What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

For all those MORONS who doubted Saddam had WMD's

-Cp

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Messages
2,911
Reaction score
360
Points
48
Location
Earth
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R – MI) appeared on FOX News’ Hannity & Colmes Wednesday night to discuss the breaking news of WMD being found in Iraq.

Alan Colmes, like liberal bloggers are trying to downplay this situation. Why are they not happy that we found WMD in Iraq, and more importantly why are liberals trying to question the authenticity of them? Is it okay to question their patriotism, now?

Colmes tries to spin this as a “desperate attempt” on Santorum’s part to win re-election in his Senate race. That is absolutely disgusting, but Alan’s a liberal, so it’s understandable.

Colmes kept saying that the WMD is outdated and old, at the end of the segment co-host Sean Hannity suggested a liberal should house the WMD and see how they feel about that.

Check out the video:
http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/06/22/hannity-rick-peter-wmd/
 
M

Max Power

Guest
Looks you you just may have pulled a Dan Rather, -Cp

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060622/ap_on_go_co/iraq_s_weapons

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.
 

BaronVonBigmeat

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
163
Points
48
Lots of countries have WMD's. You can't have much of a modern army without WMD's. Any nation with planes that can drop bombs has WMD's. Timothy McVeigh constructed a hell of a WMD out of consumer-grade chemicals. North Korea and Pakistan both undoubtedly have better WMD's than Saddam, and yet we do nothing to them (in fact, Pakistan is our ally).

Let us know when they unearth any evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, or evidence that Saddam was going to use his weapons on us (as opposed to threatening Israel).
 
OP
-Cp

-Cp

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Messages
2,911
Reaction score
360
Points
48
Location
Earth

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,796
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
BaronVonBigmeat said:
Lots of countries have WMD's. You can't have much of a modern army without WMD's. Any nation with planes that can drop bombs has WMD's. Timothy McVeigh constructed a hell of a WMD out of consumer-grade chemicals. North Korea and Pakistan both undoubtedly have better WMD's than Saddam, and yet we do nothing to them (in fact, Pakistan is our ally).

Let us know when they unearth any evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, or evidence that Saddam was going to use his weapons on us (as opposed to threatening Israel).

Why does anyone have to link Saddam to 9/11. Why does it matter if WMDs are found in Iraw or not? IMHO Bush was stupid to try to justify attacking because of WMDs. Iraq is one country in the battle on terrorism.
In WWII we attacked the Phillippines. Did the Phillippines attack us first?
I refuse to believe that someone as smart as you can't figure this one out.
 
M

Max Power

Guest
-Cp said:
Great... I guess we can store them at your house then right? I mean, since they're so safe??
"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.
 

GotZoom

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
5,719
Reaction score
367
Points
48
Location
Cordova, TN
Max Power said:
"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

Then you would have no problem storing a few of the canisters right?

Around kids, etc.

Why don't we just stack them up in the closet in the basement of your kid's school.

That would be ok with you?
 
M

Max Power

Guest
GotZoom said:
Then you would have no problem storing a few of the canisters right?

Around kids, etc.

Why don't we just stack them up in the closet in the basement of your kid's school.

That would be ok with you?
:boohoo:
 

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
BaronVonBigmeat said:
Let us know when they unearth any evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, or evidence that Saddam was going to use his weapons on us (as opposed to threatening Israel).

Do you know how to read? Try reading a newspaper once in a while. It might help.

Osama bin Laden is on record as saying that 9/11 was the direct result of presense of American troops on Holy Muslim soil. Saudi Arabia. And do YOU know why American troops were in Saudi Arabia?

Oh, go on. Take a wild guess. Try Google.
 

GotZoom

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
5,719
Reaction score
367
Points
48
Location
Cordova, TN
Max Power said:

You are so funny. Your perfect use of the violin-playing-guy is exquisite.

Guess you don't want to answer the question.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
BaronVonBigmeat said:
Lots of countries have WMD's. You can't have much of a modern army without WMD's. Any nation with planes that can drop bombs has WMD's. Timothy McVeigh constructed a hell of a WMD out of consumer-grade chemicals. North Korea and Pakistan both undoubtedly have better WMD's than Saddam, and yet we do nothing to them (in fact, Pakistan is our ally).

Let us know when they unearth any evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, or evidence that Saddam was going to use his weapons on us (as opposed to threatening Israel).

Why, and why? Both are irrelevant to the topic, and nothing but attempted deflection.
 
M

Max Power

Guest
GunnyL said:
Looks like you're trying to pull a Michael Moore. The potency of the chemical agent is irrelevant. The fact that weapons existed at all IS relevant.
I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree then.

You apparently think that 2500+ servicemen's lives were worth expired weapons, regardless of whether they posed the least threat to anyone. I don't.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Max Power said:
I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree then.

You apparently think that 2500+ servicemen's lives were worth expired weapons, regardless of whether they posed the least threat to anyone. I don't.

I will agree you have no basis for your argument. In your left-wing attitude on this topic, you attempt to make waht is irrelevant relevant, while completely ignoring facts that ARE relevant.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,796
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
Max Power said:
I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree then.

You apparently think that 2500+ servicemen's lives were worth expired weapons, regardless of whether they posed the least threat to anyone. I don't.

You aren't paying attention, Max. Try to keep up with what's going on or you might get held back next year.
 

BaronVonBigmeat

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
163
Points
48
-Cp said:
Great... I guess we can store them at your house then right? I mean, since they're so safe??

The point of the thread is not "are they safe enough to drink out of", the point is that Saddam has not persued chemical weapons since their war with Iran, which means the sudden rush to war in 2003 highly suspect. Especially when we were buddies with Saddam back when those weapons were actually potent.

dilloduck said:
Why does anyone have to link Saddam to 9/11. Why does it matter if WMDs are found in Iraw or not? IMHO Bush was stupid to try to justify attacking because of WMDs. Iraq is one country in the battle on terrorism.In WWII we attacked the Phillippines. Did the Phillippines attack us first? I refuse to believe that someone as smart as you can't figure this one out.

Yes, Bush was dumb to pretend that it was about WMD's. Trouble is, if he'd told the truth, no one would have given a damn about attempting to build a democracy in the mideast.

In WWII, we attacked the Japanese army which was occupying the Phillipines--mainly because we needed forward bases for the strike at Japan. I don't think we were attacking the Phillipinos but maybe I'm wrong. You're comparing apples to oranguatangs.

nt250 said:
Do you know how to read? Try reading a newspaper once in a while. It might help.

Osama bin Laden is on record as saying that 9/11 was the direct result of presense of American troops on Holy Muslim soil. Saudi Arabia. And do YOU know why American troops were in Saudi Arabia?

Oh, go on. Take a wild guess. Try Google.

Our troops first went to Saudi Arabia because Iraq had invaded Kuwait after recieving the US government's blessing (or non-disapproval, depending on who you ask). The ambassador to Iraq made it clear that the US was not interested in a mineral rights dispute between the Iraqi dictator and a muslim monarchy. Then, for whatever reason, we suddenly decided that the fate of this muslim non-democracy was worth billions of taxpayer dollars and a couple hundred american lives.

So, for the next few years, we hung around, supposedly to protect this non-democracy from a dictator with a broken military that couldn't beat Iran, even with out help. Or, maybe we stayed because, like most government agencies, the military does not like to accept downsizing and budget cuts, so it seeks out a new purpose. After all, we're STILL in Germany and Japan. Interesting how quickly we found a new boogeyman after the Berlin wall fell, isn't it?

GunnyL said:
Why, and why? Both are irrelevant to the topic, and nothing but attempted deflection.

So it doesn't matter that Saddam was no threat to the US, only that he possessed WMD's?

1) Why the rush to war in 2003, instead of say...1983, when those WMD's could actually kill people?

2) Why don't we attack other dictatorships which have WMD's? Actual, working WMD's? Or more importantly, nukes--it doesn't take a genius to make chemical weapons or conventional bombs.

How about China, Russia, North Korea? How about Pakistan, the nuclear-equipped muslim dictatorship that is our ally? How about Libya? Khadaffi actually DID sponsor terrorists and was linked to the 200-something people killed when that one airplane exploded. Now he's had a change of heart (read: allowed western oil companies in), so he's one of us now.
 

PsuedoGhost

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
206
Reaction score
15
Points
16
-Cp said:
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R – MI) appeared on FOX News’ Hannity & Colmes Wednesday night to discuss the breaking news of WMD being found in Iraq.

Alan Colmes, like liberal bloggers are trying to downplay this situation. Why are they not happy that we found WMD in Iraq, and more importantly why are liberals trying to question the authenticity of them? Is it okay to question their patriotism, now?

Colmes tries to spin this as a “desperate attempt” on Santorum’s part to win re-election in his Senate race. That is absolutely disgusting, but Alan’s a liberal, so it’s understandable.

Colmes kept saying that the WMD is outdated and old, at the end of the segment co-host Sean Hannity suggested a liberal should house the WMD and see how they feel about that.

Check out the video:
http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/06/22/hannity-rick-peter-wmd/


I haven't checked anything about this yet, but let's assume that you are right and that there are WMD. The question I still have for you, is if we weren't led to war on false pretenses, then where are the tremendous caches of WMD that we were led to believe existed? A handful here and there, isn't enough to justify a war. Moreover where was that logic when it come to dealing with North Korea? How about Iran? These are all countries we can CONFIRM have WMD and yet we do nothing to them?

As for the Saddam - 9/11 link. There is none. 9/11 Commission says so.
 

KarlMarx

Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
492
Points
48
Location
...
PsuedoGhost said:
I haven't checked anything about this yet, but let's assume that you are right and that there are WMD. The question I still have for you, is if we weren't led to war on false pretenses, then where are the tremendous caches of WMD that we were led to believe existed? A handful here and there, isn't enough to justify a war. Moreover where was that logic when it come to dealing with North Korea? How about Iran? These are all countries we can CONFIRM have WMD and yet we do nothing to them?

As for the Saddam - 9/11 link. There is none. 9/11 Commission says so.
According to the 1991 ceasefire agreement, Iraq was supposed to give up and destroy ALL WMDs. That didn't mean .... "it's OK if you over look a few hundred shells worth of Sarin and Mustard Gas"

Also, if anyone here is stupid enough to actually believe that Sarin gas can be made harmless, I have a bridge to sell you. Even in a degraded state, the contents of those shells are very lethal.

If you'd like an answer to why we don't just invade North Korea like we did with Iraq... look at your history books, it's called "China". Invading North Korea would automatically trigger an incident with China, if not an outright war.

The problem with you all on the Left is that no amount of evidence will convince you, because you actually don't care about WMDs or any of the other reasons you cite for your objections to this war. You really object to George W. Bush. That's it, plain and simple. And no matter how much you wrap your arguments in "facts", the odor of Bushatred comes through.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,133
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
KarlMarx said:
According to the 1991 ceasefire agreement, Iraq was supposed to give up and destroy ALL WMDs. That didn't mean .... "it's OK if you over look a few hundred shells worth of Sarin and Mustard Gas"

Also, if anyone here is stupid enough to actually believe that Sarin gas can be made harmless, I have a bridge to sell you. Even in a degraded state, the contents of those shells are very lethal.

If you'd like an answer to why we don't just invade North Korea like we did with Iraq... look at your history books, it's called "China". Invading North Korea would automatically trigger an incident with China, if not an outright war.

The problem with you all on the Left is that no amount of evidence will convince you, because you actually don't care about WMDs or any of the other reasons you cite for your objections to this war. You really object to George W. Bush. That's it, plain and simple. And no matter how much you wrap your arguments in "facts", the odor of Bushatred comes through.

You nailed it. Whats so ridiculous about all this is they keep claiming President Bush lied about Weapons of Mass destruction.

The UN said he had them
The intelligence from multiple nations including the ones opposed to this war said he had them and was pursuing more
Our intelligence said he has them
Saddam said He had them
His Generals said He had them and some have given details how some of the weapons were shipped to Syria.

And most important of all. Stockpiles of WMDs have been found.

Yet despite all that Bush lied. The war wasnt worth fighting for.

Does anyone honestly believe that these are the only WMDs out there? I dont. My guess is the adminstration doesnt either or they would declassify all this information. The only reason to keep them classified would be to keep the terrorist from knowing how many are actually out there. or else they will start looking for them too.

And you know what, if terrorists get WMDs because of this, Im blaming the people who have done everything in their power to pretend they didnt exist and undermine our effort to find them and stop these terrorists. Because thats exactly whose fault it will be.

How many times does the left need to be responsible for the death of countless people before they stop promiting the garbage they promote? Is your quest for power worth the lives of millions?
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
Avatar4321 said:
You nailed it. Whats so ridiculous about all this is they keep claiming President Bush lied about Weapons of Mass destruction.

The UN said he had them
The intelligence from multiple nations including the ones opposed to this war said he had them and was pursuing more
Our intelligence said he has them
Saddam said He had them
His Generals said He had them and some have given details how some of the weapons were shipped to Syria.

And most important of all. Stockpiles of WMDs have been found.

Yet despite all that Bush lied. The war wasnt worth fighting for.

Does anyone honestly believe that these are the only WMDs out there? I dont. My guess is the adminstration doesnt either or they would declassify all this information. The only reason to keep them classified would be to keep the terrorist from knowing how many are actually out there. or else they will start looking for them too.

And you know what, if terrorists get WMDs because of this, Im blaming the people who have done everything in their power to pretend they didnt exist and undermine our effort to find them and stop these terrorists. Because thats exactly whose fault it will be.

How many times does the left need to be responsible for the death of countless people before they stop promiting the garbage they promote? Is your quest for power worth the lives of millions?

Look on the bright side! The price of fuel is through the roof! The oil companies are rich - sorry, I mean, getting richer! And so are their associates like Halliburton! Be happy!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$200.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top