View Full Version : US air strike destroys explosives factory
Vegas
04-03-2007, 04:48 PM
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21497434-38201,00.html
A US air strike destroyed two large buildings south of the Iraqi capital used to make and store explosives.
"Ground forces called in for air support when they found large amounts of chemicals and improvised-explosive-device making materials in two buildings," in the town of Arab Jubur, south of Baghdad, the military said today.
The air strike caused no casualties, it said.
Since the launch of a massive security operation in Baghdad in February, Iraqi and US troops have reduced execution-style killings in the capital, but car bombings carried out by suspected Sunni militants remain a major headache.
In a bid to stop the flow of explosives into the city, the military is now focusing on detecting bomb-making facilities, which are believed to be largely located on the outskirts of Baghdad.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21497434-38201,00.html
A US air strike destroyed two large buildings south of the Iraqi capital used to make and store explosives.
"Ground forces called in for air support when they found large amounts of chemicals and improvised-explosive-device making materials in two buildings," in the town of Arab Jubur, south of Baghdad, the military said today.
The air strike caused no casualties, it said.
Since the launch of a massive security operation in Baghdad in February, Iraqi and US troops have reduced execution-style killings in the capital, but car bombings carried out by suspected Sunni militants remain a major headache.
In a bid to stop the flow of explosives into the city, the military is now focusing on detecting bomb-making facilities, which are believed to be largely located on the outskirts of Baghdad.
We found the WMD's! Oh wait, sorry.
hannitykillspuppies
04-03-2007, 06:45 PM
We found the WMD's! Oh wait, sorry.
did they check under condi's desk yet?
ryr8828
04-03-2007, 07:19 PM
You people just won't let go of the wmd's will you?
The Iraq army fired weapons that they were not supposed to have at our troops when we invaded.
There are numerous reports of the weapons being snuck into Syria, Maybe Pelosi will find them during her terrorist appeasement tour.
At least 500 canisters of mustard gas and sarin gas have been found.
swordfish
04-03-2007, 07:23 PM
I thought Hussein had the 4th largest army in the world. I guess there were no weapons in that arsenal.
Kudos to the military, the new push is working and its really pissin off the dems.
When things are going bad they call for withdrawal.
Now that things are going better they will say "Oh look we can leave now, everything is cool"
You people just won't let go of the wmd's will you?
The Iraq army fired weapons that they were not supposed to have at our troops when we invaded.
There are numerous reports of the weapons being snuck into Syria, Maybe Pelosi will find them during her terrorist appeasement tour.
At least 500 canisters of mustard gas and sarin gas have been found.
That dated back to about 1991. Ask Vegas how entropy would affect these gases.
I thought Hussein had the 4th largest army in the world. I guess there were no weapons in that arsenal.
Kudos to the military, the new push is working and its really pissin off the dems.
When things are going bad they call for withdrawal.
Now that things are going better they will say "Oh look we can leave now, everything is cool"
Yeah, I hear you can walk down the streets as an American now. Why would you think that success would piss the Dems off?
Answer me this:
What is the mission in Iraq?
You people just won't let go of the wmd's will you?
The Iraq army fired weapons that they were not supposed to have at our troops when we invaded.
There are numerous reports of the weapons being snuck into Syria, Maybe Pelosi will find them during her terrorist appeasement tour.
At least 500 canisters of mustard gas and sarin gas have been found.
Give me a break Ryr. We were told that the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. The smoking gun isn't 500 cans of worthless gas that predates the first Iraq War. Stop with that BS man.
I have not heard of or read one CREDIBLE report that WMDs made their way to Syria. Produce one please. Not a Hannity editorial, something by a governmental agency or at least a reputable source.
Vegas
04-03-2007, 07:30 PM
Give me a break Ryr. We were told that the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. The smoking gun isn't 500 cans of worthless gas that predates the first Iraq War. Stop with that BS man.
I have not heard of or read one CREDIBLE report that WMDs made their way to Syria. Produce one please. Not a Hannity editorial, something by a governmental agency or at least a reputable source.
Tell me again why the Iraqi soldiers had used gas gear during the entire time that combat was going on.
