|
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 5, 2010 19:10:47 GMT -5
At last! Have they finally found a 'weapon of mass destruction' in Iraq?They have been searching in Iraq for the past nine years, 10 months and 15 days. Today, the hard work finally paid off as soldiers found one of those elusive ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that Saddam Hussein was supposed to have been hiding. So is it all round to Tony Blair's house for celebratory drinks?  Unfortunately the discovery came just a few days late for the former prime minister, who could have used the extraordinary find as proof he was right about Iraq all along during the Chilcot Inquiry. But from the looks of the rocket, it would appear unlikely it could be deployed anywhere in 45 minutes, let alone be fired at the UK, as a certain dossier led us to believe. The bomb is thought to have been buried by Saddam Hussein's regime before the UK and U.S. invasion of Iraq started in 2003. Iraqi guards were as surprised as the rest of us to discover the 'missile' during an operation in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib suburb. It is not yet known whether the seven-metre rocket is armed with a warhead. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1248567/Iraq--Missile-discovered-Baghdad-s-Abu-Ghraib-suburb.html
|
|
|
|
Post by ladyduomaxwell on Feb 6, 2010 14:50:59 GMT -5
I wonder what the anti-war left is going to say now?
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfknight on Feb 6, 2010 19:11:49 GMT -5
The same thing they said about the Sarin, and other WMDs that have been found since the war began.
"That's old, and cannot possibly have been what Bush meant when he was warmongering for Iraq."
|
|
|
|
Post by rachaelfabulous on Feb 8, 2010 13:04:10 GMT -5
This will never see a second of air time on liberal television.
|
|
lepatte
Bachelors from Celiberal
Posts: 280
|
Post by lepatte on Feb 9, 2010 7:03:33 GMT -5
That "thing" a WMD ? ;D
Where's the joke ?
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfknight on Feb 9, 2010 10:29:46 GMT -5
The "thing", lepatte is a cruise missile, when in original maintained working order could be used to deliver any variety of chemical, biological, conventional or nuclear payloads.
Yes, it has had its potential use as a weapon stripped from it by being buried in the sand for an undetermined amount of time.
But the fact that it WAS buried in the sand, possible even WALKED OVER by weapons inspectors offers proof of concept that other, more viable WMDs may still be in Iraq.
The "joke" is that after nothing but liberal rantings about a total lack of WMDs, and Bush's "rush to war", the proof that they could, and likely ARE hidden somewhere in Iraq has just been uncovered.
Look to any conversation regarding something seemingly unrelated, such as evolutionary theory. The fact that we see evolution in other organisms is offered as evidence that humans evolve(d).
The same logic applies. The fact that we found a weapon buried in Iraq is evidence that other weapons are buried, and that the Iraqi military thought that doing so (as a way to avoid detection), was a good idea.
The significance is not the surface of the discovery, but what the discovery itself represents.
|
|
lepatte
Bachelors from Celiberal
Posts: 280
|
Post by lepatte on Feb 9, 2010 10:58:35 GMT -5
The "thing", lepatte is a cruise missile, when in original maintained working order could be used to deliver any variety of chemical, biological, conventional or nuclear payloads. Yes, it has had its potential use as a weapon stripped from it by being buried in the sand for an undetermined amount of time. But the fact that it WAS buried in the sand, possible even WALKED OVER by weapons inspectors offers proof of concept that other, more viable WMDs may still be in Iraq. The "joke" is that after nothing but liberal rantings about a total lack of WMDs, and Bush's "rush to war", the proof that they could, and likely ARE hidden somewhere in Iraq has just been uncovered. Look to any conversation regarding something seemingly unrelated, such as evolutionary theory. The fact that we see evolution in other organisms is offered as evidence that humans evolve(d). The same logic applies. The fact that we found a weapon buried in Iraq is evidence that other weapons are buried, and that the Iraqi military thought that doing so (as a way to avoid detection), was a good idea. The significance is not the surface of the discovery, but what the discovery itself represents. Whaw, they found ONE "cruise missile" after 7 years... It really worth to go to war and invade a country for that.. It could've annihilate all kind of human form on earth... Sorry, but, for me, there was absolutely no reason for the US to go to war against iraq... "cruise missile" or not.... |
|
|
|
Post by wolfknight on Feb 9, 2010 13:32:00 GMT -5
Lepatte:
Why do you put quotes around cruise missile? Just looking at it, it bears similar appearance to several Soviet-era cruise missiles, which would be in the region because of Soviet presence in the 70s/80s.
