Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/4/2006 8:26:59 AM EDT
I was reading through some of the Fox, Yahoo and CNN stories about the Iranian referral to the UN for their enrichment programs and such and I feel like this is a de ja vou all over again from Iraq. Isn't this how it started a couple years ago? The UN's lack of action, then the US tried to rally the weak and pussified Europussies, then we had to go in and kick ass and take names?

I'm not saying this is a bad or good thing, just that its very reminiscent of how we became engaged in Iraq. But can't we just wipe Damascus off the Earth first?
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 8:39:09 AM EDT
And don't forget that Iraq switched over to the Euro too (as Iran is supposed to do on March 1st).

Can we let that happen?

Check out the thread on Iran in the Survival Forum
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 12:54:46 PM EDT
I doubt we will wait so long this time. Too much is at stake and the animals just might be starting to scare the weak europeans into action with this cartoon nonsense. Plus, I think Israel will hit the Iranians whenever they feel it is necessary.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 1:24:49 PM EDT
When did Iraq switch to the Euro? And the same with Iran?

WTF are you talking about? They arent part of the EU.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 1:27:28 PM EDT
Damascus is in Syria.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 1:29:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mister44:
When did Iraq switch to the Euro? And the same with Iran?

WTF are you talking about? They arent part of the EU.



iranian oil bourse opening soon is supposedly going to trade oil in euros instead of USD. the fact that all around the world oil is traded in USD greatly increases the demand for USD and props up the value of our currency. oil being sold in euros instead of dollars is a great economic threat to the US.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 1:29:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By carguym14:
And don't forget that Iraq switched over to the Euro too (as Iran is supposed to do on March 1st).

Can we let that happen?

Check out the thread on Iran in the Survival Forum



Dude, your tinfoil is too tight.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 1:38:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2006 1:43:10 PM EDT by eddiein1984]
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.

It's pretty hard to question the UN's and Europe's "lack of action" in Fall 2002 and early 2003 when it turn out they were right to press for time. Now we are stuck in a situation where we can't take action against a nation led by truly crazy islamic extremists (Iran) because we already blew our wad in Iraq.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 1:41:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.



I don't know what you have been smoking but you should stop.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 1:46:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sslocal:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.



I don't know what you have been smoking but you should stop.



What are you talking about? Still waiting for those bio-weapons labs to be dug up? Waiting for Bin Laden to break his buddy Hussein out of jail?
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 2:34:08 PM EDT
We may never definitively know wether he did have them or not. He was an expert at shifting his arsenals around from location to location (sending jets to Iran during the first war, burying Migs in the sand, etc...). Give me a break with your all knowing bullshit.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 2:37:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.

It's pretty hard to question the UN's and Europe's "lack of action" in Fall 2002 and early 2003 when it turn out they were right to press for time. Now we are stuck in a situation where we can't take action against a nation led by truly crazy islamic extremists (Iran) because we already blew our wad in Iraq.



So you missed the interview with the Iraqi general who admitted sending the WMDs and equipment to Syria under the cover of earthquake relief?
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 2:43:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.

It's pretty hard to question the UN's and Europe's "lack of action" in Fall 2002 and early 2003 when it turn out they were right to press for time. Now we are stuck in a situation where we can't take action against a nation led by truly crazy islamic extremists (Iran) because we already blew our wad in Iraq.



So you missed the interview with the Iraqi general who admitted sending the WMDs and equipment to Syria under the cover of earthquake relief?




Though I admit that I believe the WMDs are in Syria, I doubt the word of any Iraqi.

We should've stablized Afganistan first....THEN gone to Iraq.

Iran is about a hair away from getting airstuck....And they know it.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 2:47:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

What are you talking about? Still waiting for those bio-weapons labs to be dug up? Waiting for Bin Laden to break his buddy Hussein out of jail?



GODDAMNIT.

There are two words that everybody commenting on WMD related stuff needs to learn.

READY?

DUAL USE


99% of all bio-weapons labs look, amazingly, like every other biology lab on the planet. Same with chemical. Only NUCLEAR weapons require really special technology. You can make a bioweapon in a college level biology lab. Not totally safe, but you can do it.

Here's just one example: Iraqs smallpox research occured at a place called "Al Manal", a level 3 facility which was built by the French for making veterinary vaccines. Vaccines are, essentially, viruses. A biolab is a biolab. During the mid 1990's, equipment marked "smallpox" was found by UN teams at Al Manal. The UN team wanted to destroy the facility totally, but the French vetoed that, fearing it would hurt their other commercial ventures. Cement was put into the filtration system.