Tell me again why the Iraqi soldiers had used gas gear during the entire time that combat was going on.
Do you want me to chime in with my theory or do you remember it from the old board?
Tell me again why the Iraqi soldiers had used gas gear during the entire time that combat was going on.
Depleted Uranium? You call that proof???? Seriously? Where is the reconstitution of the Nukes program? Where are the cropdusters used to attack us? Where are teh mobile weapons labs? We were duped man. All of us.
Vegas
04-03-2007, 07:34 PM
Do you want me to chime in with my theory or do you remember it from the old board?
I remember it. Tell me again how that's a theory by your own definition.
I remember it. Tell me again how that's a theory by your own definition.
How is the Iraqis supposedly wearing gas gear a theory? and then they went to Syria????
I remember it. Tell me again how that's a theory by your own definition.
A theory by my own definition?
You must be confusing something. I've stated a definition for a "scientific" theory. There's a difference between that and your ordinary everyday theory.
So...it's not a theory by "my" definition if you're referring to "my" science definition.
swordfish
04-03-2007, 09:05 PM
Yeah, I hear you can walk down the streets as an American now. Why would you think that success would piss the Dems off?
Answer me this:
What is the mission in Iraq?
Last I heard the mission in Iraq was to form a stable Democratic government. Unlike the rumors that the liberals spread about stealing oil. If we wanted the oil we would be taking it instead of spending x billion dollars to fund this. Last I remembered the legal reason for invading Iraq was the many many UN sanctions that Iraq agreed to and then broke not WMDs. If they had nothing to hide then why stop inspectors from the sites? I guess Hussein wanted everyone to think he had something he did not so that way when we invaded and killed him it would all be proved a sham. Its pure genius.
swordfish
04-03-2007, 09:13 PM
Heres a theory.
Ancient Babylon and Sumeria are located somewhere in Iraq. President Bush is trying to take over the country so he can find the ancient "Alien" artifacts. Since his weather machine is already active all he needs is the hyperdimensional anti-gravity drive that the babylonians invented. Then he can conquer the world.
Muahahahaha
Last I heard the mission in Iraq was to form a stable Democratic government. Unlike the rumors that the liberals spread about stealing oil. If we wanted the oil we would be taking it instead of spending x billion dollars to fund this. Last I remembered the legal reason for invading Iraq was the many many UN sanctions that Iraq agreed to and then broke not WMDs. If they had nothing to hide then why stop inspectors from the sites? I guess Hussein wanted everyone to think he had something he did not so that way when we invaded and killed him it would all be proved a sham. Its pure genius.
Not that I'm arguing the overall context of your post, but I do have one issue...
You say that if we wanted the oil, we would just be taking it in droves...
Well, maybe, but not if we didn't want it to look like that's what we were doing...
That is, if we wanted it to look like something else, we would try to make it look like something else.
Heres a theory.
Ancient Babylon and Sumeria are located somewhere in Iraq. President Bush is trying to take over the country so he can find the ancient "Alien" artifacts. Since his weather machine is already active all he needs is the hyperdimensional anti-gravity drive that the babylonians invented. Then he can conquer the world.
Muahahahaha
Jiddy's gonna jump all over this Babylonian talk...
swordfish
04-03-2007, 09:28 PM
Jiddy's gonna jump all over this Babylonian talk...
I sure hope so. :)
Jiddy78
04-03-2007, 10:36 PM
You guys love when I bust out some quality babylonian disgust.
Vegas
04-03-2007, 10:43 PM
You guys love when I bust out some quality babylonian disgust.
You do realize that the Babylonians were the greatest of all the world's empires?
You do realize that the Babylonians were the greatest of all the world's empires?
No, that's the Americans.
Jiddy78
04-04-2007, 12:25 AM
No, that's the Americans.
Beat me to it...Funnily, I don't think we decided to go the empire route by choice-It kinda fell upon us when Russia took a dive (effects of which are STILL being felt today)...
Jiddy78
04-04-2007, 12:26 AM
You do realize that the Babylonians were the greatest of all the world's empires?
