Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T - Archive
  More WMD Found in Iraq (Page 3)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 6 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6 
Previous Page | Next Page
More WMD Found in Iraq by Toddster
Started on: 06-22-2006 03:08 PM
Replies: 205
Last post by: 84Bill on 06-30-2006 11:24 AM
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post06-24-2006 10:15 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Firefighter:

Todd, we were not talking about WWI or WWII or Korea or Viet Nam. The Democrats were responsible for not dealing with Viet Nam correctly, that's history. the Republicans are responsible for not handling Iraq correctly. Afganistan - OK kill the bastards. But Iraq, - it's too bad that neither political party learned anything from history.
You are like the mother at a military parade who says to the person next to her -
"Look, everyone is out of step except for my Johnny". REALLY ?????????????????


Ed,

You and I are looking at different parades. Yes, we ARE talking about WWI and 2 and every other war. The reason is that a war is either necessary or it is not. The question was raised as to whether IRAQ was necessary since we lost 2500 soldiers. I drew the obvious comparison between the last hours of WW1 and the even HIGHER loss of life and asked, OK were those lives lost senselessly? Everyone starts touting, "OH no WW1 WAS necessary that is a totally different animal", too which I pointed out the fact that the war was over at 5:00am on the 11th of November but fighting contnued for 6 more hours in which 3200 Americans died...and no one is bitching about THEIR sacrifices which truly were in vien.

It's hypocritical to stand here and tell me that 2500 Americans lost in Iraq & Afghanistan in nearly 5 years (still smaller than the total number of 9/11 victims we lost on day one of the war) in an action which has kept America at peace is somehow something to be angry over (AT ALL) let alone when compared to when 3200 Americans were needly slaughtered in a war we didn't need to enter in the first place.

Now which part don't you agree with? That Saddam was not a threat? That American lives have not been saved due to the war? That we haven't seen another attack on American soil sicne 9/11? What part do you disagree with? Tell me specifically and I'll be happy to set you straight. But please stop all this crap about the war being unnecessary and me being out of step with the rest of America, if it wasn't necessary don't you think 535 senators and congressmen would have said NO?! Come on! Your whole arguement does not pass the laugh test.
IP: Logged
connecticutFIERO
Member
Posts: 7696
From:
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
Rate this member

Report this Post06-24-2006 03:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for connecticutFIEROSend a Private Message to connecticutFIERODirect Link to This Post
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/14881024.htm


WASHINGTON | - WASHINGTON | A new, partly declassified intelligence report provides no new evidence that Saddam Hussein stockpiled weapons of mass destruction just before the U.S.-led invasion, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday.

The report says that about 500 munitions containing degraded chemical weapons have been found in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.

But the officials said the munitions dated from before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and were for the most part badly deteriorated.

“They are not in a condition where they could be used as designed,” one official said.

The officials from three agencies briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.


The officials said the munitions had been found in groups of one and two, indicating that they had been discarded.

One of the declassified key points says that the munitions could be sold on the black market.

But one official said there was “no evidence that any element of the insurgency was in possession of these kinds of munitions.”

Duelfer’s report said that although the munitions might be effective as terrorist weapons, they did not pose a “militarily significant threat” and could not cause mass casualties.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 06-24-2006).]

IP: Logged
fierogtowner
Member
Posts: 1610
From: Tampa, Florida, United States of America
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-24-2006 04:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
Well, this thread is finished. We know the facts.
IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post06-24-2006 08:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by connecticutFIERO:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/14881024.htm






Kansas city?

How many hours did it take you to find that Conn?

Shall we have a quick look at an interview with the Congressman who actually read the Pentagon Report that you claim to know SOOOOOO much about?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200763,00.html

Here are a few of the juicy bits:

"We have found 500, and we need to get a hold of all the other ones that we think may still be in Iraq because they do pose a threat to our front-line troops."

"The Duelfer report from the Iraqi Survey Group, they said that there were obviously weapons programs in development"

"These materials are still very, very deadly. It doesn't matter when they were manufactured, if they were manufactured in '88 or whether they were manufactured in '98 or 2002. They were still in Iraq, and they still have the capability today of killing people"

And most importantly of all, from Rumsfeld whose seen the ENTIRE report we have this:
"there are many, many more WMD in Iraq"


Yep fierogtowner, we DO know the facts. But thanks for leaving. Your reiteration of the same talking points is getting tiresome.
IP: Logged
fierogtowner
Member
Posts: 1610
From: Tampa, Florida, United States of America
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-24-2006 08:28 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:


Kansas city?

How many hours did it take you to find that Conn?

Shall we have a quick look at an interview with the Congressman who actually read the Pentagon Report that you claim to know SOOOOOO much about?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200763,00.html

Here are a few of the juicy bits:

"We have found 500, and we need to get a hold of all the other ones that we think may still be in Iraq because they do pose a threat to our front-line troops."

"The Duelfer report from the Iraqi Survey Group, they said that there were obviously weapons programs in development"

"These materials are still very, very deadly. It doesn't matter when they were manufactured, if they were manufactured in '88 or whether they were manufactured in '98 or 2002. They were still in Iraq, and they still have the capability today of killing people"

And most importantly of all, from Rumsfeld whose seen the ENTIRE report we have this:
"there are many, many more WMD in Iraq"


Yep fierogtowner, we DO know the facts. But thanks for leaving. Your reiteration of the same talking points is getting tiresome.


And yet those are not Weapons of Mass Destruction. Do you understand this?

And most importantly of all, from Rumsfeld whose seen the ENTIRE report we have this:
"there are many, many more WMD in Iraq"

I have to reiterate because you still think we found Weapons of Mass Destruction.
IP: Logged
Tugboat
Member
Posts: 1669
From: Goodview, VA
Registered: Jan 2004


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-24-2006 08:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for TugboatSend a Private Message to TugboatDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:


I think you just answered your own question.


