraq you might get your facts straight..

96-97ish, Clinton was on TV talking about wanting to go into Iraq and set out a plan but was blocked by the Republican House.. Why do I remember this, cause I had a governmental college class and we talked about it as an assignment...

Thanks for acting as an authority Jenson...

Clinton ordered a few airstrikes, but calling for an outright invasion? :spock:

Well, if it was all over the television and other press, you should have no difficulty providing a link to substantiate your statement, should you?
Or was all mention of this removed from the internet as part of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy? :hmmm:

Perhaps I am expecting a bit much from someone named for this haircut.... ;)

Valiant
06-22-2006, 10:59 PM
Well, if it was all over the television and other press, you should have no difficulty providing a link to substantiate your statement, should you?
Or was all mention of this removed from the internet as part of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy? :hmmm:


Yes because the computer age and streaming video was so vast back in the late 90's with windows 95 and 56k dialup... :rolleyes:

Even with the facts you would still deflect or deny...




As for the haircut, mines a little bit more curly...

Adept Havelock
06-22-2006, 11:17 PM
Yes because the computer age and streaming video was so vast back in the late 90's with windows 95 and 56k dialup... :rolleyes:

Even with the facts you would still deflect or deny...

ROFL

I'm still waiting for a single "fact". All I've seen from you is an unsubstantiated claim. I'm no lawyer, nor did I slumber at a Holiday Inn Express, but even I know that "I saw it on TV" hardly qualifies as actual proof of an event. If it was of such great importance you talked about it in a college class, one would think it might have been covered in the press. The print media has extensive online archives. Your inability to provide a link and deflection to an irrelevant point about the dearth of streaming video in the late 90's only reinforces my belief that you are indeed full of excrement.

Of course, with you being named for a World War 2 British messenger pigeon that probably shouldn't surprise me in the least. :D

Loki
06-23-2006, 12:55 AM
...
BTW- Not that Vlad needs me to defend him, but I'm fairly certain he could debate you into a palpitating puddle of putrescent protoplasm with one lobe tied behind his back
...


i think you missed a spot.
better pucker up again... :p
http://www.acclaimimages.net/_gallery/_SM2/0025-0505-1918-3627_SM2.jpg

patteeu
06-23-2006, 07:15 AM
You are simply a fool. We knew he had the weapons we gave him, all this is evidence that some of them remained. Come back when you have evidence of newly produced weapons.:rolleyes:

This is an interesting revision. A big part of the basis for the idea that WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk" was because we knew he had WMD at one time that hadn't been accounted for by either the weapons inspectors or Saddam's disclosure statement. When none were found, we were told that Saddam had destroyed them all and was in compliance with the UN demands. Now we know that those apologists were wrong. Whether or not you were one of the apologists, I can't remember.

patteeu
06-23-2006, 07:20 AM
Link, you are clearly wrong, we gave them to him.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1213-02.htm

You are using a strawman here, Logical. recxjake isn't commenting on who gave them to Saddam, he's correctly pointing out that Saddam said he didn't have any WMD. You're the one that's wrong on this point.

Commondreams? :spock:

KC Jones
06-23-2006, 07:22 AM
wow, just wow. I can't believe people are hanging their hat on this 1970's leftover mustard shells as the WMDs we invaded over. That's so ****ing ridiculous I don't even know where to start. It's like there's this massive gap between reality and what people want to belive that prevents any objective meaningful discussion or examination of events. Saddam did not attack us on September 11th, and our official reasons for invading Iraq have thus far remained a sham - despite many attempts to recast and redfine those reasons in vague and meandering ways.

patteeu
06-23-2006, 07:25 AM
Rick Santorum is a tool, and rexjake is his tool...

This is the official Bush Administration report on the findings in Iraq... from 2004...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

Your source, number 1 key finding:

Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable:

patteeu
06-23-2006, 07:29 AM
Sorry, I didn't log in last night. Otherwise it would have been moved right away.

recxjake,

This DOES NOT belong in the Lounge. You've been warned.