And, for you, kimosabe, I pull out and oldie but a goodie: The bigger they are...The harder they fall.
Nixon's Head
04-04-2007, 09:59 AM
Tell me again why the Iraqi soldiers had used gas gear during the entire time that combat was going on.Sounds like someone bluffing in a game of poker. Either that or they had no other gear to wear.
LSU, what is your theory on this? I don't remember it from the old board.
Last I heard the mission in Iraq was to form a stable Democratic government. Unlike the rumors that the liberals spread about stealing oil. If we wanted the oil we would be taking it instead of spending x billion dollars to fund this. Last I remembered the legal reason for invading Iraq was the many many UN sanctions that Iraq agreed to and then broke not WMDs. If they had nothing to hide then why stop inspectors from the sites? I guess Hussein wanted everyone to think he had something he did not so that way when we invaded and killed him it would all be proved a sham. Its pure genius.
Sweet. Nation building. I thought he didn't do that?
You know damn well that the US public would have never been behind a war because Iraq broke some rules at the UN. You also have to know damn well that Hussein had no way to really hrt us. Their was nothing to be afraid of, yet our leaders were saying ridiculous and provocative things to get people to support the war.
If the president would have said: We want to go into Iraq, take out Saddam Hussein, stay as long as it takes to build a stable democracy which could be up to 5 or 6 years, setup permanent bases to operate from, and take many of our troops out of Afghanistan. What would the American public have said? Hussein was letting inspectors in. Its bullshit that you claim otherwise. He had a history of non-cooperation, but was generally being compliant. Almost every inspector knew damn well he wasn't a threat to us.
Not that I'm arguing the overall context of your post, but I do have one issue...
You say that if we wanted the oil, we would just be taking it in droves...
Well, maybe, but not if we didn't want it to look like that's what we were doing...
That is, if we wanted it to look like something else, we would try to make it look like something else.There is a bill up in the Iraq Parliament that all but gives control of all Iraq's oil to large American corporations. It is identical to a policy we wrote up prewar in the US.
Jiddy78
04-04-2007, 11:43 AM
Sweet. Nation building. I thought he didn't do that?
You know damn well that the US public would have never been behind a war because Iraq broke some rules at the UN. You also have to know damn well that Hussein had no way to really hrt us. Their was nothing to be afraid of, yet our leaders were saying ridiculous and provocative things to get people to support the war.
If the president would have said: We want to go into Iraq, take out Saddam Hussein, stay as long as it takes to build a stable democracy which could be up to 5 or 6 years, setup permanent bases to operate from, and take many of our troops out of Afghanistan. What would the American public have said? Hussein was letting inspectors in. Its bullshit that you claim otherwise. He had a history of non-cooperation, but was generally being compliant. Almost every inspector knew damn well he wasn't a threat to us.
http://www.courageunfettered.com/stuf/saddam.jpg
This is your home...Never leave your home.
http://www.courageunfettered.com/stuf/saddam.jpg
This is your home...Never leave your home.What???
Jiddy78
04-04-2007, 11:46 AM
What???
That was supposed to be this:
http://glockfaq.com/targets/humanoid/saddam.jpg
That was supposed to be this:
http://glockfaq.com/targets/humanoid/saddam.jpg
Ahhh. I see.
hannitykillspuppies
04-04-2007, 12:08 PM
You people just won't let go of the wmd's will you?
The Iraq army fired weapons that they were not supposed to have at our troops when we invaded.
There are numerous reports of the weapons being snuck into Syria, Maybe Pelosi will find them during her terrorist appeasement tour.
At least 500 canisters of mustard gas and sarin gas have been found.
yeah, it wasn't wmds. that's not why we went there. it was that direct link between iraq and 9/11. thanks for reminding me.
Sounds like someone bluffing in a game of poker. Either that or they had no other gear to wear.
LSU, what is your theory on this? I don't remember it from the old board.
Similar to yours. Saddam operated under the guise of weaponistic superiority. He had shown flashes of that by gassing people of his own country and using it against the Iranians in the 80s.
