[Logic]

by Icelandic bombexperts

BBC(damn biased newsagency) did of course not say that it was the Icelanders but instead claimed the Danes found it.

So what do you think? Yet another false claim or at last something substancial?

BBC



edit: added the smileys I forgot earlier.....

[daimoni]

.

[chaldean oracle]

Well. Sounds like they may be real. It also sounds like they were left over from the Iran/Iraq war, in which we gave Iraq material and 'moral' support.

[eklipse]

[Face Ache]

Anything that leaky must be an imminent threat.

[version]

The inspection team have said they are remnants from the Iraq/Iraq war, and that they have been buried for at least 10 years. So basically these are nothing, even the Iraqis probably had no memory of such a few items.

I'm still waiting for the chemical weapons that the Coalition talked about, the ones that could be used imminently, the ones which Powell and co. knew were there, and had satellite photos to prove it; the ones that were the reason for invasion. It's pretty obvious that ancient warheads, such asd these, would be lying around, underground.

[daimoni]

.

[rampant]

LOL, nice try at a title, it's not even close.

They're 10 year old shells which may contain blistering agents which may be used to make a chemical weapon (if they weren't 10 years old and completely forgotten).

Yes, this is excellent justification for invading Iraq.

[MacGorilla]

Buried in a swamp and forgotten. OOOOOOOOOOOOO Iraq is SOOOO guilty!

[rampant]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Buried in a swamp and forgotten. OOOOOOOOOOOOO Iraq is SOOOO guilty!

Careful now, that's terrorism talk.

[DeathToWindows]

rolls eyes at the collective stupidity of bush and co.

[lil'babykitten]

Well this supposed finding hasn't amounted to much.

Still waiting for those weapons that were such an 'imminent' danger....

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Well this supposed finding hasn't amounted to much.

Still waiting for those weapons that were such an 'imminent' danger....

{pssst} the bush apologists are denying that WMDs were ever a justification. It was regime change all along....pass it on...the new password is "regime change"......{psst}

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
{pssst} the bush apologists are denying that WMDs were ever a justification. It was regime change all along....pass it on...the new password is "regime change"......{psst}

HAH when did that happen? I haven't been reading the forums today!
Well we already spotted the ever changing justifications for war. I'm not surprised.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
{pssst} the bush apologists are denying that WMDs were ever a justification. It was regime change all along....pass it on...the new password is "regime change"......{psst}

WMDs? Who ever said anything about WMDs?

[lil'babykitten]

Why the 's' in WMD? does that not make it read 'weapons of mass destructions'?

[Beewee]

Originally posted by Logic:

So what do you think? Yet another false claim or at last something substancial?

BBC
[/B]

So Bush must have meant that Iraq wasn't allowed any WMDs even those ones that they buried for a decade and forgot about.


And haven't you guys been watching, WMDs are old that new thing is "Iraqi Insurgents". I wonder if he knows "Charlie" well at any rate they seem to be having as tough a time finding the Insurgents as they were when they were looking for the WMDs.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Why the 's' in WMD? does that not make it read 'weapons of mass destructions'?

Excellent point! Why double pluralize something that doesn't even exist in the singular?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Beewee:
... at any rate they seem to be having as tough a time finding the Insurgents as they were when they were looking for the WMDs.

At least there is some evidence that these 'insurgents' actually exist

[perryp]

surprise surprise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3407853.stm

[chaldean oracle]

Originally posted by perryp:
surprise surprise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3407853.stm

Ah, thanks perry. I was wondering what had come of this story...

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by version:
I'm still waiting for the chemical weapons that the Coalition talked about, the ones that could be used imminently

Well then you're going to be waiting forever, because the use of force was preemptive. The US was not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Well then you're going to be waiting forever, because the use of force was preemptive. The US was not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

spin.

[WinsOBoogi]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Well then you're going to be waiting forever, because the use of force was preemptive. The US was not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

Wasn't that the reasoning that the US used in the State of the Union, in Congress when they voted to go to war, as justification to the UN?

When will you ****ing Republicans finally admit that the reasons stated for going in were untrue? Huh? Any takers? Anyone see a problem with this? Anyone?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Well then you're going to be waiting forever, because the use of force was preemptive. The US was not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

No.

Invasion happened because Iraq was a threat, and to hinder Iraq from realizing that threat.

It wasn't because Iraq was threatening to *become* a threat until after it became clear that there never *was* a threat.

