Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/23/06 01:10 AM, AccessCode wrote: If the situation calls for it, I certainly do hope we use them...but you being the typical liberal will oppose.

So let's see. America threatens to invade Iraq against the UN's wishes. America then invades Iraq.

Now, if a country threatened to invade America against the UN's wishes, then proceeded to do so, do you think that's just cause for America to use WMD's?

If the answer is "yes", then why is it NOT okay for Saddam to do the same?
... I do hope you're not going to be a hypocrite.

I didn't say we wouldn't crack pipe.

Oh? I must have misread this:
"We dont use em' do we?! Dur, dur dur (Carlos Mencia style)"

Your words, are they not? And I believe it's in response to someone saying that America possesses WMD's? Hmmmm...

Key word: Past. Im suprised you didn't say our US troops were massively slaughtering Iraqi's.

And Saddam committed terrible acts in the past... P.A.S.T. Well, I suppose it all depends on how we define the word "past". I'm sure your definition would put the word "past" far back enough to make America look good and Saddam look bad. So how far back do you want to go? 5 years? 10 years? 30 years? Well, we have to omit Vietnam right. Ummm, okay, and the selling of arms to other countries in exchange for oil so that those armies could commit genocide with American arms. Well, and the present with the whole "Fort Benning, Georgia" training Latin American Military the means of harming their own citizens, that I learned about in University.
Oh, what's that? Sources? Glad you asked!
"School of Assassins" by Jack Helson-Pallmeyer
"Against Empire" by Michael Parenti
"Killing Hope: US Military & CIA Interventions Since World War 2" by William Blum
"Torture in Brazil" by Amnesty International
... but seeing as you'll never read those (no doubt):
http://www.soaw.org/new/

As for the whole "American's slaughtering Iraqi's"... well, I thought I'd let that one incident out of hundreds slide. What can I say, I'm a generous man.

The only "progression" today's liberals have made is their own sexual freedom.

Yeah, you're right. I'm heterosexual and damn proud! What, you're not proud of your sexuality? How sad. Oh wait! I forgot! Liberals are gay right? Why is it that I always forget to stereotype individuals?

You should read my posts a little better before stating that I said that we (the US) would never us WMDs again in the future.

Oh, I do believe I read your post quite well. But if I may, I will impart you with some advice: Read your own words before you make an ass of yourself.
"Dur, dur dur (Carlos Mencia style)"

Okay so Zarwari was woking out out the Kurdish region in the north of Iraq you caim. assuming you are correct, you shoudl know that Saddam had no power in the Kurdish area. In fact the one who controleld the north was the British and Americans, and local leaders. saddam was confined to the middle region of Iraq.

Still, ther ei sno proof that a.) Saddam helped with 9/11 b.) Saddam assited Osama bin Laden and company c.) That he ever assited in attacks on American interests, providing training grounds or anything else.

However, JoS, saddam did help Hamas. But that's no reason to go in and invade. If they shoot at our planes that patrol the no-fly zone, attack SAM sites, but DON'T invade like we did. The US made a huge mistake.

http://www.newground..s/topic.php?id=49043

Wow, this pretty much whips you all in the ass.

This was said in 2003 when the invasion was just starting.

At 6/25/06 12:49 AM, -Rant- wrote: http://www.newground..s/topic.php?id=49043


Wow, this pretty much whips you all in the ass.

This was said in 2003 when the invasion was just starting.

"Presented declassified satellite pictures that he said were 15 munitions bunkers. Powell said four of them had active chemical munitions inside."

Where are the "active" chemical munitions then? It's pretty clear we haven't found any active munitions, just a lot of rusty, leaky old rockets with some chemicals inside that had degraded in the Iraq heat.

At 6/24/06 03:17 PM, chocolate_penguin wrote: Godammit, why the hell isn't anyone responding to my argument?

READ MY EARLIER POST ABOUT AL SAMOUD 2 MISSILES AND HOW THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE STILL DANGEROUS AND COULD HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED!!!

Some of you just CAN'T be convinced and are like broken record players who keep on repeating the same things over and over again.

Its my understanding that Samoud missles are also capable of carrying conventional payloads and that they did not exceed the maximum fligth range allowed (although I may be wrong on the second point). Many missles are designed to carry a wide range of payloads as they are generally bought by poorer countries who cannto afford to stock 15 different types of missles so they get 1 all purpose.