I assume that if he had included a news article in the OP it would have fallen under the news exception, right? This was breaking news of broad interest (even if we have some who would deny it's importance here).

patteeu
06-23-2006, 07:32 AM
I don't get it.

Did we go into Iraq because of WMD's that are from before 1991 or did we go in to build the idea of democracy in the Middle East?

How many times have we read about WMD's being found in Iraq only to find out that it really wasn't proof that an ongoing weapons program was underway? These threads always turn into RW circle jerks and then go away as the news turns. The focus of the RW circle jerk involves statements like "see, I told all of you libs that they had WMD's". Once the news dissolves the RW returns to the previous argument of Democracy building.

It also now seems like Presidential approval ratings are important since their up.

I certainly hope for the best out of Iraq but I don't understand what we have left to accomplish. Is the end goal honestly ending all violence?

Are you limited to considering one justification at a time? The fact is
there were several justifications. The presence of WMD in Iraq, including those produced prior to '91, was one of them.

patteeu
06-23-2006, 07:36 AM
absolutely...

but according to the linked article, there is no evidence of any ongoing wmd program ater '91...

and it quotes some defense department official who said this is not the wmd we went to war for, if i read the article correctly...

you never know about these things...

Which article? Because the one jAZ linked didn't. It had a final paragraph that said something to that effect, but those were the reporters words which are most likely mischaracterizations of what the unnamed source actually said.

mlyonsd
06-23-2006, 08:01 AM
so that's what "ignorance is bliss" means....

never ceases to amaze me how every single word Bush spoke was refuted, by his own government hacks, and still we have people like you....

that's ok...long after you're dead the facts remain

And I laugh at people like you that actually believe stuff they make up and point to it as gospel.

stevieray
06-23-2006, 08:05 AM
wow, just wow. I can't believe people are hanging their hat on this 1970's leftover mustard shells as the WMDs we invaded over. That's so ****ing ridiculous I don't even know where to start. It's like there's this massive gap between reality and what people want to belive that prevents any objective meaningful discussion or examination of events. Saddam did not attack us on September 11th, and our official reasons for invading Iraq have thus far remained a sham - despite many attempts to recast and redfine those reasons in vague and meandering ways.


and I can't believe how much personal opinion is touted as fact..talk about a gap in reality.

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 08:11 AM
wow, just wow. I can't believe people are hanging their hat on this 1970's leftover mustard shells as the WMDs we invaded over. That's so ****ing ridiculous I don't even know where to start. It's like there's this massive gap between reality and what people want to belive that prevents any objective meaningful discussion or examination of events. Saddam did not attack us on September 11th, and our official reasons for invading Iraq have thus far remained a sham - despite many attempts to recast and redfine those reasons in vague and meandering ways.

Almost as amazing as the “reality gap” of people that want to modify their “No WMD’s! Bush lied, people died” stance to “No WMD’s made after ’91! Bush lied, people died!” :rolleyes:

KC Jones
06-23-2006, 08:17 AM
Almost as amazing as the “reality gap” of people that want to modify their “No WMD’s! Bush lied, people died” stance to “No WMD’s made after ’91! Bush lied, people died!” :rolleyes:

yeah, damn that white house and pentagon for modifying their stance...

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 08:26 AM
yeah, damn that white house and pentagon for modifying their stance...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

October 7, 2002
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
Snip……
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
……..

I’ll be damned. Doesn’t look to me like he’s only talk’n ‘bout those WMD’s made after ’91. :hmmm: What am I miss’n here? :shrug:

StcChief
06-23-2006, 08:59 AM
Get the metal detectors, back-hows had to Syria

Bring bribe cash for the locals who know where they are.

patteeu
06-23-2006, 03:06 PM
yeah, damn that white house and pentagon for modifying their stance...

