The W
Views: 101538387
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.12.07 0741
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Is this the Smoking Gun? Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1727 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (29 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1227/4700
EXP: 21727471
For next: 109191

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1329 days
Last activity: 1126 days
#1 Posted on 4.4.03 0713.46
Reposted on: 4.4.10 0718.57
Click Here (foxnews.com)


(edited by Grimis on 4.4.03 0814)
Promote this thread!
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 961/2042
EXP: 6350120
For next: 42679

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3093 days
Last activity: 307 days
#2 Posted on 4.4.03 0819.40
Reposted on: 4.4.10 0822.26

    Originally posted by Grimis
    Click Here (foxnews.com)


    (edited by Grimis on 4.4.03 0814)



"Initial reports are that the material is probably just explosives, but we're still going through the place," the official said.

Not yet, it isn't.

(foxnews.com)

Especially when NewsMax Jr. is the source.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1228/4700
EXP: 21727471
For next: 109191

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1329 days
Last activity: 1126 days
#3 Posted on 4.4.03 0846.37
Reposted on: 4.4.10 0846.45

    Originally posted by vsp
    Especially when NewsMax Jr. is the source.


Then try the AP
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 962/2042
EXP: 6350120
For next: 42679

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3093 days
Last activity: 307 days
#4 Posted on 4.4.03 0857.42
Reposted on: 4.4.10 0859.02

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by vsp
      Especially when NewsMax Jr. is the source.


    Then try the AP



Okay, I will!

"In that particular site, we believe that was the only sample," Brooks said. "That's why we believe it was a training site. Our conclusion is that this was not a (weapons of mass destruction) site ... it proved to be far less than that."

Ding! Fries are done.
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 367/561
EXP: 897461
For next: 49863

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 142 days
Last activity: 142 days
#5 Posted on 4.4.03 0912.49
Reposted on: 4.4.10 0915.42
Let me see if I understand it. They (Coalition forces) find chemical suits and gas masks everywhere they go. They find atropine everywhere they go. And at this new site they found documents explaining how to engage in chemical warfare. Now, can one of you leftists pick your head out of the sand for a minute and explan to me WHY they have this shit if they DON'T have chemical weapons? I guess it's because they want to protect themselves when the evil americans drop VX on their ass. RIGHT.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 963/2042
EXP: 6350120
For next: 42679

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3093 days
Last activity: 307 days
#6 Posted on 4.4.03 0941.50
Reposted on: 4.4.10 0942.15

    Originally posted by Bizzle Izzle
    Let me see if I understand it. They (Coalition forces) find chemical suits and gas masks everywhere they go. They find atropine everywhere they go. And at this new site they found documents explaining how to engage in chemical warfare. Now, can one of you leftists pick your head out of the sand for a minute and explan to me WHY they have this shit if they DON'T have chemical weapons? I guess it's because they want to protect themselves when the evil americans drop VX on their ass. RIGHT.


I will quote the article one more time.

On April 1, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, in a statement on Iraqi television, repeated Baghdad's position that it had no weapons of mass destruction. Referring to reports that gas masks and other chemical gear had been found elsewhere in the country, he said the coalition might plant weapons of mass destruction to implicate Iraq.

"Let me say one more time that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction," he said.

"The aggressors may themselves intend to bring those materials to plant them here and say those are weapons of mass destruction," he said.


A large portion of Bush's justification for war was his repeated insistence that _no matter what_ the inspectors did or didn't find, Saddam had WMDs. One of those "gut feelings" that Bush relies on so strongly, y'know. Either Saddam does not have WMDs, or he has them stashed away securely enough that they have escaped all detection efforts so far. (Both are legitimate possibilities, I will grant.)

Considering all of that, if YOU were Saddam, would you discount the possibility that the American military would conduct its own inspections in a matter similar to a Monty Python sketch, or release a chemical weapon in a controlled manner themselves and scream "OOH! OOH! See? There ARE chemical weapons in Iraq!" as loudly as possible?

I'm not saying that it's GOING to happen. But if you were in Saddam's shoes, wouldn't you at least plan for that contingency, regardless of whether you possessed those weapons or had any plans of using them yourself?

"America would never use chemical weapons on a battlefield," you'll say. I beg to differ.


cranlsn
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 375/1208
EXP: 2866815
For next: 2943

Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 47 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#7 Posted on 4.4.03 0949.50
Reposted on: 4.4.10 0954.32
Oh BS!!!

Based on what? I am so sick of people who see our government as one giant conspiracy.

There is documented proof that Iraq has used WOMD on it's own people in the past, yet you choose to believe them at every turn?

I give up.
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 105/259
EXP: 286109
For next: 22004

Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2604 days
Last activity: 707 days
#8 Posted on 4.4.03 1053.52
Reposted on: 4.4.10 1058.17
Yo, I don't here VSE believing Iraq.

I hear him saying nothing's been proven, and the presence of chemical suits doesn't mean jack, since they could be for defensive purposes. It would just be dumb for Iraq not to have them.

When the stockpile of weapons ready chemicals are found, that's the proof. AND - frankly, I'm not believing any reports out of Iraq unless they are confirmed, and still thought to be true a few days after the initial report. There is a lot of incorrect crap being reported by everyone, just because of the conditions.
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 701/1008
EXP: 2161346
For next: 52763

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3965 days
Last activity: 3934 days
#9 Posted on 4.4.03 1054.27
Reposted on: 4.4.10 1059.01

    Originally posted by vsp


    "America would never use chemical weapons on a battlefield," you'll say. I beg to differ.





This point is so wrong it's not even funny. Tear Gas is not lethal. Tear Gas is not Anthrax or nerve gas or a biological agent. Tear Gas won't make you die a horrible death. Hell, Tear Gas is riot control. Comparing Tear Gas to Anthrax makes about as much sense as you saying "America would never use Nuclear weapons on a battlefield!" and posting a link about grenades because they both blow up.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1229/4700
EXP: 21727471
For next: 109191

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1329 days
Last activity: 1126 days
#10 Posted on 4.4.03 1056.10
Reposted on: 4.4.10 1059.03
    Originally posted by vsp
    "America would never use chemical weapons on a battlefield," you'll say. I beg to differ.

Isn't it QUITE a stretch to equate horrible lethal VX, Mustard Gas, Nerve gas, etc. to non-lethal TEAR gas?


(edited by Grimis on 4.4.03 1156)
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1438/3273
EXP: 12858493
For next: 232860

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 258 days
Last activity: 59 days
#11 Posted on 4.4.03 1056.49
Reposted on: 4.4.10 1059.04
And why shouldn't we continue to believe Iraq? While I do think that somewhere, somehow, Iraq probably has WMD or the basis for WMD the US has not found them.

So I'll wait and see. I believe that the US really wants to find those WMD, and that they eventually will find them. But until they do, there is no direct evidence to support the claim of Iraq having WMD.

-Jag
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 966/2042
EXP: 6350120
For next: 42679

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3093 days
Last activity: 307 days
#12 Posted on 4.4.03 1102.23
Reposted on: 4.4.10 1107.41

    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by vsp
      "America would never use chemical weapons on a battlefield," you'll say. I beg to differ.

    Isn't it QUITE a stretch to equate horrible lethal VX, Mustard Gas, Nerve gas, etc. to non-lethal TEAR gas?


    (edited by Grimis on 4.4.03 1156)



Quotage:

Riot-control agents may be used behind battlefield lines, to quell riots or control prisoners being transported, but the chemical weapons convention says riot-control agents may not be used as a "method of warfare." Signatories feared their deployment might escalate to the use of lethal chemicals and had done so in the past.

In four major uses of chemical weapons in the past by combatants in World War I; by the Italians in Ethiopia; by the Egyptians in Yemen; and in the Iran-Iraq war deployment was preceded by use of non-lethal agents, Harris said. The framers of the convention therefore sought to draw a clear line against use of all chemical agents on the battlefield.


If our Commander-in-Chief is so worried that Saddam will use chemical warfare on our troops (or Americans in general)... does he REALLY want to be the first in this conflict to introduce _any kind_ of chemical agents to the battlefield, or to give Saddam any reason at all to say "Look, THEY violated the Chemical Weapons Convention FIRST," and feel more justified in launching whatever he may or may not have in retaliation? Non-lethal or not, you _just don't go there_ in this situation.
Venom
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 197/501
EXP: 740396
For next: 25813

Since: 15.1.03

Since last post: 2665 days
Last activity: 2635 days
#13 Posted on 4.4.03 1139.26
Reposted on: 4.4.10 1141.53
Short of Saddam Hussein knocking on some of these people's doors and shoving a can of mustard gas right up their asses, they just won't believe it. Someone in my American Politics class actually said, "Colin Powell doesn't want to discuss the Chemical Weapons site (in Southern Iraq) so that they have time to plant anthrax and nerve gas there." Do you understand the level of irrationality you're dealing with here?
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 967/2042
EXP: 6350120
For next: 42679

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3093 days
Last activity: 307 days
#14 Posted on 4.4.03 1151.39
Reposted on: 4.4.10 1151.54
UN inspectors visited the white-powder site in question at least TWELVE TIMES. They found no reportable WMDs.

