Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T - Archive
  More WMD Found in Iraq (Page 1)

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 Post06-22-2006 03:08 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
In the last few years since the Duelfer report came out and weapons inspectors found nothing more than 500 Illegal WMD have been found by US patrols including shells with Sarin and Mustard Gas. Also, a plasma enrichment program for enriching Uranium fro nuclear weapons grade material was uncovered. Although it was in its infancy, plasma enrichment is a highly advanced form of enrichment, a quantum leap beyond centrifugal enrichment, and Saddam was working on it.

The Administration is above "I told you so" types of announcements and has said little about these discoveries....but I'm NOT! The Pentagon report indicates that these finds are the tip of the iceberg as only a small portion of the cache' has been declassified.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

But alas, I fear the "Bush Lied" parrots will still find a way to convince themselves that Saddam was a great humanitarian and of no threat to American security.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
whadeduck
Member
Posts: 8907
From: Aventura, FL
Registered: Jul 2004


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 103
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 03:18 PM Click Here to See the Profile for whadeduckSend a Private Message to whadeduckDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:

But alas, I fear the "Bush Lied" parrots will still find a way to convince themselves that Saddam was a great humanitarian and of no threat to American security.


Mai bien sur. Isn't that the job of the current Congress and media? To go against whatever our Commander in Chief says or does? Even if they agree? Gotta love politics.

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'87 GT Auto
'88 Ferrario

IP: Logged
CenTexIndy
Member
Posts: 3061
From: Waco, Texas, USA
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score:    (32)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 59
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 03:18 PM Click Here to See the Profile for CenTexIndySend a Private Message to CenTexIndyDirect Link to This Post
funny how the media will leak EVERYTHING but something like this...it took years to find this out....
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 Post06-22-2006 03:36 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by whadeduck:


Mai bien sur. Isn't that the job of the current Congress and media? To go against whatever our Commander in Chief says or does? Even if they agree? Gotta love politics.



Not really. I remember many Presidents in the past who had universal support for good ideas and blanket condemnation of bad ones. Reagan hasn't been out of office 20 years yet and he had a great capacity to find unity. Politics has gotten much uglier in recent years. I honestly can't recall one positive thing ANY Democrat (Zell Miller & Joe Lieberman excluded) has said about Bush or his policies. Worse still, it's not just a matter of disagreeing on a policy of how to solve a problem but a looking glass interpretation of whether a problem even exists or not! In the old days we could at least get people to agree that a guy with WMD, friendly ties to terrorist networks, and a hatred for America was a danger to national security. But in this charged political environment?

The Democrats have even gone so far as to accuse the Republican Party of corruption. Excuse me? Nancy Pelosi stands there in front of a Congressman who has $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer, a Congresswoman who assaulted a Capital Policeman, a Congressman who saw a 6000% increase in his net worth in West Virginia while supervising the very committee that tracks ethical conduct, another Congressman wrapping his car around a telephone pole at 2:00am while on drugs, and so on and so on. If it wasn't so mind boggingly hypocritical I'd laugh out loud.

I actually ENJOY a good well argued debate about how to solve a problem, but if they can't even see the problem (Murtha, for example) then there is really no point in talking. All we can do is shove the facts in their faces and let the rest of the country see their oblivion in full effect so they simply vote them out of office and vote in rational thinkers instead.
IP: Logged
whadeduck
Member
Posts: 8907
From: Aventura, FL
Registered: Jul 2004


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 103
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 03:58 PM Click Here to See the Profile for whadeduckSend a Private Message to whadeduckDirect Link to This Post
Personally? I think that they've placed Capital Hill so high in elevation, that it's impossible for it's occupants to regain touch with reality or become grounded once again. They get in their little offices and forget what it was like in the real world or that they should actually rely on their cranial capacity to approach a problem. Instead, they seem to concentrate on how they can keep that cushy office chair for as long as possible.

