Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fanpuck33_

Illegal Weapons Found in Iraq

Recommended Posts

Recently, bombs have been found in Iraq that contain mustard and serin gas. Looks like the illegal weapons are finally starting to show up. The gasses were found in shells which were believed to be typical warheads.

The mustard gas was found 10 days ago, but I just heard about it for the first time. Thanks to the liberal media for hiding this bit of information till more became public, forcing their hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banned weapons? You mean like Isreal?

Prolly just left overs given by the Reagan administration. Now maybe they'll find that "massive stock pile" that Colen Powell said Iraq has. Where are those weapons that could "destroy Britian in 45 minutes". Must have been left out by FoxNews.

I always found it humerous that a nation with the biggest pile of WMD's is digging threw the sand trying to find one missle that proves Iraq is a danger to the world.

[Edited on 2004/5/18 by Leafs Suck]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the war is going bad when Tucker Carlson says this:

"a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it. It's something I'll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have done that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Leafs Suck

I always found it humerous that a nation with the biggest pile of WMD's is digging threw the sand trying to find one missle that proves Iraq is a danger to the world.

But has any authority banned WMD in the US? No.

The UN had strict sanctions on weapons in Iraq. Don't give me any bull about inspectors. He only let inspectors in whenever he hid the weapons. How many times over the years did he refuse inspectors? For 10 years he was in violation of the UN sanctions on his nation. It doesn't matter where he got his materials, what matters is that he had them at all. But over those 10 years, the UN did nothing to punish Saddam's non-compliance. The UN is a joke. And I am not saying this because the UN wouldn't support the US, I have felt this way for a number of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the US have nukes? I'd like to think thats a banned weapon.

Isreal has one of the biggest stock piles of banned weapons yet Bush doesn't seem to be giving them any ultimadiums.

Fact is, many countries are the world have banned weapons yet aren't on the US' rader. North Korea for example is bragging and taunting the US that they have a nuclear program and would not be afarid to use one of the bombs against Japan, South Korea or even the west coast of the US. How come their is no talk about that? Why are the US over in Iraq, digging threw sand, looking threw dumbsters for anything that might come close to a weapon.

The hypocracy of the Bush admin is laughable.

Like I've said before, Mr.Cowboy and his "We're either with us or against us" seems to have a big double standard going.

He's against banned weapons, but his best friend Isreal is stocked with them. Not to mention North Korea and their "we got nukes, so WTF are you gonna do about it" attitude. And he's apprently against terrorists, but seems to have given Saudi Arabia a "get out of jail free" card. They support, fund, and harbor terrorists in their country. Weren't they funding Al Quada? And weren't they hiding bin Ladan in their country after he blew up some embassys in Africa?

So this big talk about "gotta get'em cause they are with the terrorists" and "gotta get'em cause they have banned weapons that we gave them 20 years ago" nonsense from Bu$h is wearing thin.

[Edited on 2004/5/18 by Leafs Suck]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America is fully aware of the situation in North Korea. We have had ambassodrs and such in talks with them for a long time, as soon as they said they had such weapons. We are not ignoring them at all. They just haven't had the weapons for a long period of time, plus they have at least allowed people to discuss the situation. They did not do this at first, but since have decided to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oohh, so they're open for diplomatic discussion?

Just like Iraq was by allowing inspectors in in 02/03. After they found nothing, it convinced Bu$h that they were a threat to the world.

Okie now I get it.

[Edited on 2004/5/18 by Leafs Suck]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quick note - Israel

there ain't no liberal cabal.

US news channels trip over each other to find good stories about iraq... there arent very many. I seem to remember a lot of coverage over finding sadam husein....

[Edited on 5/19/2004 by simonus]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by simonus

US news channels trip over each other to find good stories about iraq... there arent very many.  I seem to remember a lot of coverage over finding sadam husein....

Finding Saddam isn't exactly something the media could hide, even if it wanted to. But not releasing info about these weapons in Iraq was something they tried to hide at first, but could not since it continued to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And where is your news source?

Let me guess FauxNews or some other right-wing, patrioctically blind, anti-Iraq, morally bankrupt news source?

The right-wing media seems more concerned with attacking the left-wing than reporting news. They're dedicated to reporting false news and pushing their own agenda.