Are you telling me the US shoudl have gone to war because Saddam had missles that could potentially carry chem payloads, but also carry convential payloads and he might have 15+year old mustard gas canisters lying aroudn somewhere thata re well past tehre shelflife and although would be damaging would not be nearly as potent or deadly as they once where. Hell they migth not even work.

This is alot of speculation. And 500 shells is a far cry form the tons of mustard gas you claimed he had sitting somewhere.

At 6/22/06 01:32 AM, bcdemon wrote: You find 500 20+ year old sarin shells in 3 years, scattered around a country the size of Iraq and you claim that "The Proves Saddam had WMD".

I have to agree actually.

Technically I guess these are still WMD's, but lets face it, they were bound to have lost some of their shells along the way after having a devastating war with Iran for almost a full decade, a war that killed millions.

500 shells that are decades old is kinda pathetically weak proof. But its still funny to know the Democrats cant use the WMD chant to garner votes. Pretty damn funny.

At 6/24/06 03:17 PM, chocolate_penguin wrote: Godammit, why the hell isn't anyone responding to my argument?

Because it is weak.

READ MY EARLIER POST ABOUT AL SAMOUD 2 MISSILES AND HOW THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE STILL DANGEROUS AND COULD HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED!!!

Al Samoud 2: A missile only illegal by the fact that it possibly flew 30km past the allowed distance. A missile of such is not a WMD. And I am not even sure that once that missile is loaded up with its payload that it would exceed the allowed limit.
Chemical Weapons: These are decades old. The only way you're going to harm someone with it is if you hit them over the head with it. And to be honest, even if these old shells turned out to be highly toxic, these shells are not the reason for war.

Some of you just CAN'T be convinced and are like broken record players who keep on repeating the same things over and over again.

Convinced of what? You have yet to offer up any quality proof and reason for starting a war with Iraq. And to be honest, some of YOU (pro-Iraq-war folk) couldn't be convinced that Iraq wasn't making WMD, even after the UN inspectors found nothing. (This is why the US, Britain and Spain created thier own "war resolution" to invade Iraq)

At 6/26/06 11:24 AM, chocolate_penguin wrote: http://www.globalsec..ant_cia28may2003.htm

^_^

You're linking to an early 2003 source. Read this and this for more recent developments, as your "mobile biological weapon facilities" were most likely used to generate hydrogen for weather balloons. Get over it, there were no chemical weapons except the antiquated sarin and mustard gas shells that Saddam couldn't account for prior to the invasion. The Halabja incident involved thousands of tons of mustard gas, fourteen sorties with seven to eight planes per sortie in one night. Saddam's stock of mustard gas was maybe eighty tons at the very most, those are hardly Weapons of Mass Destruction. And if Saddam intended to actually use them, then why didn't he when his country was being invaded?

Iraq posed no significant threat to it's neighbours, let alone the mainland USA and that is very, very old news. I can't believe people are still claiming the opposite. The local cryonics facility must have mistakenly taken a few people out of their stases.

Thank you, lapis.

Just to add on...

By invading Iraq, the United States destabilized the entire region. Fin.

At 6/26/06 01:05 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

By invading Iraq, the United States destabilized the entire region. Fin.

Well, that's got to be the biggest piece of a bullshit statement i've ever seen and read.

Excuse me while I drench my eyes in soap.

At 6/21/06 09:36 PM, punisher19848 wrote: To all the doubters out there, to those who chanted the slogans of "Bush lied, people died" and "No blood for oil" I present you with vindication for the war in Iraq. The WMDs are real and they have been found! Don't believe me? Take a look for yourselves...

http://www.foxnews.c..,2933,200499,00.html


For a copy of the actual document, read:

http://www.foxnews.c..WMD_Declassified.pdf


Now that 500 mustard gas and serin shells predating the Gulf War have been recovered, you have no basis for your ridiculous George Bush conspiricy theories and stupid chants any more. Reality is calling to you, I suggest you answer...

Wow. this is scary. According to the article. not only did we invade the wrong country in the first place, but there could possibly be a nuclear threat outside of iran.

You would think that if these were the weapons the US was looking for in the first place then A) it would be all over the news, and B) President Bush would have had a news conference on it already.

At 6/26/06 01:53 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 6/26/06 01:05 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

Well, that's got to be the biggest piece of a bullshit statement i've ever seen and read.

Excuse me while I drench my eyes in soap.

I wouldn't say that the region was th most stable to begin with, but the invasion certainly made things worse. I'm also pretty certain that the marvelous success that is the currently secure and prosperous Iraq sure helped convince those Iranians of our might, which is why they've backed down from their weapons program. I like your reality. It's fun there.

At 6/26/06 12:04 PM, lapis wrote: And if Saddam intended to actually use them, then why didn't he when his country was being invaded?

What about terrorists using them? The problem with that argument is that Saddam using WMD was never a major reason for invading. We invaded to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

Iraq posed no significant threat to it's neighbours, let alone the mainland USA and that is very, very old news. I can't believe people are still claiming the opposite. The local cryonics facility must have mistakenly taken a few people out of their stases.

That is probably true. However, keep in mind, al-Qaeda has been seeking WMD materials from Russian agents, the black market, and so forth. Why not Iraq? I think we can reasonably conclude that, sooner or later, they would have looked in Iraq.

At 6/23/06 06:17 PM, chocolate_penguin wrote: Ok. . . am I the only one tha knows about the al Samoud 2 missiles?

no you're not, and i had a good laugh the last time tried to present these things as being a threat. (180 km range is nothing special, sort of pathetic actually)

At 6/21/06 09:36 PM, punisher19848 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.c..,2933,200499,00.html

http://www.foxnews.c..WMD_Declassified.pdf

OH please find your information somewhere else.

It's already widely known that the republican party owns Fox News.

Get a non-biased news source like PBS or NBC or MSNBC

OMG WMDS FOUND?! HOOORAAAAAYAYYAYAYAAYAYAAYYAYURVLdlk,jb;lc
fmnbhjf;xo;fnifnmgoodforus:)

At 6/26/06 03:17 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

At 6/26/06 01:53 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 6/26/06 01:05 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

Well, that's got to be the biggest piece of a bullshit statement i've ever seen and read.

Excuse me while I drench my eyes in soap.

I wouldn't say that the region was th most stable to begin with, but the invasion certainly made things worse. I'm also pretty certain that the marvelous success that is the currently secure and prosperous Iraq sure helped convince those Iranians of our might, which is why they've backed down from their weapons program. I like your reality. It's fun there.

Made things worse to say the least. By invading Iraq, the US effectively stated that "if you piss us off, even over a decade ago, we reserve the right to do whatever we want." And, we also essentially made it clear that we'll do WHATEVER we want regardless of international opposition. And, by removing Iraq from conflict in the region, we effectively ended the Iran/Iraq standoff. Standoff is better than potential for open war.

Let me put this in a different light.

If the police put millions of dolalrs into investigating a person for murder, lost several police officers in the process and only cam eup with a J-walking ticket would you consider that a success?

At 6/26/06 11:36 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

Made things worse to say the least. By invading Iraq, the US effectively stated that "if you piss us off, even over a decade ago, we reserve the right to do whatever we want."

More bullshit. But what do I expect from the guy im replying to?

And, we also essentially made it clear that we'll do WHATEVER we want regardless of international opposition.

Even tho they never seem to back us...ever, no matter how much we help them out. You know, I want our money back from all those countries that we loaned them...with interest, but then we get idiots in charge who say "no, no you dont have to pay us back".

And, by removing Iraq from conflict in the region, we effectively ended the Iran/Iraq standoff. Standoff is better than potential for open war.

Even tho a stand off with mass killings could end up resulting in more lives lost...yay!

At 6/26/06 03:17 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

I like your reality. It's fun there.

Nothing like this gets done without a little opposision. Freedom comes with a price, but I bet you've never opened a history book to look at the Revolutionary War. But you guys are practically argueing that things were great in Iraq before we got there. Because you know, the rape rooms, torture chambers, gassing people must have been fantastic. I didn't see much crying when Clinton decided to send troops to Somalia...but you know, he was a democrat *thumbs up.

I like your stupidity. It's fun to laugh at.

