Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/1/04 10:51 PM, Gooie wrote: anybody have any good news sources about the results on WMD?

I remember, on the tv, on NBC, I heard about a massive quantity of dangerous, chemicals for weapons that were found.
Later in the week, on the BBC website, I read that it was actually just a store of pesticides.
I never saw a follow-up on the television.

I don't know, I haven't heard of any finds of weapons, jimsween keeps mentioning mustard gas canisters or something?

A jump-off point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_...conflict_with_iraq/default.stm

You mean those empty mustard gas canisters?

At 2/2/04 01:03 AM, swallowing_shit wrote: You mean those empty mustard gas canisters?

Yeah, those.

At 2/2/04 01:09 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 2/2/04 01:03 AM, swallowing_shit wrote: You mean those empty mustard gas canisters?

Yeah, those.

mustard gas is SOOOOOO world war one (aka the great war... that sucked)

I believe that he no langer had WMD but he had such an ego that he wanted people to think he might still have some.

At 2/2/04 01:03 AM, swallowing_shit wrote: You mean those empty mustard gas canisters?

And you whine about me not reading links.

http://cnn.com.tr/2003/WORLD/meast/02/12/sprj.irq.inspections/index.html

The U.N. inspectors stressed at the time that the ammunition was expected to be there and not a sign of an active chemical weapons program.

Well la dee da then.

At 2/2/04 04:25 PM, swallowing_shit wrote: The U.N. inspectors stressed at the time that the ammunition was expected to be there and not a sign of an active chemical weapons program.

Well la dee da then.

Which means nothing, they still had WMD. You claimed that it was all a lie, but it wasn't, they found WMD. It's not justification for a war, but it still is WMD. There are other things that justify the war.

How exactly do you find something that you already know of, and its whereabouts?

If you tell a lie long enough and its big enough people will start to believe it.

At 2/2/04 04:56 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: If you tell a lie long enough and its big enough people will start to believe it.

and if you told it, you will start to believe it, too

At 2/2/04 04:52 PM, swallowing_shit wrote: How exactly do you find something that you already know of, and its whereabouts?

Who said anything about finding anything?

At 2/2/04 05:26 PM, Jimsween wrote: Who said anything about finding anything?

You did.

At 2/2/04 04:38 PM, Jimsween wrote: You claimed that it was all a lie, but it wasn't, they found WMD.

>:\

At 2/2/04 06:03 PM, swallowing_shit wrote:

At 2/2/04 05:26 PM, Jimsween wrote: Who said anything about finding anything?

You did.

Then I recend it, but that doesn't change the fact that they did have WMD.

At 2/2/04 04:38 PM, Jimsween wrote: You claimed that it was all a lie, but it wasn't, they found WMD.

>:\

Alright there angry cookie monster.

At 2/2/04 05:26 PM, Jimsween wrote: Who said anything about finding anything?

That's a brilliant quote from someone pro-war...

At 2/3/04 11:26 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/2/04 05:26 PM, Jimsween wrote: Who said anything about finding anything?

That's a brilliant quote from someone pro-war...

I have to agree, that was a really bad reply there Jim. You should have thought it out for a moment. This is a forum, not Crossfire. You don't have to respond right away. Take some time to formulate your response and don't always say the first thing that comes to mind.

Ok, here's a pretty simple scenario set apart from all the other eveidence:

A man is standing on the street with what appears to be a gun held under his jacket. He claims that it is not a gun, but people do not believe him because he will not show them. The police show up, and they tell him that if it is a gun, he needs to hand it over, and if it's not a gun and he shows the police that, they will let him be. Why in the world would he do neither of these?

Saddam had an entire country under his thumb, and because he neither reliquished or proved false these claims, I am convinced that we had weapons of Mass Destruction.

BTW, doesn't that have a nice ring to it. "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Not quite as good as the BFG in Doom, but still nice.

At 2/3/04 11:26 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/2/04 05:26 PM, Jimsween wrote: Who said anything about finding anything?

That's a brilliant quote from someone pro-war...

You have to look at the context, what I was replying to wasn't really the best post to begin with. The bet response to petty nitpicking is more petty nitpicking.

Most of all though, what does me being pro-war have anything to do with that?

At 2/3/04 05:28 PM, Jimsween wrote: You have to look at the context, what I was replying to wasn't really the best post to begin with. The bet response to petty nitpicking is more petty nitpicking.

My point is merely that your quote wan't the best thing for me to wander onto this thread and see.

Most of all though, what does me being pro-war have anything to do with that?

As a pro-war person, i'm assuming you'd be trying pretty hard to tell us lefties that Iraq had oodles of WMD, all primed and ready to go in 45 minuites.

At 2/3/04 05:41 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: As a pro-war person, i'm assuming you'd be trying pretty hard to tell us lefties that Iraq had oodles of WMD, all primed and ready to go in 45 minuites.

Well DUH! Do you think America would make such a preemptive decision WITHOUT that threat of the WMD stock pile? I think NOT =P

At 2/3/04 05:41 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/3/04 05:28 PM, Jimsween wrote: You have to look at the context, what I was replying to wasn't really the best post to begin with. The bet response to petty nitpicking is more petty nitpicking.

My point is merely that your quote wan't the best thing for me to wander onto this thread and see.

You do realize thats a pretty crappy point, sure you don't want to change it?

Most of all though, what does me being pro-war have anything to do with that?

As a pro-war person, i'm assuming you'd be trying pretty hard to tell us lefties that Iraq had oodles of WMD, all primed and ready to go in 45 minuites.

Umm, no. You of all people should know I was never for the war because of WMD, I don't give a damn about WMD.