Now that they've found a bomb in the middle of a war-pledged nation, maybe now they can find the huge stock pile which Powell said Iraq had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Leafs Suck

And where is your news source?

The right-wing media seems more concerned with attacking the left-wing than reporting news. They're dedicated to reporting false news and pushing their own agenda.

My source was CNN-Headline News. I was looking for a baseball score and heard them talking about this. The serin gas was breaking news, but it was the first time anwhere that I had heard about the mustard gas, found 10 days earlier.

And IMO, it is the left wingers who attack conservatives more than reproting news. Even the democratic nominee spends all his time blasting Bush instead of telling people what he stands for. Kerry is a horrible candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their is no such thing as the left-wing media. The right-wing media dominates the US.

Proof?

Clinton was ripped apart by the media for fooling around with an intern.

Compare that to the lies, corruption and death Bu$h has caused since coming into office and all the media can talk about is well, anything else.

Clinton got lynched for getting head. Bu$h gets a free pass for starting a war for facticious reasons, to which 1000s lost their lives and the pro-right media treats him like a saint.

Most media outlets are nothing but unpaid employees of the US government.

Funny, I just searched on CNN.com for "serin gas" and got no search results.

Yikes!

[Edited on 2004/5/19 by Leafs Suck]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"All Kerry does is bash Bu$h"

Just like all Bush does when he talks is bash Kerry.

The one way poor-right winger street has suddently become a two-way street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Leafs Suck

"All Kerry does is bash Bu$h"

Just like all Bush does when he talks is bash Kerry.

The one way poor-right winger street has suddently become a two-way street.

This is true, but Bush has been president for over 3 years now. People know where he stands on the issues.

All people know about Kerry is that he isn't Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really

"We're against terrorists"

Yet he supports Isreal and Saudi Arabia.

He is all over the map. He is supposed to be against terrorists and WMD's, but clearly isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the sarin gas found in iraq was in a 155 milimeter capsule rigged with a non-standard explosion device meaning that it was not very combat ready and was not capable of wide dispersal. Even administration officials are loathe to do more than imply that it is from a current stockpile of iraq army weapondry. Considering that sarin gas and mustard gas both have relatively short shelf lives it is not even certain whether these are active weapons rather than useless relics of an older stockpile.

Fanpuck, even fox news didn't heavily report these findings which really brings your whole leftist bias theory into question. Also the mustard gas was not reported earlier because the story was originally released in the form of an administration leak directly to fox news on May 16th and which did not take great advantage of the head start before other agencies began to become informed.

I obviously see that Israel has done much in recent history that is embarrasing and at times horrible, but to call them a terrorist state is really a misnomer.

[Edited on 5/23/2004 by simonus]

[Edited on 5/24/2004 by simonus]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep if this siren gas thing was for real, fauxnews would be the first to report it and would still be talkin live about it.

another blow for the right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was reported the other day that an American POW was shot in the back of the head, execution style. This did not get reported on very much, as I only saw it reported the day it happened. But the prisoner abuse scandal has been reported on CONSTANTLY ever since it happened. Isn't the murder of American prisoners a hell of a lot worse than the abuse that some Iraqis were put through? Why isn't murder a big deal? Why does the media briefly discuss these things while harping on something less important, albeit a horrible thing? They choose to spend huge amounts of time reporting something that might help Bush lose the election, while not giving a hoot about Americans killed by Iraqis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abuse? Now that is a kind word. Some of those images are revolting. Some of the most disgusting things I've ever seen.

Nick Berg and the prisioner abuse is a different story. Berg was killed by Al Quada. The prisioners are Iraqi soliders.

I thought Americans were supposed to be above the abuse. They were supposed to be there to instill democracy and save the Iraqi's from violence and torture. I thought Americans were supposed to respect POW's and I thought Americans believed you're innocent till proven guilty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Americans are above this. That is why the few individuals responsible for the abuse are being punished for what they did. But still, killing a prisoner is 100 times worse than making one run around naked. I think I would rather be naked than dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know what news sources you are monitoring but I have heard quite a bit about american deaths in iraq, including these individual assasinations. Frankly, there is not as much to say about the american assasinations - when americans do something wrong we are obliged to investigate it and correct the situation. When an american is killed in this fashion what are we supposed to do? Hold hearings? Examine pentagon memos?

I hate to say this Fanpuck, because I do appreciate and respect your opinion and postings, but if you felt that they were reporting these assasinations what would your post be? Would you complain that the press was exploiting dead americans to underline the misdeployment of american troops? Would you then advocate the deployment of additional troops to iraq to overwhelm the insurgency as many democrats (and republicans) have? Would you call for the reinstatement of the draft to bolster american force as some politicians have? I fear that it would be very difficult for the press, or anyone to meet the standard that you are employing. I certainly want to know about american misdeeds in iraq because this is my country right or wrong, but if its wrong i want to make it right. If one feels that this country is doing wrong, even if I disagree with them, it is their duty as patriots to bring those perceived wrongdoings into the debate. I did not agree with republicans who complained about clinton's forays into yugoslavia and bosnia, but I rarely if ever questioned their motives for doing so. Now when they complained about sex that was a different story, much as it is a bit mean to make fun of bush for choking on a pretzel.... Republicans in general should maybe start putting some duct tape on their glass house. No reputable democrat has called for bush's censure or impeachment and whether or not you agree with the charges that might be brought (I for the most part do not), they are much more serious than anything that was ever brought against clinton.

I don't remember the press being so nice to clinton, or to carter, or to johnson.... the last democrat who got anything close to an easy time was kenedy, and that was a very different time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen American casualties in the news quite a bit, as they happen every day. The thing I am concerned about is the torture if Americans in Iraq, like the beheading and the execution. I realize this is different form the Iraqi prisoner abuse, but isn't it just as newsworthy? I am not sure if sending more troops is the best thing to do, and I do not think the draft is the answer either. Although, this might just be because I don't want to get drafted. Don't get me wrong, I would report as ordered if I were drafted, but I would not be happy about it. I know it sounds kind of hypocritical, but I don't know if I have it in me to be in combat.

If they were reporting the news as I expect in this case, I would have nothing to complain about at this point in time. I realize that any president, democrat and republican alike, gets his share of crap from the media. I am upset at the fact that right now it seems like they only show the bad things going on in the Bush administration, while glossing over the good that comes from it. I realize thinds seem bad, but there is good coming from the Bush administration. And he cannot be blamed for all of the bad either.

All in all, I don't think either side of any argument will ever be happy with the way the media reports it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess i am not seeing that much good right now from the bush administration. There has been some job growth, which is being reported on the financial page if not the front page, but nothing compared to the earlier losses. I am currently trying to find a new job and I am seeing only the slightest evidence of a recovery. Schools are not getting better, no matter what one thinks of the iraq situation I think it is difficult to argue that the general international situation is all that great. The coalition isnt doing so hot, especially in regards to spain and japan. Burlesconni and Blair are probably not going to be around for much longer, so italy and britain are not so certain and even many smaller members are getting out.

I'm not crazy about the general state of the armed forces, locked up on two fronts where we are losing an inch or two for each we gain. The US's heir apparent in Iraq, Chalabi, has been deemed shitty first by iraqis and now by the US government and Karzai(sp?) is not getting much done in afganistan. Bush stomped on pay raises for the enlisted, which is about as unpatriotic as one can get. It is becoming more difficult to qualify and use the GI bill assistance programs, etc.

Our budget is completely unbalanced, Ken Lay hasn't been put on trial, federal government is getting stingy with domestic disaster relief and has almost cancelled international disaster relief. Haiti is going to pigshit, etc...

Bush is queer bashing and not funding real sex ed, is attempting to insert church into state via funding of faith-based non-profits... These last, of course could be rephrased and/or deemed good things depending on who you are, but it doesn't make me want to vote for that yellow dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by simonus

Bush stomped on pay raises for the enlisted, which is about as unpatriotic as one can get. It is becoming more difficult to qualify and use the GI bill assistance programs, etc.

I hadn't heard about the pay-raise bill making it to Bush. I have seen, however, that Kerry voted against the bill. He also voted against paying for better weapons to use in Iraq, then complained that we went in unprepared. How hypocritical is that?

And what has any politician done for education lately? Nothing. And this "No Child Left Behind" bill, which I believe is backed by Bush, is utterly stupid. It calls for students to be passed to the next grade, even if they haven't achieved high enough scores to qualify. How does this help kids? Shouldn't they have mastered one set of skills before they move on to the next, more difficult skills? It's so stupid.

Bush is queer bashing and not funding real sex ed, is attempting to insert church into state via funding of faith-based non-profits

I do not believe same sex marriages should be allowed. Man and woman were created the way they were for a reason. I have nothing against homosexuals, but I also do not praise them. And what is so wrong about funding of faith based non-profits? What is the difference between say habitat for humanity building poor people a house and some church group doing the same? As long as they are not paying to promote any particular religion, I see nothing wrong with it. The same with school vouchers, which are still non-existent I believe. Most schools that are religious related have much better records than public schools. Why should the poor be punished because they can't afford the private school. As long as the state doesn't pay for the religious education part of it, I see no problem. The separation of church and state is blown way out of proportion. I am sick of states having to take down the Ten Commandments and removing crosses from everywhere. The country was built on Christianity, what's the big deal? Why are people so offended about the beliefs of others. I heard of an atheist teacher getting a Christian teacher fired because the Christian wore a cross in a public school. Isn't that supressing someone's belief?

[Edited on 6-3-04 by Fanpuck33]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are two huge problems with vouchers, neither having anything to do with religion.

1) It takes away aggregate funding from public schools, making them worse. Let us say that currently there are 32 students in a class - bad, but the aregetting 30 students worth of funding per class. Let us say that 6 students per class use the voucher - now there are 24 students per class, maybe, and the school has 20% less funding. If you thought having 30 kids in a class was bad, now you have two choices - consolodate classes so there are now 30 some kids per class with less choice in classes and the school is just as bad, or try to do as many classes and programs with 20% less funding - making the school worse. It is not as if schools are currently well funded anyways.

2) Any voucher system that has been offered gives families less money than the average private school tuition. Let us say you get $5,000 for your voucher (pretty good compared to what most proposals offer)... well that St. Simonus' High to which you are referring probably has a tuition running somewhere around $10,000. So who does this help? Rich and upper middle class families effectively get a tax break because they were already sending their kids to private school (which takes even more money out of a states general fund than that 20% from point #1) and families that are marginally well to do that can now afford the tuition of private schools with the voucher check. What happens to the poor families for whom that voucher is insufficient? Two choices - go to that now much shittier public school, or go to a new private school, lets call it High School, Inc.(HSI), that was created to take advantage of voucher families. HSI is now trying to make a school happen on a small scale for $5,000 a kid, and since this school really needs to make a profit lets say $4,000 actually goes to teaching and programs. Wait, no programs at HSI because there is no way that HSI is gonna blow potential profits on a gymnasium or pay a teacher overtime to run chess club.

Basically the people who get the upgrade in education are borderline wealthy families. I have no problem with people getting aid, but helping those people is not my first priority, especially at the expense of those less wealthy. Also, since all families get the same voucher, regardless of their income, it functions as a regressive school tax. I thought right-wingers hated new taxes... or is it only progressive ones?

As far as the ten commandments, it is not posting them that bothers me, it is purely an issue of formatting. Different denominations divide the commandments differently and translate them differently as well. Do we use the king james, NVI, Good News, JPS? Is "I am the lord your god" the first commandment or is the first commandment "I am the lord your god and you shall hold no other gods before me"? Are we commanded not to kill or is it not to murder? In certain circumstances we are told that we must kill in the bible, stonings for certain offenses, we must kill in the last defence of our lives, we must kill any moabite or amalekite that we meet, so it would be pretty offensive to some christians to say that we should not kill when that is patently false. What would orthodox jews have to say about any of these translations or numberings - the commandments were given in hebrew, unnumbered, and any translation will, by necesity, be to some degree incorrect, so thusly misrepresentative of the word of god.

One simple solution to all these potential problems is to just not post the ten commandments in the first place. Anyways, considering that Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin were confirmed deists (read atheists) I am not so sure our country was based on the religious merit of these principles anyways.

[Edited on 6/3/2004 by simonus]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...