Massive Chemical Weapons Factory Discovered [Archive]

TheMojoPin

03-23-2003, 04:04 PM

And just to try and clarify something REALLY kooky I've started hearing in the last few days...are there are people who honestly believe IRAQ was behind the anthrax scare over a year ago? I mean, the diabolical plan of Hussein was to mail a couple of LETTERS? Please, PLEASE tell me that this isn't a common assumption.

And to clarify my own statement above, if I didn't think Saddam would use his WMD's when they were at their peak in the 80's and early 90's, why would I suddenly assume he'd use them over a decade later when these programs are at a fraction of their capacity and his power and hold on his country is the weakest it's been basically since he first came to power? Like I've said before, this is another example of the half-truths and assumptions that made me wary of the "official" reasoning behind the war to begin with. Saddam and co. are responsible for so much REAL and PROVEN evil shit, it just seems so shady and unecessary to practically be making shit up or GUESSING about what he MIGHT do. It makes us look wishy-washy. If we just went with what was already PROVEN, odds are we could have gotten more support (Except the for French, of course), and we could have just taken out any WMD programs and facilities we came across anyways.

But either way, I AM glad we found the stuff. I'm just a little disapointed in everything we lost to get to it and how retarded we had to look to do so.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-23-03 @ 8:12 PM

JrZee Tom

03-23-2003, 04:16 PM

Steels

03-23-2003, 04:17 PM

are there are people who honestly believe IRAQ was behind the anthrax scare over a year ago? I mean, the diabolical plan of Hussein was to mail a couple of LETTERS? Please, PLEASE tell me that this isn't a common assumption.

For the record, that theory was never implied in this thread.

As for the rest of you're post, I'd like to know where you get you're information from because I believe it to be incorrect.

You're post sounded alarmingly prepared, kinda like an attorney waiting for the prosecution's star "eyewitness" with an explanation clearing his client of any wrongdoing.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

This message was edited by Steels on 3-23-03 @ 8:35 PM

Death Metal Moe

03-23-2003, 04:19 PM

TheMojoPin

03-23-2003, 04:25 PM

Well he was making them for SOME reason. And I highly doubt he was just going to pile them up and count them. He used them on his own people many times. Maybe he was waiting for something we don't know about. I don't have there answers but I am of the mind that he would give/sell them to any terrorists that wanted them.

I can only know with what I know.

1. Originally there were developed to be used against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. Hardly a "clean" way to fight, but it WAS in the context of a "real war."

2. If he's so jumpy to use them in a combat situation, why weren't they used in Kuwait to keep the people in line or against the American troops? Hey, I think it's the most likely cause of "Gulf War Syndrome", but as yet we haven't been able to prove that, or even figure out what's causing all the sickness, period. And back then, he had God-knows-how-more of this shit than he does now, and it would have been much easier to use. His army was operating a full strength (Remember all the "4th largest army in the world" hype?). Even before this latest war, he was all but already beaten into a corner by continued bombings and missile strikes over the last 12 years, as well as the sanctions. Hell, he doesn't even control most of his own country. How much more desperate do you have to be to use these things? It all points to him being a very evil, angry and big-talking dictator, but NOT an extremist. It all DOES point to him being desperate to cling to whatever "power" he has, and using these weapons in ANY capacity (Selling them, tossing them at Israel, etc.) would only result in him being destroyed even quicker than he is now. As with most nations who have developed "bigger" weapons over the years (Bigger bombs, nukes, chem/bio, whatever), it seems pretty frickin' obvious he wanted a deterrent more than anything else. Which IS a bad thing, because if the stuff was in a readily usable state, our troops would be in big trouble now. So it IS a good thing to take it now. But again, it still makes me feel weird because was painted that he's a direct threat to America ITSELF right NOW, which hardly seems to be even close to reality. My confusion and frustration is in the REASONING, not the ACTION of disarming him.

3. Saddam has done MONSTROUS things to his own people, and they're all unforgiveable. For any one of these acts, he deserves to be fragged. But the much-vaunted "gassing of his own people" is another smudging of actual facts that is really unecessary. The gassing was of several thousand (mostly) Kurds in the northern part of Iraq in '91, while our forces were still in the region (Parts of Iraq, Kuwait). The gassing was met with widespread condemnation and often demands for Saddam's removal (One of the loudest was the French, of all people) from around the world, but nothing was done. The US issued a rather blanket condemnation, but quickly moved on to other issues. The reasoning for this is quite simple...a massive number of the people gassed were hardline anti-US Iranian refugees (Not the religious extremists who seized control under the Ayatollah) who had fled to northern Iraq during the business with the Shah in the late 70's/early 80's. So quite simply, it wasn't a big deal with our government because most of these people hated us almost as much if not just as much as they hated Saddam.

Personally, I see no great accusation here. The people killed were mostly our enemies, wanted us dead, but instead they were taken out by an internal conflict and we didn't have to get involved. No big deal. It's just irksome that NOW it's painted as some kind of "senseless genocide that we were powerless to stop." These weren't "his people." He didn't just do it on a whim or because he's crazy. He did it because these were the people who wanted to overthrow him and were in the process of trying to do so very violenty. That doesn't make what Saddam did right or just, but it does give it a REASON. He acted as he did because he knew the US wouldn't respond because for one,

douchebagsean

03-23-2003, 04:37 PM

france was wrong...really...hmm
God i hate those guys
is it possible to accidentally carpet bomb paris on the way to baghdad?

lets go mets!!!

travis151

03-23-2003, 04:46 PM

How sweet it is!!! I love the U.S.A.!!!!!!!!
Not one but Two Iraqi generals in charge of this chemical facility in custody, the 100 arce plant was taken with no loss of life!!! Only 90 miles from Baghdad near the town of Najaf. It just show how the U.N. only finds stuff when they want to. A French chemical/bio team sent to Quatar will now go to the site. Jackpot I'm sure the Iraqi TV will say it was planted but not with two Iraqi generals in custody. May the world bend over as the US and Great Britain double team it. Can't wait to see France turn sides once again. Bless the Souls of Our Troops.

Red Sox=More Better

Captain Rooster

03-23-2003, 04:50 PM

And all this time I have been believing them. Geez, those kidders, I guess they must have misplaced the map to that place.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/TakeaKneeSig.jpg>

Se7en

03-23-2003, 04:51 PM

In related news, the U.N. officials have announced that they had "no idea" that that facility was there.

Yeah, NO SHIT.

All I ask, is PLEASE no one start this "more inspections would have worked!" bullshit now. How long were they inspecting Iraq these past few MONTHS? We found this place within 4 to 5 days of going in.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

TheMojoPin

03-23-2003, 04:55 PM

How long were they inspecting Iraq these past few MONTHS? We found this place within 4 to 5 days of going in.

Why, do we only have a few dozen troops there? Because then the comparison might be a little more realistic. The inspectors did what they could do given the extreme limitations placed on them. The underlying implications that they conciously made efforts to not do or sabotage their assigned tasks is pretty low.

.. eh, I bet we knew about long ago...

Hopefully. But again, why couldn't we have then secretly gotten in touch with the inspectiors and at LEAST dropped a hint along the lines of, "pssssst, go over HERE"? We had CIA agents undercover in previous inspections teams, and it's pretty likely we had some there these last few months.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-23-03 @ 8:59 PM

The Jays

03-23-2003, 04:56 PM

.. eh, I bet we knew about long ago...

 Fuck what you heard.
 That cab has a dent in it. [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

Death Metal Moe

03-23-2003, 05:01 PM

Why, do we only have a few dozen troops there? Because then the comparison might be a little more realistic. The inspectors did what they could do given the extreme limitations placed on them. The underlying implications that they conciously made efforts to not do or sabotage their assigned tasks is pretty low.

