Aha Found It!

by **Colonel Ingus** » Sun May 16, 2004 9:35 pm

Found: Saddam's WMDs

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13168

A quick excerpt from the link

Again, this January, Danish forces found 120-millimeter mortar shells filled with a mysterious liquid that initially tested positive for blister agents. But subsequent tests by the United States disputed that finding. "If it wasn't a chemical agent, what was it?" Hanson asks. "More pesticides? Dish-washing detergent? From this old soldier's perspective, I gain nothing from putting a liquid in my mortar rounds unless that stuff will do bad things to the enemy."

by **Fat Bastard** » Sun May 16, 2004 10:19 pm

Well what else they going to say, unless one of these stockpiles blews up and kills alot of people them maybe the media would cover it.

by **CodeRed68** » Sun May 16, 2004 10:54 pm

Great web site. Added that to my favorites. Thanks Ingus.

by **Folic_Acid** » Mon May 17, 2004 9:38 am

It's interesting that WMD agents are starting to show up in Iraq now...

by **Murgatroyd** » Mon May 17, 2004 9:52 am

I think that if we want to find Iraq's WMDs, that we need to take a peek in Syria. The stalling for international support when war was imminent gave Saddam PLENTY of time to export.

by **-HaVoC-** » Mon May 17, 2004 10:04 am

I just emailed Bill O'Reilly and sent that link along with it. He apologized publicly for the lack of WMD's being present and thought he might be able to shed some light on this.

by **RCglider** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:00 am

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&u=/nm/20040517/ts_nm/iraq_sarin_dc_3&printer=1

by **SavageParrot** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:07 am

How were they gonna fire those mortars at Cyprus. They're not exactly the threatening long range wmd's we were led to believe they had are they? All the same glad to see they have finally found some. Personally I think the fact that Saddam was a mass murdering turd should have been enough persuasion on it's own anyway regardless of whether or not he had WMD's.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:20 am

I couldn't agree with you more Savageparrot.

by **shockwave203** » Mon May 17, 2004 12:25 pm

I feel sorry for anyone who holds this old mortar with a minute amount of sarin as justification for all the deaths this war has caused.

It's weird-I hear people say that the fact Saddam was a mass murdering evil dictator is reason enough for coalition forces to be there--but think back to when Bush's push for war was getting under way.

Remember the mindset people were in-9/11 attacks still fresh, war on terror, bush lied about a connection between saddam/alqueda, then the WMD that could be launched in 45 minutes was what sold most people on the war. you honestly think people would have supported the war back then just because he was a 'bad guy?'

no, I doubt it. you can say that now, you couldn't have back then. people would have wondered why the US wasn't going after the real terrorists, which is what many people are still wondering today.

by **Murgatroyd** » Mon May 17, 2004 12:50 pm

That is a good portion of why I supported the war.

I also supported the war because of the WMD claims, yes, but I know that if I buried an 18-wheeler somewhere in California, you and 299,999 of your friends couldn't find it in a year, especially while you're getting shot at and blown up and had to worry about where you could and couldn't go for fear of "upsetting people".

I also know that if I had hidden it in Oregon, and all you could search was California, that you wouldn't have a very good chance of finding it either.

Another reason I supported the war in Iraq is because I understood the real reason behind it, as well as the connection to the war on terrorism. I'll attempt to summarize it.

1.) It's easier to kill Americans if they're right there in your neighboring country than to travel all the way to America to do it. Many young radicals would be drawn into fighting the American army rather than trying to attack America itself.

2.) It's a very strategic location should any of the other middle eastern states overtly support terrorism.

3.) Establishing a strong democracy in Iraq, which will undoubteldy produce a strong economy as a result of their natural resources will encourage neighboring countries who still have caste systems in their Islamo-fascist theocracies to convert.

4.) Establish a precident of "you attack us, we attack you" to the entire middle east. Yes, the entire middle east. What better way to encourage them to distance themselves from, and even actively pursue terrorists.

The WMD was the political reason for the war. Saddam's history was the moral reason for the war. The four points I laid out above was the strategic reason for the war.

This is why I supported, and still support the war in Iraq.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 1:29 pm

Shockwave read the link I posted at the very begining of this thread. Its more than "one mortar round".

If you read the link I posted you may wonder why Saddam and his buddy's took their "pesticides", painted it in camo, and buried it at munition sites. What the rational behind that? Do you take your "Deep Woods Off" Camie it up and bury it in a hole in the ground with your guns?

by **shockwave203** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:04 pm

anything you find in Iraq is going to pale in comparison to what Bush said he had. The crap he spewed wasn't proved then, and it isn't proven now. it's impossible to prove all the lies he told.

if you feel the need to go invading countries claiming they're in violation of posessing weapons of mass destruction, you have a lot of work to do.

instead of lying about why the US is there, Bush should have just told the truth. If he said he's going there to remove Saddam because he's a mass murderer, then fine. but when we get into all "alqueda this", "WMD in 45 minutes that", you look like a desperate liar.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:37 pm

Actually I read a report in the BBC quoting an Iraqi field commander who states he had such weapons available and scoffed when asked if they could be used in 45 minutes. He said much faster but they didn't want to piss the Americans off.

Of course that didn't make headlines here for some reason

by **Folic_Acid** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:52 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
instead of lying about why the US is there, Bush should have just told the truth.

Shockwave, it seems that you're going to believe that President Bush (and PM Blair, and PM Asnar, and PM Berlusconi, etc.) "lied" no matter what happens or what is discovered.

If that's the case, what do you think the "truth" is? If the coalition didn't go to remove Saddam and his WMD as a threat to the world, why DID we go in?

And why isn't it enough justification to have a collection of artillery shells filled with incredibly deadly nerve gas, shells existing in definance of at least 16 different UN resolutions? Did we need a 17th resolution to provide enough justification for consequences of violation of the resolutions, or what?

Aha Found It!

Aha Found It!

Who is online