Title: No WMD's, eh? (Think again) Post by: Phoenix on 2004-04-22, 06:58 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/...17/141224.shtml (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/17/141224.shtml)
Syria, eh? Now who can say, "The bird was right." Come on, say it for me! :smirk: Also, does anyone else remember seeing this in the mainstream press? I find it rather convenient that this little report has been overlooked by just about everyone. Media bias? NAWWW. :)~ Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Thomas Mink on 2004-04-22, 09:50 I'll say nothing...
I still don't support Bush and never will Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Woodsman on 2004-04-23, 02:58 My dad says fox reported it but i didnt catch it. Ive also heard it was mentioned in the Sanfrancisco chronicle one of the most left leaning newspapers in the united states.
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Assamite on 2004-05-20, 05:47 Phoenix, I thought better of you than to visit tripe like NewsMax. You know, the reason the mainstream media (or even FOX, for that matter) doesn't post this is the same reason they won't publish Znet. It's simply just not credible.
Then again, we DID see examples of Sarin Gas, though it's most likely used by Al-Qaeda agents instead of Iraqi/Syrian officials. Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Woodsman on 2004-05-20, 05:55 Ive since seen this information on various other media outlets. Its pretty well established now.
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Phoenix on 2004-05-20, 06:35 Assamite: you're saying the mainstream media is credible? :?:
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Assamite on 2004-05-20, 06:55 It's definitely better than half the crap you see on the internet.
Still, the only way to find out the truth is to go and experience it for yourself. Since I really can't be bothered to do that, I'll just make whatever I can of what the mainstream media (plus several alternative sources) throw at me. I'm skeptical of approximately 100% of what they say. Hell, I stopped watching most of TV news a long time ago. Overall, if most sane human beings accept a news outlet as credible, it probably is. Otherwise, it's most likely tripe. Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Phoenix on 2004-05-20, 07:25 I would prefer to know what the insane ones think, considering the entire world has gone mad.
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Woodsman on 2004-05-20, 07:30 Mark twain once said "you can spend your life believing or doubting everything but both ways save you from thinking". The main stream media should be consider but perhaps considered with a grain of salt. The vast majority of people i know who claim to completely mistrust the news media are usually people who are just too lazy to keep up with the news.
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Phoenix on 2004-05-20, 08:53 Indeed. That's why I research many sources instead of relying on only one or two whenever I have time.
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Phoenix on 2004-05-20, 15:31 I just ran across this:
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/may...ay/05_19_2.html (http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/may/05_19_2.html) Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: games keeper on 2004-05-20, 18:51 all of that is still no reason tho drop bombs on an iraqis wedding party and say later that it where rebels .
( iraqis party != rebelion camp ) Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Dicion on 2004-05-21, 05:44 yes, but a wedding camp where 30 people firing off AK rounds into the sky while a helicopter flies by, could easily be construed as one...
Gameskeeper: the way people are over there is MUCH different. Guns over there are like party poppers... everyone has one, and they fire em off for almost any (good or bad) reason. That makes it hard to tell who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are... Tell me... you're flying a chopper looking for insurgents, and all of the sudden, as you fly over an area, there's 50 people below you, firing Guns straight up in your general area... what are you going to do?? Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Phoenix on 2004-05-21, 07:41 Besides, just because it's a wedding doesn't mean that the people are all friendly and innocent. They could have seen the chopper and started firing at it deliberately as well.
And let's stay on topic please, this thread is about looking for WMD's in Iraq, not bombing wedding parties. If people want a gripe session start a new thread. Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Lilazzkicker on 2004-05-21, 15:22 **!On Topic Please!**
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Footman on 2004-05-26, 04:38 This page (http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/) says there aren't any WMDs. ;)
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Woodsman on 2004-05-26, 05:09 and its a dead link. Forgive me if i dont bow down and convert now.
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Phoenix on 2004-05-26, 10:13 Woodsman: Read the page a bit more carefully. ;)
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Woodsman on 2004-05-26, 10:36 well in my defense do you read every one of those you see?
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Phoenix on 2004-06-03, 04:13 This may be of some interest to those who have short memories.
Quote "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real " - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 Now remember what these same people are saying now. I suppose the difference between a truth and a lie depends on who is in office and whether they support them. Remember all this when you go to the polls, and just how trustworthy politicians truly are. Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: games keeper on 2004-06-03, 16:55 so vote chtultu .
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Hedhunta on 2004-06-03, 22:33 why dont you run for office pho? your over 40(much, MUCH, over), and you are a resident and were born in the US(i think, correct me where im wrong) .... nowhere does it state you have to be human!.. id vote for a giant flaming bird! PHO for PRES! 2008!!
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Phoenix on 2004-06-04, 05:36 Problem, Hed. Phoenix wasn't "born". Besides, I wouldn't want to be a president. I get enough flak on this board as it is from the rabid anti-crowd!
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: games keeper on 2004-06-04, 19:57 :offtopic:
Quote nowhere does it state you have to be human it also doesn't state that you have to be white . although I havent seen a black american president for a whille ( never ) in america . ( think about it and lets go back on topic ) :offtopic: Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Hedhunta on 2004-06-05, 16:18 Quote from: Phoenix Problem, Hed. Phoenix wasn't "born". Besides, I wouldn't want to be a president. I get enough flak on this board as it is from the rabid anti-crowd! born/created its all the same :-P ... hehe, too bad. lolTitle: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Assamite on 2004-06-09, 04:21 Quote from: games keeper although I havent seen a black american president for a whille ( never ) in america . And it doesn't look like America want's a firey red president, either. :P( think about it and lets go back on topic ) :offtopic: On topic, perhaps those Democrats were simply mistaken about Iraq having WMDs. Now that we have confirmed for sure that it DOESN'T, every Democrat who said Iraq had WMDs right until the beginning of the war (John Kerry, especially) has suddenly flip-flopped, simply because it was politically convenient to take advantage of it. More power to them, since it's all politics. However, their previous statements in support of Iraq having WMDs aren't necessarily true just because they flip-flopped when the opposition said the same thing. (Am I confusing you here?) Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Phoenix on 2004-06-09, 11:10 It's the flip-flopping I'm taking issue with here, along with the hindsight finger-pointing. Here's how it plays out, possible scenarios. We'll speak strictly of the period of the last 8 years or so and not prior since we know he had them when he gassed the Kurds in northern Iraq:
1) Iraq did not have weapons, and everyone thought they did. 2) Iraq did have weapons, and everyone thought they did, and they are still in Iraq somewhere. 3) Iraq did have weapons, and everyone thought they did, and they are now destroyed. 4) Iraq did have weapons, and everyone thought they did, and they are now elsewhere. Situation 1) leaves nobody off the hook because everyone was wrong at the time they all believed Iraq had the weapons. Situation 2) would condemn the flipfloppers in the long run should the weapons ever eventually be discovered. Situation 3) leaves nobody off the hook since again, up until the war everyone thought they had them. Situation 4) would condemn the flipfloppers in the long run should the weapons be used in a terror attack by whomever now has them. So I ask this question - how does the fact of whether Iraq did or did not have weapons at the time these people thought they did have any relevance? If they believed at the time that Iraq had the weapons, they should stick with that and not suddenly reverse their positions. This is why you cannot trust these people. The truth in regards to THEIR RECORD is contradictory to their claims and position on the matter. They say one thing, then say something else, and you never know where they stand in the end. They only seek to benefit their own position and that of their party, and they don't care one damned bit for the American people or any other people. Such people should NEVER be trusted. Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Phoenix on 2004-06-12, 10:19 Quote UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Friday, June 11, 2004 The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003. The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program. The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared. UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported. "It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal." "The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags. He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destionations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters ? the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads. "It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax." The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles. "The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Buchanan said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors." UN inspectors have assessed that the SA-2 and the short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile were shipped abroad by agents of the Saddam regime. Buchanan said UNMOVIC plans to inspect other sites, including in Turkey. In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country. This is on their "breaking" page, link here for as long as it's up: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/b...breaking_1.html (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html) Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Woodsman on 2004-06-12, 15:42 ill vote for a black president when theres a black candidate worth voting for. (one who dosent run on the "im black so vote for me!" ticket). How many black prime ministers has Belgium had GK?. Sorry to get off topic but i couldnt let that pass without saying somthing.
Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: Phoenix on 2004-06-16, 20:37 Not about WMD's specifically, but concerning Iraq and all the attacks that the news media just can't get enough of:
Quote "The room for maneuver has started to become smaller," Al Zarqawi said. "The grip is getting tighter around the necks of the holy warriors. With the deployment of soldiers and police, the future has become frightening." Al Zarqawi said his group was trying to organize battalions to take over Iraq before national elections, scheduled for January 2005. Once again, he raised the prospect that Islamic insurgents would fail and either be expelled or killed. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/b...breaking_8.html (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_8.html) If (and that's a big "if") this story is correct, and the letter did indeed come from Al Zarqawi then it means the terrorists are losing the fight. That runs contrary to how the media would have you believe things are going by the way in which events are being reported. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.[/color] Title: Re: No WMD's, eh? Post by: games keeper on 2004-06-16, 21:44 black , none , we are more conserned about the morrocans .
and they want to be in the goverment , but nobody votes for them for a good reason . we now try to get somekind of extreme right to the goverment sothey can throw out the morrocans . btw , agelef ==> extreme left was 2 ago in the goverment . they putted in a new law . belgians have to go voting . migrants may go voting . with other words , almost anyone could come and vote here , hell even dicion could almost come and vote . ( but hes still american right ?? ) |