Sorry Mojo, but the inspectors only had a small crew because there were NEVER really meant to FIND shit. They were just there to verify the destruction of weapons.

And a LARGER unarmed force of men trying to push around a dictator sounds like a real good way to get the inspectors shot.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!
<A HREF="http://www.pub21.ezboard.com/bonaarmy">JOIN THE O&A ARMY!!!</A>

The Jays

03-23-2003, 05:04 PM

But again, why couldn't we have then secretly gotten in touch with the inspectiors and at LEAST dropped a hint along the lines of, "pssssst, go over HERE"?

... it's our military's information, and would have compromised any mission we might have undertaken, which is now occuring.

More importantly, the US is not responsible for providing evidence. All the UN resolutions make it very clear that Iraq is the one who must provide all evidence. The burden of proof was on them.

 Fuck what you heard.
 That cab has a dent in it. [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

TheMojoPin

03-23-2003, 05:05 PM

Well, which is why I always pushed for getting UN coalition-escorted masses of inspectors. Flood the country with those fucking, gay-looking blue helmets.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

TheMojoPin

03-23-2003, 05:09 PM

... it's our military's information, and would have compromised any mission we might have undertaken, which is now occuring.

More importantly, the US is not responsible for providing evidence. All the UN resolutions make it very clear that Iraq is the one who must provide all evidence. The burden of proof was on them.

Well, then pass it along JUST to the CIA operatives. I'm sure they could get the rest of the group thinking they needed to go to that location...it's part of their training to spread the "right" kind of information when required...

As for the rest, this just fuels my confusion. If our ultimate goal is strictly the disarmament of Iraq, wouldn't we jump on any chance to do so without having to get our own troops in the line of fire? Again, this just makes me think that hardly ANY options were explored...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

The Jays

03-23-2003, 05:16 PM

If our ultimate goal is strictly the disarmament of Iraq, wouldn't we jump on any chance to do so without having to get our own troops in the line of fire? Again, this just makes me think that hardly ANY options were explored...

Our country wanted Iraq to disarm. Iraq specificaly signed a ceasefire saying that they would. In that ceasefire, it outlined that all burden of proof was on them.

Lemme make an analogy.

Say I am the US. Kuwait is my sister. And the UN is my group of friends.

Iraq is the squirrely lil punk kid that used to wash my car. This kid happens to have a sister too. Her name is oil.

I just found out that the kid just fucked my sister. Me and my friends go and beat the shit out of him, and he gives up. We tell him that if he doesnt want to get the shit kicked out of him again, he needs to stop fucking my sisters. Now, I'm not gonna waste my time checking up on him. Instead, I tell him he has to give me evidence that he's not fucking my sisters, and he has to document every instance of where he is, and what his dick is doing. If he fails to give my that evidence, Me and my boys threaten to beat the shit out of him. The kid agrees.

Now, as time goes by, the kid is giving me trouble. He's not making with all the evidence. There are holes in his documentation. He's showing up with his fly unzipped in some instances. But my friends are with me on keeping unified. They threaten, but we don't act. We just let him continue to fuck with us. And one day, he tells us he is not going to provide us with any evidence any more, and that we can go fuck ourselves, and that our threats are just a way to get him to give up his sister so we can have an all out gang bang with her, and many of his other punk friends think we're out to bang his sister too, but the truth is that this girl ain't the most colorful flower in the bouquet.
And I've also been hearing that this kid has been trying to fuck me for sometime now.

Iraq needed to prove itself to the world. It was in their best interest to go and do that, so that sanctions could be lifted, and they could participate on a world level one day. They failed.

 Fuck what you heard.
 That cab has a dent in it. [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

Se7en

03-23-2003, 05:21 PM

Sorry Mojo, but the inspectors only had a small crew because there were NEVER really meant to FIND shit. They were just there to verify the destruction of weapons.

I agree with Moe.

See, I don't believe that the U.N. wanted to find anything. They were there to verify that some weapons were destroyed. They went pissing around a few facilities, making a big show that they were there to ensure that the resolutions were being followed, but no, I don't think they ever planned to expend any energy whatsoever to really find any WMD.

My opinion of the U.N. is THAT low. Lower, actually.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

Death Metal Moe

03-23-2003, 05:30 PM

http://christsbride-min.org/Un%20forces%20helmet%20and%20flag-518071.jpg

For you, Mojo

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!
<A HREF="http://www.pub21.ezboard.com/bonaarmy">JOIN THE O&A ARMY!!!</A>

Ron Zoni

03-23-2003, 05:30 PM

This is a 100 acre facility. How the fuck does the UN miss a 100 acre chemical facility??

TheMojoPin

03-23-2003, 05:32 PM

Bless you, kind sir.

Now I can't stop laughing.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FUNKMAN

03-23-2003, 05:34 PM

where did you find this article, i looked all over the CNN.com site and only found:

Pentagon says U.S. captures facility south of Baghdad which might have produced chemical weapons

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/whats100.jpg">

Steels

03-23-2003, 05:42 PM

Sorry Mojo, but the inspectors only had a small crew because there were NEVER really meant to FIND shit. They were just there to verify the destruction of weapons.

We really shouldn't have to open people's eyes to this.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

The Jays

03-23-2003, 05:44 PM

... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html

 Fuck what you heard.
 That cab has a dent in it. [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

Death Metal Moe

03-23-2003, 05:59 PM

We really shouldn't have to open people's eyes to this.

I know Steels, but I like Mojo. And if we can get him thinking correctly, he'll be a real aid to our cause!

We're just gonna have to swing down to DC in the A-Team van, pick him up, and get him to a "readjustment" camp!

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!
<A HREF="http://www.pub21.ezboard.com/bonaarmy">JOIN THE O&A ARMY!!!</A>

shamus mcfitzy

03-23-2003, 06:10 PM

i guess the UN inspectors suck, war was completely justified..........oh wait i don't give a shit if Saddam has weapons. I think that he was making them in order to protect himself, and guess what, i still do. When the US goes in and tries to take him out, without even Europe's support, he'll be pissed enough to use them, or give them out to terrorists. We should've let him die, and stormed in when the country was in chaos, not told them "we're coming in" nine months beforehand, and given him time to prepare.

Death Metal Moe

03-23-2003, 07:17 PM

Well that's foolish Shamus.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!
<A HREF="http://www.pub21.ezboard.com/bonaarmy">JOIN THE O&A ARMY!!!</A>

Steels

03-23-2003, 07:23 PM

i guess the UN inspectors suck, war was completely justified

That's the ticket!

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

EffMeBoobs

03-23-2003, 07:36 PM

Now aren't you glad we're taking down one less chemical factory? If we didn't, it surely would have thrived into something worse and something none of us can fathom. And fuck anyone who thinks we needed to give Saddam et al more time. Trust me he had no plans to take down any of these chemical factories.

<img src=http://hometown.aol.com/lqqieee/effmenew.gif>

TooCute

03-23-2003, 09:00 PM

FiveB247

03-23-2003, 09:13 PM

Why doesn't everyone wait to we have proof of everything and not just jump the gun. Seems like many of you want to prove a point without having all the data and evidence in. Yes they discovered a chemical plant. They haven't announced anything more then that. No discovery of WMD, biological agents, chemicals, etc...As of now...they announced it's just a plant. Let's see what they announce before screaming...haha I told you so.