You might take a more careful look at the quote you provided. While it does say that the shells in question don't support the contention that Saddam had a current WMD operation underway at the time of our invasion, they do support the facts that he was in possession of WMD, was in violation of the UN demands to disarm, AND had failed to account for his existing WMD armaments when given the umpteenth last chance to do so. There were a bunch of reasons given for invading Iraq. Some have been substantiated (e.g. Saddam remained interested in developing WMD, significant stockpiles of WMD existed and had not been destroyed as demanded, etc.) and some haven't [yet] (Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program, Saddam had mobile chem labs, etc.). These weapons are substantial proof of exactly what recxjake claims and what many critics have been denying the last few years.

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:08 PM
Heh. I remember having a discussion with mememe when we were finding a few WMDs here and there after the invasion of Iraq. She was on record in one thread as acknowledging and being okay with the invasion based on a quantifiable amount of 'dumps' being found.

I'd like to find that thread.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2006, 03:08 PM
There is a saying "Seeing is believing."

I'm coining a new one "Believing is seeing." ;)

go bowe
06-23-2006, 03:16 PM
i think you missed a spot.
better pucker up again... :p
http://www.acclaimimages.net/_gallery/_SM2/0025-0505-1918-3627_SM2.jpgisn't that like the wrong end of the pig for him to be kissing?

go bowe
06-23-2006, 03:22 PM
Which article? Because the one jAZ linked didn't. It had a final paragraph that said something to that effect, but those were the reporters words which are most likely mischaracterizations of what the unnamed source actually said.likely mischaracterizations?

these are not the wmd that we went to war for?

it would have to be a pretty big and intentionally deceitful mischaracterization, which i don't find likely at all...

i think the report is entitled to some credence; after all, it's not newsmax...

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 03:32 PM
Heh. I remember having a discussion with mememe when we were finding a few WMDs here and there after the invasion of Iraq. She was on record in one thread as acknowledging and being okay with the invasion based on a quantifiable amount of 'dumps' being found.

I'd like to find that thread.

Uh, you forgot that I said the weapons needed to be others than the ones left behind from the Iran/Iraq war. You know, the ones we gave them.

I wasn't, nor am I now, for going to war based on retrieving weapons we placed in SH slimy hands to begin with.

go bowe
06-23-2006, 03:34 PM
...The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons... I’ll be damned. Doesn’t look to me like he’s only talk’n ‘bout those WMD’s made after ’91. :hmmm: What am I miss’n here? :shrug:some very old and mostly unusable chemical artillery shells and cannisters have been found, which proves the first part of the statement...

but there still is no evidence that saddammit produced any wmd after gwI, so the second part of the statement is innaccurate...

i don't think i'm in the blpd crowd, but i do see a significant difference between old, mostly unusable artillery shells with degraded chemicals in them and wmd which are currently being produced and therefore are very likely operational and would constitute some level of threat...

the first doesn't concern me too much, while the second seems like a plausible justification for war...

go bowe
06-23-2006, 03:44 PM
yeah, damn that white house and pentagon for modifying their stance...
Quote:
<HR SIZE=1>
The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
<HR SIZE=1>
you're just being picky 'cause you're full of hate... :p :p :p

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 04:04 PM
some very old and mostly unusable chemical artillery shells and cannisters have been found, which proves the first part of the statement...

but there still is no evidence that saddammit produced any wmd after gwI, so the second part of the statement is innaccurate...

i don't think i'm in the blpd crowd, but i do see a significant difference between old, mostly unusable artillery shells with degraded chemicals in them and wmd which are currently being produced and therefore are very likely operational and would constitute some level of threat...

the first doesn't concern me too much, while the second seems like a plausible justification for war...