What you were thinking is just Retroactive Rejustification� at work.

-s*

[Zimphire]

Iraq was a threat. Get your head out of the sand.

Even your hero Billy Clinton said so.


Funny, when Bill was saying the SAME THINGS NONE of you called HIM a liar, or said he was making things up.

Don't think you anti-bushies aren't transparent as glass.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Keep on dancing around that maypole flag in your earth friendly hempware proclaiming yourself lovers of humanity!

The irony.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Iraq was a threat. Get your head out of the sand.

with what? words? plans? funny that when it was shown that the US had contingency plans to take over middle eastern oil in the '70's it is dismissed as just that, plans, idle threats. however, when iraq is shown to have nothing more than plans for WMD's, it is then, in fact, a threat, a menace.

the US didn't (as far as i know) move troops to the middle east. iraq has not been shown to have a working chemical/nuclear program running in this century.

i don't know about others, but i remember their being talk of a smoking gun being a mushroom cloud over manhattan - never, well there could be an iraqi mushroom cloud over manhattan. like they had solid evidence that this was an imminent possibility.

the same was said of chemical weapons.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Even your hero Billy Clinton said so.


Funny, when Bill was saying the SAME THINGS NONE of you called HIM a liar, or said he was making things up.

Don't think you anti-bushies aren't transparent as glass.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Keep on dancing around that maypole flag in your earth friendly hempware proclaiming yourself lovers of humanity!

The irony.

both clinton and bush are/were president's of the US - a country that relies on oil for it's economy and might. both would have been happy to see a western-friendly regime in iraq.

from your link.

[QUOTE]The president said the U.S. had the military means to achieve the objective and secure the "vital strategic interests" of the United States in the Gulf region.

...

Aziz also rejected the U.S. assertion that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are a threat to neighboring countries.

"Among all our neighbors, only Kuwait has joined the American plan to attack Iraq," he said. "So if all our neighbors are really threatened by us, why didn't they join the (U.S.-led) coalition."[\QUOTE]

wasn't kuwait the one that was stealing iraq's "vital strategic interests" in the first place?

p.s. a little OT. sorry.
p.p.s i don't know why the quote isn't indented.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by adamk:
with what? words? plans? funny that when it was shown that the US had contingency plans to take over middle eastern oil in the '70's it is dismissed as just that, plans, idle threats. however, when iraq is shown to have nothing more than plans for WMD's, it is then, in fact, a threat, a menace.

Having plans for WMDs is a threat enough. Nip it in the bud.

Some people want a attack first. That is bad planning.

Would Saddam have attacked had he had the means? I don't think anyone would argue that.

You get the enemy before he has a chance. Best odds.

the US didn't (as far as i know) move troops to the middle east. iraq has not been shown to have a working chemical/nuclear program running in this century.

And it wont. Thanks to the invasion.

i don't know about others, but i remember their being talk of a smoking gun being a mushroom cloud over manhattan - never, well there could be an iraqi mushroom cloud over manhattan. like they had solid evidence that this was an imminent possibility.

the same was said of chemical weapons.

Iraq DID have chemical weapons, and was planning for nuclear ones. I guess we should just have waited till they got all their ducks in a row before we attacked. That would have made TONS more sense.

both clinton and bush are/were president's of the US - a country that relies on oil for it's economy and might. both would have been happy to see a western-friendly regime in iraq.

Or they BOTH could have seen Iraq for what it was.

I was pointing out no one here in this thread was calling Clinton the same names for thinking the same things and saying them as well.

That was my point.

This is just political.

Funny how the left like to call the right un-compassionate, but the left have no problems going to tirades about how us freeing the Iraqi citizens was a waste of money.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Having plans for WMDs is a threat enough. Nip it in the bud.

against mini-nukes? glad to hear it.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Some people want a attack first. That is bad planning.

against bush's foreign policy as well? maybe we see eye-to-eye on more than i thought.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Would Saddam have attacked had he had the means? I don't think anyone would argue that.

[emphasis mine] he may have. he may not have. i don't know.

my point is that he was never in a position to decide what to do with his WMD arsenal, because no one has been able to show that he had an arsenal when we invaded/occupied/liberated last year.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And it wont. Thanks to the invasion.

thanks for pointing out the obvious. guess it bears repeating though.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Iraq DID have chemical weapons, and was planning for nuclear ones. I guess we should just have waited till they got all their ducks in a row before we attacked. That would have made TONS more sense.

agreed. having all their ducks in a row would be a bad thing. but, as this thread and countless previous threads have wondered is, to use your analogy, where are the ducks!?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I was pointing out no one here in this thread was calling Clinton the same names for thinking the same things and saying them as well.

That was my point.

This is just political.

i don't think the political/war lounge was around then, but, i see the point you are trying to make. my guess, which happen to be my personal feelings, is that many against the war would be happy with the sabre-rattling of bush as well, had he not actually wielded the sword.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Funny how the left like to call the right un-compassionate, but the left have no problems going to tirades about how us freeing the Iraqi citizens was a waste of money.

next the north koreans? pakistani's? saudi's? chinese?

if liberating people from repressive dictators is the goal of the US, it has it's work cut out for itself. and aside from one of the above countries, we are super friendly with the others. well, maybe not saudi anymore either.

[edited to add: we probaly generate enough money from china to be able to finance their own liberation. we wouldn't have to spend our own money! not sure about the other countries though.]
adam

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by adamk:
against mini-nukes? glad to hear it.

Er no having plans to make WMDs is enough reason to attack Iraq

against bush's foreign policy as well? maybe we see eye-to-eye on more than i thought.

You took that out of context. How dishonest.

[emphasis mine] he may have. he may not have. i don't know.

my point is that he was never in a position to decide what to do with his WMD arsenal, because no one has been able to show that he had an arsenal when we invaded/occupied/liberated last year.

Er he did have them. He admitted to having them. UN inspectors tagged a few. Do you not remember what got Iraq into trouble in the first place?

thanks for pointing out the obvious. guess it bears repeating though.

It does. Because we now have no worries about weather or not Saddam is going to start a nuclear program.

agreed. having all their ducks in a row would be a bad thing. but, as this thread and countless previous threads have wondered is, to use your analogy, where are the ducks!?

Ask Saddam. Wait, he isn't talking either.

My guess is they are buried way deep in the sand. Needle and a haystack.

i don't think the political/war lounge was around then, but, i see the point you are trying to make.

No, the political/war lounge was created after Bush got the presidency because the liberal crybabies were flooding the regular forum with the same nonsense day after day. Before that the politics threads went into the lounge. And such things were discussed. No one was up in arms, no one was calling Clinton a liar. No one was asking Clinton to PROVE Iraq was a threat. Hell Clinton didn't even go to the UN before he bombed them.

my guess, which happen to be my personal feelings, is that many against the war would be happy with the sabre-rattling of bush as well, had he not actually wielded the sword.

So people respect all talk, no action? BTW Clinton wielded the sword too. He just didn't finish the job. He was too spineless.

next the north koreans? pakistani's? saudi's? chinese?

Who knows, I am not in the position to make such decisions.

if liberating people from repressive dictators is the goal of the US, it has it's work cut out for itself. and aside from one of the above countries, we are super friendly with the others. well, maybe not saudi anymore either.

It wasn't the MAIN goal I am sure. But it was one of them.

We started it in 91, it should have been finished in the 90s. But it wasn't. Lots of Iraqi's felt America was worthless because of it. They thought the same thing would happen this time.
Thankfully we proved them wrong.

Saddam was captured. He will no longer be causing the world any grief.

[adamk]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You took that out of context. How dishonest.

yes i did take it out of context. sorry, i thought that was plain enough to see. guess i need to start using those smiley things.

my problem was that those statements, written as they were in general terms, implied that you were against development of nukes (including bush's mini-nukes) and "attacking first" which is analogous to bush's policy of pre-emption.

it is my position that all things should be taken on equal footing. saying that having plans to develop WMD's is bad, must be that, bad. for bush to the possibility that saddam was developing WMD capability, when we are doing the same, is the very definition of hypocrisy, no? if not, how can you condemn an action, and then undertake it yourself. dreaming, i know, but i'm not the ... la la la.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Er he did have them. He admitted to having them. UN inspectors tagged a few. Do you not remember what got Iraq into trouble in the first place?

yes, i am aware. that is why i said this century - post 2000. correct me if i'm wrong, but the last time saddam used gas was in 1991-1992?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
My guess is they are buried way deep in the sand. Needle and a haystack.

could be. some MiG's were buried out there, and destroyed in the process, under several feet of snow. the US has plenty of naval aircraft that are able to detect very slight variations in the magnetic field, mainly used to detect submarines under thousands of feet of water, which certainly are being used to scour the desert. not sure of the applicability, but since iraq is composed of mainly sedimentary rocks, there are none/little ore bodies to interfere with that search. plus any large-scale operation to bury things in the sand should have been noticed by US satelittes, recon planes and/or drones since we essentially owned iraqi airspace since 1991. disturbed desert sand is pretty easy to detect. heck, there were tank tracks from the first gulf war still present years after that was over.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Saddam was captured. He will no longer be causing the world any grief.

no. he won't. not unless his posse busts him out of jail.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Er no having plans to make WMDs is enough reason to attack Iraq
[/b][/B]

erm......no.

