Report, edit, etc...Posted by Slyence on 2005-09-13 at 21:46:36
US gives up search for Iraq WMD
Intelligence officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Welp, so much for that excuse.
They really should have took their own advice on this one.
So, now that we haven't found what we went there for and in all likelihood never will, who thinks that this is going to be damaging to our international credibility?
Intelligence officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
QUOTE
Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago.
The existence of WMD had been the stated reason in Washington and London for going to war with Iraq.
The existence of WMD had been the stated reason in Washington and London for going to war with Iraq.
Welp, so much for that excuse.
They really should have took their own advice on this one.
So, now that we haven't found what we went there for and in all likelihood never will, who thinks that this is going to be damaging to our international credibility?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by lonely_duck on 2005-09-13 at 22:48:39
Finally, I got nothing else to say =/
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-09-14 at 01:51:51
Wow, FINALLY they admit it. Took them what, three years?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-09-14 at 04:17:57
BBC is totally not out to get us 
Yea what ever, it would cost to much to get metal detectors and comb the sands and deserts for them. I would think Saddam had them buried before the invasion, just like he did with the MiG fighter planes.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp#photo01
Yea what ever, it would cost to much to get metal detectors and comb the sands and deserts for them. I would think Saddam had them buried before the invasion, just like he did with the MiG fighter planes.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp#photo01
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-14 at 18:52:29
Couldn't they just have said in the beginning: "hey, sorry about that, we were wrong. But hey, more oil for us!"
Report, edit, etc...Posted by kirby_star on 2005-09-14 at 18:54:26
HA! wasted QUITE A FEW lives on this... and now nothing... WASTED!!! 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-09-14 at 19:10:59
QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Sep 14 2005, 03:17 AM)
BBC is totally not out to get us
Yea what ever, it would cost to much to get metal detectors and comb the sands and deserts for them. I would think Saddam had them buried before the invasion, just like he did with the MiG fighter planes.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp#photo01
[right][snapback]313661[/snapback][/right]
Yea what ever, it would cost to much to get metal detectors and comb the sands and deserts for them. I would think Saddam had them buried before the invasion, just like he did with the MiG fighter planes.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp#photo01
[right][snapback]313661[/snapback][/right]
Give us a better source. Do you even know what "Urban Legends" mean?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-14 at 19:13:09
He is a zombie killer, not a source checker.
Yeah, wouldn't burying a plane ruin stuff? seems like more trouble than it is worth...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by kirby_star on 2005-09-14 at 19:13:51
Really... didn't Iraq have bio-weapons? and what is that urban legends thing mean? 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-14 at 19:15:44
No WMD = no bio, big missles, nukes etc...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by kirby_star on 2005-09-14 at 19:23:40
QUOTE(Demaris @ Sep 14 2005, 04:15 PM)
No WMD = no bio, big missles, nukes etc...
[right][snapback]314073[/snapback][/right]
Really... because I thought they did... is a SCUD a WMD?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-14 at 19:30:31
I don't know what the EXACT definition is, but i'm assuming so.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by kirby_star on 2005-09-14 at 22:26:29
QUOTE(Demaris @ Sep 14 2005, 04:30 PM)
I don't know what the EXACT definition is, but i'm assuming so.
[right][snapback]314116[/snapback][/right]
But doesn't Iraq HAVE SCUDs?!!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-14 at 22:27:07
Quite honestly: No
ing clue.Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-09-14 at 22:28:41
Sorry, I honestly don't care about all those lives lost.
And don't use empathy on me: The fact is I'm NOT in their shoes and I never will be.
Slaughter them all, the terrorists are in there somewhere.
And don't use empathy on me: The fact is I'm NOT in their shoes and I never will be.
Slaughter them all, the terrorists are in there somewhere.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-14 at 22:32:00
Yeah, i apreciate that i'm not dying, but desperate measures should be used. Turn a city into iran into a glass crater then ask politely for the terrorists to be handed over.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-09-15 at 04:33:29
Yea I know what an urban legend means, go get moldy, look around the site, when they are stated 'true' they support it with factual evidence.
SCUDs are just big ass, long range missiles.
WMD -- Any kind of weapons that displays mass destruction (can be a dirty bomb)
Plus it doesn't take much to bury a barrel of chemicals in the dirt....
Heres some more sources from it:
SCUDs are just big ass, long range missiles.
WMD -- Any kind of weapons that displays mass destruction (can be a dirty bomb)
Plus it doesn't take much to bury a barrel of chemicals in the dirt....
Heres some more sources from it:
QUOTE
Farrell, Stephen "Iraqi Planes Found Buried in Desert."
The [London] Times. 2 August 2003.
Rhem, Kathleen T. "American Forces Pull Hidden MiG fighters out of Iraqi Desert."
American Forces Press Service. 6 August 2003.
Boston Globe. "Desert Discovery."
12 August 2003.
The Seattle Times. "Buried Fighter Jets Uncovered."
13 August 2003 (p. A19).
The [London] Times. 2 August 2003.
Rhem, Kathleen T. "American Forces Pull Hidden MiG fighters out of Iraqi Desert."
American Forces Press Service. 6 August 2003.
Boston Globe. "Desert Discovery."
12 August 2003.
The Seattle Times. "Buried Fighter Jets Uncovered."
13 August 2003 (p. A19).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Dr.Shotgun on 2005-09-15 at 07:13:14
That was in 2003. Not only that, WMD are much easier to spot than planes when buried, and there would have been large facilites for processing them.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-09-15 at 07:28:08
QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Sep 15 2005, 03:33 AM)
Yea I know what an urban legend means, go get moldy, look around the site, when they are stated 'true' they support it with factual evidence.
Heres some more sources from it:
[right][snapback]314424[/snapback][/right]
Heres some more sources from it:
[right][snapback]314424[/snapback][/right]
Much better reply.
While I don't doubt you, do you have links rather than just that? Unless they're all magazine sources.
Anyway, assuming it was true, I am suprised they haven't found the WMDs in the sand if they had buried it there, seeing as how they would waste their time trying to uncover 50 or so nonfunctioning planes.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DameDaSnipa. on 2005-09-15 at 09:12:59
ok i know this is not "lady Like" but.... What the my cousin Han is dead because of this... My Dad now my Cousin I hate bush what a idiot
my cousin Han is dead because of this... My Dad now my Cousin I hate bush what a idiotReport, edit, etc...Posted by notnuclearrabbit on 2005-09-15 at 09:16:25
[center]We should appologize for invading them on false pretences.
Presidents should have to maintain an at least 51% approval rating to remain in office.[/center]
Presidents should have to maintain an at least 51% approval rating to remain in office.[/center]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-09-15 at 21:44:46
QUOTE(Dr.Shotgun @ Sep 15 2005, 03:13 AM)
That was in 2003. Not only that, WMD are much easier to spot than planes when buried, and there would have been large facilites for processing them.
[right][snapback]314445[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]314445[/snapback][/right]
mmmm you don't need a facility to store WMDs. A large plane is easier to 'spot' then a small barrel....
Plus you can't spot them becuase they are buried....
enlighten me expert of WMDs, where am I going wrong?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-09-15 at 22:18:11
You're not going wrong; it's more like, why haven't they found any yet?
If they have found planes in the sand, then surely, they should be able to scan a huge area to uncover at least some evidence of something besides a plane.
If they have found planes in the sand, then surely, they should be able to scan a huge area to uncover at least some evidence of something besides a plane.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-09-16 at 02:11:05
Well the planes were easy, they were right next to an air port, buried just outside the grounds.
If I wanted to hide my WMDs, I would hide them a lot farther into the desert...common sense to me becuase the world would be more pissed at me if they found WMDs then my stupid little planes....
If I wanted to hide my WMDs, I would hide them a lot farther into the desert...common sense to me becuase the world would be more pissed at me if they found WMDs then my stupid little planes....
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Dr.Shotgun on 2005-09-16 at 23:41:13
Saddam was not stupid enough to waste time hiding WMDs. What about all U.N and U.S teams? How could we, with sattelite footage and other intelligence, not realize he was transporting and burying WMDs deep in the desert?