But you are totally ignoring my point, which is simple:
Where there is one, there are others.
Since you don't live in Iraq, I'm certain that "for you" there was no reason for the US invasion. Ask any of those who lived under Saddam Hussien's regime, and I'm sure "for them" there was plenty of reason.
|
|
lepatte
Bachelors from Celiberal
Posts: 280
|
Post by lepatte on Feb 10, 2010 4:41:20 GMT -5
Lepatte: Why do you put quotes around cruise missile? Just looking at it, it bears similar appearance to several Soviet-era cruise missiles, which would be in the region because of Soviet presence in the 70s/80s. Juste because, when I look at it, sorry, but it looks more to a V1 than a cruise missile. And if you consider that this old thing was a treath against your country, what do you think about the north corean weapons then ? But you are totally ignoring my point, which is simple: Where there is one, there are others. Great, iraq had several flying bombs. Huge treath to the humanity indeed... Since you don't live in Iraq, I'm certain that "for you" there was no reason for the US invasion. Ask any of those who lived under Saddam Hussien's regime, and I'm sure "for them" there was plenty of reason. And you ? You're living there ? Nope, there was no reason at all for the US to invade iraq.. No treath against your country, nothing to do with the 9/11, nada, zero... And if you consider that America's duty was to free iraqi people because of saddam's terror, why then, isn't your country invading, north corea for example ? Oh yes, right, that would be dangerous, because they have the abilities to retaliate... easier to invade a country unarmed... Silly me... |
|
|
|
Post by harleyman on Feb 10, 2010 8:21:34 GMT -5
Lepatte: Why do you put quotes around cruise missile? Just looking at it, it bears similar appearance to several Soviet-era cruise missiles, which would be in the region because of Soviet presence in the 70s/80s. Juste because, when I look at it, sorry, but it looks more to a V1 than a cruise missile. And if you consider that this old thing was a treath against your country, what do you think about the north corean weapons then ? Great, iraq had several flying bombs. Huge treath to the humanity indeed... Since you don't live in Iraq, I'm certain that "for you" there was no reason for the US invasion. Ask any of those who lived under Saddam Hussien's regime, and I'm sure "for them" there was plenty of reason. And you ? You're living there ? Nope, there was no reason at all for the US to invade iraq.. No treath against your country, nothing to do with the 9/11, nada, zero... And if you consider that America's duty was to free iraqi people because of saddam's terror, why then, isn't your country invading, north corea for example ? Oh yes, right, that would be dangerous, because they have the abilities to retaliate... easier to invade a country unarmed... Silly me... No offense, but you are missing the point. If no weapons were found the famous argument is "See, I told you they would not find any." If any weapons are found the second famous argument of "Gee-whiz, it took invading a country to find 'X' number of weapons." This is nothing more than a simple straw-man fallacy approach. Why not get into the line of questioning of: - How long has that particular weapon been there?
- Who buried it, and are there others around that witnessed this?
- How did it get here, meaning, it was probably moved on a flatbed personnel carrier and they could hold about 3-4 per vehicle. (Or probably 2 depending on how many people they used to bury them. Since the Iraqi's are used to larger convoy style movements, I would bet my money on the first scenario. 3-5 trucks with 3-4 missiles each, with one extra truck for extra dudes with shovels.
- Why are we even discussing North Korea? They didn't have links to terrorists or were aiding and abedding terrorists that have attacked us.