FUNKMAN

03-23-2003, 09:27 PM

Why doesn't everyone wait to we have proof of everything and not just jump the gun

Not to be the party pooper or anything, but I haven't heard anywhere that it was a chemical weapons facility

my thought exactly...

and i heard if they do not find any of these illegal chemicals Bush has a plan to plant some of his own...

he's going with the Mustard but can't decide between Gulden's Golden Brown or French's Yellow

and he's gonna put some Anthrax in too but has to wait for UPS to deliver the CD...

:)

yeah I know, it's a reach!

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/anthology100.gif">

This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 3-24-03 @ 9:02 AM

Se7en

03-23-2003, 09:33 PM

Not to be the party pooper or anything, but I haven't heard anywhere that it was a chemical weapons facility... only that it was a chemical facility that could potentially have produced chemical weapons. Not that I think it wasn't, but you never want to jump the gun...

The fact that it was being guarded by a few troops and an Iraqi general leads me to believe that SOMETHING is there (or was there until recently), rather than it being just an abandoned facility.

I'm confident that they'll find something. Either chem weapons, or they'll find evidence that Iraq has been producing and / or filling them there.

If and when they do find something, I am going to unleash a great many "I told you so" 's. I'll be goddamn insufferable.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

TooCute

03-23-2003, 09:38 PM

If and when they do find something, I am going to unleash a great many "I told you so" 's. I'll be goddamn insufferable.

Who are you going to be telling "I told you so" to?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

FUNKMAN

03-23-2003, 09:39 PM

If and when they do find something, I am going to unleash a great many "I told you so" 's. I'll be goddamn insufferable.

that's a funny choice of words, thanks for the laugh!
:)

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/anthology100.gif">

Steels

03-23-2003, 09:46 PM

Funkman, TooCute and FiveB have a point. Perhaps the General arrested went by the name of "Thunderbolt" and the factory was producing "Gamma Radiation" opposed to chemical weapons.

Hey Funkman....keep laughing.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

TheMojoPin

03-23-2003, 09:48 PM

Who are you going to be telling "I told you so" to?

The imaginary people here who have been saying there aren't any chemical weapons whatsoever.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

03-23-2003, 09:48 PM

At this point....regardless of arguements sake...do you really want to find out that Iraq has chemical, biological and WMD's with our troops now in range of these items (if they really have them)? You all talk about all these issues but don't regard where and when they apply. It's like you want Saddam to use them so you can be right! It's sick!

Steels

03-23-2003, 10:02 PM

At this point....regardless of arguments sake...do you really want to find out that Iraq has chemical, biological and WMD's with our troops now in range of these items (if they really have them)? You all talk about all these issues but don't regard where and when they apply. It's like you want Saddam to use them so you can be right! It's sick!

You are trying to be a manipulative little shit. You know God damn well that is not the case. This factory was discovered and taken over by United states troops without compromising the lives and health of anyone. This was a gargantuan victory for all that are unfortunately in that country.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

The Blowhard

03-23-2003, 10:37 PM

Coalition forces discovered Sunday a "huge" suspected chemical weapons factory near the Iraqi city of Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad, a senior Pentagon official confirmed to Fox News.

Coalition troops are holding two Iraqi generals said to be in charge of the facility. Defense officials told Fox News that the officers are providing "good information" that could be crucial to searching out and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war in Iraq, said in a statement that troops were examining several "sites of interest," but said it was premature to call the Najaf site a chemical weapons factory.

The Jerusalem Post ran a story earlier Sunday that was written by a journalist on-hand with the U.S. unit -- the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division -- that took the plant.

The article states that one soldier was lightly wounded when a booby-trapped explosive was triggered as he was "clearing the sheet metal-lined chemical weapons production facility."

The chemical plant is described as a "100-acre complex," surrounded by an electrical fence. The plant was also apparently camouflaged to avoid aerial photos being taken.

It is not yet known what chemicals were being produced at the plant.

Asked at a news conference in Qatar Sunday about reports of the chemical plant, Lt. Gen. John Abizaid of U.S. Central Command declined comment. He said top Iraqi officers have been questioned about chemical weapons.

"We have an Iraqi general officer, two Iraqi general officers that we have taken prisoner, and they are providing us with information," Abizaid said.

The Jerusalem Post report also states that immediately following coalition entry into the camp, at least 30 Iraqi soldiers and their commanding officer fully obeyed instructions given by U.S. soldiers by lying down and surrendering.

U.S. forces are checking other sites based on leads from captured Iraqis and documents -- but officials cautioned it was premature to conclude any forbidden weapons had been located.

American special operations forces found documents in western Iraq that also could lead to chemical or biological weapons facilities, said Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Myers said U.S. commandos found the papers along with a cache of millions of rounds of ammunition after a firefight on Saturday, and the discovery "might save thousands of lives if we can find out exactly where and what they have."

"I just know that they have some papers that they want to exploit as quickly as possible, and we're going to do that, of course," Myers said.

President Bush and other U.S. officials say ridding Saddam's regime of chemical and biological weapons is the main objective of the war. Finding such weapons would be a huge boost for Bush, since much of the international criticism of the U.S.-led war has focused on the fact that United Nations inspectors had not found any banned weapons in Iraq.

Iraqi officials have insisted that they destroyed all of the chemical and biological weapons they made after the 1991 Persian Gulf War -- a claim U.N. weapons inspectors have questioned.

U.N. weapons inspectors are not aware of any large-scale chemical sites which could be used to make chemical weapons in Najaf, said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the inspectors. However, there are many such dual-use sites in other parts of the country because of Iraq's petrochemical industry.

U.N. inspectors visited a cement plant in the Najaf area earlier this year to check on its explosives cache but did not report finding anything improper. A team of biological weapons inspectors also visited a university and school in Kufa, a few miles north of Najaf.

Fox News' Bret Baier, Ian McCaleb and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Steels

03-23-2003, 10:40 PM

Saddam Hussein is expected to address the Iraqi people at 3:00 A.M (Eastern Time). Fox News reports they will be able to broadcast the address at the top of the hour.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

This message was edited by Steels on 3-24-03 @ 2:51 AM

Se7en

03-23-2003, 10:57 PM

Who are you going to be telling "I told you so" to?

No, Mojo. A few people at my school. I know people who really DO claim that Saddam has no WMD. Of course, they're really die hards. One is a proud Socialist who has said, on numerous times, that the only reason she goes to my particular school is because there is no available school in Cuba.

I'm not making that one up. She's got a hard-on for Castro. Maybe it's the beard.

BTW, Five, don't be an ass, no one here wants the WMD to be used on our troops.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

Steels

03-23-2003, 11:45 PM

Not to be the party pooper or anything

Party Pooper? What party doesn't want a clown....you are more than welcome here Bozo.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

FiveB247

03-24-2003, 04:55 AM

Seven, and others...

No one said this discovery and control of this factory isn't important. But nothing else has been stated whatsoever. You all want to say "look he has WMD and chemical/ biological agents....I was right". You should all be hoping the latter for this situation so that our troops don't have the possibility of facing such problems.

And on a side note...Israel bombed a plant in 1981. The US Congress had a report in 97 saying that Iraq would be 10 or so yrs away from a successful nuclear program. At that point the UN helped dismantle such things from taking place in order to push such a deadline or date for Iraqi nuclear program back even more. Do you really think a bombing 22 yrs ago ended their program? Don't be silly.

TheMojoPin

03-24-2003, 05:43 AM

No, Mojo. A few people at my school. I know people who really DO claim that Saddam has no WMD. Of course, they're really die hards.