Well, I think you've answered it. This non-answer indicates your assertion was pure speculation. It would be MUCH safer for me to claim that there are tens of thousands of people who would NOT have died if we had not started a war in Iraq.

Aceman, out of these 60 IEDs PER DAY, how many chemical rounds have been used? None that I've heard of.

Good Luck!

[This message has been edited by Tugboat (edited 06-25-2006).]

IP: Logged
Tugboat
Member
Posts: 1669
From: Goodview, VA
Registered: Jan 2004


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-24-2006 08:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for TugboatSend a Private Message to TugboatDirect Link to This Post

Tugboat

1669 posts
Member since Jan 2004
I was watching Shrek 2 the other night, and there was a potion that might help here, "Toadstool Softener".

Good Luck!

[This message has been edited by Tugboat (edited 06-25-2006).]

IP: Logged
fierogtowner
Member
Posts: 1610
From: Tampa, Florida, United States of America
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-24-2006 09:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html?nav=rss_world/mideast/iraq

Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said.

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

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.
IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 10:53 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:


And yet those are not Weapons of Mass Destruction. Do you understand this?


Well since chemical weapons ARE WMD it appears your either an idiot or just another liberal parrot...most likely both.

 
quote
And most importantly of all, from Rumsfeld whose seen the ENTIRE report we have this:
"there are many, many more WMD in Iraq"

I have to reiterate because you still think we found Weapons of Mass Destruction.


Hmmm, given the fact that the secretary of defense (who is certainly better informed that either you or me) said "MORE WMD" one must logically conclude that we have already found WMD. Oh my God, HEY, that is what the Pentagon report says we did. What a coincidence!

Your credibility, low that it is, just hit rock bottom kid. Time to gracefully exit the thread.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-25-2006).]

IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 11:00 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post

Toddster

20871 posts
Member since May 2001
 
quote
Originally posted by Tugboat:


Well, I think you've answered it.


I did. I'm disappointed that this exercise is even necessary but I'll make it easy with a simple analogy:

1) If we did not enter WW2, do you think Hitler would have stopped murdering millions of innocent victims on his own or stopped threatening world peace?
2) If your answer is yes, go back to (1) and turn on your brain before answering.
3) If your answer is no, then, as someone already pointed out, "you have answered your own question."

NOW do you get it?
IP: Logged
fierogtowner
Member
Posts: 1610
From: Tampa, Florida, United States of America
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 03:03 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
Your a complete moron Toddster. See, saying WMD is found is misleading. It's like saying hey we never lied and we are going to find more "WMD" to justify the war. Degrade and out-dated is not WMD because to have WMD is to actually use it.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
fierogtowner
Member
Posts: 1610
From: Tampa, Florida, United States of America
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 03:20 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post

fierogtowner

1610 posts
Member since Aug 2005
On the contrary, yes these are out-dated degraded, old chemical weapons. They only affect the frontline, not the US. But because they are degraded sarin and mustard gas from which were available to Suddam in the 90s does not constitute for labeling a chemical weapon "WMD"s in the context that you think that justifies the war. What makes one difference now if Suddam or the Iranians possessed these chemical weapons in the 90s and then present? But we already knew this in the 90s.

Now do you understand Toddster? You say WMD because that gives you justification for starting a war that was thought that Iraq possessed massively destructive weapons that could destroy cities. Damn get it through you thick ass head.
IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 05:02 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:

Your a complete moron Toddster. See, saying WMD is found is misleading.


THEN ***** ABOUT IT TO THE PENTAGON YOU NIT WIT! CAN'T YOU READ PLAIN ENGISH?

"WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND" - signed, The Pentagon

 
quote

It's like saying hey we never lied and we are going to find more "WMD" to justify the war. Degrade and out-dated is not WMD because to have WMD is to actually use it.



No pin head, to have WMD is to HAVE WMD! No one ever said we were going to war with Iraq because they USED WMD (although they did) we went to war to take away their WMD. We went to war, we found the WMD, we took it. Case closed.

No run along before you hurt a muscle in your head.
IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 05:10 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post

Toddster

20871 posts
Member since May 2001
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:

On the contrary, yes these are out-dated degraded, old chemical weapons. They only affect the frontline, not the US. But because they are degraded sarin and mustard gas.


Wrong again. I have never heard in my life so much selective reading and I've been listening to Conn and Jazz for years!

Listen carefully, degraded is not the same as non-lethal. The Pentagon report states very clearly that these weapons are "STILL LETHAL". What part of that do you not understand?


 
quote
from which were available to Suddam in the 90s does not constitute for labeling a chemical weapon "WMD"s in the context that you think that justifies the war.


Wrong again. UN Resolutions number 687 through 1284. "Iraq will dispose of ALL WMD". That's "ALL" as in ...you know...ALL!

 
quote

Now do you understand Toddster? You say WMD because that gives you justification for starting a war that was thought that Iraq possessed massively destructive weapons that could destroy cities. Damn get it through you thick ass head.


I understand.

"UN Resolution 687 (1991)
8 April 1991 - Decides that, as a condition of a cease-fire, Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities, as well as all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities, and that a Special Commission shall carry out on-site inspection of any locations in Iraq. "

As William Gaddis once said, "Stupidity is the deliberate cultivation of ignorance"

To wit, you have a lot of reading to do, start here: http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm

and here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Don't post again until you have read EVERY UN resoltution cover to cover. You are just taking up valuable bandwidth at present.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-25-2006).]