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'87 GT Auto
'88 Ferrario

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


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 461
User Banned

Report this Post06-22-2006 04:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 84BillClick Here to visit 84Bill's HomePageSend a Private Message to 84BillDirect Link to This Post
Considering it was made to appear that one effictivly could cross the country of Iraq without having ever touched the ground using WMD to walk on. I think it would be safe to say the american public was lied to. Congratulation on you huge victory at stamping out this potential hazard the world has ever known..

Hey, I hear the sun has nukaler capabilities and will snuff out the solar system soon. Got a plan?
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 Post06-22-2006 04:12 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
People. It's FOX NEWS. Nuff said.

Chemical weapons are NOT Weapons of Mass *Destruction*.

Sarin does not last long at all.

This has NOTHING to do with the reason for invading Iraq. We were all told that that Iraq possessed WMD's. This is not the case.
IP: Logged
84Bill
Member
Posts: 21085
From:
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 461
User Banned

Report this Post06-22-2006 04:22 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 84BillClick Here to visit 84Bill's HomePageSend a Private Message to 84BillDirect Link to This Post
Not according to toddster.. he probably believes the TSA 's banning of nail clippers on comercial flights because they are a deadly weapon. When taken in that context, bug spray is WMD material.

 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:
This has NOTHING to do with the reason for invading Iraq. We were all told that that Iraq possessed WMD's. This is not the case.


IP: Logged
Butter
Member
Posts: 3979
From: TN
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 91
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 04:32 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ButterSend a Private Message to ButterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:

Chemical weapons are NOT Weapons of Mass *Destruction*.

Sarin does not last long at all.



Your not very informed on this chemical subject.

You think biological weapons are in the same catagory?

And then if nuKlier weapons are detonated improperly they are just dirty bombs too.

Someone gotta train jack to pull his head out of the sand!

[This message has been edited by Butter (edited 06-22-2006).]

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


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 04:36 PM Click Here to See the Profile for TugboatSend a Private Message to TugboatDirect Link to This Post
I certainly won't claim Saddam was a humanitarian, but he may not have even known about these weapons.

"The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions."

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions."

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Good Luck!
IP: Logged
whadeduck
Member
Posts: 8907
From: Aventura, FL
Registered: Jul 2004


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 103
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 04:36 PM Click Here to See the Profile for whadeduckSend a Private Message to whadeduckDirect Link to This Post
To be honest. I think our govt. lies to us so much, that I wouldn't be surprised to find that they actually did find a whole heapin' lot of WMD, but we're just stockpiling the damn things for ourselves. Don't y'all get your panties in a bunch. I'm not saying that's happened. I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised. Some times truth is stranger than fiction.

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'87 GT Auto
'88 Ferrario

[This message has been edited by whadeduck (edited 06-22-2006).]

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 Post06-22-2006 04:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill:

Considering it was made to appear that one effictivly could cross the country of Iraq without having ever touched the ground using WMD to walk on. I think it would be safe to say the american public was lied to.



Both assumptions are wrong. This is a perfect example of the oblivion I mentioned in the earlier post.

 
quote

Congratulation on you huge victory at stamping out this potential hazard the world has ever known..


So are you finally acknowledging Saddam had WMD? I may faint.

 
quote


Hey, I hear the sun has nukaler capabilities and will snuff out the solar system soon. Got a plan?


Yes, but since it won't happen for 5 Billion years I am in no hurry to execute the plan. Unlike Saddam who we couldn't wait for.


 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner
People. It's FOX NEWS. Nuff said.

Chemical weapons are NOT Weapons of Mass *Destruction*.

Sarin does not last long at all.

This has NOTHING to do with the reason for invading Iraq. We were all told that that Iraq possessed WMD's. This is not the case.




Uh, OK I guess the question on everyone's lips is "how many kinds of ignorant are you"?

Fox news is the highest rated news organization in the world. Whom would you suggest we watch..MSNBC!?

Chemical weapons ARE WMD as defined by the Hague. They serve to destroy mass numbers of victims unlike bullets or grenades which are limited in their lethality.

