IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

McGentrix wrote:

Mr Stillwater wrote:
And no-one in the Bush Administration or the Pentagon or the CIA is accountable, because the voting public re-elected the Pres!

Story over. All in the past. No further questions.

Bush's inaugeral speech has the potential to be the shortest ever. He could simply stand up and say "I own this town." and sit back down again.

And if he did that, would you cheer or would you recognize him for the overblown pompous ass that he is?

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Bush's inaugeral speech has the potential to be the shortest ever. He could simply stand up and say "I own this town." and sit back down again.

Or he could dress up as a mathematician and announce his formula for political success:

9/11 + x = STFU

(x = whatever I say)

ROTFLMAO!

Forget Kid Rock, he should have Cake at the inauguration performing STFU!

Quote:

Heads of state who ride and wrangle
Who look at your face for more than one angle
Can cut you from their bloated budgets
Like sharpened knives through chicken mcnuggets

(Shut the f***) up
Yo, shut the f*** up
(Shut the f***)
Right, right, learn to buck up
(Shut the f***)
Right, shut the f*** up, hey, ho
(Shut the f***)
Now, now learn to buck up

0 Replies

what would you do if you were sadam hussain..

He knew America will Invade his country, and kill him, his family and his army, if you were Sadam would you move the wmd to another country and risk losing the war/country ? or would you actually use the WMD to defend your country ?
THE SOLID PROOF THAT WMD DID NOT EXIST IS THAT "HE NEVER USED THEM" if he was evil (as everyone says), he would of surely used the WMD.

0 Replies

Re: what would you do if you were Saddam?

Answer: exactly what he did. Bluff. Unfortunately, the bluff didn't work.

Consider this. If Saddam didn't bluff, he would appear weak to the Iranians and would be open to attack by them. The U.S. would have had to sit idly by while the Iranians took care of business for us.

While Saddam hedged a bet, we were sabre rattling, but the real enemy to Iraq, the Iranians, were held at bay by the threat of gas and other grotesque weapons.

So, what did we do, we played right into the Iranians hands by destabilizing their enemy and allowing them to enter the country as allies to the Iraqi insurgents and perhap, just perhaps, end up with an Islamic State controlled by the Iranian Mullahs.

Ain't W the smart one.

0 Replies

cavolina wrote:

So, what did we do, we played right into the Iranians hands by destabilizing their enemy and allowing them to enter the country as allies to the Iraqi insurgents and perhap, just perhaps, end up with an Islamic State controlled by the Iranian Mullahs.

Ain't W the smart one.

Those mullas am gonna be history in less than six months.

0 Replies

Gungasnake said:

Quote:

Those mullas am gonna be history in less than six months.

Gee, what's "am" happening in six months, Gunga? Or are the subtle nuances of Middle Eastern history once again lost on a feeble mind?

0 Replies

Rafick wrote:

what would you do if you were sadam hussain..

He knew America will Invade his country, and kill him, his family and his army, if you were Sadam would you move the wmd to another country and risk losing the war/country ? or would you actually use the WMD to defend your country ?
THE SOLID PROOF THAT WMD DID NOT EXIST IS THAT "HE NEVER USED THEM" if he was evil (as everyone says), he would of surely used the WMD.

No weapon that Hussein had could have defeated the U.S. What is the point in using WMDs in a war you cannot win? Doing so would have instantly justified the war. Knowing that he could not win; I think it more probable that he hid the weapons, hoping to use them to retake his country and/or attack U.S. military units once they had become immobile and complacent. Using his weapons would have gained the U.S. wide international support; he would have had no chance. Going underground and joining the insurgency were better odds.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush's inaugeral speech has the potential to be the shortest ever. He could simply stand up and say "I own this town." and sit back down again.

Thank god this moron's hubris won't last too much longer (I refer to the owner of the aforementioned quote AND the idiot savant about to recite the oath of office).

0 Replies

Quote:

No weapon that Hussein had could have defeated the U.S.

Quote:

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

-- Condi Rice

Amazing...

0 Replies

WMD might just be a pretext like Imperial Japan used the railway incident in Manchuria long time ago.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:
No weapon that Hussein had could have defeated the U.S.

Quote:
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

-- Condi Rice

Amazing...

Thank You

0 Replies

I keep hearing this pinko mantra about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; somehow or other it rings totally hollow.

In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:

http://homepage.mac.com/macint0sh/1/pict/amos/amos.jpg

Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business. That sort of thing is one of the benefits of having our government back under adult supervision since 2001. The NK government in all likelihood will not survive this year.

Then there's the case of 9-11. The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:

http://thexreport.com/atta_and_al-ani_photo_and_analysis.htm

Then there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

Thus it should surprise nobody that the first cases of anthrax turned up in neighborhoods where the 9-11 hijackers lived. The odds against that if there were no connection to the 9-11 hijackers are astronomical.

Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.

The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.

0 Replies

gungasnake, do you really believe that Saddam was the only person on the planet who had the Anthrax powder? If you do, then you obviously haven't been paying attention to anyone other than W.

We have the powder, along with any number of other governments including the chinese and russians.

Saddam was not worth the lives of the men and women of our military. No one, should die to make an oilman richer than he already is.

0 Replies

cavolina wrote:

Saddam was not worth the lives of the men and women of our military. No one, should die to make an oilman richer than he already is.

Gosh, and here I thought the idea was to keep WMD out of the hands of an evil madman so he couldn't use them against huge numbers of civilians.

0 Replies

cavolina wrote:

gungasnake, do you really believe that Saddam was the only person on the planet who had the Anthrax powder? If you do, then you obviously haven't been paying attention to anyone other than W.

We have the powder, along with any number of other governments including the chinese and russians.

Saddam was not worth the lives of the men and women of our military. No one, should die to make an oilman richer than he already is.

The anthrax in question was particalized so finely that it went through envelope paper as if it were not there and then hung in the air for extended periods, and that's a big trick as well. Hussein is the only one who ever got that far with that sort of perverted technology.

0 Replies

One other thing which has to be emphasized, is that the first cases of anthrax were in the neighborhoods of the 9-11 hijackers, and the last previous case of anthrax in a human in the US was 30 or 40 years ago.

You either believe in modern mathematics and the laws of probabillity or you don't and if you do, then the 9-11 hijackers were also responsible for the anthrax attacks.

Now, ASSUMING that Atta et. al. were responsible for the anthrax, and I'd rate that one 100%, then the question of where they GOT the anthrax has to have a simple answer. In other words, those guys were living right in the neighborhood of the guy (Saddam Hussein) who was the world's ultimate master of that kind of ****, who was pleased as punch to sell it to terrorists and hoodlums... what possible motive could they have had to want to buy or otherwise obtain it from anybody else??

0 Replies

Actually, the logic is far simpler. Someone like Hussein can't be allowed to have WMD.

0 Replies

It's even simpler than that. No-one should have WMD.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

It's even simpler than that. No-one should have WMD.

True, but hard to achieve. That is sort of a utopian wish, and I hope it comes true. Right now we must keep WMD out of the hands of people on the level of Hussein, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc.

0 Replies

If "logic" had anything to do with it, Hussein should have been about 4th on that list behind N Korea, Pakistan, Saudi, ....

0 Replies

IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know