The US military visits the site, and suddenly there are chants of "smoking gun, smoking gun, we found WMDs" rising up.

Do you understand the level of skepticism that _you're_ dealing with here?
Venom
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 198/501
EXP: 740396
For next: 25813

Since: 15.1.03

Since last post: 2665 days
Last activity: 2635 days
#15 Posted on 4.4.03 1156.06
Reposted on: 4.4.10 1156.11

    Originally posted by vsp
    UN inspectors visited the white-powder site in question at least TWELVE TIMES. They found no reportable WMDs.

    The US military visits the site, and suddenly there are chants of "smoking gun, smoking gun, we found WMDs" rising up.

    Do you understand the level of skepticism that _you're_ dealing with here?



My point wasn't about the site...my point is that even if they do find what they're looking for, it won't be good enough because we'll have excuses and conspiracy theories flowing from the left like shit from a sewer pipe.
The Vile1
Lap cheong
Level: 80

Posts: 166/1694
EXP: 4672656
For next: 110333

Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2072 days
Last activity: 1804 days
#16 Posted on 4.4.03 1216.04
Reposted on: 4.4.10 1220.41
Jaguar, doesn't the fact that Iraq used scud missiles early on in this conflict support the fact that they might have illegal weapons of mass destruction? They illegally had scud missiles under UN sanctions and resolutions so if they already lied about scuds they would probably lie about other things. Iraq has proven itself to be untrust worthy in this matter already.
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 23/274
EXP: 302400
For next: 5713

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3965 days
Last activity: 3911 days
#17 Posted on 4.4.03 1225.05
Reposted on: 4.4.10 1225.20
Let me see if I understand it. They (Coalition forces) find chemical suits and gas masks everywhere they go. They find atropine everywhere they go. And at this new site they found documents explaining how to engage in chemical warfare. Now, can one of you leftists pick your head out of the sand for a minute and explan to me WHY they have this shit if they DON'T have chemical weapons?

Well, every frigging army in the world has chemical suits and gas masks and atropine. Saying it's proof that they have chemical weapons is like saying me owning a bulletproof vest is proof that I own guns.

More to the point, nobody disputes that the Iraqi army used to have a shitload of chemical weapons, which were in large part (if you believe the Republicans) or entirely (if you don't) destroyed in 1992. I somehow doubt they'd destroy their infantry's chemical defensive gear at the same time, because the latter can be used in a strictly defensive sense, and Israel does have VX.

The same goes for the manuals. Oooh, they have books telling them how to make chemical weapons! Without the ingredients, and nobody has confirmed any finding of those yet, those are just pretty storybooks.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1202/2114
EXP: 6686564
For next: 229364

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#18 Posted on 4.4.03 1230.40
Reposted on: 4.4.10 1235.03
That the Iraqis have Chemical and Biological weapons I buy a lot more than that they're in league with Al Quada.

But regardless, printing completely speculative and unproven stuff about both links and calling it proof hurts the pro-war arguement a lot more than it helps it.
FurryHippie
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 399/788
EXP: 1473443
For next: 12494

Since: 29.10.02
From: New York

Since last post: 3040 days
Last activity: 1727 days
AIM:  
#19 Posted on 6.4.03 1512.56
Reposted on: 6.4.10 1521.05

    Originally posted by godking
    Oooh, they have books telling them how to make chemical weapons! Without the ingredients, and nobody has confirmed any finding of those yet, those are just pretty storybooks.


But, um....doesn't that kind of LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE something fishy is going on? There's how-to books on chemical weapons, but just because we haven't SEEN the weapons yet, we can discredit the finding of the INSTRUCTION BOOK? I don't think so. The Iraqi's didn't buy those "pretty storybooks" just to read...
Lexus
Bierwurst
Level: 84

Posts: 238/1857
EXP: 5507717
For next: 154259

Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 6.4.03 1743.45
Reposted on: 6.4.10 1750.06

    Originally posted by Bizzle Izzle
    Let me see if I understand it. They (Coalition forces) find chemical suits and gas masks everywhere they go. They find atropine everywhere they go. And at this new site they found documents explaining how to engage in chemical warfare. Now, can one of you leftists pick your head out of the sand for a minute and explan to me WHY they have this shit if they DON'T have chemical weapons? I guess it's because they want to protect themselves when the evil americans drop VX on their ass. RIGHT.


Walks like a duck, eats like a duck, swims like a duck, sounds like a duck, but it ain't a duck.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: One of the First Things That Needs To Be Done After the War
Next thread: Self Love 101
Previous thread: Middle Ages were warmer than today
(1727 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Is this the Smoking Gun?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.285 seconds.