Of what, denial?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

furie

03-24-2003, 12:26 PM

Massive Chemical Weapons Factory Discovered

well thank God for that. This saves us the trouble of planting the evidence.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/minbari.jpg" width=300 height=100>
Free Yerdaddy

This message was edited by furie on 3-24-03 @ 4:47 PM

FiveB247

03-24-2003, 12:42 PM

Have they announced on finding anything besides the actual factory?

And on a side note...doesn't anyone find this worrisome? The US made mention in speeches to the UN of mobile trasports which can create such weapons, etc....not just a standing factory. It's seems very apparent the US nor the UN knew about this factory.

Recyclerz

03-24-2003, 01:26 PM

It's going to be awhile until anybody can prove whether this is a place where Saddam's minions were making the chemical weapons or not, unless the generals or local engineers start yapping (which is unlikely until we prove we're taking out the Baathist party permanently). Since chemical weapons can be made in the same factories that also make legit products, it is tough to prove conclusively that they are being concocted there unless you get an insider to confess.

The company I work for has a facility that was inspected in the summer of 2000 by an international team of engineers under UN auspices since one of the chemicals we use for a product can also be a precursor chemical to some kind of poison gas. The FBI shadowed them wherever they went but didn't impede them.

Bottom line: physical inspections, without the cooperation of the host, will never prove or disprove the manufacture of the chemical weapons in a facility. It will only provide clues from which you can draw inferences. Interviews (or interrogations) with the scientists are where you get your smoking guns.

[b]Free Yerdaddy![b]

FUNKMAN

03-24-2003, 01:35 PM

Hey Funkman....keep laughing.

Steels...

and to everyone on the board, the reality is none of us here can say at 100% certainty that they do or do not have these Chemical weapons. Reason being none of us, here on this board, have ever seen them.

What TooCute and FiveB427 and myself are just saying is wait for the confirmed evidence...

just trying to keep it light, too much anger in the world...

PEACE

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/anthology100.gif">

Steels

03-24-2003, 03:13 PM

that's a funny choice of words, thanks for the laugh!

just trying to keep it light, too much anger in the world...

More like you're trying to keep it stupid.

You took that person's words and basically stated they were so ridiculous that you could not help but laugh. You talk about too much anger when most of what you offer is snide remarks with the intention to put someone down, you are nothing but a hypocrite.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

FUNKMAN

03-24-2003, 04:00 PM

More like you're trying to keep it stupid

i will bet you if you ask Se7en, he will say he was using a little humor...

whether you believe it or not i sincerely thought it was a funny statement...

snide remarks are what i would believe are personal, i don't feel i attacked anyone personally...

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/anthology100.gif">

Steels

03-24-2003, 04:14 PM

, i don't feel i attacked anyone personally...

Don't insult our intelligence.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

Steels

03-24-2003, 07:48 PM

Saddam Hussein has given the order to use chemical weapons on United States troops as they close in on the vicinity of Baghdad.

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81983,00.html" target="_blank">Fox News Reports</a>

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

This message was edited by Steels on 3-24-03 @ 11:58 PM

high fly

03-25-2003, 04:53 PM

Let's hope it's not the ones Ronald Reagan sold to them.

" and they ask me why I drink"

Death Metal Moe

03-25-2003, 05:01 PM

So because we couldn't forsee what would happen in the far future, we're the real evil here I guess? Right High Fly? Good one.

How about that the French and Russians were STILL arming Iraq almost up to the date of our initial attack? And that was FAR PAST the time we knew he was someone who was in need of being taken out.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!
666%

high fly

03-26-2003, 09:40 AM

No, it was simply a case of the Republicans using their "counterweight" argument, you know, the one they used in the run up to WWII as their reason for supporting Hitler against the Bolsheviks and we see what that led to.

In all fairness though, Reagan was also sending arms to the Iranians when he was paying ransom to hostage takers,and lying to the American people about it. Those arms were critical during the Iran/Iraq war in fighting off an Iraqi counterattack on the Faw Peninsula.

" and they ask me why I drink"

high fly

03-26-2003, 09:52 AM

Also Moe, it shouldn't have been too hard to figure out that giving chem/bio weapons to a regime that supported and armed terrorists like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas was a bad idea.

" and they ask me why I drink"

Bigden

03-26-2003, 10:50 AM

high fly

03-26-2003, 11:07 AM

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's all contained in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report that , according to a front page article in the Washington Post, Dec 30, 2002 by Michael Dobbs. It's a long article that includes not only the report of the senate committee, but has quotes from administration officials of the time and "a review of thousands of declassified government documents".
Here's a coupla quotes for you:
"The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
"A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid- 80s under license from the Commerce Department including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.
"The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984 an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annhilating it""
I would also add that the anthrax used in the yet unsolved attacks on us were the Ames strain, which was one of the ones sent to Iraq.
Let us also keep in mind that at that same time, Iraq was arming and otherwise supporting terrorists that were attacking Americans.
Death Metal Moe thinks the Reagan administration couldn't have put those last two things together.

" and they ask me why I drink"

TheMojoPin

03-26-2003, 11:11 AM

Wait a minute... Your assertion that Reagan gave Bio weapons to Hussein?? WTF I never heard that- who are you George Tenant- or just one of the many conspiracy theorists on the boards.

Uhm...we gave the info and the means for certain bio/chem weapons (Anthrax included) to Iraq in the 80's because at the time we were allied with them and we wanted them to use it on the Iranians in the war the two were waging at the time. It's not a "theory", it's a now-regretted fact...hell, Rumsfeld basically had a second home in Baghdad, the amount of time he was over there...

<img src=http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg>

But it was a mistake. At the time, yes, it seemed like the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, things came around and bit us in the ass 20 year later...so you can look at this of our way of "fixing" our own mess.

Here's a quick overview...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/812805.asp

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-26-03 @ 3:16 PM

silera

03-26-2003, 11:12 AM

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html

Yes. We did.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>

high fly

03-26-2003, 11:41 AM

A.J.

03-26-2003, 11:53 AM

It's not a "theory", it's a now-regretted fact...hell, Rumsfeld basically had a second home in Baghdad, the amount of time he was over there...

That's disappointing but so is this:

http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq2.jpg

http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq3.jpg
Jacques Chirac visiting Baghdad
At left: Saddam Hussein

http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq1.jpg
Saddam Hussein in France visiting a nuclear reactor
At far right: Jacques Chirac

http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq6.jpg
Saddam Hussein in France visiting a nuclear reactor
Second from left: Jacques Chirac

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

TheMojoPin

03-26-2003, 01:48 PM

Also keep in mind that the first World Trade Center attack had a chemical component to it that fortunately was burned up in the explosion rather than spread a deadly cloud of cyanide gas as planned.
The Al Qaida terrorists that were trained in the handling and deployment of chem/bio weapons were trained by Saddam. Hussein's links with Al Qaida may go all the way back to Somalia where both helped out the bastards that attacked the US troops in the Black Hawk Down operation.

Where's the evidence?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

TheMojoPin

03-26-2003, 01:48 PM

Fuckin' French...Chirac and Hussein even have the same old man-glasses. Blech.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

high fly

03-26-2003, 02:34 PM

Where's the evidence?

If you mean the evidence that Hussein sent operatives to Somalia to help the same warlords that Al Qaida was aiding at the same time, there are several books that cover it. Spend a little time loitering in your local Border's Books and you'll find them.
If you mean the evidence of Hussein and Al Qaida operatives working together then, I don't recall a specific statement, which is why I used the word "may". The fact that both were there at the same time, working with the same warlords is at least suspicious.
After being humiliated in the first Gulf War, it is reasonable to figure that Saddam Hussein would want to strike back at the US, and to do so in a way that covered his tracks.
Helping Al Qaida would fit the bill.
At the moment, this is conjecture, but Saddam had the means, motive and opportunity.

