Oh, and for anybody wanting a source, http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
also, http://www.sundayherald.com/print31710
Funny thing is, almost all of my post...everything attributed to "defense official" was taken directly from the FoxNews article.kr@cker wrote:
once again pwned?
half of your post supports the fact that Saddam was in violation of the WMD clause, the other half is some circular reasoning which, well, supports that saddam was in violation of the WMD clause
I mean c'mon "Other knwon munitions, stores, what have you, could've easily been looted or ransacked as the invasion was begin."
so if my neighbor steals all my meth then I couldn't possibly have been running a meth lab?
try reading my links (just a few of several dozen) before you oversimplify the situation
Yes, known munitions. The ones that the UN tagged and locked up?! As far as I know most sites were simply "secured" with a lock and some stickers. This was during and after the inspections put in place post-1st gulf war.
Look, this article was taking facts and turning them into new evidence. There are articles from 2004 discussing these same shells, someone posted links to them previously. The defense department admits that these shells DON'T constitute any possible programs that were ongoing between the 1st and 2nd gulf wars. They same defense department also clearly states that the shells in questions were NOT chemical munitions in the fact that the chemical had degraded past a point of being effective.
Yes, pwned. Were the munitions that had been excluded from previous declarations? This proves that there were. Saddam never included these in any of his official reports regarding his weapons programs. Should these have been buried in the desert it's possible Saddam didn't even know that they exsisted, or didn't devulge thier exsistence because of thier ineffective state.
There are people who want to say we "found" 500 tons of yellow cake in Iraq, that statement is true yet the UN knew it was there because the from door had a sticker declaring it "UNMOVC" secure.
Scotch
We sold them their chemical weapons so they could fight the Ayatollah in Iran who was our secondary nemisis in the early 80's. Don't you remeber?
Ayatollahs in iran, russians in afghanistan
Wheel of fortune, sally ride, heavy metal, suicide
Foreign debts, homeless vets, aids, crack, bernie goetz
Hypodermics on the shores, chinas under martial law
Rock and roller cola wars, I cant take it anymore
We didnt start the fire
But when we are gone
Will it still burn on, and on, and on, and on...
Ayatollahs in iran, russians in afghanistan
Wheel of fortune, sally ride, heavy metal, suicide
Foreign debts, homeless vets, aids, crack, bernie goetz
Hypodermics on the shores, chinas under martial law
Rock and roller cola wars, I cant take it anymore
We didnt start the fire
But when we are gone
Will it still burn on, and on, and on, and on...
They said these had been all pre-91 weopons nothing new... So they dug up a bunch of old shells like before... yippie!
More Fox news crap.
More Fox news crap.
Last edited by splixx (2006-06-22 09:36:27)
splixx wrote:
They said these had been all pre-91 weopons nothing new... So they dug up a bunch of old shells like before... yippie!
More Fox news crap.
ashkal wrote:
From reading several reports, it seems that the "chemical weapons", are actually unused shells pre-dating the gulf war, circa 1991. Another point, the U.S, U.K, and other countries, sold weapons, gas, chemicals, and hardware to Saddam in the late eighties, to early nineties. I think we all remember the infamous pictures/video of Donald Rumsfeld meeting with and shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
Last edited by topal63 (2006-06-22 09:43:36)
The problem with most people is they read the headlines and never really read into the stories or read history. They just follow what is splashing on CNN and FOX news screens and go with it. That is the American way these days.
First paragraph of the article:
To the Liberals who claim Fox News is Conservative: you're right.
To the Conservatives who claim Fox News is Liberal: you're right.
Fox News is a TV channel.
Where do TV channels get their money? Advertising.
How do TV channels attract advertisers? Ratings.
How do TV channels get better ratings? Mass appeal.
Where does mass appeal come from? Contraversy.
Fox News is a news website.
Where do news websites get their money? Advertising.
How do news websites attract advertisers? Traffic reports.
How do news websites get more hits? Mass appeal.
Where does mass appeal come from? Controversy.
My girlfriend leans to the left. Yet she listens to Sean Hannity every day. Why? People love controversy.
Fox News would have half the viewer base if they were as left- or right-oriented as each side claims they are. Favoring either side would be commercial suicide.
"Fair and Balanced." Even though the opinions hit the very ends of the political see-saw from time to time, it all evens out.
Ninth and Tenth paragraphs:Fox News wrote:
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Anyone can take what they want from this article.Fox News wrote:
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
To the Liberals who claim Fox News is Conservative: you're right.
To the Conservatives who claim Fox News is Liberal: you're right.
Fox News is a TV channel.
Where do TV channels get their money? Advertising.
How do TV channels attract advertisers? Ratings.
How do TV channels get better ratings? Mass appeal.
Where does mass appeal come from? Contraversy.
Fox News is a news website.
Where do news websites get their money? Advertising.
How do news websites attract advertisers? Traffic reports.
How do news websites get more hits? Mass appeal.
Where does mass appeal come from? Controversy.
My girlfriend leans to the left. Yet she listens to Sean Hannity every day. Why? People love controversy.
Fox News would have half the viewer base if they were as left- or right-oriented as each side claims they are. Favoring either side would be commercial suicide.
"Fair and Balanced." Even though the opinions hit the very ends of the political see-saw from time to time, it all evens out.
Last edited by antin0de (2006-06-22 09:50:54)
They said these had been all pre-91 weopons nothing new... So they dug up a bunch of old shells like before... yippie!
More Fox news crap.
Spot on man.
Mirage who do you think installed the Ayatollah in Iran? And continually supports the Saudi Royal family? I have heard from many sources that the US has intervened in other countries elections, economies, and governments, on at least 70 seperate occasions, since the end of the second world war.
Another popular misconception is that the US only started funding Osama Bin Laden after the USSR invaded. This is false, the US actually started to fund him and his followers six months before the conflict broke out. Seems the situation has turned around to bite you on the arse.
More Fox news crap.
Spot on man.
Mirage who do you think installed the Ayatollah in Iran? And continually supports the Saudi Royal family? I have heard from many sources that the US has intervened in other countries elections, economies, and governments, on at least 70 seperate occasions, since the end of the second world war.
Another popular misconception is that the US only started funding Osama Bin Laden after the USSR invaded. This is false, the US actually started to fund him and his followers six months before the conflict broke out. Seems the situation has turned around to bite you on the arse.
Turn off the TV and read.
CNN is not without it's biases either. The cbc here is actually very fair and balanced. can you access it from the us via cable of satellite?
CNN is not without it's biases either. The cbc here is actually very fair and balanced. can you access it from the us via cable of satellite?
Any US media outlet is garbage... Not sure about cbc I usually just read.kessel! wrote:
Turn off the TV and read.
CNN is not without it's biases either. The cbc here is actually very fair and balanced. can you access it from the us via cable of satellite?
Shouldn't you be shutting down this thread.Marconius wrote:
Slump in polls = new "shocking" news from right-wing sources in order to bring the polls up again. Expect Osama bin Laden to be captured come November.
Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong! Okay, I agree that it's pretty easy to accept the US gave Iraq WMD technology in the 80's, but realistically the US government had little to do with the technology that was transfered. We can thank our corporate base for that! There's a lot of information including transfers of bilogical toxins, virus strains, chemical precursors and process guidelines that were sent to Iraq. I can dig up the actual documents, hopefully, if anyone wants. So while we gave them bombs, guns, vehicles, tanks...etc, the US government never gave any Chemical/Biological/Radiological munitions to Iraq during Saddam's early years. In fact Rumsfeld was a direct player with our efforts to end Saddam's use of WMD's during the Iran/Iraq war, it was too late to save thousands of live but we got him to stop.IC||Mirage wrote:
We sold them their chemical weapons so they could fight the Ayatollah in Iran who was our secondary nemisis in the early 80's. Don't you remeber?
Ayatollahs in iran, russians in afghanistan
Wheel of fortune, sally ride, heavy metal, suicide
Foreign debts, homeless vets, aids, crack, bernie goetz
Hypodermics on the shores, chinas under martial law
Rock and roller cola wars, I cant take it anymore
We didnt start the fire
But when we are gone
Will it still burn on, and on, and on, and on...
Scotch
No wonder why he shut it down yesterday!! Boy this thread brought all the liberals in to shoot it down as always when there way is threatened. And the reason CNN,BBC and others won't put it on is because there all liberal news stations!!!!!Major_Spittle wrote:
Shouldn't you be shutting down this thread.Marconius wrote:
Slump in polls = new "shocking" news from right-wing sources in order to bring the polls up again. Expect Osama bin Laden to be captured come November.
Last edited by yuck7777 (2006-06-22 12:31:00)
Mm hmm...so absolutely none of the other posts in this thread hold water then, right? Fox News tends to be a conservative/right-wing outlet, so anything coming from them I take with a dumptruck of salt (as in the linkless thread). Everyone here has shown that what these two republican law-makers have found was really nothing more than what was already known to have been there.
So, you can continue to be angry that our "liberal media sources" aren't posting up your story, or you can actually RTFA and do a little research yourself instead of going apeshit over the title and claiming "victory."
So, you can continue to be angry that our "liberal media sources" aren't posting up your story, or you can actually RTFA and do a little research yourself instead of going apeshit over the title and claiming "victory."
Who cares about the timing?GATOR591957 wrote:
Would not surprise me one bit!Marconius wrote:
Slump in polls = new "shocking" news from right-wing sources in order to bring the polls up again. Expect Osama bin Laden to be captured come November.
That same idea was kicked around before the last election if you remember correctly.
I don't care when it happens. I just want it to happen. Not that it will make much of a difference... some other freak will fill his spot and we'll have to hunt him down too. Who knows how long this could go on.
What would not suprise me at all is Osama is in a deep freeze right now waiting to be thawed for the November election!spacebandit72 wrote:
Who cares about the timing?GATOR591957 wrote:
Would not surprise me one bit!Marconius wrote:
Slump in polls = new "shocking" news from right-wing sources in order to bring the polls up again. Expect Osama bin Laden to be captured come November.
That same idea was kicked around before the last election if you remember correctly.
I don't care when it happens. I just want it to happen. Not that it will make much of a difference... some other freak will fill his spot and we'll have to hunt him down too. Who knows how long this could go on.
If you trust anything this administration says at this point you are a fool...
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-06-22 13:07:43)
That is not my point. My point is... who cares? Every party tries little tactics to better their chances in an election. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. We all know it happens and there is nothing we can do about it so... who cares?GATOR591957 wrote:
What would not suprise me at all is Osama is in a deep freeze right now waiting to be thawed for the November election!
If you trust anything this administration says at this point you are a fool...
I think the deep freeze thing is a little silly but who knows.
We all know it happens, and yet the vast vast majority of America still gets taken by it. Actually, I think "We all know it happens" is a rather bad generalization of the voting public...
We should care... their scum.
This thread needs more Melissa.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
yeah ok, fox news enough said..
mmmmm..... melissa.King_County_Downy wrote:
This thread needs more Melissa.
http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/60eb66f4f0.jpg
and to the stupid fuck who -1'd me for saying Fox News is RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE...
Fuck you.
Today 14:00:45 -1 WMD"S found in Iraq!!!! No,no,no, there is nothing fair and balanced, there is not scrape against the political ultimates, it is liberal, unabashedly liberal.
Grow a pair and say it in the forums, you fucking bitch.
There were no WMDs and if Bush is elected he will reinstate the draft.
Vote Kerry/Edwards in 2004
Gee, wonder why the Dems lost? And they call Bush stupid, the man that beat them 2 times.
So I salute you, Mr. Democrat voting Liberal. Your a real man of genius.
Vote Kerry/Edwards in 2004
Gee, wonder why the Dems lost? And they call Bush stupid, the man that beat them 2 times.
So I salute you, Mr. Democrat voting Liberal. Your a real man of genius.
Fox? The Republican foodbank.