You can all continue eating a big fat dick.

Come on Buff we all know Bush is desperate, he had Rummy and Ashcroft plant it on some poor Iraqis.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...rin_2&printer=1

Buff, a shell rigged as a bomb... the shells are the same as used in the north and in the Iran -Iraq war many years ago. It will be interesting to see if there is a discussion of this as "new stock" or "very old stock"...

Alex

About time. Coverage seems rather vague at the moment.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5166153

Be interesting to see how this turns out.

155 mm Howitzer round, hmmmmmmm, what country uses 155 mm rounds ?

Soviets ?, no thier's is 152

Obviously this proves the Bush was right and Iraq was such a threat seeing on how easy it is to smuggle 1700 lbs cannons into the US.

I thought Oprano was a no spin zone ?

It'll be interesting to see where it originated. I read an article that says it's the old style artillery shell that Saddam used to have, etc. I wouldn't be jumping to any conclusions at this stage, but it looks interesting to say the least.

OldJeff, howtizer shells are not born with WMDs in them. Who ever loaded the shell with it, probably has some extra lying around.

From what I remeber Sarin does not last to long out on its own and in the heat.

This could be from old stock....

I still have no doubt that Saddam had or THOUGHT he had WMDs. The WORLD thought he did. There was no debate before hand about WMDs being in Iraq.

They are hidden somewhere, maybe in Syria, and/or were destroyed during build up to war.

Alex, in case ytou forgot....the "old stock" was allegedly destroyed....where the fuck THIS shit came from?
Gremlins???

gimme a break, ouuhleeze!

Tony Soprano would send you to the hospital...as he did in previous episode when soembody didn't pay attention to his "news" that 99% of containers coming to USA via ports are not inspected.

Alex, in case ytou forgot....the "old stock" was allegedly destroyed....where the fuck THIS shit came from?
Gremlins???

gimme a break, ouuhleeze![/b][/quote]
Serge, you have to remember -- Hussein is a good guy -- he is only world leader who decided not to have or develop WMD, even though every other country in the world is trying to make them or get them, including countries he was at war with, like Iran.

He wanted to be at a disadvantage, you see -- I bet he threatened death to any scientist/technician who tried to build or develop any WMD systems.

Foxnews just came on and said that mustard gas shells were found 2 weeks ago.

Exactly, and truth be told, what convienient coincedence again eh Mike..

plus FYI buff, the shell was a single occurance, and it was from those old pre 1991 gulf war stock plies, that mister donald rumsfeld gave to Saddam to fight the itranians, ( that would be the same iranians we were doing weapons deals with in order to ad the contras, in case you missed that part of history) :D

I mean come on if you find an illegal AK- 47 automatic weapon from some US soldier that stole it from an old base where they were kept before they were destroyed, does that mean that WOW the US civilians ALL have these crazy weapons that are illegal?

it is ONE shell!

and furthermore, since there is no way to detect a smell, or sight, or taste of this sarin gas, what means did they test it with? are we now testing every single bullet shell in a desperate hope to have some merrit to the pack of lies we have been told from the beginning? a little too convienent for me..

but WTF I am just some dumb ass liberal right? use your brains man, look deeper..

Exactly, and truth be told, what convienient coincedence again eh Mike..

plus FYI buff, the shell was a single occurance, and it was from those old pre 1991 gulf war stock plies, that mister donald rumsfeld gave to Saddam to fight the itranians, ( that would be the same iranians we were doing weapons deals with in order to ad the contras, in case you missed that part of history) :D

I mean come on if you find an illegal AK- 47 automatic weapon from some US soldier that stole it from an old base where they were kept before they were destroyed, does that mean that WOW the US civilians ALL have these crazy weapons that are illegal?

it is ONE shell!

and furthermore, since there is no way to detect a smell, or sight, or taste of this sarin gas, what means did they test it with? are we now testing every single bullet shell in a desperate hope to have some merrit to the pack of lies we have been told from the beginning? a little too convienent for me..

but WTF I am just some dumb ass liberal right? use your brains man, look deeper..[/b][/quote]
1. According to you, those stockpiles were destroyed.
2. They found mustard gas too.

1. According to you, those stockpiles were destroyed.
2. They found mustard gas too.[/b][/quote]
how old is the technology of Mustard gas?

I never said the were destroyed, I said the were given to the Iraqi's by Donald rumsfeld, and unfortunatly he has never/ nor will ever tell the truth about what kind of quantities we are talking about so it is too hard to tell what actually happened to the weapons that rumsfeld gave to saddam back in the 80's without the truthful information hell for all we know, Saddam used his whole pile of weapons on the Kurds.

My beef is definatly not pro saddam, my beef is with the lies we are fed, I think we should be informed properly, and then make the choice for our reaction, based on the accurate information.

hmm



Last edited by Buff at May 17 2004, 09:40 AM

OldJeff, howtizer shells are not born with WMDs in them. Who ever loaded the shell with it, probably has some extra lying around.

From what I remeber Sarin does not last to long out on its own and in the heat.

This could be from old stock....

I still have no doubt that Saddam had or THOUGHT he had WMDs. The WORLD thought he did. There was no debate before hand about WMDs being in Iraq.

They are hidden somewhere, maybe in Syria, and/or were destroyed during build up to war.[/b][/quote]
And that is the one point we disagree on Mike.

When we first went in, I did believe there were stockpiles of WMD there.

I wanted to believe that we were going there with honorable intentions.

The events that have unfolded have changed my view.

There in no way I will ever believe that Hussain moved stockpiles of WMD (as Bush claimed he had) while we were gearing up for War, especially since we provided satalite eveidence that we even knew where they were.

If they did get moved under those conditions we should have a 100% turnover in the top echelon of all our intelligence and defense department because NO ONE was doing their job.

Yes Hussain had WMD's at one time, we sold or gave them to him. Bush stating that Iraq posed a threat to the US was an outright lie.

We went to war for Oil Company profits, to get even with Daddy's enemy, and to set up a strong stratigic foothold in the middle east. The WMD story was bullshit to sell the idea to the already frightened American public.

Was it the right thing for America ? We won't know for decades. It was widely believed that Viet Nam and fighting the communist devils was the right thing for America at the time it was happening. In retrospect I would have to say - not so much.

Democracy in Iraq is a joke, the very thought is laughable. Having a democracy is not going to change 1,000 years of hardfast core beliefs. The only reason Democracy works as well as it does in the US is because we do not have an actual culture of our own, the whole melting pot truely did make this country great, the mixing of cultures has done tremendous things for the tolerance levels in the US.

The different factions of Iraqies have hated each other for centuries, a free election is not going to change that.



Last edited by OldJeff at May 17 2004, 10:50 AM

I agree with you that Saddam's WMS were not direct threats to the US. However after 9-11, there was a fundamental shift in the world, or at least for the US.

I do not think Bush went into Iraq to increase his or his friends personal wealth. I think Bush's intentions were honorable.

There is no doubt that tribal conflicts will continue in Iraq for a long time, the borders were randomly drawn up.

Maybe we need to break up Iraq into a few different countries. I know the Turks would be pissed if we gave the Kurds their own country.

There are no simple answers.

Myth -- Saddam Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction.

What do you think Anthrax, Botulism, Smallpox and Sarin are -- a law firm? A dessert? Nuclear devices are not the only weapons of mass destruction. These germs and gases are DEADLY. We know from defecting Iraqi scientists that he has mobile germ warfare labs.

As John Stewart said.....

"Of course we know he had WMDS. We have the receipts"

:okthumb:

France, Russia, and China supplied hussein with a lot more WMD than we did.

France, Russia, and China supplied hussein with a lot more WMD than we did.[/b][/quote]
4 wrongs don't make a right............

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati..._iraqdig17.html

Powell says his assertions were wrong

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday that what he had called "the most dramatic" element of his Feb. 5, 2003, speech to the United Nations was "inaccurate and discredited."
The presentation, considered a key in convincing allies and the American people that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, claimed the existence of mobile biological-weapons laboratories.

"When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me," Powell said yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed, and I regret it," he said.

A CIA spokesman declined comment.

it's going to be interesting for sure. Everyone knew he(saddam)had some, most I feel were destoryed or sent to syria or someplace. now they mabe heading back to iraq.


hey Jeff, can you contact me please sir, I havent heard from anyone there and it's starting to really concern me:(

Hmmm, there's really not enough information on this yet to draw a conclusion.

Let me give you a small f'rinstance:

lets say a guy works for a police department, say, in the south of the US. While on the job, he busts a guy with three guns on him. Two larger weapons, and a smaller, almost "mini" gun. The police guy declares the two big guns, and keeps himself a drop piece for later use. two years later he has to pop a guy that might be threatening him in a alley, and he uses the little drop piece to make it look like the loser had a gun on him.