IP: Logged
fierogtowner
Member
Posts: 1610
From: Tampa, Florida, United States of America
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 05:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
No pin head, to have WMD is to HAVE WMD! No one ever said we were going to war with Iraq because they USED WMD (although they did) we went to war to take away their WMD. We went to war, we found the WMD, we took it. Case closed.

No run along before you hurt a muscle in your head.


You're so incompetent it's overwelmingly pathetic. Great war we started. Right? Lets confiscate old useless weapons to justify the war.
IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 05:16 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:


You're so incompetent it's overwelmingly pathetic. Great war we started. Right? Lets confiscate old useless weapons to justify the war.


WE...didn't start it. Saddam did when he defied the UN resolutions to dispose of his WMD as stated above. As I said, Read, Learn, THEN talk.
IP: Logged
Firefighter
Member
Posts: 1407
From: Southold, New York, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 05:21 PM Click Here to See the Profile for FirefighterSend a Private Message to FirefighterDirect Link to This Post
Todd - I have to back out of this post now, I don't have the phoney answer book from the Pentagon and you are so off base. Was WWI necessary, probably, was WWII necessary - absolutely, was Korea necessary, absolutely, was Viet Nam necessary, absolutely NOT, was the invasion of Afganistan necessary, absolutelty. (I never said that they were not, NOT EVER) But was the destruction of Iraq necessary under false pretenses, - absolutely not. Even Dick Cheney (the Rifleman) admitted on TV that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Talaban or 9 /11 disaster.
And I grieve for the FELLOW soldiers who have lost their lives, but honestly, the freedom of the Iraqui people is not worth the price. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States or it's Allies. NEVER. Amen.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Firefighter (edited 06-25-2006).]

IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 05:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Firefighter:

Todd - I have to back out of this post now, I don't have the phoney answer book from the Pentagon and you are so off base.


How is quoting the Pentagon report this entire thread is about being off-base? This I gotta hear.

 
quote
Was WWI necessary, probably,


Did IQ's suddenly drop over the weekend? That was NOT the question. Although the answer is right , the entire war was unnecessary. But the question was, "Was America's involvement in WWI necessary"? The US entered the 4 year long war in the last 8 month when it was effectively over AND the point I was making about the comparison is that in the last 6 hours of the war, after the armistice had been signed and EVERYONE from the top generals to the lowliest doughboy knew it, and yet fighting and dying continued for 6 more hours in whioch 3200 Americans died.

"probably"?

Was it necessary or not?

If you can't give a straight answer to this simple question why are you commenting on Iraq? It appears you don't know what is really going on over there. Click on the links above I provided to the kid.


 
quote
was WWII necessary - absolutely, was Korea necessary, absolutely, was Viet Nam necessary, absolutely NOT, was the invasion of Afganistan necessary, absolutelty. (I never said that they were not, NOT EVER) But was the destruction of Iraq necessary under false pretenses, - absolutely not. Even Dick Cheney (the Rifleman) admitted on TV that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Talaban or 9 /11 disaster.


No he didn't, he said, "There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11"

That is true. AND it has nothing to do with the war. No one ever said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The war in Iraq was to PREVENT Saddam, who had well established connections with terrorists, from giving him THESE and other WMD to use against us in a 9/11 type of attack in the future.

 
quote
Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States or it's Allies. NEVER.


With mentalities like this I thank God for clear thinkers like Bush:

"No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime because that regime is no more. "
-- President Bush, in excerpt of speech released by White House in November 2003


here are a few more just in case you mistakenly think this is just a Republican thing:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-25-2006).]

IP: Logged
fierogtowner
Member
Posts: 1610
From: Tampa, Florida, United States of America
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 05:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
Ok, weapons of "mass destruction" were located. Can these old chemical munitions cause mass destruction, simple answer, nope. PERIOD.
IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 06:08 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:

Ok, weapons of "mass destruction" were located. Can these old chemical munitions cause mass destruction, simple answer, nope. PERIOD.


Wrong. Period.

More homework for you:
********************
"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."

Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"
June 12, 2002
*****************
CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001
***************************
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
*********************
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
**************************
"Dear Mr. President:

The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

Sincerely,

Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)


Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)



Letter to President Bush
December 5, 2001


I'm just getting warmed-up. This war IS necessary and noble.
IP: Logged
fierogtowner
Member
Posts: 1610
From: Tampa, Florida, United States of America
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 06:52 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
Great. Just tell me this. How is degraded sarin and mustard gas WMD's, like you say? Don't take it out of context and tell me they'll strap this stuff on a rocket and send it over.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post06-25-2006 07:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:

Great. Just tell me this. How is degraded sarin and mustard gas WMD's, like you say? Don't take it out of context and tell me they'll strap this stuff on a rocket and send it over.


The point of the war was to keep WMD from getting into the hands of terrorists. We had little to fear from Saddam DIRECTLY, it was his association with terrorists like Abu Nidal who lived in Baghdad, Zarqawi who was a friend of Uday and also lived in Iraq, etc.

All a terrorist needs to deliver WMD to American cities is a plane ticket and a suitcase with a grenade and some of this old sarin or mustard gas and WHAM! you have hundreds of dead people on a NY subway. That is MASS destruction. What if they decided to detonate some old mustard gas inside the ventilation system of a large building. Have you ever tried to evacuated from the top floor of a skyscrapper? Takes hours! By then, you are dead. Degraded means it has lost some potency but that is not the same as being safe by a LONG SHOT! As the Pentagon report stated, these WMD were still lethal.

And this is just the chemical weapons Saddam had. Hans Blix reported to the UN in 2003 that Saddam STILL had not disclosed the location of his biological weapons stash. VX and Anthrax are STILL somewhere in Iraq.

