|
Grex > Agora56 > #96: Cheney shoots fellow hunter in South Texas. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 218 responses total. |
jadecat
|
|
response 150 of 218:
| 
Feb 20 21:06 UTC 2006 |
Oh I don't know... I think Hitler did have WMDs, except he called them
showers.
Also, he was a bit of a lazy sod at times and a lot of his general were
in charge of certain programs. So it would be fair to say there was
plenty of evil to go around.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 151 of 218:
|
Feb 20 23:13 UTC 2006 |
uh...i might be wrong but i think the pilots who boogies to iran
did that of their own volition despite, not because of saddam.
tod?
|
cross
|
|
response 152 of 218:
|
Feb 21 00:07 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 153 of 218:
|
Feb 21 03:27 UTC 2006 |
re #151
Yea, there was a rumor or two that the mass exodus of flights to Iran were
pilots that sought survival rather than to face coalition air combat per
Saddam's orders. Most MiG's were taken out on the ground in the Iraqi
airfields. Hell, we had a couple MiG29's escorted right over us near the
Kuwait/Saudi border before anything hit the fan. The Iraqis were bailing and
it wasn't Saddam giving orders. Every Iraqi we talked to said they hadn't
heard from HQ in WEEKS. They were abandoned while Saddam went underground.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 154 of 218:
|
Feb 21 03:44 UTC 2006 |
I was listening to a story of an American citizen who got caught up in
the first Gulf War and forced to serve in the Iraqi Navy. They laid
water mines without anchors, and then were told to return to Iraq the
same way they went laying mines (right back through the mine field).
Suffice to say they just gave up and waited to be picked up by the
Americans.
|
tod
|
|
response 155 of 218:
|
Feb 21 17:21 UTC 2006 |
Saddam would have used his WMD at the onset (except Iraq didn't have them all
along.)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 156 of 218:
|
Feb 21 17:23 UTC 2006 |
They had some at one time, right?
|
tod
|
|
response 157 of 218:
|
Feb 21 17:40 UTC 2006 |
Obviously, yes. They had what we gave them to kill Kurds and Iranians with.
They also had what they reported to the UN. There were missing piles of
outdated anthrax, etc which was explained as having been destroyed(and hardly
posed a threat.) What was sold to the American people by our Administration
was a threat of nuclear proportion, though. I'm confident Saddam would have
used such a device if he was in possession. Obviously, he wasn't.
|
richard
|
|
response 158 of 218:
|
Feb 22 15:51 UTC 2006 |
Saddam never had ANY wmd's of any kind
|
mcnally
|
|
response 159 of 218:
|
Feb 22 17:18 UTC 2006 |
That's a pretty extraordinary claim. I'm pretty sure if pressed you'll
weasel out of it by claiming an unusually strict definition for "wmd's"
[sic] or by claiming that when you said "never had" you meant something
different than what the rest of us understand the phrase to mean.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 160 of 218:
|
Feb 22 17:32 UTC 2006 |
Didn't Saddam use WMDs against the Kurds a while back?
|
jep
|
|
response 161 of 218:
|
Feb 22 17:55 UTC 2006 |
I don't think richard so much means that it's a real fact that Saddam
didn't have WMD. I think his comment amounts to this: politically it
would be nice because it would really show how incompetent and evil
Bush (and all Republicans) are if that were true. This means that
richard is competent and a great guy, because he's not a Republican.
Therefore, we should all vote Democratic in the next election.
It's something like that. It has to be. It's completely transparent
to everyone that richard has no more idea than I do, or any of us do,
whether there were any WMD in Saddam's arsenal.
|
tod
|
|
response 162 of 218:
|
Feb 22 18:11 UTC 2006 |
re #161
It's completely transparent
to everyone that richard has no more idea than I do, or any of us do,
whether there were any WMD in Saddam's arsenal.
I'm at a loss how our military could find the Hussein boys' porn stash,
torture chambers, and yes even whack the whole clan in a gunfight yet no WMD
were ever discovered. I think the odds are against the claims which were used
by this Administration that an imminent threat existed from Iraq.