Now, let's put it in context:

lets say this guy works at a place that produces WMD. The order has come down, more than 10 years ago, to make it all disappear. At that time, the guy gets rid of 99% of the weapons, but he takes a few and hides them under a rock, in his back yard, or maybe under his camel shed. 10 years later, the country is overrun by americans, so he pulls out a few of these old toys and tries to use them to kill him a few of those imperialist pig dogs.

it all depends how you look at it.

Alex

"The first casualty of war is the truth"

alright, it may not be too much, but since it makes the news, your average "joe sixpack" will think we've accomplished something.

:) :salute:

Very true.

How many times have there been "definitive" finds like this?

How many times have they admitted later that "we made a mistake?"

Even a moron knows that a news release like this can cause "your average "joe sixpack" [tp] think we've accomplished something" And it's fairly common knowledge that a retraction will end up on page 30 under the ag report.

Example - how many people are still convinced that we have a bunch of Muslim spies from the military under investigation, in spite of the fact that charges have been dropped against all of them to date?

i would hardly say that finding "something" is the same as "we need to go to war because these fuckers are very dangerous and are threatening the world"

so far in the WMD game... Blix, France and Germany are right... USA wrong.

sucks to be us.

JR how were they right?

From what I have read before the war all 3 thought Iraq had WMDs. There only arguement was that we should stick to sanctions and inspections rather then going to war.

If Iraq has no WMDs, the WORLD was wrong, Saddam was wrong....

Right because none of their boys and girls had to die to prove it?

Right because while they had reports and information, they didn't feel it was enough to go to war over?

I could go on... I am just sort of working on the idea of agreeing with JR... it's having an effect on me.

Alex :zoinks:

JR how were they right?

From what I have read before the war all 3 thought Iraq had WMDs. There only arguement was that we should stick to sanctions and inspections rather then going to war.

If Iraq has no WMDs, the WORLD was wrong, Saddam was wrong....[/b][/quote]
"Right" in that there was no evidence of anything there that justified going to war for.

As Blix pointed out there is a difference between knowing or suspecting something once existed and having evidence that it both continues to exist and is a direct threat.



Last edited by JR at May 17 2004, 12:33 PM

I would go further to say that the arguement of Germany and Blix and others that the inspections process was working and as a result, most of Iraq's weapons were destroyed was more correct that the arguement(s) of Bush and Blair.

I am not saying the UN was a perfect solution or has been through the 90's. I am saying that in this case, history most likely will side with them.



Last edited by JR at May 17 2004, 12:48 PM

WMD's or no WMD's,....Hussein was a cancer as well as anyone who supported him. Consider the US and their Allies like Kemo....

If you think the US is wrong for going to war with IRAQ, that is your opinion. Just remember one thing, you are "FREE" to have that opinion as oppose to some poor peasant in IRAQ who under the dictatorship of Hussein ever expressed an opinion against their Gov't (I use the term Gov't loosly) would have had his head lopped off and handed to his family on a platter.

Buff, I don't suck dick
Bush sucks
face it dude
he's a horrible president
ok BUFFY
why didn't he go UNDER OATH when he spoke to the 9/11 commission
MR RELIGIOUS wouldn't swear to GOD?
fuck him

I think you could more accurately say "The US and their allies are the kemo therapy that was given even though no cancer was found"

Will you tongue kiss him first :nyanya:

well any bush lovers can please post here and tell why
no transcript
no oath
no audio video
and he had to have cheney with him
BULL SHIT
BULL SHIT
BULL SHIT
fuck HIM
And does he speak to God/Jesus by cell phone? landline? net?
he's special jesus talks directly to him
waiting for the rapture
Bush is going to Heaven
are you?

because he does not have to Meni. It is not to his political advantage to testify. stop being an idiot. you think you are making a point and in reality people are tuning you out.

I think you could more accurately say "The US and their allies are the kemo therapy that was given even though no cancer was found"[/b][/quote]
ok...so are you saying Hussein was a good guy? Are you also saying he didn't carry out atrocities against his own people especially the the people that maybe voiced their opinion against him?.....

I think maybe you should travel to the middle east and let us know the quality of life in that region.

The world is more than your 10x10 room with the shades pulled down sitting in front of a computer....

People are so quick to say the US is wrong and the US is this but the first sign of any trouble, everyone wants us to come to their aid....