The "threat" of Saddam using gas and other things was well known...if you're a soldier of Iraq, and they send you gas gear, and you have heard that Saddam has gas, and he has used gas before...are you not going to wear your gas gear?
Now, one might argue that the soldiers would know that Saddam didn't have it...would they know? If there was one remotely anti-Saddam soldier that knew this, that message would get spread to any one of Saddam's enemies, and that enemy would perhaps be motivated to strike with the knowledge that Saddam couldn't use gas.
So, logically speaking, the soldiers were operating under the same assumptions that the Americans were...that Saddam had gas and was prepared to use it.
His whole regime was built on fear...how much fear would their be if people didn't think he'd use the weapons.
That's one of the chief reasons, IMO, that Iran has suddenly become frontpage news all the time...they don't have to jockey for position with Saddam anymore. Their nearest threat is gone.
Iron Jaw
04-04-2007, 04:24 PM
Yeah, I hear you can walk down the streets as an American now. Why would you think that success would piss the Dems off?
Unfortunately IBC, there are many streets in the U.S. that an American can't walk down safely. I'd like to see the congressional folks take nightly strolls in the S.E. Washington D.C. area.
Unfortunately IBC, there are many streets in the U.S. that an American can't walk down safely. I'd like to see the congressional folks take nightly strolls in the S.E. Washington D.C. area.
Please don't start with that Iraq safer than some US cities bunk. That shit was debunked on the old board. There was really no comparison at all, and the stats were loaded. At the very least there have been 100k civilian casualties in Iraq.
Also, Newsmax is a frickin joke. They are quite possibly the least reliable news source out there. I am glad that Vegas never posts directly from there, or you know I would hit the roof.
Vegas
04-04-2007, 04:41 PM
Also, Newsmax is a frickin joke. They are quite possibly the least reliable news source out there. I am glad that Vegas never posts directly from there, or you know I would hit the roof.
I hope you get that upset at the stuff I've posted from the NY Times and CBS news, too.
I hope you get that upset at the stuff I've posted from the NY Times and CBS news, too.
The comparison of the Newspaper of Record for the United States and Newsmax is laughable. The NYT practically cheered Bush into Baghdad. Give me a break Vegas. Liberal bias in media is a hoax. You mean to tell me that the corporate owned media has a leftist slant? O'Reilly says that, and the guy is wrong over and over and over about it just like everything else. Saying something enough times makes it true?
Iron Jaw
04-04-2007, 04:45 PM
yeah, it wasn't wmds. that's not why we went there. it was that direct link between iraq and 9/11. thanks for reminding me.
We were already in Iraq, and had been there since 1991. American forces, along with the Brits and French (French until 1998) were manning the no-fly zones as part of the Desert Storm cease-fire. Sadaam Hussein's forces regularly violated the no-fly zones and in 1998 declared that he no longer respected or approved of the zones. He even offered a hefty monetary award to anyone who could shoot down the allied aircraft. The justification used in operating the no-fly zones was U.N. Resolution 688.
In 1998, Operation Desert Fox commenced (ordered by then President Clinton)based upon Iraq's failure to comply with the U.N. Resolutions as well as their regular interference with U.N. inspectors. Desert Fox was designed to crush Sadaam's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, congress passed and Clinton signed HR 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act, which was designed to fund Iraq groups who were opposed to Sadaam and prepared to oust him in any manner they could. The provisions also allowed for assisting the forces that opposed Sadaam in an active rebellion.
The point is, our forces never left Iraq after Desert Storm. Iraqi forces were aggressive against the allied forces on many occasions and their leader actively advocated shooting down the allied planes. During that period he was also actively aggressive in crushing the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings. Resolution 688 would have justified coalition forces moving on Iraqi forces to protect and support the Kurd and Shiite uprisings.
We were already in Iraq, and had been there since 1991. American forces, along with the Brits and French (French until 1998) were manning the no-fly zones as part of the Desert Storm cease-fire. Sadaam Hussein's forces regularly violated the no-fly zones and in 1998 declared that he no longer respected or approved of the zones. He even offered a hefty monetary award to anyone who could shoot down the allied aircraft. The justification used in operating the no-fly zones was U.N. Resolution 688.