I do not feel the ends justified the means. The world better off without
Saddam Hussein just doesn't excuse the lies told to our country. I don't care
what political party gets destroyed if it means justice. Political parties
are overrated little corporations/mafias that deserve zero acknowledgement.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 163 of 218:
|
Feb 22 18:39 UTC 2006 |
re #162: Report to Room 101, Citizen Plesco. We have *always* been at
war with Eurasia, and don't you forget it..
|
tod
|
|
response 164 of 218:
|
Feb 22 18:58 UTC 2006 |
<studies his Newspeak and parishes the thought of an Eastasian Iraq>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 165 of 218:
|
Feb 22 20:19 UTC 2006 |
Re: "The world better off without Saddam Hussein just doesn't excuse the
lies told to our country." It not only doesn't excuse the lies, but it
hardly even comes near to excusing the death and destruction that has been
going on now for three years.
|
bru
|
|
response 166 of 218:
|
Feb 22 21:38 UTC 2006 |
Once again, what lies?
Russian intelligence said he had WMD's.
French intelligence said he had WMD's.
British intelligence said he had WMD's.
Italian intelligence said he had WMD's.
Indian intelligence said he had WMD's.
Pakistan intelligence said he had WMD's.
Bill Clinton said he had WMD's.
He used WMDs against the Kurds.
He used WMD's against Iran.
He gassed thousands.
His own military were sure he had WMD's and told him so regularly.
Every General under Saddam KNEW they had WMD's but not where they were.
Remember they Threatened to use them to defend Baghdad?
But they disappeared at some point.
Now, It looks to me like they had them at one point, (dead Kurds and Iranians)
That he thought he had them, (threats to use and reports from generals)(and
scientists), That every major and minor intell agency in the world thought
he had them ( reports from same generals).
Conclusion! He had them.
Fact! we cannot find them.
Final Conclusion. We Either made a mistake, or he hid them.
Now there are still millions of documents out there that need to be translated
because our intelligence agencies do not have the manpower to translate them.
They are classified as secret.
Question? How long does it take to translate a page of farsi into english?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 167 of 218:
|
Feb 22 21:40 UTC 2006 |
European or African?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 168 of 218:
|
Feb 22 21:49 UTC 2006 |
resp:167 Wow, that provoked and honest to goodness outloud laugh...
|
tod
|
|
response 169 of 218:
|
Feb 22 21:52 UTC 2006 |
re #166
#166 of 167: by bruce allen price (bru) on Wed, Feb 22, 2006 (16:38):
Once again, what lies?
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and
biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons
program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on
a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over
the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal
threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
-Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the
design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of
enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities
of uranium from Africa."
-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that
Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not
be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat
from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
You see the trend: NUCLEAR WEAPONS ? Right there. Lies.
|
keesan
|
|
response 170 of 218:
|
Feb 22 22:46 UTC 2006 |
Yes, lies.
|
tod
|
|
response 171 of 218:
|
Feb 22 23:20 UTC 2006 |
GW is wondering why everyone is so wigged out over the management of US ports?
Look at how he ramrodded the Iraq war in our faces with big talk of nukes..
Should we trust the jerk with "his word" from the Finance Committee that our
ports will be secure?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 172 of 218:
|
Feb 22 23:23 UTC 2006 |
"will be"
they are not secure now, fer shore.
|
tod
|
|
response 173 of 218:
|
Feb 22 23:45 UTC 2006 |
Give em to the UAE, they'll help us!! 8D
|
cyklone
|
|
response 174 of 218:
|
Feb 23 00:50 UTC 2006 |
Hey bap, you left out the part where all those other countries actually paid
attention to the weapons inspectors who said "wait a minute, it doesn't appear
that he has any WMDs." Those countries (except for England) wanted to give
inspections more time. Bush and his cronies didn't appreciate their BS excuse
blowing up in their faces before they could get in, so of course they pushed
on. That's the TRUTH. Deal with it.
|