Why not look at this instead of the same old "America is bad because..." diatribe? Divided societies crumble over time whereas a united society grows from the experiences of others. |
|
lepatte
Bachelors from Celiberal
Posts: 280
|
Post by lepatte on Feb 10, 2010 10:13:36 GMT -5
Why are we even discussing North Korea? They didn't have links to terrorists or were aiding and abedding terrorists that have attacked us. Neither did iraq... and yet, US have attacked them... And according to your ex president, north korea is listed on the axe of evel thing... So ? |
|
|
|
Post by harleyman on Feb 10, 2010 10:29:25 GMT -5
Why are we even discussing North Korea? They didn't have links to terrorists or were aiding and abedding terrorists that have attacked us. Neither did iraq... and yet, US have attacked them... And according to your ex president, north korea is listed on the axe of evel thing... So ? Makes about as much sense as you saying your ex leader never sold arms to Angola, granted phony contracts to spend government money, and never got accused of corruption? So what's your point now? |
|
|
|
Post by wolfknight on Feb 11, 2010 2:05:03 GMT -5
Juste because, when I look at it, sorry, but it looks more to a V1 than a cruise missile. Then you need to look again. The design of the wing makes the appearance much closer to a Soviet P-700 Grannit than a German V1. The V1 had longer "straight" wings, and the Soviet missile I'm speaking of has the more triangular wings. But that is neither here nor there. The point is that it is a cruise missile (even if a V1, which was a crude precursor to modern cruise missiles, so the argument to classify the V1 as such could be made). And if you consider that this old thing was a treath against your country, what do you think about the north corean weapons then ? I can only assume you mean "threat", and "Korean". Yes, "this old thing" IS a threat, because it is a weapon that was NOT reported as required by international mandate, and it represents the ability and will to hide weapons in such a manner. It really is a simple point, and you seem to just simply not grasp it. If they did this with one weapon, they did it with others. For the love of all that is holy, please tell me you have nothing to do with law-enforcement in whatever country you call home. I'd hate to think that anyone's life might depend on your ability to see deeper than the surface for "treaths". As for Korea, you better damned well believe I'm concerned about their weapons. But the situation in the Middle East is vastly different, geographically, and politically, than the situation in Southeast Asia. If you need this explained to you in any more detail, do me a favor, and box your computer up and send it to some kid in Africa who can make better use out of it than you are. Great, iraq had several flying bombs. Huge treath to the humanity indeed... Just ask the humans who were killed by thier supposed leader in Iraq. I suggest investing in a very good medium if you plan this though, as they were killed the the non-threatening weapons you dismiss. And you ? You're living there ? Nope, there was no reason at all for the US to invade iraq.. No treath against your country, nothing to do with the 9/11, nada, zero... Since 9/11 was NEVER presented as a major reason for the invasion, you comment makes about as much sense as anything else you have said, which is to say pathetically little. And if you consider that America's duty was to free iraqi people because of saddam's terror, why then, isn't your country invading, north corea for example ? Oh yes, right, that would be dangerous, because they have the abilities to retaliate... easier to invade a country unarmed... Silly me... No, child. It's because the Korean situation is different. Again, if you need the reasons why explained to you, then please, stop using any computer right now. You are obviously not in possession of a mind sophisticated enough to comprehend the device you hold, and the vast resources you have at your fingertips. Simple research, rather than a regurgitation of whatever "America sucks" crap you have been spoon-fed, and you would not need myself or anyone else to explain why your position is nonsensical, immature, and wrong. |
|
lepatte
Bachelors from Celiberal
Posts: 280
|
Post by lepatte on Feb 11, 2010 4:53:39 GMT -5
Makes about as much sense as you saying your ex leader never sold arms to Angola, granted phony contracts to spend government money, and never got accused of corruption? So what's your point now? Nice try, but missed.... I've got nothing to do with Chirac as it's about him you're talking about |
|
lepatte
Bachelors from Celiberal
Posts: 280
|
Post by lepatte on Feb 11, 2010 5:22:10 GMT -5
Then you need to look again[...] Ok, nothing's changed, YOU've got the truth, all the others are or, terrorists, or commies and therefore absolutly stupid... Really like your way of debating... "I AM right, you're wrong, now, STFU"' Since 9/11 was NEVER presented as a major reason for the invasion, you comment makes about as much sense as anything else you have said, which is to say pathetically little. Mmmh, got some hard drive problem mate ? Bush's administration, a few time after the 9/11 said to everyone who was willing to listen that Al Quaeda had conections with Iraq and therefore, the US needed to go to iraq.... That didn't last long, but that's how it was presented at tyhe beginning... No, child. It's because the Korean situation is different. Again, if you need the reasons why explained to you, then please, stop using any computer right now. You are obviously not in possession of a mind sophisticated enough to comprehend the device you hold, and the vast resources you have at your fingertips. Simple research, rather than a regurgitation of whatever "America sucks" crap you have been spoon-fed, and you would not need myself or anyone else to explain why your position is nonsensical, immature, and wrong. You can take the tone and the condescension you want, that won't change my mind.... |
|