Sarin's MAXIMUM toxicity does not last more than a year or so but it remains toxic for decades. Would you like to drink some of this Sarin? Thought not.

This has EVERYTHING to do with invading Iraq. Or have you conveniently forgotten Colin Powell's speech before the General Assembly where he pointed to mobile Chemical Weapons labs as one of the reasons for going to war?

Just as I thought, We could find 20 SCUD missles with active nuclear war heads attached and you'd STILL be saying we were lied to.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-22-2006).]

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 Post06-22-2006 04:53 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 Tugboat:

Good Luck!


We found them didn't we. It appears we already have good luck.

BTW, the "not usable" neans that they were not able to be fired. The toxic mustard gas could still be used if detonated by some other means. You know, like a road side bomb...
IP: Logged
connecticutFIERO
Member
Posts: 7696
From:
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 05:08 PM Click Here to See the Profile for connecticutFIEROSend a Private Message to connecticutFIERODirect Link to This Post
Give me a ****ing break Todd. This BS about 500 chemical weapons being found has been covered by the presidents own Iraq Survey Group. They found and reported on these so called WMD's over a years ago. They said they were degraded and non functional from pre 1991, and that Saddam had unilaterally destroyed his WMD caches like he was supposed to. These were nothing more than old useless garbage.

Here is part of the report ISG produced

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-fina l-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.


.
.
.
.
.

As a side note:

Remember that theory the administration used about WMD being removed before being invaded. That's been throughly covered and debunked as well.

This is an old story but even then we knew the Syria claim was bunk.


No Basis For WMD Smuggling Claims
White House Theory That WMDs Were Removed From Iraq Unfounded

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643989.shtml

But intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never "a piece," said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

The administration acknowledged last week that the search for banned weapons is largely over. The Iraq Survey Group's chief, Charles Duelfer, is expected to submit the final installments of his report in February. A small number of the organization's experts will remain on the job in case new intelligence on Iraqi WMD is unearthed.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 06-22-2006).]

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


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 05:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for connecticutFIEROSend a Private Message to connecticutFIERODirect Link to This Post

connecticutFIERO

7696 posts
Member since Jun 2002
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:


This has EVERYTHING to do with invading Iraq. Or have you conveniently forgotten Colin Powell's speech before the General Assembly where he pointed to mobile Chemical Weapons labs as one of the reasons for going to war?

Just as I thought, We could find 20 SCUD missles with active nuclear war heads attached and you'd STILL be saying we were lied to.




Oh I get so all those times you said we didn't invade Iraq because of the claims of WMD are now null and void? All because of that idiot Rick Santorum rehashing old BS about some useless abandoned shells? I guess you are a real man of conviction huh?

You do know the Department of Defense disputes Santorums claims right? So does Jim Angle of Fox news.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/37966/

Sen Rick Santorum (R-Pa) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference yesterday to announce that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, only to have their claims flatly disavowed by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Santorum and Hoekstra were talking about the degraded and inoperable remnants of Saddam's pre-1991 chemical weapons program that are turning up at various sites around Iraq. Their allegations are based on the U.S. government's own Iraq Survey Group. The very same report convinced President Bush that Iraq did not have WMD.

The DOD flatly disavowed the Congressmen's WMD claims. ThinkProgress: "Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to 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 Post06-22-2006 05:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by connecticutFIERO:

The administration acknowledged last week that the search for banned weapons is largely over. The Iraq Survey Group's chief, Charles Duelfer, is expected to submit the final installments of his report in February. A small number of the organization's experts will remain on the job in case new intelligence on Iraqi WMD is unearthed.





You could be a writer for the New York Times Conn. Ramble on about pure horseshit for 4 paragraphs and save the ONE substantive comment for the VERY END.

Looks like that "small number of experts" had better get busy.
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 Post06-22-2006 05:17 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 connecticutFIERO:
Oh I get so all those times you said we didn't invade Iraq because of the claims of WMD are now null and void?


SHOW ME ONE TIME WHEN I SAID THAT CONN AND I WILL PUT A KERRY BUMPER STICKER ON MY CAR!

You're an idiot if you think you can get away with that kind of crap.
IP: Logged
Butter
Member
Posts: 3979
From: TN
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 91
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 05:20 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ButterSend a Private Message to ButterDirect Link to This Post
So which one IS the latest story?

One is a historical document the other is current news.

Fact is BOTH could still be wrong!
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 Post06-22-2006 05:49 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:




Uh, OK I guess the question on everyone's lips is "how many kinds of ignorant are you"?

Fox news is the highest rated news organization in the world. Whom would you suggest we watch..MSNBC!?

Chemical weapons ARE WMD as defined by the Hague. They serve to destroy mass numbers of victims unlike bullets or grenades which are limited in their lethality.

Sarin's MAXIMUM toxicity does not last more than a year or so but it remains toxic for decades. Would you like to drink some of this Sarin? Thought not.

This has EVERYTHING to do with invading Iraq. Or have you conveniently forgotten Colin Powell's speech before the General Assembly where he pointed to mobile Chemical Weapons labs as one of the reasons for going to war?

Just as I thought, We could find 20 SCUD missles with active nuclear war heads attached and you'd STILL be saying we were lied to.



Statement #1. "Fox news is the highest rated news organization in the world."

If only you knew the bias on Fox News. Sadly, you don't. Fox News is on the side of Bush and his cronies. As for being the highest rated news organization? Of course a news network would say to help gain more viewers. I really don't want to look up the ratings for Fox News so I want you to show me where as of this month June 2006 that Fox News is the highest rated news organization in the world then I will say you are correct. MSNBC, CNN, it's all corporate news media.

Statement #2: "Chemical weapons ARE WMD as defined by the Hague. They serve to destroy mass numbers of victims unlike bullets or grenades which are limited in their lethality."

Right. News networks and people define Chemical Weapons and WMD's in different ways. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons.

While in US civil defense, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life. This definition derives from US law, 18 U.S.C. Section 2332a and the referenced 18 USC 921. Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, cactus needles coated with botulin toxin, etc. have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

I define WMD's as a nuclear bomb because it destroys everything within miles. I would also say a bomb containing potent amounts of a destructive chemical that is released to kill humans and spread via body to body contact and wind and contaminate the area for who knows how long, a WMD. So :P

I will have to consider more about this specific news bit. Ok Toddster?
IP: Logged
Cadillac Jack
Member
Posts: 1165
From: Jacksonville, IL, USA
Registered: May 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 06:02 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Cadillac JackSend a Private Message to Cadillac JackDirect Link to This Post
You'll never convince me that George W is intelligent enough to come up with a believable lie. Someone else lied, he just repeated it as instructed, or probably just close to how he was instructed.
IP: Logged
connecticutFIERO
Member
Posts: 7696
From:
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 06:10 PM Click Here to See the Profile for connecticutFIEROSend a Private Message to connecticutFIERODirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:




You could be a writer for the New York Times Conn. Ramble on about pure horseshit for 4 paragraphs and save the ONE substantive comment for the VERY END.

Looks like that "small number of experts" had better get busy.



I didn't write that article for CBS news. Are you confused?

That's an old story, I already said that. Those people are probably home by now. What's your point anyways. I debunked your WMD has been found claim and I killed your "well they move the WMD before invaded" argument before you even started. So I guess that means your limited meaningless response is all you have.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post06-22-2006 06:27 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
Even the CIA says that these weapons were degraded broken down old devices that weren't part of any of the alleged (and unproven) WMD programs that Saddam was supposed to have that no evidence has yet to surface on.

But hey, if Bush and his followers want to wave them around as vindication for blowing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and squandering thousands of American lives, destroying a country, letting Osama bin Ladin get away, and creating the best recruiting environment that Islamic extremists have ever had in the existance of America, fine, their actions speak the truth much better than their press releases.

JazzMan
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 Post06-22-2006 06:41 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:


If only you knew the bias on Fox News. Sadly, you don't.