In 1998, Operation Desert Fox commenced (ordered by then President Clinton)based upon Iraq's failure to comply with the U.N. Resolutions as well as their regular interference with U.N. inspectors. Desert Fox was designed to crush Sadaam's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, congress passed and Clinton signed HR 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act, which was designed to fund Iraq groups who were opposed to Sadaam and prepared to oust him in any manner they could. The provisions also allowed for assisting the forces that opposed Sadaam in an active rebellion.
The point is, our forces never left Iraq after Desert Storm. Iraqi forces were aggressive against the allied forces on many occasions and their leader actively advocated shooting down the allied planes. During that period he was also actively aggressive in crushing the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings. Resolution 688 would have justified coalition forces moving on Iraqi forces to protect and support the Kurd and Shiite uprisings.
Reason to lose thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Got it.
Iron Jaw
04-04-2007, 05:11 PM
Reason to lose thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Got it.
Believe me, I have no love for war. I'm a combat vet - I've seen the death and destruction first hand. The sooner a war is over, the better.
That said, I still have tremendous loyalty to my fellow Marines who are currently on active duty. If I were still elgible for enlistment or reinstatement of commission, I'd be back in the Marine Corps right now - in a heartbeat. I did my time as an enlisted man in the 70's on active duty and served as an officer in the reserves in the 80's. Of course, if it breaks out into a major war, they'll want all former officers back on duty. Once a Marine.....always. Heck, I'm in great physical shape (probably a lot better than a chunk of the youngsters on duty right now - I'm a PT guru in the Border Patrol).
Our original reason for entering into Iraq in the first place was their invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I believe it was a justified reason for war and the mission of removing the Iraqis from Kuwait was accomplished. Sadaam Hussein had the largest army in the region and a non-response from the west would have given him additional power to disrupt the region - and the ability to procure additional dangerous weapons including WMD's that I have no doubt he would have used to his advantage. I think the Coalition force in Iraq performed as expected and ended Sadaam's potential threat to the outside world at the time.
However, failure to remove him and his cronies from office was a huge mistake. The assault on Iraq should have continued until he and his party were willing to sign a surrender that forced him out of power (and out of Iraq) to the Coalition forces. We should have establised a permanent Coalition base in the Kurdish region in Iraq and a second amongst the friendly forces in southern Iraq, and then set up an occupation force. In 1991, that would have involved more nations (possibly U.N. sanctioned) and garnered considerable more support worldwide than does the current occupation. Plus, we already had 500,000 U.S. troops and another 100,000 foreign troops on site, fully equipped and ready to go.
President Bush the elder blew that opportunity. I sincerely doubt he would have gained continued support for the war from congress - and the U.N. Resolution did not call for a total invasion of Iraq so he would have had to do considerable tinkering with them for support (for the removal of the Baathists, he might have eventually won support - for total invasion - doubtful).
Believe me, I have no love for war. I'm a combat vet - I've seen the death and destruction first hand. The sooner a war is over, the better.
That said, I still have tremendous loyalty to my fellow Marines who are currently on active duty. If I were still elgible for enlistment or reinstatement of commission, I'd be back in the Marine Corps right now - in a heartbeat. I did my time as an enlisted man in the 70's on active duty and served as an officer in the reserves in the 80's. Of course, if it breaks out into a major war, they'll want all former officers back on duty. Once a Marine.....always. Heck, I'm in great physical shape (probably a lot better than a chunk of the youngsters on duty right now - I'm a PT guru in the Border Patrol).
Our original reason for entering into Iraq in the first place was their invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I believe it was a justified reason for war and the mission of removing the Iraqis from Kuwait was accomplished. Sadaam Hussein had the largest army in the region and a non-response from the west would have given him additional power to disrupt the region - and the ability to procure additional dangerous weapons including WMD's that I have no doubt he would have used to his advantage. I think the Coalition force in Iraq performed as expected and ended Sadaam's potential threat to the outside world at the time.
