Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1.    #1  
    so, im curious, would the left consider 380 tons of explosives weapons of mass destruction, or are they only weapons of mass deception?

    if iraq had such a storage cache, is this STILL the wrong war, wrong time, for the wrong reasons?

    is this STILL just a diversion? purportedly, a soldier who is now an analyst reported that he was in iraq in the early part of the war, and these weapons were shipped to different countries... some to syria, some to iran, some to lebanon. this was done just prior to the iraq war. hmmmmm..

    did bush STILL lie, even though these storage warehouses show they once had a plethora of WEAPONS .. OF.. MASS... DESTRUCTION?


    its very interesting. instead of calling this proof of a one-time control of wmds, kerry tries to spin it by saying bush didnt guard these weapon supplies.

    hey john... its bigger than that.... they may have been wmds... the very things you democrats are trying to claim never existed!

    why is this point not being brought up?
    Last edited by treobk214; 10/29/2004 at 01:31 AM.
  2. #2  
    Well, At first my friend from the right, I thought that much would be WMD until David Kay, the US Weapon's Inspector was jsut on CNN about 10:15 on News Night looked at the photos and said (paraphrasing a bit), yes it was a bunker, Yes it's a Int Atomic Org's seal, the troops obviously didn't know what it was other than the fact that it was xplosive, NO it isn't a WMD, but yes it would be dangerous in the hands of terrorists, it was the same substance that brought down the Pan Am flight.

    So my friend from the right, keep looking for the WMD's, they have yet to appear.
    When the dark clouds gather on the horizon, when thunder and lightning fills the sky, When fate is but a glint in the eye of a fallen Rattler, And hopes are lost friends, When the sinew of the chest grows weary from those hard-charging linebackers, And the muscles in the legs grow tired from those hard-charging running backs ... You must remember that the Rattlers will... Strike, Strike, and Strike again.
  3. #3  
    First, it wan't 380 million tons. It was 380 tons. Quite a big difference I would think.

    Second, President Bush KNEW there were no wmd in Iraq. How? The US military made no provision to safeguard any weapons caches they found. If they knew, or had a very strong suspicion, that wmd's existed, troops would have been tasked to find, safeguard and remove said weapons.

    Having been in the military, these were contingency plans we always had, even if there was a remote whiff of wmd's.

    It was bad intel, they knew it and they blamed it on the Brits.

    But in the end, fifty years of doing good in the world has rapidly been wiped away in a folly that, 10 or 15 years from now, we will be saying, "What were we thinking?"
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  4. #4  
    I don't often comment on political matters in the forums, but my local news is now in the center of this story, as they have video of the explosives from an embedded reporter, after the US invaded: http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1 (also reported on in the front of the nytimes on friday etc)
    -Michael Ducker
    TreoCentral Staff
  5. #5  
    380 million tons? LMAO! And anyway, WMD is normally defined as chemical, nuclear or biological, never just "powerful explosive".
    Animo et Fide
  6. #6  
    Funny how this isnt brought up until right before the election.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    380 million tons? LMAO! And anyway, WMD is normally defined as chemical, nuclear or biological, never just "powerful explosive".

    i mispoke about the 380 million tons... "but hey,, at least i just mispoke, look at what bush did... which is worse?"

    peter, did you laugh your *** off when kerry mispoke about when he voted FOR the 87 billion dollars but before he voted AGAINST IT.? did you find THAT funny? im sure you`re going to throw some liberal spin on that in some lame attempt to reason that embarrassment away, i suppose, right?

    you can laugh your *** off all you want peter. lmao.. lmao.
    good for you.

    now, lets get back to 380 tons of explosives.. lets see, if they combine several hundred pounds or tons of explosives onto a huge cargo barge and send it into one of your docks, do you think the resulting explosion wont make one helluva firework show at the unfortunate expense of thousands of your fellow countrymen?

    oh, they`re only " powerful explosives, not wmds" although they could still kill hundreds of thousands of people if packaged sufficiently, no?

    lmao
  8. #8  
    And many republicans voted against the funding before they voted for it (which is presumably why it went to a revote after being modified), they just never said that in an interview.

    Of course the explosives are a serious issue, that is the point behind the fuss, you can't just start redefining WMD though.
    Animo et Fide
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    peter, did you laugh your *** off when kerry mispoke about when he voted FOR the 87 billion dollars but before he voted AGAINST IT.? did you find THAT funny? im sure you`re going to throw some liberal spin on that in some lame attempt to reason that embarrassment away, i suppose, right?
    You think this is something that shows a man taking two positions probably.

    In actuality, Senator Kerry did vote for the $87B the first time as it was to be funded with a rollback of President Bush's tax cut on the top 1%. The President said he would veto this bill. How's that for supporting the troops?

    So his cronies in Congress brought the bill back for a vote, except it was to be paid for by us borrowing the money, i.e. increasing the debt and preserving the tax cut.

    It takes a man of character to make a stand and say he won't vote for the bill the second time because the source of the money is just plain wrong.

    It was the President that said he wouldn't support the $87B because it sacrificed his tax cuts.

    Instead of listening to 10 or 15 second soundbites, we need to do research so we can all think things through.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  10. #10  
    Since some consider 380 tons of explosives to be WMD, then every country in the world has WMD's and the US should preemptively strike every single one of them.....
  11. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    It was bad intel, they knew it and they blamed it on the Brits.
    Yeah, right. And Halliburton is running the White House, and the U.S. government was responsible for 9/11, and blah blah blah.
    Talldog
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    Yeah, right. And Halliburton is running the White House, and the U.S. government was responsible for 9/11, and blah blah blah.

    No one has said that...nor implied that from anything I've seen or read...anywhere? Where did you come up with this? This doesn't counter in anyway what tjd said, and only tries to deflect from his point. It sounds as though you don't believe the statement he made...what about info to counter it then?
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    Yeah, right. And Halliburton is running the White House, and the U.S. government was responsible for 9/11, and blah blah blah.
    It's interesting that this is what you pulled out of my post and disregarded those parts that don't support your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by tjd414
    Second, President Bush KNEW there were no wmd in Iraq. How? The US military made no provision to safeguard any weapons caches they found. If they knew, or had a very strong suspicion, that wmd's existed, troops would have been tasked to find, safeguard and remove said weapons.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    And many republicans voted against the funding before they voted for it (which is presumably why it went to a revote after being modified), they just never said that in an interview.

    Of course the explosives are a serious issue, that is the point behind the fuss, you can't just start redefining WMD though.

    Many republicans arent running for president. Them changing their minds is irrelevant.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  15. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #15  
    Here's my point. There is no dispute (outside of the fever swamps of the left) that the global intelligence community was in general agreement on Saddam and WMD. That includes the Brits, the Spanish, and (GASP!!) the French, Germans, and Russians. Yes, they were wrong (although not nearly as wrong as the mainstream press tries to portray it), but there isn't a shred of legitimate evidence to support the claim that Bush knew the intelligence was bad and used it anyway.
    Talldog
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Many republicans arent running for president. Them changing their minds is irrelevant.
    Who changed their minds? It was the source of the funding that was at issue, not the funding itself.
    Animo et Fide
  17. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #17  
    other countries may have defense weapons, they may have caches that approach levels of 380 tons or so, but...

    1. those nations aren't using them against their own people.

    2. they don't have histories of invading other nearby countries - kuwait.

    3. they don't send scud missiles over into neighboring countries - such as kuwait or israel.

    see the point? other nations may have the same explosives, but they are there in storage for DEFENSE purposes only, and have never outwardly, without warning use them to aggressively ATTACK another nation with them.

    these weapons in peaceful nations hands don't have to be considered wmds.

    but if 380 tons of them are at the beckon call of nations using them to attack people, THEY ARE WMDS.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    other countries may have defense weapons, they may have caches that approach levels of 380 tons or so, but...

    1. those nations aren't using them against their own people.

    2. they don't have histories of invading other nearby countries - kuwait.

    3. they don't send scud missiles over into neighboring countries - such as kuwait or israel.

    see the point? other nations may have the same explosives, but they are there in storage for DEFENSE purposes only, and have never outwardly, without warning use them to aggressively ATTACK another nation with them.

    these weapons in peaceful nations hands don't have to be considered wmds.

    but if 380 tons of them are at the beckon call of nations using them to attack people, THEY ARE WMDS.

    or those 380 tons of explosives could have been used in construction and demolition projects just like the 20+ US companies do with that amount of dual-use explosives.

Posting Permissions