Spoken like a someone who's never watched it before. I've been watching Fox for 10 years so I think I can talk about their bias or lack there of better than you. I spent 30 year of my life having my thoughts spoon fed to me from the likes of CBS, etc, and FOX was a breath of fresh air because they let me think for myself. Try it some time. Fox is the ONLY organization (Organization, not individuals - there are other reporters like Tim Russert, etc I respect) that puts both sides of the arguement on the table and respects the viewer's intelligence.


 
quote

I define WMD's as a nuclear bomb because it destroys everything within miles.


Oh I see, we are only interested in YOUR definition and not generally accepted standard. Got it.


 
quote
Originally posted by CadillacJack:
You'll never convince me that George W is intelligent enough to come up with a believable lie. Someone else lied, he just repeated it as instructed, or probably just close to how he was instructed.


Or perhaps he just plain didn't lie but accepted the conclusions in the reports from every intelligence organization on Earth. Nahhhh, couldn't be that simple. It's FAR more plausible that a man could be a moron and rise to the Presidency of the United States and then be led around by some mysterious person or persons who have the power to manipulate government policy for their personal entertainment.


 
quote
Originally posted by Conn:
I didn't write that article for CBS news. Are you confused?

That's an old story, I already said that. Those people are probably home by now. What's your point anyways. I debunked your WMD has been found claim and I killed your "well they move the WMD before invaded" argument before you even started. So I guess that means your limited meaningless response is all you have.


No, but you bought it hook line and sinker. So how gullable are you? Why should I give credence to any arguement now if you can be so easily swayed?

As for "debunking", not even a nice try. You still can't accept the fact that even if the intel on Saddam was overestimated by everybody including the Clinton admin, Jordan, Egypt, Russia, CIA, etc. that he actually DID have a nuclear weapons program, he DID have Biological wepaons, he DID have Chemical Weapons, he DID have illegal missles, he DID have an illegal kick back scheme with the UN, he DID murder innocent civilians in his country, he DID use chemical weapons in war, he DID have intimate relations with Al Queda operatives and could have given them WMD, he DID allow them to have terror training camps in Iraq, he DID give a free house and protection to Abu Nidal, the world's leading terror threat prior to Bin Laden, he DID give free medical aid to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, he DID invade/attack three neighboring countries in as many years, he DID plan to reconstitute his WMD program once sanctions were lifted by the UN that was taking his bribes, etc. etc. etc.

Just how blind are you deliberately trying to be?
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 Post06-22-2006 06:53 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:Oh I see, we are only interested in YOUR definition and not generally accepted standard. Got it.


The real threat is massive destruction (nuclear bomb), not some out-dated chemical caches. If you like my definition, that's ok but I didn't say my definition or even came across as to say that my definition was the standard for WMD. It's just my view on what creates devastating destruction.
IP: Logged
connecticutFIERO
Member
Posts: 7696
From:
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 06:53 PM Click Here to See the Profile for connecticutFIEROSend a Private Message to connecticutFIERODirect Link to This Post
Seriously?

Todd cmon now!

No really.

You're not joking? Uhhhh, nahhh, you don't REALLY believe Iraq had ongoing nuclear or WMD programs or that Saddam was a fan of extremist muslims?

Nah I'll just pass it off as a bad joke.


Fox news a breath of fresh air? Lack of bias? No, for real?

living in crazy upside down world ---->

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 06-22-2006).]

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 Post06-22-2006 07:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by connecticutFIERO:

Seriously?

Todd cmon now!

No really.

You're not joking? Uhhhh, nahhh, you don't REALLY believe Iraq had ongoing nuclear or WMD programs or that Saddam was a fan of extremist muslims?

Nah I'll just pass it off as a bad joke.


Fox news a breath of fresh air? Lack of bias? No, for real?

living in crazy upside down world ---->



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 Post06-22-2006 07:30 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:


The real threat is massive destruction (nuclear bomb), not some out-dated chemical caches. If you like my definition, that's ok but I didn't say my definition or even came across as to say that my definition was the standard for WMD. It's just my view on what creates devastating destruction.


That's my point. Your definition is irrelevant. We went to war over the offical definition and based on that Saddam HAD WMD. Period. Not as much as we thought? No arguement. But he had them. War justified.

Ask yourself this question. If North Korea has only ONE nuclear bomb but it is on top of a missle that can reach Kansas City..and is pointed to Kansas City...and the North Koreans threaten to launch it if we don't pay protection money, are you OK with that? Or would you only get upset and be moved to act if it were 10 or more nuclear weapons, or 100 or more, 500 anyone?

 
quote
Originally posted by Conn:
You're not joking? Uhhhh, nahhh, you don't REALLY believe Iraq had ongoing nuclear or WMD programs or that Saddam was a fan of extremist muslims?


you are truly in denial!

WOW!

I mean....WOW, I'm speechless. We joke about it all the time but I take my hat off to you Conn; you are really gone. I thought all this time you were just mouthing MoveOn.org crap as a political ploy but you REALLY believe that BS don't you?

You really don't think Saddam was using his terrorist friends as an extension of his foreign policy even thought it has already been confirmed in his trial. You really don't think he had a WMD program when we have actual blueprints and components and video of Saddam holding a Nuclear Trigger! What Conn? You won't believe your own eyes or when the video is played by the news you just close your eyes and cover your ears and chant something? Perhaps you missed the part where I said there were terrorist training camps IN Iraq? Miss that? Or that Abu Nidal lived in Baghdad? Think it was just a vacation spot? sheesh.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-22-2006).]

IP: Logged
Wolfhound
Member
Posts: 5317
From: Opelika , Alabama, USA
Registered: Oct 1999


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 113
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 07:31 PM Click Here to See the Profile for WolfhoundClick Here to visit Wolfhound's HomePageSend a Private Message to WolfhoundDirect Link to This Post
You would think the republicans would be worried about what little credibility they have left.
Apparently not.
Bush brought integrity back to the White House,
but he duct tapped it,s mounth shut and locked it in a closet.

[This message has been edited by Wolfhound (edited 06-22-2006).]

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


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 07:33 PM Click Here to See the Profile for connecticutFIEROSend a Private Message to connecticutFIERODirect Link to This Post
Save it for someone stupid enough to believe you. Saddam was bad, he had WMD in the past. No argument there.


I'm sorry to rain on your parade but guess what just popped up on MSNBC...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims
Comments are response to claims by GOP senators

WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 06-22-2006).]

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 Post06-22-2006 07:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Wolfhound:

You would think the republicans would be worried about what little credibility they have left.
Apparently not.
Bush brought integrity back to the White House,
but he duct tapped it,s mounth shut and locked it in a closet.




Guess you missed this post above:

"The Democrats have even gone so far as to accuse the Republican Party of corruption. Excuse me? Nancy Pelosi stands there in front of a Congressman who has $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer, a Congresswoman who assaulted a Capital Policeman, a Congressman who saw a 6000% increase in his net worth in West Virginia while supervising the very committee that tracks ethical conduct, another Congressman wrapping his car around a telephone pole at 2:00am while on drugs, and so on and so on. If it wasn't so mind boggingly hypocritical I'd laugh out loud."

I'm just wondering how MANY new seats the GOP will pick up in November.

IP: Logged
AusFiero
Member
Posts: 11513
From: Dapto NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2001


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 326
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 07:38 PM Click Here to See the Profile for AusFieroClick Here to visit AusFiero's HomePageSend a Private Message to AusFieroDirect Link to This Post
The way I see it the 3 biggest weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were Saddam and his sons. They got taken out after god knows how many people they have killed.
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 Post06-22-2006 07:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by connecticutFIERO:

Save it for someone stupid enough to believe you. Saddam was bad, he had WMD in the past. No argument there.