However, failure to remove him and his cronies from office was a huge mistake. The assault on Iraq should have continued until he and his party were willing to sign a surrender that forced him out of power (and out of Iraq) to the Coalition forces. We should have establised a permanent Coalition base in the Kurdish region in Iraq and a second amongst the friendly forces in southern Iraq, and then set up an occupation force. In 1991, that would have involved more nations (possibly U.N. sanctioned) and garnered considerable more support worldwide than does the current occupation. Plus, we already had 500,000 U.S. troops and another 100,000 foreign troops on site, fully equipped and ready to go.
President Bush the elder blew that opportunity. I sincerely doubt he would have gained continued support for the war from congress - and the U.N. Resolution did not call for a total invasion of Iraq so he would have had to do considerable tinkering with them for support (for the removal of the Baathists, he might have eventually won support - for total invasion - doubtful).
Well thank you for your service. I agree with about everything you have said, but I still don't see it as reason to have gone back in. I know you say we never left, but we also had him cornered and beaten. There was no reason to go in and occupy the country.
swordfish
04-04-2007, 07:04 PM
Well thank you for your service. I agree with about everything you have said, but I still don't see it as reason to have gone back in. I know you say we never left, but we also had him cornered and beaten. There was no reason to go in and occupy the country.
*High Five* Iron Jaw
hannitykillspuppies
04-05-2007, 03:23 PM
You people just won't let go of the wmd's will you?
The Iraq army fired weapons that they were not supposed to have at our troops when we invaded.
There are numerous reports of the weapons being snuck into Syria, Maybe Pelosi will find them during her terrorist appeasement tour.
At least 500 canisters of mustard gas and sarin gas have been found.
guess you won't be voting for romney.
HANNITY: So your position on Iraq, it was right to go in. We have experienced some success, but you say you're somewhat angry at some mistakes. What do you think the mistakes were?
ROMNEY: Well, I'm not going to second guess the decision going in, based on what we knew at the time. We believed they had weapons of mass destruction. We were almost certain they did.
And it turns out that apparently they didn't. So we put that aside.
HANNITY: Now could they perhaps have moved them to Syria?
ROMNEY: There are all sorts of possibilities. Then began the process of trying to bring stability to the country and that we didn't do so well.
love how hannity can't let it go without bringing up the syria conspiracy.
'Lifer
04-05-2007, 03:56 PM
guess you won't be voting for romney.
HANNITY: So your position on Iraq, it was right to go in. We have experienced some success, but you say you're somewhat angry at some mistakes. What do you think the mistakes were?
ROMNEY: Well, I'm not going to second guess the decision going in, based on what we knew at the time. We believed they had weapons of mass destruction. We were almost certain they did.
And it turns out that apparently they didn't. So we put that aside.
HANNITY: Now could they perhaps have moved them to Syria?
ROMNEY: There are all sorts of possibilities. Then began the process of trying to bring stability to the country and that we didn't do so well.
love how hannity can't let it go without bringing up the syria conspiracy.
I finally saw Romney speak.....impressive. I must find out more about this man.
swordfish
04-07-2007, 01:02 PM
All you are going to find out is that he is Mormon. There must be something to him since the media is lambasting him. I would probably vote for Ron Paul first.
ryr8828
04-07-2007, 01:05 PM
guess you won't be voting for romney.
HANNITY: So your position on Iraq, it was right to go in. We have experienced some success, but you say you're somewhat angry at some mistakes. What do you think the mistakes were?
ROMNEY: Well, I'm not going to second guess the decision going in, based on what we knew at the time. We believed they had weapons of mass destruction. We were almost certain they did.
And it turns out that apparently they didn't. So we put that aside.
HANNITY: Now could they perhaps have moved them to Syria?
ROMNEY: There are all sorts of possibilities. Then began the process of trying to bring stability to the country and that we didn't do so well.
love how hannity can't let it go without bringing up the syria conspiracy.
Because it's as viable a point as saying No WMD over and over again.
Because it's as viable a point as saying No WMD over and over again.