And what of his Nuclear plans? We know he had nuclear triggers, centrifuges, yellowcake, and LASER Plasma plans. Where are they? He had them, we know that for a fact. So where are they. EVEN today after all the hoopla we still do not know. Are they now in the hands of the Iranians who seem to have rapidly escalated their nuclear program...too rapidly. What is Syria hiding?

I'm not annoyed that more WMD were not found as we all thought, I'm SCARED! Where did they go? WE KNEW THEY WERE THERE. Or at least most was. As it turns out Saddam over stated his own stocks to scare the world but much of it was seen by the UN inspectors and is unaccounted for to this day. The thought of terrorists getting them is JUST as real now as it was at the beginning of the war.

Put all the political posturing aside for minute and just ask yourself one question as a US citizen, based on the intel and testimony of former Iraqi scientists, etc. would you have felt safe leaving Saddam alone? Well, these senators and congresspeople didn't feel too comfortable at the time:


US Senators who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Allen, George (R-VA)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
Campbell, Ben (R-CO)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Craig, Larry (R-ID)
Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
Domenici, Pete (R-NM)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Ensign, John (R-NV)
Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Fitzgerald, Peter (R-IL)
Frist, Bill (R-TN)
Gramm, Phil (R-TX)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
Helms, Jesse (R-NC)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
Inhofe, James (R-OK)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Lugar, Richard (R-IN)
McCain, John (R-AZ)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nickles, Don (R-OK)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Smith, Robert (R-NH)
Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
Thurmond, Strom (R-SC)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
Voinovich, George (R-OH)
Warner, John (R-VA)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US Congressional Representatives who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-25-2006).]

IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27075
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 383
Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 12:35 AM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:

Great. Just tell me this. How is degraded sarin and mustard gas WMD's, like you say? Don't take it out of context and tell me they'll strap this stuff on a rocket and send it over.


I never did get an answer to this question - how much degraded serin and/or mustard gas would you want released on your street?

IP: Logged
connecticutFIERO
Member
Posts: 7696
From:
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 01:15 AM Click Here to See the Profile for connecticutFIEROSend a Private Message to connecticutFIERODirect Link to This Post
Holy christ Todd you're pathetic. Just stop for your own good. Don't you have ANY integrity?
IP: Logged
Tugboat
Member
Posts: 1669
From: Goodview, VA
Registered: Jan 2004


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 03:09 AM Click Here to See the Profile for TugboatSend a Private Message to TugboatDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
With mentalities like this I thank God for clear thinkers like Bush:



"REPORTER: Is the tide turning in Iraq? DUBYA: I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was
raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" (Jun. 14, 2006)

"My answer is bring them on."

Uhh, huh-huh, yeah!

Good Luck!
IP: Logged
GT86
Member
Posts: 5203
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (10)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 165
Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 03:25 AM Click Here to See the Profile for GT86Send a Private Message to GT86Direct Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Tugboat:


"REPORTER: Is the tide turning in Iraq? DUBYA: I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was
raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" (Jun. 14, 2006)

"My answer is bring them on."

Uhh, huh-huh, yeah!

Good Luck!


Partisan politics aside, no one can ever claim that Bush is a smooth speaker .
IP: Logged
Tugboat
Member
Posts: 1669
From: Goodview, VA
Registered: Jan 2004


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 03:48 AM Click Here to See the Profile for TugboatSend a Private Message to TugboatDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:


I did. I'm disappointed that this exercise is even necessary but I'll make it easy with a simple analogy:

1) If we did not enter WW2, do you think Hitler would have stopped murdering millions of innocent victims on his own or stopped threatening world peace?
2) If your answer is yes, go back to (1) and turn on your brain before answering.
3) If your answer is no, then, as someone already pointed out, "you have answered your own question."

NOW do you get it?


I don't recall Sadam having any such aspirations as Hitler had, much less any capacity to carry them out. I guess it's better that we, rather than Saddam, killed 10,000+ Iraqis? How much quicker did we do it? And how would Americans have gotten into the picture?

As for world peace, starting a war in Iraq sure didn't help that. What will stop W from threatening world peace?

Good Luck!

[This message has been edited by Tugboat (edited 06-26-2006).]

IP: Logged
Tugboat
Member
Posts: 1669
From: Goodview, VA
Registered: Jan 2004


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 03:57 AM Click Here to See the Profile for TugboatSend a Private Message to TugboatDirect Link to This Post

Tugboat

1669 posts
Member since Jan 2004
 
quote
Originally posted by GT86:

Partisan politics aside, no one can ever claim that Bush is a smooth speaker .


I guess his mouth is connected to that "clear thinking" mind...

Good Luck!
IP: Logged
moleman_in_a_FieroGT
Member
Posts: 792
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Apr 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 08:51 AM Click Here to See the Profile for moleman_in_a_FieroGTSend a Private Message to moleman_in_a_FieroGTDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Tugboat:


I don't recall Sadam having any such aspirations as Hitler had, much less any capacity to carry them out. I guess it's better that we, rather than Saddam, killed 10,000+ Iraqis? How much quicker did we do it? And how would Americans have gotten into the picture?

As for world peace, starting a war in Iraq sure didn't help that. What will stop W from threatening world peace?

Good Luck!



Your statement about the 10,000 Iraqis makes no sense.

Saddam did ruthlessly attack the kurds, killing an estimated 30,000, for which he is going to trail over, among other things. I don't think that we actually killed 10,000 Iraqis. Most of their army didn't actually want to fight, and surrendered fairly quickly.
IP: Logged
84Bill
Member
Posts: 21085
From:
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 461
User Banned

Report this Post06-26-2006 09:44 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 84BillClick Here to visit 84Bill's HomePageSend a Private Message to 84BillDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
LIFE experience Bill. In other words, experience in understanding what motivates people and why they do what they do. Knowing the answer to this is why I have been successful in sales for 20 years.