" and they ask me why I drink"

TheMojoPin

03-26-2003, 09:52 PM

If you mean the evidence that Hussein sent operatives to Somalia to help the same warlords that Al Qaida was aiding at the same time

Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, you're saying he sent operatives to aid the same warlords that Al Queda also apparently were supporting...which is NOT "he sent operatives to aid Al Queda" or "he allowed Al Queda safe have in his country" or "he has supplied/armed/financed Al Queda" or even "Saddam Hussein has relations with Al Queda at all." Like you, I'm only offering conjecture, but also like you, I'm gonna go with what I know, and this sounds like they ended up backing the same ally, which is actually quite a different thing from "Saddam and Al Queda are allied against the US." What you're presenting is a situation where either party could have easily supported their common ally without almost any direct alliance or contact between each other.

But I'm very curious as to where this info has come from in the first place, and if you could point me towards any of these books, I'd really appreciate it. Seeing as I manage a bookstore myself, I'm familiar with how ridiculous it is to start flipping throught thousands of history and current events books at random, so any help I could get would be swell.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-27-03 @ 2:05 AM

HBox

03-26-2003, 10:04 PM

Did anyone pay attention to what Al Qaeda said right after the war in Iraq started? They released a statement supporting the Iraqi people, but they made clear to mention that they IN NO WAY supported Saddam and hoped the Iraqi people could liberate themselves from both Saddam and the US. Does that sound like they like each other?

FUNKMAN

03-27-2003, 06:20 AM

FiveB247

03-27-2003, 06:50 AM

I wouldn't go that far Funkman....

But don't hesitate to think for a second that if the US finds any trace of proof of WMD, biological, chemical weapons or any other reason they have claimed previously, that they wouldn't shout it out to the world. It would be the first thing they did in order to show everyone that they were correct and just in pursuits of war.

But with that said...we ain't heard jack squat.

TooCute

03-27-2003, 06:56 AM

Well,

It's been a few days since they siezed the factory so:

Is it okay for members like TooCute, FiveB427, and myself to say "See, we were right" and "kudos for us"...

don't let selfish pride get in the way...

maybe a six-pack for each of us...

Why would I do an "I told you so"? I don't really care either way if it is or isn't - I never said it wasn't. I was just objecting to the way people jump all over the slightest hint of anything condemning and use it to justify this war.

It's like poeple don't get it. Saddam is bad. Nobody disagrees. So stop using the argument "Saddam is bad" to justify the war already!

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

King Imp

03-27-2003, 07:15 AM

No offense, but sometimes I don't understand some of you. (See FiveB, I said some not all ;) )

We need to find this stuff, otherwise we're fucked. It's not a matter of maybe we'll find it, we need to no questions asked. This is the main basis we're over there. Sure they've said we're there to get rid of Saddam and liberate the people and with both of those I agree, but the main reason in my mind is to find the weapons that the incompetant inspectors could not. Well, incompetant or German (Hans Blix) "blindness", you decide for yourself.

If we don't find anything, or like I said in another post, enough to satify the world (since apparantly you need to find a shitload, not just a little to satisfy them) no other country will ever support us or believe in us ever again. Some of you may say, well we don't need anyone else, we'll just take care of business as usual. BULLSHIT! If we're deserted and left with little to no allies, what the fuck are we gonna do if a major terrorist attack hits us again. And by major I mean much worse than 9/11. Do you think anyone will support us or help us? I sincerly doubt it. Well aside from the UK, but that just one country out of hundreds.

Basically what I'm trying to say is for the good of our country we need to find these weapons in order to gain back some of the support we lost. Otherwise our future is truly fucked.

TooCute

03-27-2003, 07:19 AM

Oh so you think if we find WMD, France and Russia are going to hop onto our bandwagon?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

King Imp

03-27-2003, 07:26 AM

Oh so you think if we find WMD, France and Russia are going to hop onto our bandwagon?
Of course not. Germany or China either for that matter. But those countries that didn't use stall tactics like those 4 did to stop this war will see we were right all along.

Jesus Christ, stop and listen to yourselves for a second. We are there to find the weapons that a)Iraq says they don't have and aren't allowed to have, b)the inspectors could not find because they were only showed what Iraq wanted them to see.

By finding this it will prove we were right and as far as I'm concerned give legitimate reason for us being there. I will be the first to admit that this war was wrong if we don't find anything, but until that day comes I believe Iraq does have the WMDs and we are doing the right thing. If you don't see that, then I don't know what else to say.

TooCute

03-27-2003, 07:51 AM

Of course not. Germany or China either for that matter. But those countries that didn't use stall tactics like those 4 did to stop this war will see we were right all along.

Jesus Christ, stop and listen to yourselves for a second. We are there to find the weapons that a)Iraq says they don't have and aren't allowed to have, b)the inspectors could not find because they were only showed what Iraq wanted them to see.

By finding this it will prove we were right and as far as I'm concerned give legitimate reason for us being there. I will be the first to admit that this war was wrong if we don't find anything, but until that day comes I believe Iraq does have the WMDs and we are doing the right thing. If you don't see that, then I don't know what else to say.

I disagree, sorry!
I don't think there are very many people on this board -if any - who have actually posted they think the US is wrong, and we shouldn't be in Iraq because they don't have WMD. I rather suspect that the rest of the world isn't opposed to this war because they think Iraq doens't have WMDs, either. Finding WMDs (or is that WsMD?) isn't going to change that.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

King Imp

03-27-2003, 07:58 AM

I don't think there are very many people on this board -if any - who have actually posted they think the US is wrong, and we shouldn't be in Iraq because they don't have WMD. I rather suspect that the rest of the world isn't opposed to this war because they think Iraq doens't have WMDs, either. Finding WMDs (or is that WsMD?) isn't going to change that.
So, what you are saying is there is absolutely no reason we should be over there? If so, then why did we even bother with all those inspections if the threat of a country possibly possessing WMDs is not a good enough reason to take action?

FiveB247

03-27-2003, 07:59 AM

but the main reason in my mind is to find the weapons that the incompetent inspectors could not. Well, incompetent or German (Hans Blix) "blindness", you decide for yourself.

Is that really the point of finding these weapons...to prove the UN incompetent? The UN may not agree with the US's actions....but be certain they want Iraq disarmed. Trying to prove the UN incompetent is an awful notion or belief to send out to the rest of the world. It would give others a basis for ignoring international standards and laws.

And as it has been stated in the finding of this chemical plant...it was unknown to the UN as well as the US. So it doesn't appear the UN was out of the loop on its own here.

Regarding the finding of proof that Iraq has many of these items which the US claimed...it is important. Not that the nations who were against war will 'be on board'....but to proof the US made the correct action and had the correct intentions. Up to now, whether in this nation or others...the action, agenda and intentions are mixed and vary in concept/ belief.

King Imp

03-27-2003, 08:01 AM

And as it has been stated in the finding of this chemical plant...it was unknown to the UN as well as the US. So it doesn't appear the UN was out of the loop on its own here.
And why didn't the UN know about this? Because Iraq refused to tell them. Don't you people see that no matter how many more days/weeks/years the inspections went on, Saddam would never reveal anything he didn't want known. He's a lying scumbag and no amount of inspections would change anything.

Regarding the finding of proof that Iraq has many of these items which the US claimed...it is important. Not that the nations who were against war will 'be on board'....but to proof the US made the correct action and had the correct intentions.
Thank you! Finally someone who understands.