I disagree. Since no WMDs (other than some containers of degraded gas) have been found, saying "no WMDs" is pretty viable. Saying they've been moved is less viable because...well...there's not a lot of proof. Saying Saddam put them on a space shuttle and their on Mars for his second coming is just as viable as they shipped them to Syria. OK, not really, but them having not found much in the WMD category makes the "no WMDs" contentions more viable then the Syria claim...
Not that I'm saying it would've been impossible to move them out. But I have a hard time believing some satellites wouldn't have picked up the movement of trucks and such (there would have had to been a shitload of trucks and security if there were that many WMDs).
ryr8828
04-07-2007, 01:58 PM
I disagree. Since no WMDs (other than some containers of degraded gas) have been found, saying "no WMDs" is pretty viable. Saying they've been moved is less viable because...well...there's not a lot of proof. Saying Saddam put them on a space shuttle and their on Mars for his second coming is just as viable as they shipped them to Syria. OK, not really, but them having not found much in the WMD category makes the "no WMDs" contentions more viable then the Syria claim...
Not that I'm saying it would've been impossible to move them out. But I have a hard time believing some satellites wouldn't have picked up the movement of trucks and such (there would have had to been a shitload of trucks and security if there were that many WMDs).
There are 40 acres behind my house. I'd hide a gallon bucket on that property and bet you $10,000 you couldn't find it.
Your odds would be better than people searching for a warehouse sized object in Iran if it was hidden well.
There are 40 acres behind my house. I'd hide a gallon bucket on that property and bet you $10,000 you couldn't find it.
Your odds would be better than people searching for a warehouse sized object in Iran if it was hidden well.
Perhaps...but the WMDs would have to be loaded, transported, and unloaded. To go along with that, they're WMDs, so it would all have to be done quite carefully.
I'm just saying if it did happened, I'm surprised some satellite or some other intelligence source didn't pick it up...or if it did pick it up, why no one in the admin would publicize it.
And a couple thousand WMDs trekking along a highway would be a lot easier to see than a buried bucket or a warehouse.
Now, the hiding spot, I agree...if it's in Syria, it's not easy to find...but it had to get to Syria somehow...and throw on top of that, I don't believe Saddam, if he had them, would have them in one spot, they'd be spread all over the country (relatively speaking)...so then it's an even bigger move to get them all to Syria.
ryr8828
04-07-2007, 03:13 PM
I'll post the website later, I just came in to check on the cats and their fighting tendencies.
If Russia was involved, do you think the administration would publicize it?
Or just take their lumps and fight one battle at a time?
I'll post the website later, I just came in to check on the cats and their fighting tendencies.
If Russia was involved, do you think the administration would publicize it?
Or just take their lumps and fight one battle at a time?
There's a lot to consider there. Proof of moving WMDs may have saved Congress for the Right.
ryr8828
04-07-2007, 03:20 PM
There's a lot to consider there. Proof of moving WMDs may have saved Congress for the Right.
Losing a chance of Russia's vote in the UN Security council on one issue or the other, or another Cold War where everyone has their balls hanging out may have cost a lot more.
Bush wants to defeat terrorism, not take over the entire world. One step at a time.
Iraq-dealings with Russia and France
Iran-dealings with Russia
N. Korea-dealings with Iran (could be coming through Iran from Russia?)
Saudi Arabia-dealings with the US, funnels millions of dollars to terrorists
It's a very complicated puzzle. One war at a time.
Losing a chance of Russia's vote in the UN Security council on one issue or the other, or another Cold War where everyone has their balls hanging out may have cost a lot more.
Bush wants to defeat terrorism, not take over the entire world. One step at a time.
Iraq-dealings with Russia and France
Iran-dealings with Russia
N. Korea-dealings with Iran (could be coming through Iran from Russia?)
Saudi Arabia-dealings with the US, funnels millions of dollars to terrorists
It's a very complicated puzzle. One war at a time.
Yes, but if certain criteria are not met, certain wars won't be fought. Self preservation...and if the people that want to fight the wars aren't kept in power, the self is not preserved.
Jiddy78
04-07-2007, 03:45 PM
Losing a chance of Russia's vote in the UN Security council on one issue or the other, or another Cold War where everyone has their balls hanging out may have cost a lot more.