I agree, it isn’t proof of on going chemical weapons production. It is however, and this is my only point, proof of a “stockpile”.
Something else to keep in mind before completely dismiss’n this find. IIRC, these 500 shells were filled with Mustard Gas, Correct? Well, every once in a while you’ll hear a story of some French farmer that while plow’n his field kicked up an undetonated chemical ordinance from WWI, i.e. Mustard Gas, that’s as deadly today as it was the day it was fired.
Mustard gas is much more stable and doesn’t deteriorate like Sarin, Tubin or VX does. That’s why it was such an early chemical weapon, and Mustard gas found in Saddam’s arsenal was found to be of very high quality.

go bowe
06-23-2006, 04:18 PM
I agree, it isn’t proof of on going chemical weapons production. It is however, and this is my only point, proof of a “stockpile”.
Something else to keep in mind before completely dismiss’n this find. IIRC, these 500 shells were filled with Mustard Gas, Correct? Well, every once in a while you’ll hear a story of some French farmer that while plow’n his field kicked up an undetonated chemical ordinance from WWI, i.e. Mustard Gas, that’s as deadly today as it was the day it was fired.
Mustard gas is much more stable and doesn’t deteriorate like Sarin, Tubin or VX does. That’s why it was such an early chemical weapon, and Mustard gas found in Saddam’s arsenal was found to be of very high quality.see? now i'm gonna quibble with you again...

this time the term "stockpile"...

when i hear stockpile, i think of nuclear (or other wmd) weapons that are ready to go bang, like our 2,500 ballistic missles (or is it 25,000? i don't know)...

what these things remind me of is more like a junk pile than a stock pile...

however, you are absolutely correct that it proves saddammit had chemical weapons left over from gwI...

i hadn't heard about the mustard gas being of very high quality...

the articles that have been posted or linked to seemed to indicate that it was little more than residue or degraded chemicals...

no suggestion that any of it was currently usable that i noticed...

but if you say usuable mustard gas was found, my opinion would change a little...

but even then, i don't see how mustard gas would be a threat to our national security since they had no way of delivering it to america...

and even if they did, i doubt it would cause mass casualties on the scale of the wtc...

i suspect that the pig alswear-a-weary wants to make the next attack even more spectular than the last one...

or at least similar to the last one, like blowing up the sears tower...

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 04:20 PM
I agree, it isn’t proof of on going chemical weapons production. It is however, and this is my only point, proof of a “stockpile”.
Something else to keep in mind before completely dismiss’n this find. IIRC, these 500 shells were filled with Mustard Gas, Correct? Well, every once in a while you’ll hear a story of some French farmer that while plow’n his field kicked up an undetonated chemical ordinance from WWI, i.e. Mustard Gas, that’s as deadly today as it was the day it was fired.
Mustard gas is much more stable and doesn’t deteriorate like Sarin, Tubin or VX does. That’s why it was such an early chemical weapon, and Mustard gas found in Saddam’s arsenal was found to be of very high quality.


http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL09/santorum.jpg

go bowe
06-23-2006, 04:25 PM
I agree, it isn’t proof of on going chemical weapons production. It is however, and this is my only point, proof of a “stockpile”.
Something else to keep in mind before completely dismiss’n this find. IIRC, these 500 shells were filled with Mustard Gas, Correct? Well, every once in a while you’ll hear a story of some French farmer that while plow’n his field kicked up an undetonated chemical ordinance from WWI, i.e. Mustard Gas, that’s as deadly today as it was the day it was fired.
Mustard gas is much more stable and doesn’t deteriorate like Sarin, Tubin or VX does. That’s why it was such an early chemical weapon, and Mustard gas found in Saddam’s arsenal was found to be of very high quality.in general, i agree with what you're saying, except for the use of the term stockpile...

it makes it hard to discuss anything with you 'cause i usually agree with you, so i'm reduced to quibbling about almost inconsequential matters...

and for today's quibble, we have your statement that all 500 shells were filled with mustard gas...

again, unless you've seen something i haven't (always a good possiblity), the articles seemed to suggest that many were empty, some contained residue, some were basically inert because of degradation, and some were "filled" but i don't recall the articles saying filled with what...

my overall impression is that the vast majority, if not all, of the shells were not viable weapons...

go bowe
06-23-2006, 04:27 PM
who is that, duhneese?

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 04:27 PM
see? now i'm gonna quibble with you again...

this time the term "stockpile"...

when i hear stockpile, i think of nuclear (or other wmd) weapons that are ready to go bang, like our 2,500 ballistic missles (or is it 25,000? i don't know)...

what these things remind me of is more like a junk pile than a stock pile...

however, you are absolutely correct that it proves saddammit had chemical weapons left over from gwI...

Oh, come’on Go Bo. You know as well as I do that “stockpile” can mean an accumulation of just ‘bout anything. Even food.

i hadn't heard about the mustard gas being of very high quality...

Here, taken second hand from the Deulfer Report.

At least 13,000 shells filled with mustard were destroyed under U.N. supervision in the 1990s, but 550 were never found. Iraqis told U.N. inspectors they were destroyed in a fire. Now the U.S. teams say an imprisoned Iraqi official told them a Special Republican Guard unit retained the chemical rounds
His account, otherwise unconfirmed, raises the prospect of the mustard, an incapacitating blistering agent, falling into the hands of the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. Although some chemical weapons lose potency quickly, mustard remains viable for years.

the articles that have been posted or linked to seemed to indicate that it was little more than residue or degraded chemicals...

no suggestion that any of it was currently usable that i noticed...

but if you say usuable mustard gas was found, my opinion would change a little...

I wouldn’t attempt to claim it as “usable”. I’m not there with the test equipment so I’ll have to take the word of the people there.

but even then, i don't see how mustard gas would be a threat to our national security since they had no way of delivering it to america...

and even if they did, i doubt it would cause mass casualties on the scale of the wtc...

i suspect that the pig alswear-a-weary wants to make the next attack even more spectular than the last one...

or at least similar to the last one, like blowing up the sears tower...

A gas attack on a New York subway could be pretty “spectacular” also.

the Talking Can
06-23-2006, 04:30 PM
I have a stock pile of underwear that need to be washed.

Radar Chief
06-23-2006, 04:32 PM
I have a stock pile of underwear that need to be washed.

I knew it! You’re hide’n chemical weapons! :cuss:
Or at least a stink bomb, probably a persistent agent also. ;)

memyselfI
06-23-2006, 04:48 PM
who is that, duhneese?

You can't be serious? Keith Olbermann would be disappointed.

Here this link can educate ya.

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/index2.html ROFL

go bowe
06-23-2006, 04:56 PM
Oh, come’on Go Bo. You know as well as I do that “stockpile” can mean an accumulation of just ‘bout anything. Even food.



Here, taken second hand from the Deulfer Report.





I wouldn’t attempt to claim it as “usable”. I’m not there with the test equipment so I’ll have to take the word of the people there.



A gas attack on a New York subway could be pretty “spectacular” also.but to me, a weapons stockpile suggests usuable weapons...

imagine if your electricity went out for a month and you had a stockpile of canned goods and bottled water...

and also some nice vegetables and fruit and dairy products and the like in another "stockpile" across the room...

after a few days or a week, your canned goods stockpile is still a stockpile...

while your perishable goods are now a garbage pile...


the deulfer report speaks to what was missing, not what has actually been found like these new reports...

there may well be 550 shells filled with still effective mustard gas that we just haven't found yet...


as far as taking the word of the people there, i'm just going by the reports i've read in this thread, which seem to indicate that the shells
actually found are more or less useless as viable weapons...


and yes, a gas attack with a fairly large amount of particulary potent gas like sarin on the nyc subway system would be spectactular but not as visible as blowing up another landmark or finding some way to kill a bunch of important government officials...

i just think that osama and his sidekick have egos that demand something very visual and very permanent, like taking down the sears tower or blowing up one of our really big dams or blowing up a nuclear power plant...

something even more grand (from their pov)...

i hope they never do it, but that's what i expect...

Bootlegged
06-23-2006, 04:57 PM
not a big deal

Ugly Duck
06-24-2006, 02:08 AM
Pentagon response: "These munitions are assessed to be pre-1991 vintage and were likely left over from previous conflicts. Given their condition and age, they have degraded."

"These are not the WMD’s for which this country went to war."