Okay... You still havent answered the question. I'm not asking about your personal success.

I'm asking how is this war "the best thing that ever happened to this country?"

Can you answer that question or not?

 
quote

2500 American soldiers have died but TENS OF THOUSANDS of American and Middle Eastern civilians are alive today because of their sacrifice.


Why should I care about middle easterners? If they don't like whats happening they can make laws and change their environment. THEY can fight for their own freedom... cant they?

 
quote

NO Bill, WAR is not useless. It is regrettable, it is painful, it is something to be avoided at all other costs, but it is NECESSARY at times and if you can't see that I understand why so much is "obscure to you".


I never said that "war was not necessary." I'm saying that THIS war is not necessary and am questioning the reasons you feel it is. War is always regretable no matter what the cause is. More so when the basis for war is not substantiated.

 
quote

As for death, I believe I already stated in a previous post my greif for my fallen Americans. How many times shall I repeat it before you get it.


Well excuse me but I read "I grieve" in one sentense and then read "war is good" in another so forgive my confusion and request clairification. If you are glad because "this war is the best thing to ever happen to this country" then how can you grieve? Thats why I'm asking the questions I'm asking. I'm somewhat confused by your logic because it defies logic. You can't be sorry and at the same time not be sorry.

 
quote

It's not. They are both necessary acts to resist a dictatorship and defend the idea of freedom.


This war in Iraq is equally as important or more so than the war for independance?

 
quote

84Bill stated:
First I want to state.
I'm a soldier and your "statistics" are bullshit, they mean nothing to me. Those "statistics" are my brothers and sisters in arms who are dead. THEY "were" people not some ****ing number you like to play with to prove a point and I resent you doing so.

Todd replied with:
Fine, I want to state that the fact that you wore the uniform does not give you any special insight into the cause or justification of war. The fact that you have no education in political science and no experience in international relations makes you even LESS of an authority on the subject. I spent 6 years living overseas and working with and in all kinds of hostile environments. I worked witht he navies of the world building submarines and I built control systems for oil rigs in places the army would be afraid to go, so knock off the "I was a soldier once so I know more about everything than you" crap. It's getting tiresome.


I agree, you don't need to go through military training to die for this country.
You do need to go through military training to be a US soldier IE. trained to walk, talk and act as ordered. So unless you go to military training school you are not a sildier and those graduates are not your fraternal "brothers and sisters in arms" unless you have. I can make that claim, you can not BUT you can still die for this country if you want to.
Similarly I don't need to be trained in economics to understand how to manage my money. I can not claim to be an economics major or claim that accountants are my fraternal bothers and sisters because I did not graduate from their Alma Mater. You can make that claim but I can still manage my money just as well as you can.

I can still be my own personal accountant and financial advisor and you can still die for your country. Ready to die for your country? How about taking the next plane to Afghanistan or Iraq to prove your willingness to die for your country and what you believe in? I swear I'll manage my money and do a very good job at it while you die.

 
quote

Todd continues:
Those dead soldiers are MY brothers and sisters too. Brothers in freedom, Sisters in courage. Your claim to have some special relationship with them is fallin on def ears.


This is just a meaningless claim to fame you are not truely worthey of. You don't go online and sign up for a degree in soldiering, take a few tests and viola! your a soldier. It just doesn't work that way. They are not your brothers and sisters in arms in the context I used. Instead they are merely tools to be employed and my complaints about their deaths are what is falling on deff ears.

 
quote

Todd Continues:
Because you DON'T. It is no different than any other freedom loving American who greives for our loved ones who died in 9/11. Get off your high horse and TRY to make a point.


I don't what? Grieve?
9/11? I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm talking about the war raging in Iraq. They are two unrelated issues. What high horse am I on? What, expressing my grief and outrage for the loss of my brothers and sisters in arms and my desire to stop it? Thats my point.. I'm grieving and I'm angry.. I want it to stop. I don't want for more death, I'm sorry it has happened and I want it to end.

 
quote

84Bill asks:
1. How in your mind does the 2500 who died in the current war seem any more or less significant than the 3200 in the last 3 days of WWI?

Todd replies with:
6 hours, not days. The World War 1 Armistice was signed at 5:00 am on November 11, 1918. But the terms of the Armistice did not call for ceasation of hostilities until 11:00 am. Hence, for 6 more hours after everyone KNEW that the war was over, fighting continued. In those 6 hours 3200 American soldiers lost their lives!


Okay.... So the 2500 soldiers who died since the start of the war in Iraq are pittlins? Meaningless by comparison? Of no real consiquence?

 
quote

Todd continues:
THAT is the definition of a pointless waste of life. Those men TRUELY died in vien. Yet do I hear you blathering about their loss? No, you just ***** about the 2500 we have lost over a skillfully fought 3 year campaign that is ANYTHING but pointless. Those 2500 men and women contributed to the liberation of MILLIONS, To the security in America of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS for nearly 5 years now, and to the preservation of COUNTLESS scores of people who would be dead today if Saddam your buddy was still in power to develop his WMD. This is not rocket science Bill.


Any time a soldier dies I would certinly hope he/she hasn't died in vain. However, you say it depends on the reasons. Which is why I'm asking the questions I'm asking. Why are our soldiers dieing in Iraq? Whats the reason?

You say, "fighting for freedom"
I say, "we already have freedom"
You say, "No no.. to give Iraqis freedom"
I say, "They can fight for freedom for themselves.. IF they want it."
You say, "no they can't, they arent capable."
I say, Yes they can, they are doing it right now."
You say, "NO, those are terrorists."
I say, "NO, those are freedom fighters fighting to be free from America occupation."

For a country that had the third largest army in the world I'd think that they were more than capable of fighting for their freedom.

 
quote

84Bill asks:
2. You call them "brave." Tell me what in your mind makes them "brave."