At 2/3/04 07:38 PM, Gooie wrote: Well DUH! Do you think America would make such a preemptive decision WITHOUT that threat of the WMD stock pile? I think NOT =P

Well, I wont deny that we had some major suspicions going into that war, but we’ve been in Iraq for almost a year and all we have to show for ourselves are a few shells of mustard gas.

At 2/3/04 09:25 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/3/04 05:41 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: My point is merely that your quote wan't the best thing for me to wander onto this thread and see.

You do realize thats a pretty crappy point, sure you don't want to change it?

I'll add to it. It kinda pulls weight from your argument, and makes you look like you're changed position and are arguing from the left. I almost hoped you had, but then i skipped up and read a few earlier posts.

As a pro-war person, i'm assuming you'd be trying pretty hard to tell us lefties that Iraq had oodles of WMD, all primed and ready to go in 45 minuites.

Umm, no. You of all people should know I was never for the war because of WMD, I don't give a damn about WMD.

Actually, I can't remember your arguments from months ago, so i'll let this one drop. My point is the Government lied to us! Both US and UK. Either their intelligence lied to them, or not, but the fact remains is we were being told woppers.

If huge bundles of Nukes are found tomorrow i'll step up and admit I was wrong. The WMD is a bigger thing shere than it is for you. Bush changed his stance when it looked like there weren't any, and Tony kept plugging the "Yes, he had then, we know he has them, but we're a little bit unsure where they are, so give us time, and forget it." Stance.

At 2/4/04 03:02 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/3/04 09:25 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/3/04 05:41 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: My point is merely that your quote wan't the best thing for me to wander onto this thread and see.

You do realize thats a pretty crappy point, sure you don't want to change it?

I'll add to it. It kinda pulls weight from your argument, and makes you look like you're changed position and are arguing from the left. I almost hoped you had, but then i skipped up and read a few earlier posts.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

As a pro-war person, i'm assuming you'd be trying pretty hard to tell us lefties that Iraq had oodles of WMD, all primed and ready to go in 45 minuites.

Umm, no. You of all people should know I was never for the war because of WMD, I don't give a damn about WMD.

Actually, I can't remember your arguments from months ago, so i'll let this one drop. My point is the Government lied to us! Both US and UK. Either their intelligence lied to them, or not, but the fact remains is we were being told woppers.

Since when has this been new? They lie to us all the time.

If huge bundles of Nukes are found tomorrow i'll step up and admit I was wrong. The WMD is a bigger thing shere than it is for you. Bush changed his stance when it looked like there weren't any, and Tony kept plugging the "Yes, he had then, we know he has them, but we're a little bit unsure where they are, so give us time, and forget it." Stance.

They are politicians, thats what they do, you need to be spineless to be able to be elected to office. But them changing positions doesn't make the war any more wrong or right.

At 2/4/04 05:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: Since when has this been new? They lie to us all the time.

WHAT? And you accept this? For me, this is a big thing. They might speak shit, and use spin, but our government almost never lied to us, before Iraq.

They are politicians, thats what they do, you need to be spineless to be able to be elected to office.

God, I'd love to have seen Dean elected. He'd have kicked America back into shape.

A man is standing on the street with what appears to be a gun
Saddam had an entire country under his thumb, and because he neither reliquished or proved false these claims, I am convinced that we had weapons of Mass Destruction.

Well he did reliquish, do you not know what the Weapons Inspectors were doing? He handed over a dossier of what he had (said he had) and let the inspectors go about their business. How is he going to prove that something doesn't exist? Point to a dune and say "look, they're not there!"

At 2/4/04 05:21 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/4/04 05:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: Since when has this been new? They lie to us all the time.

WHAT? And you accept this? For me, this is a big thing. They might speak shit, and use spin, but our government almost never lied to us, before Iraq.

Wow, you're pretty gullible if you think they never lied to us. I admit parliament is fairly different from congress but I'd be amazed if you don't have lying in it. Heck, JMHX lies thousands of times in his speeches, and he hasn't even been corrupted by a major party yet. It's not good, but as long as we can still form our own opinions, we're ok.

They are politicians, thats what they do, you need to be spineless to be able to be elected to office.

God, I'd love to have seen Dean elected. He'd have kicked America back into shape.

Not really, he was ok but no less spineless than the rest. He rarely talked about the issues, did alot of attacking other candidates, and did alot of flipflopping. You can't know if a canidate is good until they are in office, Ex;

Bush was against government spending, and "nation building" in his campaigns, but look at him now.

At 2/4/04 05:51 PM, Jimsween wrote: Wow, you're pretty gullible if you think they never lied to us. I admit parliament is fairly different from congress but I'd be amazed if you don't have lying in it.

Bullshit, face-saving, spin and half-truths, but ALWAYS truths, even if they're mis-representational. The British Government are much more trustworthy than Congress, by the sounds of it.

Not really, he was ok but no less spineless than the rest. He rarely talked about the issues, did alot of attacking other candidates, and did alot of flipflopping. You can't know if a canidate is good until they are in office, Ex;

Mind you, you can't deny that the man had a lot of energy, and he had the "X-Factor" that other politicians are missing.

At 2/4/04 05:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: They are politicians, thats what they do, you need to be spineless to be able to be elected to office.

At which point I'll paraphrase singer/songwriter Justin Sane.

Protect their conscience, by saying that it's only business
Protect their conscience, by saying that is just the way it is
Because it's not the way it has to fuckin' be!

Would you be so apathetic if your family was killed in a useless war based on lies and greed?

At 2/4/04 06:06 PM, punk_hippy wrote:

Would you be so apathetic if your family was killed in a useless war based on lies and greed?

Your argument must be pretty crappy if your basing it on the blind hatred of a victim.