You will all look silly now (WMDs found)

[Kruno]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/931304.asp?0cm=c10

[silence]

from the article ::

U.S. OFFICIALS said the discoveries were not proof that Iraq had managed to build or obtain banned weapons of mass destruction, as President Bush asserted before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March. But they said the materials, some of which dated back to the first Gulf War, were compelling proof that Saddam was trying actively to acquire such weapons in defiance of the United Nations


these is stuff like 12 yrs old......and it still proves that there was no capability to launch WMDs in 15 minutes as Bush&co. stated many times. to be able to respond in 15 mins u need acctual missiles with working warheads ........not 12 yrs old drawings:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Sazar]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
http://www.msnbc.com/news/931304.asp?0cm=c10

:rofl

yes kiler... you do look silly now :D

U.S. OFFICIALS said the discoveries were not proof that Iraq had managed to build or obtain banned weapons of mass destruction, as President Bush asserted before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March. But they said the materials, some of which dated back to the first Gulf War, were compelling proof that Saddam was trying actively to acquire such weapons in defiance of the United Nations.


j/k :)

but the title is a bit presumptious..

[UDawg]

Originally posted by silence
these is stuff like 12 yrs old......and it still proves that there was no capability to launch WMDs in 15 minutes as Bush&co. stated many times. to be able to respond in 15 mins u need acctual missiles with working warheads ........not 12 yrs old drawings:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This is the dumbest argument. It says nothing about why we whent in to Iraq. It is arguing at the lowest common denominator. Lets take a argument then blow it out of porportion. :rolleyes: This weak argument does not address the issue. Iraq was not supporsed to have this material. As I said to Sazar this is not the smoking gun but it is proof there was a maintained WMD program. This gives us a bigger insight as to what Saddam was up to. This is also part of a theory of what happened in recient years with the WMD.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by UDawg71
This is the dumbest argument. It says nothing about why we whent in to Iraq. It is arguing at the lowest common denominator. Lets take a argument then blow it out of porportion. :rolleyes: This weak argument does not address the issue. Iraq was not supporsed to have this material. As I said to Sazar this is not the smoking gun but it is proof there was a maintained WMD program. This gives us a bigger insight as to what Saddam was up to. This is also part of a theory of what happened in recient years with the WMD.

:)

this is from 1991...

we are in 2003...

those parts have been buried since 1991...

a maintained wmd program would have buried parts for 12-13 years ?

[DaveW]

All true, but according to UN sanctions, those components from WMD programs should have been destroyed or handed of to weapons inspectors, not burried in some guys garden.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by Sazar
:)

this is from 1991...

we are in 2003...

those parts have been buried since 1991...

a maintained wmd program would have buried parts for 12-13 years ?

Did we not claim they were hiding weapons to resume production at a later date? YES WE DID! They said they distroyed this stuff. Hmmm doesn't looked distroyed to me. Looks like it was hidden. JUST AS WE SAID. You party line todie! LMAO I couldn't resist saying that. ;) :p

[vampireuk]

Maybe some civilian stole them from Syria:p

[UDawg]

BTW...ahhem (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=148316#post148316)

Does Mr. FLibble feel the urge to merge? :p

[vampireuk]

Not really :p

These are two different subjects really one about the possibility that they have found weapons, and the other about bush being a arse:p

[UDawg]

Originally posted by vampireuk
Not really :p

These are two different subjects really one about the possibility that they have found weapons, and the other about bush being a arse:p I meant, did you see the link I posted on this exact article? It was about half way down. ;) Hey can't a habitual thread crapper just try to help out once? :p

[silence]

Originally posted by UDawg71
This is the dumbest argument. It says nothing about why we whent in to Iraq. It is arguing at the lowest common denominator. Lets take a argument then blow it out of porportion. :rolleyes: This weak argument does not address the issue. Iraq was not supporsed to have this material. As I said to Sazar this is not the smoking gun but it is proof there was a maintained WMD program. This gives us a bigger insight as to what Saddam was up to. This is also part of a theory of what happened in recient years with the WMD.


c'mon...u can prolly download better material from net if u google it.....
whole idea is that iraq HAD wmd's and WAS ready to use them......in matter of minutes.....and for that u need :
a) missiles
b) warheads
c) vechiles
d) storages
e) large research labs

i never heard Bush&co saying..."well, we should go to war with Iraq cause we think they might have some 12 yrs old papers with some drawings of possible WMD's".....did you?

[UDawg]

Originally posted by silence
c'mon...u can prolly download better material from net if u google it.....
whole idea is that iraq HAD wmd's and WAS ready to use them......in matter of minutes.....and for that u need :
a) missiles
b) warheads
c) vechiles
d) storages
e) large research labs

i never heard Bush&co saying..."well, we should go to war with Iraq cause we think they might have some 12 yrs old papers with some drawings of possible WMD's".....did you?

We were going in because yes they claimed they had WMD and the ability and parts to produce them. You are changing the argument. It was not that they just possed a imidiat threat but that they were in violation of the resolutions. The whole left has changed the argument...as it usually does.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by UDawg71
We were going in because yes they claimed they had WMD and the ability and parts to produce them. You are changing the argument. It was not that they just possed a imidiat threat but that they were in violation of the resolutions. The whole left has changed the argument...as it usually does.

interesting that since the stated reason was the opposite of what you have posted :)

i guess the white house press secretary is also 'left' as are members of the administration who made presentations @ the un as well as our current president...