FiveB247

03-27-2003, 08:14 AM

And why didn't the UN know about this? Because Iraq refused to tell them. Don't you people see that no matter how many more days/weeks/years the inspections went on, Saddam would never reveal anything he didn't want known. He's a lying scumbag and no amount of inspections would change anything.

Yeah..Saddam is a scum bag..that's obvious. But the US didn't know about this chemical factory either. So it's not just the UN in this case.

King Imp

03-27-2003, 08:17 AM

Yeah..Saddam is a scum bag..that's obvious. But the US didn't know about this chemical factory either. So it's not just the UN in this case.
Oh, I'm not arguing with you there. I completely agree. BUT why is it we found it in 4 days when the UN or the inspectors to be exact never found it at all?

TooCute

03-27-2003, 08:22 AM

And why didn't the UN know about this? Because Iraq refused to tell them. Don't you people see that no matter how many more days/weeks/years the inspections went on, Saddam would never reveal anything he didn't want known. He's a lying scumbag and no amount of inspections would change anything.

Duh. Has anyone disagreed with this statement? What are you arguing and with whom?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

King Imp

03-27-2003, 08:25 AM

Has anyone disagreed with this statement? What are you arguing and with whom?
Umm, no offense TooCute, but you as well as others said we should have let the inspections continue so basically you and the others did disagree with my statement. Now you say you agree? Make up your minds people!

TooCute

03-27-2003, 08:49 AM

Umm, no offense TooCute, but you as well as others said we should have let the inspections continue so basically you and the others did disagree with my statement. Now you say you agree? Make up your minds people!

??
I never said that Saddam wasn't hiding shit from the inspectors. I still think that the inspections should have continued; my opinion is that they would have bought more time for the US to get more countries' approval for the eventual war.

Were the inspections going to make Saddam give up all of the things that he wasn't supposed to have? Of course not. Were they keeping him on his toes? Well, I imagine it is more difficult to develop WMDs if you have to move them around all the time. Were they exposing the extent of Saddam's lying to the rest of the world? Yes, and this last point is important. Think about it.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

King Imp

03-27-2003, 08:57 AM

I still think that the inspections should have continued: my opinion is that they would have bought more time for the US to get more countries' approval for the eventual war.
I have to disagree here. No matter how much time we gave, it was painfully obvious that some countries France would never approve. What were we supposed to do, run around in circles fighting an unwinnable battle?

Were they exposing the extent of Saddam's lying to the rest of the world? Yes, and this last point is important. Think about it.

I did think about it and frankly if the rest of the world didn't see it clearly already then maybe they need their fucking eyes checked.

DC Reed

03-27-2003, 09:05 AM

To all the people who are against this war, and future wars...Do you think Saddam wouldn't use this and i'm sure other chemical factories to terrorize the US?

Why does Saddam need chemical weapons, wait I know, cause its impossible for him to defeat our military with out them. Thats why south-korea needs nuclear missles, with out em, we can just push em right over. So when people say that Saddam wont use chemical weapons on us, think again, cause it's his only way to have a minor victory.

<IMG SRC="http://dcreed.freeservers.com/images/dcrampage.gif">

<marquee behavoir=alternate>FREE YERDADDY!!!!!</marquee>

TooCute

03-27-2003, 09:10 AM

I have to disagree here. No matter how much time we gave, it was painfully obvious that some countries France would never approve. What were we supposed to do, run around in circles fighting an unwinnable battle?

And the 120 or so other countries that are against the war?
Many of them are small, developing nations who are most likely worried by the precedent this war is setting and afraid of being invaded, themselves.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

King Imp

03-27-2003, 09:15 AM

And the 120 or so other countries that are against the war?
I'm sorry, I don't get the point here. Fine, there is 120 or so other countries against the war. So, what will added inspections accomplish? Nothing in my opinion. Either you are for this or you are against this. They're not going to side with us no matter how much evidence is thrown in their faces so like I said earlier what are we supposed to do, run around in circles fighting an unwinnable battle.

The more time we give him while we're over here debating do we go in or don't we, he's over there building his arsenal. Better to take him out sooner than later when the arsenal is smaller, or would you rather wait until he has a nuke and we send out troops into an inevitable death. Don't kid yourself, he would use it.

TooCute

03-27-2003, 09:22 AM

So, what will added inspections accomplish? Nothing in my opinion.

Right. It's your opinion. So don't tell me I need my "fucking eyes checked" because I disagree with you.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

King Imp

03-27-2003, 09:23 AM

So don't tell me I need my "fucking eyes checked" because I disagree with you.
Not you! I was refering to the other countries when I said that.

FUNKMAN

03-27-2003, 09:57 AM

It's like poeple don't get it. Saddam is bad. Nobody disagrees. So stop using the argument "Saddam is bad" to justify the war already!

I was listening to the President and Tony Blair Interview today. What a difference it would make if George could talk and express himself as well as Tony, it would make a world of difference. Tony speaks very clear, and concice about the reasons the Coalition Forces are in Iraq. George presents more of a "macho/bully" type disposition and I believe it hurts him in the world of Public Opinion.

Understandably, chemical weapons need to be dealt with but Tony Blair made me aware of something I did not know, there have been 400,000 children starved to death under Saddam's regime. Considering the wealth of IRAQ, this seems like something that should be avoidable. This outweighs the chemical weapons issue, in my book...

Saddam is not just a "bad" man, he is a soulless person...

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/redalbum100.gif">

A.J.

03-27-2003, 10:14 AM

Saddam is not just a "bad" man, he is a soulless person...

"He's a VERY bad man...so let's wish him into the cornfield!"

http://www.z-ride.com/m/bm09.jpg

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

LiquidCourage

03-27-2003, 10:33 AM

I can't believe this is being argued.
I never thought that the debate was whether they actually had the stuff or not. I thought it was just whether this was something to go to war over or not. I can't believe this is being debated still.
The same people who are always the first to say that we gave them the chemical weapons then deny that he has it.

Make up your mind!

high fly

03-27-2003, 10:50 AM

The same people who are always the first to say that we gave them the chemical weapons then deny he has it

I think I may have been the first to point out that the Reagan administration gave them the chemical weapons; but I do not deny they have them.

" and they ask me why I drink"

LiquidCourage

03-27-2003, 10:55 AM

I'm not talking about on this board, and I'm not gonna debate back and forth whether or not we actually gave them the stuff or not.

But the same people I encounter who are so anti war claim that we gave them the stuff, but then say that they don't have it because the UN couldn't find any.

You have to take one side or the other.

TooCute

03-27-2003, 11:04 AM

Tony Blair made me aware of something I did not know, there have been 400,000 children starved to death under Saddam's regime. Considering the wealth of IRAQ, this seems like something that should be avoidable. This outweighs the chemical weapons issue, in my book...

If that's the case, you're probably not aware of the children starving to death in the United States and the rest of the world, then.

Visit http://www.thehungersite.com for a start.

I now return you to the subject of this topic...

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

This message was edited by TooCute on 3-27-03 @ 3:07 PM

high fly

03-27-2003, 11:11 AM

They say they don't have it because the UN couldn't find any
They're making a stupid argument, LC. Quite simply, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The fact that Reagan gave them chem/bio weapons is well established. This is important to know in a historical context. By understanding what we've done in the past, we can see how we got to where we are today.
It is also relevant to know that of the hundreds of strains of anthrax, the one used in the mailed anthrax attacks in the US were the Ames strain, one of the ones Reagan gave them. This may be just a coincidence, but it's worth keeping in mind.

" and they ask me why I drink"

LiquidCourage

03-27-2003, 11:26 AM

My point is that I just don't see how anyone could dispute that Iraq has this stuff.