Anyway, any of the totally legitimate and UN allowed biological research units (many run by the Ministry of Health) could be used to do biowarfare reaserach. It doesn't require a special facility, and you don't have to have a big sign on it that says "IRAQI BIOWARFARE CENTER" or some nonsense.


On the Islamic terrorism, that's easy. We've got everything from Saddam offering Bin Ladin asylum after getting booted out of Sudan, to funding Paley terror groups, to Abu Nidal members and other hiding out there.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 2:48:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:
[

iranian oil bourse opening soon is supposedly going to trade oil in euros instead of USD. the fact that all around the world oil is traded in USD greatly increases the demand for USD and props up the value of our currency. oil being sold in euros instead of dollars is a great economic threat to the US.



And a consequence of our reckless fiscal policy in running up tremendous budget shortfalls in the past 4 years. If you were selling a product would you want to accept payment in a currency that has declined 40% in value in the past 6 years versus the Euro. I wouldn't.

While I am sure that there is a sinister component to the shift towards pricing oil in Euros, we own a share of the blame for having government spending be so much higher than revenues.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 2:57:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.

It's pretty hard to question the UN's and Europe's "lack of action" in Fall 2002 and early 2003 when it turn out they were right to press for time. Now we are stuck in a situation where we can't take action against a nation led by truly crazy islamic extremists (Iran) because we already blew our wad in Iraq.



Are you really an idiot or do you just play one on the internet? I'd try to educate your ignorant ass but since you used the term "neo-con" I know you are hopeless left winger who's too stupid to ever put down the koolaid and see the truth.

As far as Iran is concerned, Israel can NOT allow Iran to build nuclear weapons, specially with Hamas in control of the Palestinian areas. There can be little doubt that Iran would hand one over to Hamas and they would detonate it in Israel. Expect to see a pre-emptive strike before any chance of them constructing a bomb happens.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:22:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.

It's pretty hard to question the UN's and Europe's "lack of action" in Fall 2002 and early 2003 when it turn out they were right to press for time. Now we are stuck in a situation where we can't take action against a nation led by truly crazy islamic extremists (Iran) because we already blew our wad in Iraq.



So you missed the interview with the Iraqi general who admitted sending the WMDs and equipment to Syria under the cover of earthquake relief?

Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:24:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By sslocal:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.



I don't know what you have been smoking but you should stop.



What are you talking about? Still waiting for those bio-weapons labs to be dug up? Waiting for Bin Laden to break his buddy Hussein out of jail?



So, I guess if you don't find a murder weapon at the scene of the crime, no murder occurred, huh.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:41:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2006 3:54:20 PM EDT by eddiein1984]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By sslocal:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.



I don't know what you have been smoking but you should stop.



What are you talking about? Still waiting for those bio-weapons labs to be dug up? Waiting for Bin Laden to break his buddy Hussein out of jail?



So, I guess if you don't find a murder weapon at the scene of the crime, no murder occurred, huh.



This is a ridiculous analogy. Nobody doubts that Iraq had chemical weapons at least until the mid 1990's. That is undeniable. Nobody doubts Saddam Hussein was a horrible tyrant. But those facts don't justify the poor "intelligence" that caused us to begin this debacle in Iraq. Now that we are faced with Iran actually achieving nuclear capability, our hands are tied because we don't have the men, machines, money or credibility that we had in early 2003.

I love how as soon as anyone's opinion differs slightly from the party line around here, he is immediately labeled a troll, left winger, or Euro-pussy. I guess you guys just like to surround yourselves with people saying what you want to hear. Maybe you should invite that Iraqi general to join arfcom.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:47:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WesDesRat:

Originally Posted By carguym14:
And don't forget that Iraq switched over to the Euro too (as Iran is supposed to do on March 1st).

Can we let that happen?

Check out the thread on Iran in the Survival Forum



Dude, your tinfoil is too tight.



no, YOU lost your shepherd
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:52:15 PM EDT


Dude, your tinfoil is too tight.


That made me spit my drink out.. Good one..

Dan

Link Posted: 2/9/2006 5:14:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By sslocal:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.



I don't know what you have been smoking but you should stop.



What are you talking about? Still waiting for those bio-weapons labs to be dug up? Waiting for Bin Laden to break his buddy Hussein out of jail?



So, I guess if you don't find a murder weapon at the scene of the crime, no murder occurred, huh.