At 6/26/06 11:56 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 6/26/06 03:17 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

I like your reality. It's fun there.

Nothing like this gets done without a little opposision. Freedom comes with a price, but I bet you've never opened a history book to look at the Revolutionary War. But you guys are practically argueing that things were great in Iraq before we got there. Because you know, the rape rooms, torture chambers, gassing people must have been fantastic. I didn't see much crying when Clinton decided to send troops to Somalia...but you know, he was a democrat *thumbs up.

I like your stupidity. It's fun to laugh at.

I never said things were great, but I said we made them worse. Right now, people are killed just for what their name is. Many areas still don't have consistent power. The burkha can now be seen. Your right, Saddam isn't doing bad things, now there are a lot of people doing them.

I also love how you gloss over everything else I said, such as how Iran is laughing their collective asses off at us because of how we can't even secure Iraq, and how this has made them much more likely to continue with their nuclear weapons program.

Also, pray tell, what does the American Revolution have anything to do with this. Last time I checked, France didn't come in to the country with ground troops, run out the king of England, and then not send in enough troops to secure the area against what became violent factions of germans, british, native americans, and african salves all trying to kill each other, not to mention the "royalist" insurgency. Could it be that you are simply trying to pass off yet another idiotic cliche about "freedom not being free" or some other such nonsense.

Freedom isn't free? Well, then, oh wise sage with your middle school diploma, please tell me how Saddam threatened our freedom? Hmm, could it be the nuclear weapons he was nowhere near having? Oh, he could give terrorist chemical weapons, the same chemical weapons you can likely find recipe's for on the internet, the same weapons that have been used since WWI. Surely, with this, these terrorist could easily have toppled our government. It's a good thing we took him out, because who knows what he could have done. Why, we could be speaking arabic right now!

Oh, or perhaps you are talking about how we freed the Iraqi's. Well, while not a bad thing, we certainly have made a huge mess of it. Now they are free to run around and kill each other as well as coalition troops. A bit more forethought on the part of our leaders would have helped that, you know, the same people who didn't anticipate the resistance that you correctly believe is part of the deal. Let's not forget that they said it would cost less than $10 billion and that we'd be gone in less than a year. Freedom isn't free? Well, beyond our tax money, how have any of us who aren't in the military or with family in the military had to have suffered from this? It's sure easy for you to spout your nonsense behind your computer about freedom not being free when you aren't paying the price.

Now, as for cracking open a history book. Well, i have a B.A. in the subject of history, so could I possibly have some clue what I'm talking about? I forgot, at your age, I knew everything as well. Well, I can tell you this: politicians spin things. They all do it, ever since the beginning of human power structures. Freedom isn't free, think about it for a second. Think about why politicians say these things.

General rule, at least half of what a politician is saying is bullshit. These people have focus groups listen to their speeches to find out what plays well to the crowd. Woodrow Wilson hired a PR firm to create posters demonizing our opponents in WWI. This practice has been going on ever since. People in public relations know how people think. They use this knowledge to figure out how to sway people.

General Rule II: You are never given everything you need to know. This doesn't just refer to classified information. A lot of times, this goes to information that goes against a politicians agenda. Remember, these politicians are trying to create arguments to sway you, and both sides do this. This means they don't always tell you everything. How do you think people would have felt about our invasion if they knew that the CIA and department of energy had strong doubts about the evidence against Iraq, or that Saddam's attempt to get yellow cake from nigeria had been proven false?

Don't fall for this idiocy. Republican politicians are no more honest than democrats. This has been going on forever. Stop and think about the rhetoric you hear. That is the big thing I learned in history.

At 6/26/06 07:05 PM, Wyrlum wrote: What about terrorists using them? The problem with that argument is that Saddam using WMD was never a major reason for invading. We invaded to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons might also fall into the hands of terrorists, yet that's no reason to invade them. You invade them when it's proven that they supply WMD to terrorists. Saddam's link to al-Qaeda was not proven at the time of the invasion which retrospectively speaking was not that much of a surprise as the only meeting between al-Qaeda and one or a few of Saddam's officers resulted in nothing more than agreement about their "general hatred for America". This was also somewhat predictable since their ideologies can be found on two opposing sides of the political spectrum. As far as I know Saddam handed out grants to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, but I don't believe he directly funded terrorists or supplied them with weapons, let alone WMD.