:)

[-=Gib-McFragger=-]

This T-Shirt says it all..... :angel:

The Truth (http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a203)

[Sazar]

Originally posted by -=Gib-McFragger=-
This T-Shirt says it all..... :angel:

The Truth (http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a203)

:eek:

he is a man of many talents..

btw.. this should explain things a little better... unless people choose to disregard the IAEA unless it too will be dismissed as a biased leftist organisation following party lines :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3023104.stm

hmm.. interesting...

The findings and comments of Obeidi appear to confirm that there has been no post-1991 nuclear weapons programme in Iraq, and are consistent with our reports to the [United nations] Security Council," Mr Gwozdecky said.

"These findings refer to material and documents of the pre-1991 Iraqi nuclear weapons programme which were well known to the IAEA," the agency's spokesman said.

He said the IAEA had reported that Iraq had successfully tested a centrifuge prior to 1991 - and had been provided with "a large number of original centrifuge drawings" some of which had been passed on to the IAEA.

However, the recent recovery did not change the agency's assessment of Iraq's capabilities in the area of centrifuge enrichment.

and so we wait for proof :)

[UDawg]

Originally posted by Sazar
interesting that since the stated reason was the opposite of what you have posted :)

i guess the white house press secretary is also 'left' as are members of the administration who made presentations @ the un as well as our current president...

:)

When did the president ever say Iraq has vx on launchers and are ready to use them? He said Iraq possed a threat. He also said they may use these weapon but all you argue is the "launch in 12 seconds argument. The whole issue was over the production and the fact that they have these weapons. We found part of the argument. The production part. What part don't you get.

[zerodamage]

Originally posted by silence
from the article ::

U.S. OFFICIALS said the discoveries were not proof that Iraq had managed to build or obtain banned weapons of mass destruction, as President Bush asserted before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March. But they said the materials, some of which dated back to the first Gulf War, were compelling proof that Saddam was trying actively to acquire such weapons in defiance of the United Nations


these is stuff like 12 yrs old......and it still proves that there was no capability to launch WMDs in 15 minutes as Bush&co. stated many times. to be able to respond in 15 mins u need acctual missiles with working warheads ........not 12 yrs old drawings:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

They did have them. The inspectors before the war found warheads built for the use of chemical and biological weapons.. or did you all conveniently forget this because you hate Bush....

[silence]

Originally posted by zerodamage
They did have them. The inspectors before the war found warheads built for the use of chemical and biological weapons.. or did you all conveniently forget this because you hate Bush....

yap..just as these are also built..but when and where are weaps, like chemical and biological agents that were supposed to in them?

u can put chmical waep in any kind of canister.....or container.....
but that doesn't PROVE you :
a) have them
b) are willing to use them
c) gonna use them


should i kick your @ss cause u might transport VX in your car?cause...you could...and that makes you threat to me.....

[UDawg]

Originally posted by silence
yap..just as these are also built..but when and where are weaps, like chemical and biological agents that were supposed to in them?

u can put chmical waep in any kind of canister.....or container.....
but that doesn't PROVE you :
a) have them
b) are willing to use them
c) gonna use them


should i kick your @ss cause u might transport VX in your car?cause...you could...and that makes you threat to me.....

Nore does it mean you wont. ;) The point is they were not supposed to have them at all, unless you are a leftist then you can over look anything but the 2000 election. ;) :p :D

[Sazar]

Originally posted by UDawg71
When did the president ever say Iraq has vx on launchers and are ready to use them? He said Iraq possed a threat. He also said they may use these weapon but all you argue is the "launch in 12 seconds argument. The whole issue was over the production and the fact that they have these weapons. We found part of the argument. The production part. What part don't you get.

it was stated quite clearly in various public addresses by president bush that Iraq posed a clear/immediate and imminent threat to the US...

I am not talking about VX.. in fact before now I cant recall saying vx on this or any other forums... I never said '12 seconds'

that was what was stated by the liason with the army or coalition thingamejigger on television... that the expected time to readiness to fire chem and bio weapons @ coalition forces was in the neighborhood of 45minutes... this number is not being pulled out of our behinds :)

as for the production elements... please read the link I posted as well as checking up any further information required from relevant sources quoting IAEA officials..

I dunno if you are just messing round or what but this whole 'leftist agenda' thing is getting old real fast m8...

[silence]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Nore does it mean you wont. ;) The point is they were not supposed to have them at all, unless you are a leftist then you can over look anything but the 2000 election. ;) :p :D

you know...i have seen too many elections around here which make 2000 ones in US being as fair as possible.....

nope..point was that Iraq was considered IMMIDIATE threat and that was excuse. if u r not supposed to have them then there is a long list of coutnries you guys need to attack tomorrow....:rolleyes:

all i am saying is that Buch&co were showing off alot of so called evidence before the war and when we....as u call us "leftist" said that those might not be 100% accurate.....you(as pro-war ppl) were all over us. now that there is NO sign of anything that was in so called evidence..you are taking diff stance.
if "evidence" was so good and hard that was nuff to wage war then where are they?
if u had satelitte photos of Iraqui chem/bio facilities....where r they?
if u had evidence of mass warhead production...where are those?

cause if u put something on table and base ur actions upon that, but later it shows that you really can't produce what u said....then there is something very wrong.......

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by zerodamage
They did have them. The inspectors before the war found warheads built for the use of chemical and biological weapons.. or did you all conveniently forget this because you hate Bush....

Everyone has good reason to hate him:p

[UDawg]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.iraq.weapons.hunt/index.html

Man my heart goes out to this country. What hell they have been put through with Saddam. No wonder they don't trust us, when everyone is trying to stab you in the back.

[silence]

you still think there is no chance that ppl there might see you as occupators?.....:rolleyes: