UN inspectors find more weapons designed for delivering biologicals and chemicals

[miles]

...that they claim they don't have.

When are some of you people going to have a big bowl of wake the fuck up?

And the first dork who blames the source of this story while ignoring the quotes is fucking hopeless. Read the whole article.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80676,00.html

 

[Nobody Special's wife]

Same old shit , Different day

 

[Guest]

 

[LadyG]

Well if they haven't complied for 12 years, wouldn't it make sense that there would weapons?

DUH!

 

[miles]

Well if they haven't complied for 12 years, wouldn't it make sense that there would weapons?

Well, no screaming shit! DUH!

 

[LadyG]

Exactly.

So why would people be surprised?

And they ARE getting rid of them NOW, right?

Uh huh.

 

[eagleyez]

and its getting so dicey for the Bush administration

dont be surprised

if something big

happens in the next couple of days...

Its crunch time for GWB et al,

as the world sees the setup unfold...

here at home...unemployment numbers shoot up, fuel prices go up again, troops all dressed up nowhere to go...deficits thru the roof...One term just like his old man....crunch time

 

[Purrde Flower]

If you really think they are going to get rid of them all you are sadly sadly mistaken. There might be a good show of getting rid of a handful of what they have but they will always have them.

 

[LadyG]

Yep, but so will every other country that has them, INCLUDING the U.S.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

and this is the reason that is worthy of putting our sons and daughters in harms way?

Yeah, brilliance. Lets kill and maim in the name of dimplomacy.

How stupid. Lets examine some facts without the nonsene of ignorant patriotic pride getting in the way.

None of these weapons have a chance of hitting American soil. He has not used anything on another country since he got is ass ripped off in 91. As hard as they try, the Bush admin's closet provable link to Bin Laden is some guy with a broken leg. The drones, come on, does anyone really think with the changes in worldwide security one could be sent by UPS? Sorry, these things look rather heavy.

Are these things banned, yes. Are they really a reason to attack, no. If so, what are the reasons. Educate me.


Busy, I am sure you will read this and nearly have a coronary thinking "A' HA! I've GOt HiM thIs TimE!!!!!!! the AnTI AmerRIcaN FuCK!!!!!!!"

Save yourself the embarassement. I know how reason pisses you and some of the others around here off.

 

[LadyG]

No, it's not.

 

[Linedrive]

You cannot say that just because Iraq doesn't have a missle that can reach the US mainland, that they are not a threat. With that thinking, we would've sat at home in 1942. The case for military action has been accepted by the majority of America, the drone is nothing more than another violation in a long list .

"If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: PRESIDENT CAN'T SWIM." Lyndon B. Johnson

 

[brokenbrainwave]

Gunner, I did not say they were not a threat. Is that threat large enough to justify action and why? What is the specific threat? Are they merely a minor threat? Are they a larger threat than North Korea? Are they a larger threat to the US economy than say Europe if they were to embargo the US?

These are the questions that would be asked and answered if we were a truly free society. These are the answers that need to be given without spin to the moms and dads with kids in the Gulf. Instead we get conjecture and a president that wants everyone to wrap themself in the flag going full bore into war.

 

[Guest]

 

[brokenbrainwave]

Fair enough Hanns. I agree he did not give a full account. Not a soul is disputing this.

Yet for all those on one side playing the "emotion" card, I have yet to see a base reason for going to war that makes sense. Wanting to wipe muslims off the face of the earth is not sound reasoning. Paranoia is not a sound reasoning. Rhetoric and innuendo is not sound reasoning.

Now here is a clue darlin. I've said many times he needs to be taken out. My question is why does the US feel so justified in a leading role?

 

[Linedrive]

Gunner, I did not say they were not a threat. Is that threat large enough to justify action and why? What is the specific threat? Are they merely a minor threat? Are they a larger threat than North Korea? Are they a larger threat to the US economy than say Europe if they were to embargo the US?

Definately good questions, I wish we had the answers. Honestly, is there anything that inspectors could find that would lead you to back the military disarmament...? I ask this only because I am firmly convinced that there is a segment of the population that is so anti-Bush, that nothing is acceptable. There would be outrage against Bush if a terrorist attack occured on our soil and nothing was done to try and prevent it. Hell, some people are blaming GWB for 9-11. I just see it as a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I'm all for expressing dislike of politicians, if the Democrats get into office you will see That being said, partisan politics has no place in the realm of National Security. Notice how the Democrats okay'd GWB taking military action last year, now they are backpeddling with an election coming up and making some seriously outlandish accusations. I think the French's position is completely counter productive.

"Our position is no matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no.' - Chirac


These are the questions that would be asked and answered if we were a truly free society. These are the answers that need to be given without spin to the moms and dads with kids in the Gulf. Instead we get conjecture and a president that wants everyone to wrap themself in the flag going full bore into war.

Honest points, there are no easy answers. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

I agree that some feel Bush could stop an attack and yet still be nit picked by some foolish ultra liberal still irritated that Gore got beat (sorry folks, while Gore got more popular vote, Bush did win the Electoral College. Hence he won, its really THAT simple).

My thoughts on Bush are that he is a good and decent man whom feels in his heart he is doing the right thing. My issue is the evidence laid before the people that will be paying the price, both emotional and money wise, is based on conjecture.

What would it take to get me on board, probably an direct link or immenent threat. He is contained and acting like a caged animal, or toddler, one in the same. He is playing the game of no I dont, opps, yeah I might.

So, we are to punish his subjects for this action.

I am not discounting his actions. I am merely wondering aloud if the punishment fits the crime.

 

[bad kitty]

For once, I agree with Hanns. We made a threat that if Saddam didn't comply he would have to face the consequences. If we back down now and do nothing, he will be just like a child and take our inch and stretch it a mile. When you say you will do something you do it or else noone will ever take you serious.

Who made the US the world's police? Well, it seems the world did. Everytime some country has problems who do they scream to?

 

[brokenbrainwave]

Who made the US the world's police? Well, it seems the world did. Everytime some country has problems who do they scream to?

Good point and our fault for allowing ourselves to be used in this manner.

Then again, I am a states rights isolationist.

 

[Linedrive]

Yes, people are pretty much decided on the issue, there has been very little change in public opinion or elected officials since the showdown heated up a month or two ago.

My hope is that each person is deciding for themselves based on what they think is best for the country and not based on some hidden adjenda. I'd be more than willing to conceed that there might be right wing Christian groups and the Jewish lobby that would likely back Bush on anything. By the same token, there are anti-Bush and anti-American groups that would bash Bush for anything. Whether any of the parties would be willing to admit their hidden adjenda is an entirely different story.

I just see politics as playing to big of a role in the entire framework of the situation. If Bill Clinton was in office right now, I would still be supporting the military disarmament of Iraq if necessary. These special interest groups were no were to be found when Clinton bombed Iraq or interviened into Kosovo against Russian and Chinese approval.

I realize some of these are radical opinions, but here are just a couple interesting quotes:

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" --Michael Moore, Michaelmoore.com, September 12

"Well, he (Bush) might as well have been bombing Denmark. Denmark had nothing to do with 9/11. And neither did Afghanistan, at least the Afghanis didn't." -- Gore Vidal in the LA Weekly

"We've been treated to some astonishingly vile images over the last two weeks: Office workers hurling themselves into a 100-floor-high abyss. A gaping, smoldering hole in the financial center of our greatest city. George W. Bush passing himself off as a patriot, even as he disassembles the Constitution with the voracious glee of piranha skeletonizing a cow. ... It may have seemed meaningless at the time, but now we know why 7,000 people sacrificed their lives: So that we'd all forget how Bush stole a presidential election." -- Cartoonist Ted Rall, Philadelphia City Paper, September 27

And I'll include this graphic for REDWAVE, who is still so bitter about the election to this day.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

and the sad truth is these kinds of moronic comments will get more play than honest sincere questions.

Then again, this is off topic and would get me onto a rant about todays media news.

 

[Myrrdin]

Right, so Saddam has been modifying some big bombs. I haven't seen any UN resolution that says he's not allowed to have big bombs. What's banned are chemical or biological weapons. Of which Blix has found nil.

 

[Linedrive]

Would you like me to provide an itemized list of all of his infractions...?

 

[brokenbrainwave]

Right, so Saddam has been modifying some big bombs. I haven't seen any UN resolution that says he's not allowed to have big bombs. What's banned are chemical or biological weapons. Of which Blix has found nil.

dependent upon your definition of "big bomb", you very well could be way off base.

 

[Bill23]

Iraqi WMA's could reach the U.S. via a terrorist organization.

The fact that Blix hasn't found any chemical or biological weapons is exactly the problem. The analog is a missing person (i.e. we know they exist because we've seen them before) not a cure for cancer.

Yes, big bombs are restricted in the sense of missiles capable of exceeding certain ranges.