Todd replies with:
The willingness to put themselves in harms way for those who can not defend themselves, like the Iraqi and Afghani people, American citizens, and world peace in general.


Firstly it's their JOB to be in harms way. They have to be ORDERED to in harms way. Soldiers are highly trained, highly motivated killing machines just itching to kill an enemy.. any enemy they are unleashed on. So there is no bravery, just training and orders that make them do what they do best.

So your assertion that they are "brave" is really not very accurate. It's a job.

 
quote

84Bill asks:
3. You say you grieve. Granted each individual grieves in his or her own way but how has the death of one soldier effected your life and has cause you to grieve for his or her loss? What was their significance to you?

Todd replied with:
Since my own brother-in-law fought (an survived thank God) 2 campaigns in Afghanistan, My Wife's Cousin is in Iraq right now, my Great Uncle was a marine in the Pacific in WW2 and fought in Guadlecanal and Okinawa, and my grandfather landed on Utah Beach and was wounded 3 times and eared a bronze start in Europe, and more....I feel it very personally. Because I think that any one of those soldiers could be my brother-in-law or cousin. I think that any one of those guys could have been my grandfather and then I would never have been born, I think of the children and grandchildren who WILL never be born because of those 2500 deaths...and I STILL see value in their mission.


Well you made a sweeping justification for some kind of entitlement (to what I have no idea) but you still havent expressed how you are "grieving" for the loss of (my brothers and sisters in arms) "our soldiers" in Iraq.

So it beggs a question and requires an answer.

IF you "grieve" (express sorrow) then WHY do you continue to inflict pain on the families and friends of those who will die in this war?


 
quote

Todd continues:
They die and I feel mad, sad, frustrated, helpless, and yet comforted. Comforted by the absolute knowledge that they are doing the right thing. This war is necessary, this war is nobel, this war will be long remembered as the point in history where an entire part of the world that had been enslaved since the dawn of man, finally became free!


If you are mad, sad, frustrated and helpless how the hell can you be comforted? Theres NO comfort in the word you described, none at all! There is especially no comfort for a dead person... they are dead! How can you possibly say, "sorry for your loss" to one family then turn to the next and say, "You are required to sacrefice your loved one."??

What are you getting at here? Are you saying that you are upset about the loss of life yet don't care to stop it because you feel it is a nobel cause? If thats the case you are not mounful at all and instead are happy. You feel it is a noble enough cause and therefore are not at all mounful for the loss of life because to you it's worth it. You are glad, happy to sacrefice life because it is a risk you are willing to take.

If you were truely "mournful" then you wouldn't allow this to continue. If you felt sorrow for the loss of life then you would not want the loss of life to continue. You are like a thief who steals and when cought says "i'm sorry" yet turns right around and steals again. You werent "sorry, mounful or regretful" at all now were you?

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 06-26-2006).]

IP: Logged
Uaana
Member
Posts: 6570
From: Robbinsdale MN US
Registered: Dec 1999


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 138
Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 10:43 AM Click Here to See the Profile for UaanaClick Here to visit Uaana's HomePageSend a Private Message to UaanaDirect Link to This Post
You were doing ok till you spouted off with this.

"Firstly it's their JOB to be in harms way. They have to be ORDERED to in harms way. Soldiers are highly trained, highly motivated killing machines just itching to kill an enemy.. any enemy they are unleashed on. So there is no bravery, just training and orders that make them do what they do best."

I can tolerate you being an isolationist, and the rest of your views..
But pretty obvious your own jaded experience with being a slacker in uniform hasn't left you with a lot of respect for them.

No bravery, Just orders?.. Do yourself a favor, and don't talk about your military experience anymore. You're embarrassing yourself in front of all the others (on both sides of the issue).
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Tugboat
Member
Posts: 1669
From: Goodview, VA
Registered: Jan 2004


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 10:51 AM Click Here to See the Profile for TugboatSend a Private Message to TugboatDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by moleman_in_a_FieroGT:


Your statement about the 10,000 Iraqis makes no sense.

Saddam did ruthlessly attack the kurds, killing an estimated 30,000, for which he is going to trail over, among other things. I don't think that we actually killed 10,000 Iraqis. Most of their army didn't actually want to fight, and surrendered fairly quickly.


I have seen other numbers...

"The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from what was described as military clashes and terrorist attacks between April 5, 2004, and June 1, 2006. Taken together, the violent-death toll reaches 49,137. But samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total number well beyond 50,000."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/3999591.html

Good Luck!
IP: Logged
84Bill
Member
Posts: 21085
From:
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 461
User Banned

Report this Post06-26-2006 11:04 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 84BillClick Here to visit 84Bill's HomePageSend a Private Message to 84BillDirect Link to This Post
Excuse me? I don't believe I was asked nor to my knowledge am required to respect anyone. I've made that clear many times to many people and one in particular sticks out. He is a forum member who is or was active in the military and not once did he feel that I was "disrespecting him" when I made that statement. If anything he made it VERY clear to me and others that he was "just doing my job" so I don't know where you get off telling me that I am somehow wrong in believing that soldiers are doing anything but their jobs. Bravery is not something that is "common" among soldiers, if it were then "honoring" soldiers with medals would have little meaning. Even when issued many (true) soldiers do not accept nor want them. Just ask any CMH recipient. He will say "I was just doing my JOB no different than anyone else."

 
quote
Originally posted by Uaanus:

You were doing ok till you spouted off with this.

"Firstly it's their JOB to be in harms way. They have to be ORDERED to in harms way. Soldiers are highly trained, highly motivated killing machines just itching to kill an enemy.. any enemy they are unleashed on. So there is no bravery, just training and orders that make them do what they do best."