[Visnaut]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
having plans to make WMDs is enough reason to attack Iraq

Crimethink is ungood.

[chris v]

Look! we found.... oh, well..... never mind.

Neeeext?

CV

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Visnaut:
Crimethink is ungood.

That's doubleplusungood! Minilove will be visiting soon.


BG

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
That's doubleplusungood! Minilove will be visiting soon.


BG

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.


(couldn't resist)

[chris v]

Good news, though! The rice ration is being increased from two cups to one cup a day!

CV

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
erm......no.

erm....yes

I hear a maypole calling your name.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
erm....yes

I hear a maypole calling your name.

you have amazing hearing.



but to query: exactly why do you think that is a justification for invasion?

[ghost_flash]

We went in and finished what we should have
done in the first place in Desert Storm.

WMD or not, Bush did the right thing, and that
really pisses off the left, because Clinton should
have done it but his balls were in someone's
mouth at the time...and the rest of the time
they were in his wife's purse.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
We went in and finished what we should have
done in the first place in Desert Storm.

WMD or not, Bush did the right thing, and that
really pisses off the left, because Clinton should
have done it but his balls were in someone's
mouth at the time...and the rest of the time
they were in his wife's purse.

LOL! you're funny.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! you're funny.

How am I funny?
Like a Clown funny?
What?
Am I here to amuse you?
Hm?

Why not.

[Lerkfish]

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Having plans for WMDs is a threat enough. Nip it in the bud.

Isn't the US planning to expand it's nuclear weapons arsenal?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Isn't the US planning to expand it's nuclear weapons arsenal?

I don't think so, why do you ask?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I don't think so, why do you ask?

apparently, you've not been following news reports on Bush planning development of tactical mini-nukes, and other WMD advances......

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
apparently, you've not been following news reports on Bush planning development of tactical mini-nukes, and other WMD advances......

Oh-boy! A mini-nuke! will it be called an
iNuke?

I love it. Now we can just wipe out the bad
guys and not endanger any of ours in the
process. It's called war, and acceptable
collateral damage, or how about this
for reality.

We have them, you don't, and we will use
them so get rid of any of yours so we can
get you to free those millions of slaves you
have in NORTH KOREA.

Mini-nuke a palace or two, and they'll get
the messsage. This would actually reduce
the amount of collateral damage and save
our US troops.

I know you hate this, but what is your
alternative? I would really like to see one.

You seriously think this work has not been
done under a Democratic president? Naive.

BTW: France has been working on these
devices for years! It's called BODY ODOR.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Oh-boy! A mini-nuke! will it be called an
iNuke?

I love it. Now we can just wipe out the bad
guys and not endanger any of ours in the
process. It's called war, and acceptable
collateral damage, or how about this
for reality.

We have them, you don't, and we will use
them so get rid of any of yours so we can
get you to free those millions of slaves you
have in NORTH KOREA.

Mini-nuke a palace or two, and they'll get
the messsage. This would actually reduce
the amount of collateral damage and save
our US troops.

I know you hate this, but what is your
alternative? I would really like to see one.

You seriously think this work has not been
done under a Democratic president? Naive.

BTW: France has been working on these
devices for years! It's called BODY ODOR.

matthew, you really need to check your medication.

that was a very long trip into rantsville for what little I posted.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
matthew, you really need to check your medication.

that was a very long trip into rantsville for what little I posted.

I'll bite::: Who is Matthew?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I'll bite::: Who is Matthew?

matthew_m, someone who shares you POV and who was apparently banned from the political lounge immediately before you showed up. You were just reminiscent of his rants...

regardless, you were really straying far afield from my point. You were stating you didn't think the US was trying to increase its arsenal of WMD, and I was pointing out that they were...from there you sort of leapfrogged into the stratosphere.