There's also a paper trail a mile long that the French, Chinese, and former USSR gave them shitloads of the stuff.

LiquidCourage

03-27-2003, 11:26 AM

You'd be surprised how many people don't believe it.

They say "But the inspectors didn't find anything!"

high fly

03-27-2003, 11:29 AM

Yeah, their self delusion is rather stunning.

" and they ask me why I drink"

TooCute

03-27-2003, 11:31 AM

I don't think anyone on this board can figure out why anyone would assert that Iraq doesn't have chemical weapons.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

FUNKMAN

03-27-2003, 11:43 AM

I now return you to the subject of this topic...

you are beating a Dead Horse...

and thanks for the info on the "starvation" topic...

I think you have to look at Iraq as a country with more "issues" than most and there are more justified reasons to change the people in charge...

like the saying "picking your battles"

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/redalbum100.gif">

TheMojoPin

03-27-2003, 12:12 PM

Jesus.

NOBODY IS SAYING IRAQ DOESN'T HAVE WMD'S OR IS TRYING TO DEVELOP THEM.

What most here seem to actually have question with is the following...

1. At best, Saddam's WMD program is a fraction of what it was in the 80's and 90's. The same goes for his millitary and his country itself. As of yet, there has been nothing presented that Saddam is any more of a threat now or is any more likely to use these weapons TODAY than any other time in the last 20+ years (When he had more than an ample supply and it would have been MUCH easier to use them on us with maximum devastation).

2. Yes, it COULD happen where he MIGHT attack us. But too many people talk like this is a sure thing. It's a possibility that we need to curtail, but why was it so damned important that we had to rush in there without decent economic backing and whil alienating some of our most powerful allies? Very few, if any people here are saying we should just leave Iraq alone. I fully support a millitary force taking Saddam out. I have no doubt he's been trying to develop more WMD's. I just don't see ANYTHING that indicates he's any more dangerous or likely to use them than any point in the last 20+ years. Iraq doesn't worry me for a second. What DOES worry me is that we've effectively shut the door on China, Russia, France and Germany. Like them or not, these ARE powerful countries, and actions like this can push them into an alliance against us. That kind of alliance doesn't have to lead into conflict or war for it to be devastating! Our economic and politcal standing around the world can be easily devastated by that kind of unified disagreement. You may not like it, but it sure seems that's what we're heading for. We're treating these countries like we won't ever need them again, and this current action in Iraq is something they won't soon forget. Let's hope this was worth it...

Like TooCute, I think if we just waited a few more months, a year, tops, we could have gotten much more support. Yes, some countries like France probably never would have bent, but if we just brke up that block by getting two or even one more of those major nations to back us, it wouldn't make things down the line so unsure and damaging to us. We NEED to take Saddam out...I just think we went too fast...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

03-27-2003, 12:22 PM

My point is that I just don't see how anyone could dispute that Iraq has this stuff.

No one refutes he doesn't hold some of these items...some have been accounted for by the UN...so it's obviously stated he has some of it.

But to play devils advocate...where is all of it? The US hasn't found anything....and I think it's obvious they're searching everywhere. They've found nothing thus far. Seems pretty obvious that you're taking the one extreme end of opinion when there's no hard proof of such things. So where is all of it?

King Imp

03-27-2003, 12:34 PM

Like TooCute, I think if we just waited a few more months, a year, tops, we could have gotten much more support.
I just wanted to repeat what I said earlier,
"The more time we give him while we're over here debating do we go in or don't we, he's over there building his arsenal. Better to take him out sooner than later when the arsenal is smaller, or would you rather wait until he has a nuke and we send out troops into an inevitable death. Don't kid yourself, he would use it."

But to play devils advocate...where is all of it? The US hasn't found anything....and I think it's obvious they're searching everywhere. They've found nothing thus far.
Umm, I think they're kinda busy right now with people trying to kill them left and right. I don't think they have much time to stop and look for weapons right now. Also, I wanted to reiterate another thing I said earlier,
"Quote:
Yeah..Saddam is a scum bag..that's obvious. But the US didn't know about this chemical factory either. So it's not just the UN in this case.

Oh, I'm not arguing with you there. I completely agree. BUT why is it we found it in 4 days when the UN or the inspectors to be exact never found it at all?"

Steels

03-27-2003, 12:41 PM

Well,

It's been a few days since they seized the factory so:

Is it okay for members like TooCute, FiveB427, and myself to say "See, we were right" and "kudos for us"...

don't let selfish pride get in the way...

maybe a six-pack for each of us...

You are seriously defaming yourself. You obviosly have no clue as to how long it will take to safely and precisely examine the contents of the factory. Calling people's pride "selfish" is clearly a juvenile way of trying to insult someone. I find you're methods repetitive and now plain boring. Keep up the good work you make for a fabulous tool.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

TheMojoPin

03-27-2003, 01:41 PM

I just wanted to repeat what I said earlier,
"The more time we give him while we're over here debating do we go in or don't we, he's over there building his arsenal. Better to take him out sooner than later when the arsenal is smaller, or would you rather wait until he has a nuke and we send out troops into an inevitable death. Don't kid yourself, he would use it."

And I want to repeat what I'VE said numerous times...the issue with me has never been whether we go in or not, but WHEN and with WHO. I think we should have not given up so quickly on trying to convince European allies like Germany or Russia (France would NEVER bend). The odds are is that Saddam's WMD program is at best a fraction of what it was uring its peak in the 80's and early 90's. I also ask again where the sudden indication came from that we needed to go in NOW. Again, I fully support taking him out...I just think we rushed in, and that action alone is going to cause a lot more serious problems down the line than Saddam could have ever wished to have been himself. There really hasn't been any discovered significant advance in his WMD program in the last 12 years outside of attempts here and there to just stockpile the stuff, period. There's no indication of how much he has, how quickly it can be developed, or what he's fully capable of. You're assuming that he actually would be able to develop something like a working nuclear arsenal over the course of a year. There's no doubt in my mind he's been trying to develop the sutff. But some people talk like there's some defining moment or "smoking gun" that proves that somehow he's suddenly a million times more of a threat then he has 10, 5 or even a year ago, when at this point it simply doesn't exist. Because of that, I can honestly say I believe that 6 months to a year really wouldn't have made that much a difference (Keep in mind that this is merely the same as you assuming that a year later he could be nuking the troops...pure speculation). You interpret what we've been presented with one way, I another way. At this point, neither of us can really be "proven" right. I think we should have planned this better, we didn't, and we'll pay the price, and that scares me more than some piddling little schmuck like Saddam ever could.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-27-03 @ 5:55 PM

high fly

03-27-2003, 04:28 PM

And I want to repeat, uh, er, ........what was the question?

" and they ask me why I drink"

FUNKMAN

03-27-2003, 05:55 PM

Keep up the good work you make for a fabulous tool.

i thought you were going to listen to FMJeff and not do any name calling?

I believe it was "Understood"

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/redalbum100.gif">

Steels

03-27-2003, 06:06 PM

i thought you were going to listen to FMJeff and not do any name calling?

I believe it was "Understood"

I was merely stating a fact.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

FUNKMAN

03-27-2003, 06:09 PM

I was merely stating a fact.

not like when you said they had found chemical weapons, okay, now i understand...

Thanks!

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/redalbum100.gif">

Steels

03-27-2003, 06:13 PM

not like when you said they had found chemical weapons, okay, now i understand...

Thanks!

The iron clad proof that you demand does not come overnight. I find your debating methods juvenile. I'd prefer you do not address me further. I will practice the same towards yourself.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

FUNKMAN

03-27-2003, 06:27 PM

. I will practice the same towards yourself.

okay, since you surrendered
:)

just kidding....

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/redalbum100.gif">

FiveB247

03-27-2003, 10:08 PM

The iron clad proof that you demand does not come overnight.

Then neither should your assumptions based on these uncertain items.

Steels

03-27-2003, 10:25 PM

Then neither should your assumptions based on these uncertain items.

These terms are certain. An ocean of chemical warfare would not stray you're state of mind.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/steels3.gif>

FiveB247

03-28-2003, 06:51 AM

These terms are certain. An ocean of chemical warfare would not stray you're state of mind.

Make up your mind. In one post you said the proof would take time to get. Now you're saying the proof is certain. Which one is it? You seem to be confusing yourself.

Btw...I have no problem admiting if and when I am mistaken. I don't obstruct or deny reality or fact. But as you stated, the proof is still uncertain and not certified yet. Until it is a proven fact, it's a presumption.

TooCute

03-28-2003, 08:08 AM

Stop it.

So far we've disussed:

Are there chemical weapons? yes/no ---> Almost everyone agrees, "yes"

Did we FIND chemical weapons? yes/no ---> No. We have not actually found chemical weapons for certain.

What does it mean IF there are chemical weapons? --->this is up in the air, and being discussed, and is unlikely to have a yes/no answer.

What else do you want to discuss?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

high fly

03-28-2003, 09:03 AM

Right on, TooCute

" and they ask me why I drink"

FiveB247

03-28-2003, 10:06 AM

let's talk about boobies and fart jokes.

FUNKMAN

03-30-2003, 05:24 AM

let's talk about boobies and fart jokes.

one time, I was squeezing a girls boobies and i farted, it sounded like a car horn...
:)

your turn...

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/closer100.gif">

mdr55

06-04-2003, 05:37 AM

Are they talking about the 2 trailers?

Death Metal Moe

06-04-2003, 08:04 AM

This was just another example of "Media" hype. In their attempt to Trump each other, all the different Media outlets ran some rumor a leak gave them. The Government always said they wanted to wait for the tests to come back. When they did, this was cleared.

I think a lot of theproblems you Libs have with the Bush administration are actually problems you need to take up with the Media turning rumors into full blown stories.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!
666%

TheMojoPin

06-04-2003, 08:09 AM

I think a lot of theproblems you Libs have with the Bush administration are actually problems you need to take up with the Media turning rumors into full blown stories.

I admire his dedication to playing the most futile game of "move along, there's nothing to see here" EVER.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

06-04-2003, 08:09 AM

I think a lot of theproblems you Libs have with the Bush administration are actually problems you need to take up with the Media turning rumors into full blown stories.

It's amusing how you so readily blame the 'media' and 'liberals'when such stories are discussed in the news...many pro-war people all say "see we told you so".

All from this thread alone:

Pantera : To all the people who are against this war, and future wars...Do you think Saddam wouldn't use this and i'm sure other chemical factories to terrorize the US?
This one discovery justifies everything we are doing in Iraq.

Death Metal Moe: Well he was making them for SOME reason. And I highly doubt he was just going to pile them up and count them.

Travis151: How sweet it is!!! I love the U.S.A.!!!!!!!! Not one but Two Iraqi generals in charge of this chemical facility in custody, the 100 arce plant was taken with no loss of life!!! Only 90 miles from Baghdad near the town of Najaf. It just show how the U.N. only finds stuff when they want to. A French chemical/bio team sent to Quatar will now go to the site. Jackpot I'm sure the Iraqi TV will say it was planted but not with two Iraqi generals in custody. May the world bend over as the US and Great Britain double team it. Can't wait to see France turn sides once again. Bless the Souls of Our Troops.

Se7en: In related news, the U.N. officials have announced that they had "no idea" that that facility was there.
Yeah, NO SHIT.
All I ask, is PLEASE no one start this "more inspections would have worked!" bullshit now. How long were they inspecting Iraq these past few MONTHS? We found this place within 4 to 5 days of going in.

Se7en: The fact that it was being guarded by a few troops and an Iraqi general leads me to believe that SOMETHING is there (or was there until recently), rather than it being just an abandoned facility.
I'm confident that they'll find something. Either chem weapons, or they'll find evidence that Iraq has been producing and / or filling them there.
If and when they do find something, I am going to unleash a great many "I told you so" 's. I'll be goddamn insufferable.

So much for just blaming the media and libs..huh.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

Death Metal Moe

06-04-2003, 12:54 PM

Oh no. I think we MUST have a definitive answer on WMD's. I'm not saying move along on this topic at all. I want to see them as much as you do. Because if we don't see them, that means they still could be out there in evil hands. Or if there was exaggerations made, I want them to adjust the actual number of WMD's to account for.

And as for you Five. In the middle of the war we were all talking about different things. Our perspective is much different now than it ws then.I wrote:

Death Metal Moe: Well he was making them for SOME reason. And I highly doubt he was just going to pile them up and count them.

I don't really see how you trapped me or showed how I contradicted myself. He made the weapons. He had them. He used them before with no regard for innocent life. The UN agreed. The inspectors agreed. Clinton agreed. Bush agreed. What we are trying to do now is find them and track them. Totally different argument.

I don't need to look back on my old posts because I let my conscience guide my thoughts. I also try to never talk about things I have no clue on. That is why I try my best to keep on top of current events.

So I know that if you were to show me old posts on serious topics from last week or last year, I would agree with the statement 99% of the time.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!
666%

FiveB247

06-04-2003, 03:40 PM

I'm not saying you flip-flop your beliefs or things you say. I merely pointed out how 'pro-war' people were saying such things as well. There's two sides to a coin. You can't just complain about the 'heads' when you think like the 'tail'. haha

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

Steels

06-04-2003, 03:49 PM

There was 2 "mobile" factories discovered, no?

Also, am I at fault for assuming that it will take much longer than the already alloted time to make an ample and complete search?

<Img src=http://members.aol.com/tromatizedtodd/sigpics/steels3.gif>

TheMojoPin

06-04-2003, 08:23 PM

Also, am I at fault for assuming that it will take much longer than the already alloted time to make an ample and complete search?

Nope. If we live up to our word when it comes to actually rebuilding Iraq, we should be there at least through the year...if it takes much of that time to find the evidence, so be it. It remians to be seen whether or not it would have been enough to warrant such a rampant rush to war, but I have few doubts that we WILL find something.

And Moe, I meant "moving along" when it comes to "slamming Bush". I understand defending "your guy", but you don't let a single shot against him slide!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FUNKMAN

06-04-2003, 08:29 PM

but you don't let a single shot against him slide!

not true Mojo,

i tried to lure him in on the "technology takes jobs" thread (all in good fun) and he didn't bite...

he was quite the gentleman....

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

TheMojoPin

06-04-2003, 08:36 PM

He does have a slow hand.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

shamus mcfitzy

06-04-2003, 09:01 PM

Why does Saddam need chemical weapons, wait I know, cause its impossible for him to defeat our military with out them. Thats why south-korea needs nuclear missles, with out em, we can just push em right over. So when people say that Saddam wont use chemical weapons on us, think again, cause it's his only way to have a minor victory.

I think i agree with this, but not with you, i don't really know. Saddam needed chemical weapons and South Korea needs nuclear weapons so that the US will not push them around. Saddam thought that he needed the threat of chemical weapons to deter a war or conflict. Luckily for us, the US was able to strike quickly and provide the chaos that i proposed earlier in the thread.

Without Saddam, the country was in chaos. i don't believe that was foolish logic, do u Moe? :)