I'm sorry to rain on your parade but guess what just popped up on MSNBC...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims
Comments are response to claims by GOP senators

WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.



Maybe you should read your own links a little more closely.

"However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces."

&

"Iraq is NOT a WMD-free zone" and it "amazes me" that members of Congress still say that there was no WMD in Iraq.

Nice link Conn. How about trying to defend that the world is flat with a link to NASA.

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 Post06-22-2006 07:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
How could Saddam have delivered his "WMD" over to the US? UPS? Fedex?
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 Post06-22-2006 07:41 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
 
quote
Originally posted by connecticutFIERO:

Save it for someone stupid enough to believe you. Saddam was bad, he had WMD in the past. No argument there.


I'm sorry to rain on your parade but guess what just popped up on MSNBC...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims
Comments are response to claims by GOP senators

WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.



Hahahahahaha. Nicely done!
IP: Logged
connecticutFIERO
Member
Posts: 7696
From:
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
Rate this member

Report this Post06-22-2006 07:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for connecticutFIEROSend a Private Message to connecticutFIERODirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:


Maybe you should read your own links a little more closely.

"However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces."

&

"Iraq is NOT a WMD-free zone" and it "amazes me" that members of Congress still say that there was no WMD in Iraq.

Nice link Conn. How about trying to defend that the world is flat with a link to NASA.


Get over it Todd, this is old news and it proves nothing. There were some old abandoned shells in Iraq. Yes they are probably still dangerous. But this changes nothing. This has been looked over and tossed aside already. Nothing to see here people, move along.

As for your diatribe about the world being flat.... look whos talking Mr. They Found the WMD.
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 Post06-22-2006 07:44 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:

How could Saddam have delivered his "WMD" over to the US? UPS? Fedex?


Cute. But a good question just the same.

The answer is simple...terrorists.

An Atomic bomb of 10 kiloton yeild can fit into a standard briefcase.

Saddam gave aid to Al-Qaeda with training camps, medical treatment, finances, and logistics support. He planned on using terrorists to carry out his terror campaign and stand back and deny responsibility by saying that is was just a bunch of fanatical muslim extremists who did it.

Can terrorists get into the US with a briefcase? 9/11 is your answer.
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 Post06-22-2006 07:46 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 connecticutFIERO:

As for your diatribe about the world being flat.... look whos talking Mr. They Found the WMD.


They found SOME of the WMD. I'll remond you that most of the entagon report is still classified. I have a hunch we'll be hearing about a lot more WMD just around late October....
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 Post06-22-2006 07:48 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by fierogtowner:


The real threat is massive destruction (nuclear bomb), not some out-dated chemical caches. If you like my definition, that's ok but I didn't say my definition or even came across as to say that my definition was the standard for WMD. It's just my view on what creates devastating destruction.


Ok, look at it this way. How much out-dated chemicals would you not mind to have dumped on your street (or house, for that matter)?

No, not that Saddam had delivery capability to your street, but he already demonstrated he could dump them on Israel (our ally). How many hundreds of miles is that? How many othe neighboring countries could be hit by his ballistic capability?
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 Post06-22-2006 07:48 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierogtownerSend a Private Message to fierogtownerDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:


Cute. But a good question just the same.

The answer is simple...terrorists.

An Atomic bomb of 10 kiloton yeild can fit into a standard briefcase.

Saddam gave aid to Al-Qaeda with training camps, medical treatment, finances, and logistics support. He planned on using terrorists to carry out his terror campaign and stand back and deny responsibility by saying that is was just a bunch of fanatical muslim extremists who did it.

Can terrorists get into the US with a briefcase? 9/11 is your answer.


Sure, it can be done but does Iraq have the Nuclear capability to make a nuke?
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 Post06-22-2006 07:52 PM Click Here to See the Profile for UaanaClick Here to visit Uaana's HomePageSend a Private Message to UaanaDirect Link to This Post
Just to chime in with the 5tons of yellowcake uranium that was pulled out of the country secretly.
I posted on this before if you feel like digging for it.
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