I can tolerate you being an isolationist, and the rest of your views..
But pretty obvious your own jaded experience with being a slacker in uniform hasn't left you with a lot of respect for them.

No bravery, Just orders?.. Do yourself a favor, and don't talk about your military experience anymore. You're embarrassing yourself in front of all the others (on both sides of the issue).


Do me a favor and **** off. Just who the hell do you think you are anyway? If I need you to save or help me then I will ask... Believe me when I say it will be a cold day in hell when I do because you are no doubt as dependable and relyable as wings made of cheese.Yeah, I'm an isolationist in that I want you to stop offering me help like I somehow need it. If I need it I'll ask, till then shove off and don't bother me.

And what the hell is this "slacker" bullshit? I did my job as I was instructed, I finished my obligation and left. So how does that equate to "slacking" in uniform? Pretty bold assertions from a prick who doesn't have a clue as to what my job was or how I performed while in the military.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 06-26-2006).]

IP: Logged
FIEROPHREK
Member
Posts: 4424
From: a dig
Registered: Mar 2004


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 137
Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 01:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for FIEROPHREKSend a Private Message to FIEROPHREKDirect Link to This Post
So 84bill what branch of the armed forces were/are you in? You were probably the 10% that slid by . As for being killing machines itching to kill . . . .um yeah we are just a bunch of bloodthirst barbarians. . . . oh wait we fight with rules barbarians do not. Oh once again the enemy we are fighting does not follow rules, therefore they must be the bloodthirst barbarians. They sure do fit the bill as to they kill their own kind and use woman and children as human sheilds to take pot shots at US soldiers. Now thats bravery for ya So self preservation is a bad thing in that we attacked Saddam. Hey 84 Bill why don't you give ole al qaeda the co-ordinates for your house and tell them to send you some old mustard and sarin gas. . . since it's SO harmless . . . You know, some people on here sound like a bunch of turncoats.

------------------
HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?

IP: Logged
84Bill
Member
Posts: 21085
From:
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 461
User Banned

Report this Post06-26-2006 01:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 84BillClick Here to visit 84Bill's HomePageSend a Private Message to 84BillDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by FIEROPHREK:
So 84bill what branch of the armed forces were/are you in? You were probably the 10% that slid by .


Slid by? You mean served during "peace time" or wasnt active in conflict somewhere in the world? Because if thats what you mean it was a hell of alot more than 10%

 
quote

As for being killing machines itching to kill . . . .um yeah we are just a bunch of bloodthirst barbarians. . . . oh wait we fight with rules barbarians do not.


Yes killing machines, trained to kill. Thats the job of the military.. you know... kill the enemy? bang bang he's dead? What do you think they do, sprout wings, pass out flowers and offer tidings of joy? Don't pretend to be an imbicile, I'm not buying it.

 
quote

Oh once again the enemy we are fighting does not follow rules, therefore they must be the bloodthirst barbarians.


And I suppose you are short sighted enough to believe that America while fighting for its independance from the crown played by the rules? The answer is NO. Americans who sought to throw off the crown were treasonous barbarians and were to be execute on sight!

 
quote

They sure do fit the bill as to they kill their own kind SNIP:


Don't watch the LOCAL news very much do you.

 
quote

So self preservation is a bad thing in that we attacked Saddam.


Self preservation? You mean the massive stockpiles of nuclear warheads and sarin gas all aimed at America??? Oh yeah.. that self preservation.. Well given the "massive" amounts of WMD he had I was mildly concerned but those concernes have been laid firmly to rest. As far as my own self preservation is concerned I feel there is a bigger threat to my person and my freedom is much closer to my home.

 
quote

Hey 84 Bill why don't you give ole al qaeda the co-ordinates for your house and tell them to send you some old mustard and sarin gas. . . since it's SO harmless . . . You know, some people on here sound like a bunch of turncoats.



Not necessary. I can peacibly assemble and petition my leaders for redress of my grievences. At some point (with enough people who have such grievences) we can mount an assult on the government, over throw it and install one that is more to our liking. So I really don't need al-qaeda to help me. Besides, I don't trust anyone who isn't an American citizen because he may not have my best interests in mind. In other words "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend." Never much believed in that.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 06-26-2006).]

IP: Logged
Uaana
Member
Posts: 6570
From: Robbinsdale MN US
Registered: Dec 1999


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 138
Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 01:24 PM Click Here to See the Profile for UaanaClick Here to visit Uaana's HomePageSend a Private Message to UaanaDirect Link to This Post
IIRC 84Bill was in a helo squadron - ANG or AR, did the majority if his tour in MI.

As for sending chem weapons to his house, well then he would care. Bill is an isolationist/sociopath. No cares for anyone else but himself that figures until there is an armed invasion with divisions landing on the beach then there really isn't a problem that can't be handled by the FBI. (I get his isolationist feelings, f the world and all that)

Bill is correct in that heroes don't call themself heroic, or ask for praise and parades.
But that is slightly misleading, they may not call themselves brave but doesn't mean that everyone else has the right to dismiss what they do. In short, yes there are lots of vets some have earned a little more freedom to talk smack than others.
A supply clerk in ND is a world away from an operator in Bosnia, PI, Afganistan.
No issues with your service, but it may be the opinion of some that you havent' quite earned the right to talk about all.

So now that I've covered that respectfully as possible.. STFU you REMF pogue. There are plenty on here who have earned my respect, you dont measure up.
IP: Logged
84Bill
Member
Posts: 21085
From:
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 461
User Banned

Report this Post06-26-2006 01:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 84BillClick Here to visit 84Bill's HomePageSend a Private Message to 84BillDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Uaanus:

IIRC 84Bill was in a helo squadron - ANG or AR, did the majority if his tour in MI.