Bush wants to defeat terrorism, not take over the entire world. One step at a time.
Iraq-dealings with Russia and France
Iran-dealings with Russia
N. Korea-dealings with Iran (could be coming through Iran from Russia?)
Saudi Arabia-dealings with the US, funnels millions of dollars to terrorists
It's a very complicated puzzle. One war at a time.
Agreed on this point from our perspective...There's no money in an "all at once deal"...Milk it for what it's worth.
Based on this scenario, we could be looking at another 100 years of wartime inflation...Ah well, at least a burrito in Mexico will still be cheap...but wooooowweeeeee...That fish & Chips in London is gonna have to be paid off over 5 years....
Jiddy78
04-07-2007, 03:50 PM
There are 40 acres behind my house. I'd hide a gallon bucket on that property and bet you $10,000 you couldn't find it.
Your odds would be better than people searching for a warehouse sized object in Iran if it was hidden well.
That depends.....I want a ratio on people in our army searching for WMD's to square feet of land...
If it comes out to me and 15+ other guys searching that 40 acres equivalently with oh, a decade or so to look, I'll take that bet old man....
I won't even push for anything more than a metal detector for technology on top...
swordfish
04-07-2007, 05:02 PM
I had actually read somewhere that the WMDs were transported in transformed 747s that were supposed to be carrying humanitarian relief to Syria from Iraq. Hussein had plenty of warning that we were invading. It is not like one night we just attacked, it was known for months and months. It is just that the mainstream media will not talk about it. The few outlets that do say anything get blasted by the left. I will research this more and try to find a link to anything related.
United WE Stand, Divided We Fall
Does anyone here not see the divisions created by the parties, media, govt?
I had actually read somewhere that the WMDs were transported in transformed 747s that were supposed to be carrying humanitarian relief to Syria from Iraq. Hussein had plenty of warning that we were invading. It is not like one night we just attacked, it was known for months and months. It is just that the mainstream media will not talk about it. The few outlets that do say anything get blasted by the left. I will research this more and try to find a link to anything related.
United WE Stand, Divided We Fall
Does anyone here not see the divisions created by the parties, media, govt?
You mean like "a vote for Democrats is a vote for terrorism"?
Jiddy78
04-07-2007, 05:30 PM
You mean like "a vote for Democrats is a vote for terrorism"?
Yo momma can't be fat...She a democrat, jack.
swordfish
04-07-2007, 05:41 PM
Did I blame anyone? You are already taking sides. See how easily the division works. My ideas of conservatism go back to the original founding fathers who would vomit on the current republican party. They already got you by the balls my friend.
Did I blame anyone? You are already taking sides. See how easily the division works. My ideas of conservatism go back to the original founding fathers who would vomit on the current republican party. They already got you by the balls my friend.
I just used the first example that popped into my head.
A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
hannitykillspuppies
04-09-2007, 11:11 AM
There are 40 acres behind my house. I'd hide a gallon bucket on that property and bet you $10,000 you couldn't find it.
Your odds would be better than people searching for a warehouse sized object in Iran if it was hidden well.
yeah, but unlike your bucket, we knew where the wmds were.
hannitykillspuppies
04-09-2007, 11:14 AM
I had actually read somewhere that the WMDs were transported in transformed 747s that were supposed to be carrying humanitarian relief to Syria from Iraq. Hussein had plenty of warning that we were invading. It is not like one night we just attacked, it was known for months and months. It is just that the mainstream media will not talk about it. The few outlets that do say anything get blasted by the left. I will research this more and try to find a link to anything related.
United WE Stand, Divided We Fall
Does anyone here not see the divisions created by the parties, media, govt?
they get blasted because there is no proof of that.
they get blasted because there is no proof of that.
Not only that, but what we knew about what Saddam had was actually quite different than the hand-picked intelligence we used to go in. WMD's actually had nothing to do with it at all. I am certain of that. If they didn't clearly see that Saddam wasn't a threat to us, they are incompetent and should be removed from office. If they lied they should be removed from ofiice. I think it was the latter.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.