Planetarion Forums

Perle · 1 Aug 2003, 13:38

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...rch/index.html

Never read an article more hilarious than this one.

We havent found anything nor do we have any testimony of it, but it is there and we are making progress.

The great thing about the USA is that there are so many naive and easily deceivable people in it.

1 Aug 2003, 13:40

Coming from someone so naive that they actually believe Saddam disarmed gives this little credibility.

ChubbyChecker · 1 Aug 2003, 13:40

With regards to WMDs I don't see how British people are any different.

Not that I make a habit of defending Americans.

Zapman · 1 Aug 2003, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Perle

The great thing about the USA is that there are so many naive and easily deceivable people in it.

Like it's leaders.

Perle · 1 Aug 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
With regards to WMDs I don't see how British people are any different.

Not that I make a habit of defending Americans.

oh
I dont agree, at least the british people were against the war ( a majority of them anyway) and they are giving that poodle a really hard time.

queball · 1 Aug 2003, 13:48

The thread subject said "very funny article" but I clicked on the link and it was about Iraq and stuff.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 1 Aug 2003, 13:48

i think somewhere around the middle of august (16th iirc) the US investigators in iraq will have had the same amount of time to look for WMD as the americans gave the UN weapons inspectors...

ChubbyChecker · 1 Aug 2003, 13:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Perle
oh
I dont agree, at least the british people were against the war ( a majority of them anyway) and they are giving that poodle a really hard time.

The public opinion of the war in the UK is a lot more naive than in the US. In the UK we went to war on the premise that we were getting rid of Iraq's WMDs and the general public actually believed this was the main reason for going to war. In America they were clever enough to realise that it wasn't this simple.

Rumsfeld actually said a few days ago that WMDs will probably never be found. The American public accepted this because they know it wasn't a big issue anyway. If that was said in the UK there would be uproar.

Blastoderm · 1 Aug 2003, 16:06

CNN itself is a complete joke.

1 Aug 2003, 16:49

your moms a complete joke.

Blastoderm · 1 Aug 2003, 16:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Stereophobe
your moms a complete joke.

Could someone ban this punk? His mom/mum jokes are just as bad as the other 'your mom/mum' posters.

sayonara · 1 Aug 2003, 16:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Blastoderm
Could someone ban this punk? His mom/mum jokes are just as bad as the other 'your mom/mum' posters.

He's WorkMonkey, whoever that was.

1 Aug 2003, 17:00

I will r0ck you

|_(-_-)_|

Leshy · 1 Aug 2003, 17:00

Of course a whole stack of WMD's buried 20 feet deep somewhere in a remote section of Iraq were the ones that Saddam would've had immediate access to

MrL_JaKiri · 1 Aug 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
The public opinion of the war in the UK is a lot more naive than in the US. In the UK we went to war on the premise that we were getting rid of Iraq's WMDs and the general public actually believed this was the main reason for going to war. In America they were clever enough to realise that it wasn't this simple.

Rumsfeld actually said a few days ago that WMDs will probably never be found. The American public accepted this because they know it wasn't a big issue anyway. If that was said in the UK there would be uproar.

Could that be because the only justification they had for going against the UN Security Council was the possibility of finding WMDs, or having them used?

And if he did have them, why didn't he use them on the Coalition invasionary force?

Tactitus · 1 Aug 2003, 20:01

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
i think somewhere around the middle of august (16th iirc) the US investigators in iraq will have had the same amount of time to look for WMD as the americans gave the UN weapons inspectors...

lol. UN weapons inspections in Iraq began in May of 1991.

Apothos · 1 Aug 2003, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Tactitus
lol. UN weapons inspections in Iraq began in May of 1991.

And they still managed to miss some buried fighter planes. :/

(I'm a sceptic on the existence of WMD, btw.)

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 1 Aug 2003, 20:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Tactitus
lol. UN weapons inspections in Iraq began in May of 1991.

well yes, but you know i meant since they went back in this year.

MrL_JaKiri · 1 Aug 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
well yes, but you know i meant since they went back in this year.

Last year surely?

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 1 Aug 2003, 20:32

er, whenever, stop trying to make me look stupid!

MrL_JaKiri · 1 Aug 2003, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
er, whenever, stop trying to make me look stupid!

DO I HEAR A PHOTOSHOP THREAD COMING ON?

No.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 1 Aug 2003, 20:34

anyway THE POINT IS the US has had almost as long as they gave the UN weapons inspectors and they havent found anything yet.

oldtown · 1 Aug 2003, 20:53

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
anyway THE POINT IS the US has had almost as long as they gave the UN weapons inspectors and they havent found anything yet.

As said above, the inspections went on since 1991 , however more to your comment.the last set of inspections was a last chance....although they did not find anything in the alotted time which was shakey at best that they would, the same time period was for Saddam to show what he had doen with the weapons already previously identified from inspections....so admittedly the time was short for them to find weapons it certainly was plenty of time for Saddam to show how he had destroyed and where he destroyed etc etc the previous identifed weapons....

One would think if he had actually destroyed them he would have had incentive to show the records of said destruction to the inspectors....certainly would have thrown some wrenches into the attack plans if he did....

Cmdr_Cyrax · 1 Aug 2003, 22:45

I'm actually suprised they haven't found anything yet.