As for sending chem weapons to his house, well then he would care. Bill is an isolationist/sociopath. No cares for anyone else but himself that figures until there is an armed invasion with divisions landing on the beach then there really isn't a problem that can't be handled by the FBI. (I get his isolationist feelings, f the world and all that)


Casting some awfully wide dispersions. I think the problem here is I refuse your "help" even though you feel I need it. If you expect an apology from me for turning down your selfrigeous bullshit well thats just too bad, you aint gunna get it because you havent given me anything but a hard time. I'm not worried about some invaider because they arent the ones restricting my freedom. They arent violating my civil liberties. They aren't invaiding my home telling me what I can or can not do, where I and when I can go. No, al-qaeida isnt doing these thing to me.

 
quote

Bill is correct in that heroes don't call themself heroic, or ask for praise and parades.
But that is slightly misleading, they may not call themselves brave but doesn't mean that everyone else has the right to dismiss what they do. In short, yes there are lots of vets some have earned a little more freedom to talk smack than others.


Earned a little more freedom? Like somehow that freedom was not earned for everyone? Huh.. you are one whacked out mutha!

 
quote

A supply clerk in ND is a world away from an operator in Bosnia, PI, Afganistan.
No issues with your service, but it may be the opinion of some that you havent' quite earned the right to talk about all.


So says you.. again who the hell are you? That clerk in ND is just as likely to be ordered into a war zone as any other soldier. So his "willingness" to sacrefice his life for country aint no different than any other soldiers. Just because his JOB does not take him regularly to the front line does IN NO WAY mean he may not be "called upon" (ordered) to do so.

 
quote

So now that I've covered that respectfully as possible.. STFU you REMF pogue. There are plenty on here who have earned my respect, you dont measure up.


Respectfuly? You basicly made a "clerk" stationed in ND (a FULLY qualified US Soldier) and tried to turn him into something less than what he is. He is a United States Soldier. What The **** gives you the right to make him any less than that?

Secondly I do not need your respect. What on gods green earth makes you something so special that I need your respect? Hell! I dont even remember asking you for it. So just shove off and take all your selfrigheous bullshit with you! Jesus you are an arrogant sob!

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 06-26-2006).]

IP: Logged
FIEROPHREK
Member
Posts: 4424
From: a dig
Registered: Mar 2004


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 137
Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 01:52 PM Click Here to See the Profile for FIEROPHREKSend a Private Message to FIEROPHREKDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill:
Not necessary. I can peacibly assemble and petition my leaders for redress of my grievences. At some point (with enough people who have such grievences) we can mount an assult on the government, over throw it and install one that is more to our liking. So I really don't need al-qaeda to help me. Besides, I don't trust anyone who isn't an American citizen because he may not have my best interests in mind.



So you are scared of some old outdated chemical munitions? Why ,if they are so harmless? Self preservation , we fight over there so we don't have the fight over here. You sleep nice and snug and cozy in your warm jammies cause the fighting is on the other side of the planet thanks to the U.S military .I like it this way and i bet you do to but it would be hipocrytical of you to agree. If the fight was here you would probably not even be logged into this forum because you would be outside trying to talk your way out of a beheading. You are correct i am not an imbicile . I fully understand that there is killing going on. I know some of our troops have slipped and done some sh!tty things, and i am regretful for that. But look at the big picture. Muslim Extremists HATE America and want us all DEAD ! HELLO This means you too ! Your american therfore you do not deserve to live in their eyes. so why sit back and wait for them to attack us with chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons? Hey just because you don't care if you live or die doesn't mean we all feel that way. I want to see my kids grow up and have kids of their own. Don't you want to see yours do the same? So we either live buy the American way or we can live in fear because we don't know what day a 50 kilo-ton bomb is gonna go off in the middle of a kindergaten graduation in _________ ,_________ (you fill in the town and state). So what branch were you in again? Have you had any NBC training? Do you know what a simple thing like CS gas ( teargas) feels like on your bare skin? I do and it's not pleasant. NBC weapons are not to be taken lightly they are the most inhumane instruments of death ever constructed, so why down play their existance in the hands of a pshycotic dictator that has used them on his own people? I understand that America didn't play by the rules (if there even were rules)during the revolutionary war. Yes we didn't use standard tactics like standing in a column and firing, we used guerilla warfare-like tactics.Tactics are not rules they are methods.

------------------
HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?

IP: Logged
FIEROPHREK
Member
Posts: 4424
From: a dig
Registered: Mar 2004


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 137
Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 02:03 PM Click Here to See the Profile for FIEROPHREKSend a Private Message to FIEROPHREKDirect Link to This Post

FIEROPHREK

4424 posts
Member since Mar 2004
 
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill:


Respectfuly? You basicly made a "clerk" stationed in ND (a FULLY qualified US Soldier) and tried to turn him into something less than what he is. He is a United States Soldier.



This would only be true if the supply clerk had the same views as 84bill. There is a differance in being a proud soldier and the 10% that slid by . I know one guy that hated his term as a soldier in the army, but he still respects and understands the reason we are fighting this war . The supply clerk in ND most likely is a patiotic american who believes in his country and is doing what he can for the good old U S of A !

84 bill if you haven't figured out the 10% yet, it means SH!TBAG . God! ! ! someone get this guy a clue already !

------------------
HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?

IP: Logged
fierogtowner
Member
Posts: 1610
From: Tampa, Florida, United States of America
Registered: Aug 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-26-2006 02:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


I never did get an answer to this question - how much degraded serin and/or mustard gas would you want released on your street?


As much as needed, I do have a gasmask but that is besides the point. No one would want that stuff released on the street except for the culprits. And how exactly would this stuff actually get here?
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 6 pages long:  1   2   3   4   5   6 


All times are ET (US)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock