The artlicle states that these weren't the weapons that the War was started over, that these were older than the original sanctions.
What it DOES show:
the inspections were next to useless
The weapons were scattered all over the country, not it controlled ammo dumps
That weapons could be refurbished and put back into service at the earliest opportuninty
That there is bound to be more to be found
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
what this documents does show is that 500 wmds were found in iraq.
we went in to find wmd's in iraq, we said saddam had wmds, wmds were found in iraq.
so we did go in on good intelligence. we didn't lie when we said saddam had wmds.
put two and two together, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these wmds were the ones that started this war.
where does it state that these are older than the sanctions? and even if it did, did the US ever announce that saddam could keep those and we're only after only the newest of his wmds?
-----------------
oh and cbs(i think) is the news source that has a reputation of producing fake documents, not fox.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
I see alot of "most likelys", "probablys" and the likes... This prooves nothing to me. Not really breaking news (if it is news at all)
Originally Posted by breitbart
A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."
...come on demonrats and anti-war and anti-americans let's here it...
First of all, when was being "anti-war" a bad thing? When did being a peace-loving person suddenly become the qualifier of being "anti-american?" Has being a war-monger become chic now? I agree that the U.S. has a responsibility to protect its allies and itself from threats. However, war itself should be a last resort. This is not always the case with the U.S. So, we put peoples live in jeopardy for what?
Originally Posted by JMJSelect
...put two and two together, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that these wmds were the ones that started this war.
WMD did not start the war. If I remember right, the events of 9/11 led the U.S. to seek out those who were responsible. The threat of WMD was just the issue that Bush and others used to open the door to the war in Iraq.
If you believe that WMD was the real reason, then you would probably believe this to:
Quote:
This is kind of strange. Makes you wonder.
Verse from none other than the Quran.
Prophetic?
A verse from Muslim teachings.
Quran ( 9:11) -- For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.
But, before you get your war-mongering hopes up, check this out.
BWAHAHAHA! This is so old, and Santorum is being made into a laughing stock today for using this to support the Iraq war. We knew about these old shells being found years ago. These shells don't count because 1) they are unusable (the chemicals within are unstable and break down within a couple months), 2) these shells were stockpiles from the early 80's, the same ones he used on the kurds, the shells we always knew he had, and shells we alway knew were worthless. 3) You might kill someone with one of those shells if you actually hit the person directly with the shell, otherwise they are worthless. It's an embarasment that the Republican party has pulled this out to try to justify staying in Iraq. Desperation anyone?
Where are the mobile chemical weapons labs, the nukes, the biological agents? Where are ANY of the WMD's Bush said he had (the 500 chemically inert shells don't count)? This is old, and worthless news.
Sorry. Need another attempt at justifying the war. NEXT! :approve:
Wow this is more than just a little fake. The "document" was fabricated. As for the anti-war folks...hey we didn't ask for the war nor did the American people ok it.
The proof of the WMD's is still missing....remember a document proves nothing(especially when it's fake)....even a photo can be doctored(you're talking to a professional). Sanatorum is a clown, he proved it by waving this around.
What we need is accountability on both sides of the aisle. It's time we as a nation stood up to the corrupt politicians and get them to do what we "elected" them to do.
No matter what side of the fence you're on is just a frustrating mess to see Democrats and Republicans playing everyone.
Better yet if everyone would turn out to vote and have their votes counted, the politicians would behave....they know people won't vote so they abuse the privledge.
__________________ Co-Pilot of the Millenium Falcon
x50v w/4gb CF, 1gb SD, InnoPocket Mag Case, TO BT Keyboard and Rotring Fountain Pen/Stylus
"RRROoooOORRRRROoooAAARRrrrrRRRRR"
67.65286% Geek God.....32.34714% Wookiee. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Better yet if everyone would turn out to vote and have their votes counted, the politicians would behave....they know people won't vote so they abuse the privledge.
if someone takes a test tube and trows it at you, can it be considered a chemical weapon?
__________________
:hide: (Guess who's back...) To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
**BREAKING** ***BREAKING** NEWS: 500 chemical weapons found in Iraq since 2003-