Surely it shouldn't take the US this long to get them in...

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 1 Aug 2003, 22:58

well i was going to reply to oldtown saying how in 1998 scott ritter (unscom big cheese) said iraq had been disarmed "to a level
unprecedented in modern history" so maybe iraq didnt have any more weapons to destroy, and even if they did maybe they had been 'misplaced' i was then going to link to that story about a stockpile of chemical weapons being found in america that they had 'forgotten' about but since i couldnt find a link to a news article about it i didnt post it :/

huh · 1 Aug 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Rumsfeld
It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Then why haven't they got them already?

Zar · 2 Aug 2003, 16:42

tbh i couldn't care less if iraq had WMD. Even if any "axis of evil" nation had them.

I don't trust britain, and the usa (oh edit: and that sick "country" they call israel), countries both with VERY aggressive histories. Both (especially) the usa are full of hawks, who would not hestitate much to use WMD on other nations. So i don't see why we should be partial to them having while other countries not.

The more WMD in the world, the more proliferation to other countries, the less weight the usa and britain can throw around.

Nukes bring military balance to the world. The threat of MAD is enough to deter or at least make even the mightiest militaries re-think war as a resort to settle disputes.

North Korea get nukes fast and spread them around... please

Zar

Dante Hicks · 2 Aug 2003, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Zar
Nukes bring military balance to the world. The threat of MAD is enough to deter or at least make even the mightiest militaries re-think war as a resort to disputes.

Blackadder: "The idea was to have two vast opposing armies. Each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war."
Baldrick: "But this is sort of a war isn't it sir?"
Blackadder: "Yes that's right. You see there was a TINY flaw in the plan."
George: "What was that Sir?"
Blackadder: "It was bollocks."

Zar · 2 Aug 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Blackadder: "The idea was to have two vast opposing armies. Each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war."
Baldrick: "But this is sort of a war isn't it sir?"
Blackadder: "Yes that's right. You see there was a TINY flaw in the plan."
George: "What was that Sir?"
Blackadder: "It was bollocks."

well i would prefer both countries being bombed to hell, rather than one bomb the smitherins out of another, and spread western stupidity all over

Zar

JonnyBGood · 2 Aug 2003, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Blackadder: "The idea was to have two vast opposing armies. Each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war."
Baldrick: "But this is sort of a war isn't it sir?"
Blackadder: "Yes that's right. You see there was a TINY flaw in the plan."
George: "What was that Sir?"
Blackadder: "It was bollocks."

I used that quote in my history exam in my leaving

Texan · 2 Aug 2003, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
i think somewhere around the middle of august (16th iirc) the US investigators in iraq will have had the same amount of time to look for WMD as the americans gave the UN weapons inspectors...

Has it been 12 years already? It seems like only a couple of months.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 2 Aug 2003, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
Has it been 12 years already? It seems like only a couple of months.

yes good one texan! why dont you ignore the other posts i made and make yourself look stupid!

Texan · 2 Aug 2003, 19:24

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
yes good one texan! why dont you ignore the other posts i made and make yourself look stupid!

You are the one who makes up facts, not me.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 2 Aug 2003, 19:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
You are the one who makes up facts, not me.

what did i make up texan? the fact that come mid august the US will have had the same time as the UN inspectors had since they were re-admitted to iraq to find WMD?

Texan · 2 Aug 2003, 19:35

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
what did i make up texan? the fact that come mid august the US will have had the same time as the UN inspectors had since they were re-admitted to iraq to find WMD?

Yes. That one. Except of course everything that happened in the 20th century, that you managed to leave out of your original post.

Tactitus · 2 Aug 2003, 19:36

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
what did i make up texan? the fact that come mid august the US will have had the same time as the UN inspectors had since they were re-admitted to iraq to find WMD?

I see you've now added the "since they were re-admitted" clause before claiming it was a fact. Is this an admission that your previous statements were non-factual?

wu_trax · 2 Aug 2003, 19:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
Has it been 12 years already? It seems like only a couple of months.

the us-troops still didnt find any wmds whatsoever while the weapons inspectors destroyed quite a lot of that stuff, and other things.

oldtown · 2 Aug 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua
well i was going to reply to oldtown saying how in 1998 scott ritter (unscom big cheese) said iraq had been disarmed "to a level
unprecedented in modern history" so maybe iraq didnt have any more weapons to destroy, and even if they did maybe they had been 'misplaced' i was then going to link to that story about a stockpile of chemical weapons being found in america that they had 'forgotten' about but since i couldnt find a link to a news article about it i didnt post it :/

you mean the same scott ritter that resigned from the inspection team because Iraq wasnt cooperating and there was no way to effectively look for weapons there.....here is part of an interview he did in 1998 when he still insisted they had weapons ......this interview was after he resigned as head inspector taken from:
August 31, 1998
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons?

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And is it your contention that without a significant and realistic threat of military action, Iraq will not allow the investigations to begin again, beyond just the monitoring that's already going on?

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Well, in this I would only echo the words made by the Secretary-General and other personnel back in February, who said that you couldn't have had the February MOU without the real and credible threat of military force. That's an obvious statement. You can't expect to enforce the law unless you have the means to carry out the enforcement.