This is a ridiculous analogy. Nobody doubts that Iraq had chemical weapons at least until the mid 1990's. That is undeniable. Nobody doubts Saddam Hussein was a horrible tyrant. But those facts don't justify the poor "intelligence" that caused us to begin this debacle in Iraq. Now that we are faced with Iran actually achieving nuclear capability, our hands are tied because we don't have the men, machines, money or credibility that we had in early 2003.

I love how as soon as anyone's opinion differs slightly from the party line around here, he is immediately labeled a troll, left winger, or Euro-pussy. I guess you guys just like to surround yourselves with people saying what you want to hear. Maybe you should invite that Iraqi general to join arfcom.



It is not a matter of a different opinion, it is a matter of reality. If you don't believe he had them as we were getting ready to go in and either buried them or sent them to Syria, it's because you don't want to.

We don't have the credibility? Only in the minds of the leftists, both in this country and elsewhere.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 5:30:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2006 5:32:33 PM EDT by DonD]

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By sslocal:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.



I don't know what you have been smoking but you should stop.



What are you talking about? Still waiting for those bio-weapons labs to be dug up? Waiting for Bin Laden to break his buddy Hussein out of jail?



So, I guess if you don't find a murder weapon at the scene of the crime, no murder occurred, huh.



This is a ridiculous analogy. Nobody doubts that Iraq had chemical weapons at least until the mid 1990's. That is undeniable. Nobody doubts Saddam Hussein was a horrible tyrant. But those facts don't justify the poor "intelligence" that caused us to begin this debacle in Iraq. Now that we are faced with Iran actually achieving nuclear capability, our hands are tied because we don't have the men, machines, money or credibility that we had in early 2003.

I love how as soon as anyone's opinion differs slightly from the party line around here, he is immediately labeled a troll, left winger, or Euro-pussy. I guess you guys just like to surround yourselves with people saying what you want to hear. Maybe you should invite that Iraqi general to join arfcom.



You are right about one thing you may not be popular here. However, if you cared about being popular you would not have said what you did. Why don`t you do a power point presentation on this and we will get back with you on what we want you to present it after we check our schedules.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 6:03:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2006 6:05:28 PM EDT by eddiein1984]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By sslocal:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.



I don't know what you have been smoking but you should stop.



What are you talking about? Still waiting for those bio-weapons labs to be dug up? Waiting for Bin Laden to break his buddy Hussein out of jail?



So, I guess if you don't find a murder weapon at the scene of the crime, no murder occurred, huh.



This is a ridiculous analogy. Nobody doubts that Iraq had chemical weapons at least until the mid 1990's. That is undeniable. Nobody doubts Saddam Hussein was a horrible tyrant. But those facts don't justify the poor "intelligence" that caused us to begin this debacle in Iraq. Now that we are faced with Iran actually achieving nuclear capability, our hands are tied because we don't have the men, machines, money or credibility that we had in early 2003.

I love how as soon as anyone's opinion differs slightly from the party line around here, he is immediately labeled a troll, left winger, or Euro-pussy. I guess you guys just like to surround yourselves with people saying what you want to hear. Maybe you should invite that Iraqi general to join arfcom.



It is not a matter of a different opinion, it is a matter of reality. If you don't believe he had them as we were getting ready to go in and either buried them or sent them to Syria, it's because you don't want to.

We don't have the credibility? Only in the minds of the leftists, both in this country and elsewhere.



The only certain reality is that neither of us know where the WMD's that existed in the mid-1990's went. If you knew for sure, you would certainly owe Colin Powell a friendly phone call. Whether they were destroyed, buried, sold at a DRMO auction, or turned into flower pots, it is clear that the reality on the ground did not match the "undeniable evidence". Certainly they were less of a threat than Iran is now.

Here are a couple notable related realities:

The one trillion dollars we are rapidly sinking into Iraq, with nothing to show for it but a puppet government and a candyland for Jihadists.

Palestinians certifiably and democratically electing a terrorist organization to lead their pathetic patch of dirt.

Iran enriching enough fissionable material to build a bomb, while the we, balls deep in neighboring Iraq, watch it happen.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 6:11:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The only certain reality is that neither of us know where the WMD's that existed in the mid-1990's went. If you knew for sure, you would certainly owe Colin Powell a friendly phone call. Whether they were destroyed, buried, sold at a DRMO auction, or turned into flower pots, it is clear that the reality on the ground did not match the "undeniable evidence". Certainly they were less of a threat than Iran is now.

Here are a couple notable related realities:

The one trillion dollars we are rapidly sinking into Iraq, with nothing to show for it but a puppet government and a candyland for Jihadists.

Palestinians certifiably and democratically electing a terrorist organization to lead their pathetic patch of dirt.

Iran enriching enough fissionable material to build a bomb, while the we, balls deep in neighboring Iraq, watch it happen.



You may not be a Dumocrat, but you sound exactly like them.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 6:12:50 PM EDT
Fact, there are TONS of yellow cake at Tuwaitha(thats in Iraq)
Fact, my unit helped to remove 1.95tons of enriched uranium from Iraq(AP NEWS).
Fact 1stCav was hit on atleast 2 occasion with munitions that contained Sarin(thats a Nerve agent).
Fact, Saddam had used Chemical weapons on the Iranians and against his own people.
Fact, Saddam was giving $$ to the family of suicide bombers in Lebonon(thats called supporting terrorism).
Fact, Salman Pak was a terrorist training center.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 6:13:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Damascus is in Syria.



Freudian slip?
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 6:15:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2006 6:34:45 PM EDT by eddiein1984]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The only certain reality is that neither of us know where the WMD's that existed in the mid-1990's went. If you knew for sure, you would certainly owe Colin Powell a friendly phone call. Whether they were destroyed, buried, sold at a DRMO auction, or turned into flower pots, it is clear that the reality on the ground did not match the "undeniable evidence". Certainly they were less of a threat than Iran is now.

Here are a couple notable related realities:

The one trillion dollars we are rapidly sinking into Iraq, with nothing to show for it but a puppet government and a candyland for Jihadists.

Palestinians certifiably and democratically electing a terrorist organization to lead their pathetic patch of dirt.

Iran enriching enough fissionable material to build a bomb, while the we, balls deep in neighboring Iraq, watch it happen.



You may not be a Dumocrat, but you sound exactly like them.



A statement isn't incorrect because someone you don't agree with said it. Meaningful debate on any topic would be impossible without that understanding.

So what that I've said are we denying here?
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 6:29:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2006 6:38:30 PM EDT by ops144]

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The difference here is that Iraq's WMD and uranium enrichment programs existed in 2003 only on a bunch of neo-Con Powerpoint presentations. Iran, on the other hand, appears to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Likewise, Iraq's love for islamic terrorists under Hussein existed only in the propaganda, while Iran's theocracy can't get enough of them. Go figure.

It's pretty hard to question the UN's and Europe's "lack of action" in Fall 2002 and early 2003 when it turn out they were right to press for time. Now we are stuck in a situation where we can't take action against a nation led by truly crazy islamic extremists (Iran) because we already blew our wad in Iraq.



well that explains every thing...

they miss spelled iran as "iraq" in the briefing..................everyone got all confused.

it was just a typo.....

looks over to iran.......................................
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 6:34:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/9/2006 6:48:52 PM EDT by eddiein1984]

Originally Posted By 161Infantry:
Fact, there are TONS of yellow cake at Tuwaitha(thats in Iraq)
Fact, my unit helped to remove 1.95tons of enriched uranium from Iraq(AP NEWS).
Fact 1stCav was hit on atleast 2 occasion with munitions that contained Sarin(thats a Nerve agent).
Fact, Saddam had used Chemical weapons on the Iranians and against his own people.
Fact, Saddam was giving $$ to the family of suicide bombers in Lebonon(thats called supporting terrorism).
Fact, Salman Pak was a terrorist training center.



That AP article points out that the yellow cake and low enriched uranium was under IAEA control from 1992 until the start of the war. It was already accounted for before the war.

The couple shells that have been found with nerve gas are leftovers from the 1980's. Certainly nothing that would point to an ongoing development and manufacturing program. This is all old news that has nothing to do with the justification for starting the Iraq war and the probability that we are fucked with respect to dealing with Iran.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 7:40:16 PM EDT
Except the Uranium ore came from Niger, which I believe is in Africa, just like W. claimed it was. No the IAEA was in charge of jack and shit. As far as the Nerve agent you types wont be satisfied until we find hundreds of drums right?? Left over artillery shells, BS, countries dont just leave Poison gas shells just lying around willie nillie. Those munitions would have been stored in bunkers, obviously hidden from inspectors.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 4:14:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

That AP article points out that the yellow cake and low enriched uranium was under IAEA control from 1992 until the start of the war. It was already accounted for before the war.

The couple shells that have been found with nerve gas are leftovers from the 1980's. Certainly nothing that would point to an ongoing development and manufacturing program. This is all old news that has nothing to do with the justification for starting the Iraq war and the probability that we are fucked with respect to dealing with Iran.




There are two reasons why I am not worried about Iran the way you are. First, being in Iraq gives us a perfect staging area to hit Iran if necessary. We are not likely talking about an all out invasion here, only disableing their nuclear capeabilities and maybe take out some military targets. Second, I think Israel will hit them first and hard anyway if we dawdle because their survival is at stake. At the very least they would support us military wise if we are stretched.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 8:12:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/10/2006 8:27:44 AM EDT by eddiein1984]

Originally Posted By 161Infantry:
Except the Uranium ore came from Niger, which I believe is in Africa, just like W. claimed it was. No the IAEA was in charge of jack and shit. As far as the Nerve agent you types wont be satisfied until we find hundreds of drums right?? Left over artillery shells, BS, countries dont just leave Poison gas shells just lying around willie nillie. Those munitions would have been stored in bunkers, obviously hidden from inspectors.



No, W claimed that Iraq was in the process of purchasing additional ore from Niger (which turned out to be false). The ore you saw and that was removed by the US after the war was the ore that was already known and accounted for more than a decade. Again, this isn't news to anyone and it does not support our pre-war claims.


edit: Nevermind. This discussion has become utterly pointless. We aren't going to settle anything.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 9:49:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By 161Infantry:
Except the Uranium ore came from Niger, which I believe is in Africa, just like W. claimed it was. No the IAEA was in charge of jack and shit. As far as the Nerve agent you types wont be satisfied until we find hundreds of drums right?? Left over artillery shells, BS, countries dont just leave Poison gas shells just lying around willie nillie. Those munitions would have been stored in bunkers, obviously hidden from inspectors.



No, W claimed that Iraq was in the process of purchasing additional ore from Niger (which turned out to be false). The ore you saw and that was removed by the US after the war was the ore that was already known and accounted for more than a decade. Again, this isn't news to anyone and it does not support our pre-war claims.


edit: Nevermind. This discussion has become utterly pointless. We aren't going to settle anything.



Right, because the facts don't coincide with your ranting.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:00:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
The only certain reality is that neither of us know where the WMD's that existed in the mid-1990's went. If you knew for sure, you would certainly owe Colin Powell a friendly phone call. Whether they were destroyed, buried, sold at a DRMO auction, or turned into flower pots, it is clear that the reality on the ground did not match the "undeniable evidence". Certainly they were less of a threat than Iran is now.

Here are a couple notable related realities:

The one trillion dollars we are rapidly sinking into Iraq, with nothing to show for it but a puppet government and a candyland for Jihadists.

Palestinians certifiably and democratically electing a terrorist organization to lead their pathetic patch of dirt.

Iran enriching enough fissionable material to build a bomb, while the we, balls deep in neighboring Iraq, watch it happen.



You may not be a Dumocrat, but you sound exactly like them.



A statement isn't incorrect because someone you don't agree with said it. Meaningful debate on any topic would be impossible without that understanding.

So what that I've said are we denying here?



What you say about Iran may be true, the Palestinian situation is as you say, but everything you have said about Iraq sounds just like what the dummycrats say and has no basis in fact.
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 10:04:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By 161Infantry:
Fact, there are TONS of yellow cake at Tuwaitha(thats in Iraq)
Fact, my unit helped to remove 1.95tons of enriched uranium from Iraq(AP NEWS).
Fact 1stCav was hit on atleast 2 occasion with munitions that contained Sarin(thats a Nerve agent).
Fact, Saddam had used Chemical weapons on the Iranians and against his own people.
Fact, Saddam was giving $$ to the family of suicide bombers in Lebonon(thats called supporting terrorism).
Fact, Salman Pak was a terrorist training center.



That AP article points out that the yellow cake and low enriched uranium was under IAEA control from 1992 until the start of the war. It was already accounted for before the war.

The couple shells that have been found with nerve gas are leftovers from the 1980's. Certainly nothing that would point to an ongoing development and manufacturing program. This is all old news that has nothing to do with the justification for starting the Iraq war and the probability that we are fucked with respect to dealing with Iran.



Yeah, the IAEA was really in control. AP said so. Damn, do you really read the stuff you post?

The man was there and you still want to spew this shit. Are you saying that they did not find what he said they did?

Like I said, the dummycrat talking points, almost word for word.
Top Top