Faux News response:
"WE HAVE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!! THE WAR IS NOW JUSTIFIED!!! NEOCONS ARE NOT LIARS!!! WE FOUND THE WEAPONS!!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!! THE WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FOUND!!!!"

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/information_minister_fox_sm.jpg


RWNJ Planeteer response:
"Fair and baa-aa-aa-lanced! Wea-ea-ea-ea-pons! Wea-ea-ea-ea-pons! Baa-aa-aa-lanced! Bu-u-u-ush! Bu-u-u-ush!"
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/0/c/bush_sheep.jpg

stevieray
06-24-2006, 02:18 AM
Pentagon response: "These munitions are assessed to be pre-1991 vintage and were likely left over from previous conflicts. Given their condition and age, they have degraded."

"These are not the WMD’s for which this country went to war."


Faux News response:
"WE HAVE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!! THE WAR IS NOW JUSTIFIED!!! NEOCONS ARE NOT LIARS!!! WE FOUND THE WEAPONS!!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!! THE WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FOUND!!!!"

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/information_minister_fox_sm.jpg


RWNJ Planeteer response:
"Fair and baa-aa-aa-lanced! Wea-ea-ea-ea-pons! Wea-ea-ea-ea-pons! Baa-aa-aa-lanced! Bu-u-u-ush! Bu-u-u-ush!"
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/0/c/bush_sheep.jpg

raider fan whining about politics on a friday night... talking about sheep...

jAZ
06-24-2006, 02:43 AM
raider fan whining about politics on a friday night... talking about sheep...
Hey everyone! I'm here to point out how you suck for being here! Look at me!

stevieray
06-24-2006, 02:56 AM
Hey everyone! I'm here to point out how you suck for being here! Look at me!

Hey everyone, I'm here to point out how much the US and their procucts sucks, look at me!

Ugly Duck
06-24-2006, 03:01 AM
raider fan whining about politics on a friday night... talking about sheep...Now, now.... surely you can't blame us lefties for having a hearty laugh over the RWNJs that fell for this transparent piece of propaganda. A blunder this big is bound to generate a few chuckles....

stevieray
06-24-2006, 03:03 AM
Now, now.... surely you can't blame us lefties for having a hearty laugh over the RWNJs that fell for this transparent piece of propaganda. A blunder this big is bound to generate a few chuckles....

of course, it's your "duty" to have a laugh at our expense, just like thsoe who would wish us harm.

jAZ
06-24-2006, 03:48 AM
...just like thsoe who would wish us harm.
Yeah! Quit hating America, Ugly!

Just put your head in the sand and wish all the negativity away! It's waaaay better than trying to actually FIX a problem.

Just look it in the eye and blink... but don't open your eyes.

stevieray
06-24-2006, 03:52 AM
Yeah! Quit hating America, Ugly!

Just put your head in the sand and wish all the negativity away! It's waaaay better than trying to actually FIX a problem.

Just look it in the eye and blink... but don't open your eyes.

translation: just put the blame on us, we've been doing it since the biggest fraud was murdered in Dealy Plaza.

go bowe
06-24-2006, 03:39 PM
jfk = biggest fraud ?? :shrug:

the Talking Can
06-24-2006, 03:55 PM
translation: just put the blame on us, we've been doing it since the biggest fraud was murdered in Dealy Plaza.

no one here has any idea what you are talking about...ever

go bowe
06-24-2006, 04:22 PM
aw, c'mon...

i understand stevie most of the time...

it just takes a little imagination at times... :D :D :D

Logical
06-24-2006, 04:41 PM
Hey everyone, I'm here to point out how much the US and their procucts sucks, look at me!

Seems like you have given up on the idea of really exhanging ideas, too bad as you used to have some interesting insights when you took the time.

penchief
06-24-2006, 08:43 PM
translation: just put the blame on us, we've been doing it since the biggest fraud was murdered in Dealy Plaza.