I think most terrorist groups wouldn't even want these mustard gas shells. Example:
"According to Colonel Dr. Jiri Kassa, who heads the Czech Defense University Toxicology Department, the essential obstacle to using such a gas lies in the difficulty of disseminating the agent. "The best means of disseminating Yperite or nerve gases is through air-conditioning, by a sprinkler system from a plane, or through water," Kassa said. "Fortunately, terrorists face great difficulties in accessing all of these means of dispersion.""

Saddam's shells were from before 1993 which means they were probably 150mm artillery shells which means that you need at least a howitzer or a super heavy cannon to fire it. These weapons were intended to be used in extensive air strikes or artillery bombardments - the enormous amount of the chemical agents dropped would have to negate the problems of dissemination. If you blow yourself up in your van carrying a few of these shells (if you get it past security - which in the case of Israel for example would be quite a task) most people will be fine as long as they keep some distance from the site of the blast, and even if they're exposed to the agent they only have a 3% chance of dying (earlier source).

It's not very awkward that terrorists have never used mustard gas before, it's too hard for them to use it appropriately. Money spent on a shell (about 40 kg for the shell and 4.4 kg for it's contents) could have been better spent on 45 kg of explosives.

Wow, they found the degraded Gulf War biological weapon gas canisters. They existed before the current illegal invasion and occupation perpetrated by the current Bush administration, and there were only 500 DEGRADED munitions, not a vast stockpile, and certainly not the most dangerous of chemicals. Hell, mustard gas: amonia and chlorine bleach. Sarin gas is made from soy bean curd. Definitely not nuclear weapons. And definitely not new. They were not developing new WMDs and they were not developing nuclear weapons. Topic starter is proven retarded.

I got bored reading repetitive rhetoric, so if these links were posted I am sorry.

http://www.rotten.co../war/false-pretexts/

http://www.rotten.co..tory/war/wmd/saddam/

http://www.rotten.co..eapons/nerve-agents/

http://www.rotten.co../biological-weapons/

and my favorite because it's so freaky
http://www.rotten.co../fuel-air-explosion/

Also, remember that yellowcake uranium is far from nuclear weaponry, FAR FROM IT

Let's not forget the real war criminals that escaped justice
http://www.rotten.co..history/atomic-bomb/

http://www.rotten.co..concentration-camps/

(http://www.rotten.co..japanese-internment
/)

and let's not forget how much the KKK loving USA hated blacks and Jews, only coming to Europe's aid as a ruse when they were really just seeking revenge.
http://www.rotten.co..istory/port-chicago/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St._Louis

I wish there was a timeline of just the atrocities that the USA commited, such as

And do you now how many WMDs The US has, ALOT. And the US GAVE them Those to them. And Chemical wepons ARE NOT realy WMDs.

At 6/27/06 01:49 PM, chsthe wrote: And do you now how many WMDs The US has, ALOT. And the US GAVE them Those to them. And Chemical wepons ARE NOT realy WMDs.

Technically NBC weapons are concidered WMDs. Before President Bush they were called NBC and not WMDs by the military and I would think most of the goverment. NBC = Nuclear Biological and Chemical. I still prefere that use because some people start saying things like cluster bombs, long range missles, ICBMs, and landmines are WMDs too.

At 6/27/06 04:02 PM, ReiperX wrote: ...I still prefere that use because some people start saying things like cluster bombs, long range missles, ICBMs, and landmines are WMDs too.

now thats the fun about new words and phrases the media and government like to come up with when talking about certain things. words with a variable and unprecise definitions are great for getting the public on your side.

2 weeks have passed since the last post.
This is already dead news?

2 weeks past.
Proponents of the war counted their chickens before they've hatched.

2 weeks past:
We have found nuclear, but not Iraq but in North Korea.

2 weeks passed--
People who said, "See, I told you... There were WMD." Are now reconsidering their words...

2 weeks,
and it was like the first time when FOX broke news they found WMD back in 2003.

Oh wells...
back to the drawing board.

I like technicalities. Don't you?

"There are absolutely NO WMDs in Iraq"

*Old WMDs found that could be "destructive"*

"Well, uh, these aren't the same"