Man, I can't believe you're still on that kick. We're speaking out because we have the right in this country to voice our opinion and the duty to do so when we see things that are screwed up. Burying my head in the sand while a bunch of phony business suits steal our country, it's opportunities, and our future prosperity is not my idea of citizenship or patriotism.

Nobody's blaming America. So get off it. We're trying to save this country as opposed to lying down and rolling over for neo-fascism like some of you seem willing to do. All a leader needs to do anymore is wave the flag and thump the bible and there's a segment of society that will blindly follow no matter how detrimental or dishonest a set of policies might actually be.

Stop accusing those with whom you disagree as wanting harm to come to America. It's not true and it's a pathetic tactic.

Ultra Peanut
06-25-2006, 05:50 AM
A nation divided cannot stand.SO DON'T DISAGREE WITH US OR THE TERRISTS HAVE WON

memyselfI
06-25-2006, 07:42 AM
Pentagon response: "These munitions are assessed to be pre-1991 vintage and were likely left over from previous conflicts. Given their condition and age, they have degraded."

"These are not the WMD’s for which this country went to war."


Faux News response:
"WE HAVE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!! THE WAR IS NOW JUSTIFIED!!! NEOCONS ARE NOT LIARS!!! WE FOUND THE WEAPONS!!!! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!! THE WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FOUND!!!!"

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/information_minister_fox_sm.jpg


RWNJ Planeteer response:
"Fair and baa-aa-aa-lanced! Wea-ea-ea-ea-pons! Wea-ea-ea-ea-pons! Baa-aa-aa-lanced! Bu-u-u-ush! Bu-u-u-ush!"
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/0/c/bush_sheep.jpg

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaa

UD makin funnies and coffee first thing Sunday morning. What a way to start the day.

Have you noticed the lack of follow up on this 'find.' It's simply disappeared. If I didn't know better I would think the Pentagon gave these documents to Santorum so he could test the waters and see if he'd get ANY play at alll. He's down 18 pts. They had little to lose if it blew up in his face...

I wonder if Santorum is smart enough to see he was hung out to dry.

Adept Havelock
06-25-2006, 11:16 AM
I wonder if Santorum is smart enough to see he was hung out to dry.


I don't know, but he's definitely dressing like "He's good enough, smart enough, and gosh-darn it people must like him because he's only polling 18 points down". ROFL

Loki
06-26-2006, 03:44 AM
I don't know, but he's definitely dressing like "He's good enough, smart enough, and gosh-darn it people must like him because he's only polling 18 points down". ROFL
looks like a televangelist...

robert tilton:
humbelasabala abracadabra sisboombah...
cancer - GO!!

http://gladiatorprime.com/home/504/504/images/tilton.gif

patteeu
06-26-2006, 02:52 PM
likely mischaracterizations?

these are not the wmd that we went to war for?

Here are the last two paragraphs of jAZ's article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html):

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

My theory is that when the reporter says that intelligence officials "reaffirmed" *something* in the last paragraph that he/she is referring back to the statement made in the previous paragraph when government officials confirm *something* for the first time. That *something* is that these shells aren't evidence of "a current Iraqi program." That's a subset of the entire pre-war WMD claims of the administration. Legacy stockpiles are another subset.

If the final paragraph doesn't refer back to something stated earlier in the article then the word the reporter should have used is "confirmed" rather than "reaffirmed."

it would have to be a pretty big and intentionally deceitful mischaracterization, which i don't find likely at all...

i think the report is entitled to some credence; after all, it's not newsmax...


I don't think it's necessarily intentional at all. I think it's careless. I think the reporter made the same mistake that some are making in this thread.

Adept Havelock
06-26-2006, 05:05 PM
looks like a televangelist...

robert tilton:
humbelasabala abracadabra sisboombah...
cancer - GO!!

http://gladiatorprime.com/home/504/504/images/tilton.gif
ROFL

Ultra Peanut
06-26-2006, 07:27 PM
looks like a televangelist...That was the impression I got, as well.

Before I noticed who it was, I thought it was some picture from a local church service, or something.