Saddam Hussein arrested

page: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2003 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Hey Colonel, I've seen you just got thoroughly put in your place by ThomasCrowne and Seekerof, so I thought I would add in my 2 cents as well. You are just a gutless wonder who has some illegitimate and unfounded hatred towards Bush and the administration, maybe all right wingers. This pathetic and let me add immature and whiny stance you take is getting old. You are outdated, and the majority of people know you to be the fool you are! You cant STAND that Bush is justified in something, so you will go so far as to support MADMEN
......MADMEN!!!!!!! just to do whatever you can to take away the credit from Bush and/or America. You are just an unhappy person who always sees nohting but the negative side. So, go on with your melancholy, doom and gloom, everything is a lie, america is evil, twisted mentality. Knock yourself out. But you and fulcrum will be in small company, because the REST of us, have decided to move on and look to the good that has happened because you are not worth one DAMN second of our time being wasted listening to your sick crap. Have a nice time.




posted on Dec, 15 2003 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Hey Colonel, I've seen you just got thoroughly put in your place by ThomasCrowne and Seekerof,


So you are as ignorant as i suspected..
(really, it shows miles away.)



TC and Seeker dont know shyte.

Seeker for one just quotes other peoples messages or posts tons of links, thinking that these are his own oppinions..



And what comes to TC, well his one bull headed broken record..



They might support/present the official US views, bu then again those really dont have anything to do with the reality and truht.




posted on Dec, 15 2003 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I play with "absolutes" Fulcrum...if anyone don't know crap....look in the mirror!
You talk out your ass and provided nothing, only when you choose to and then it is all simply twisted to fit your perspective and views.
You condemn and yet in your condemnation, fail to ever included your self-rightous ass in the same sentence.....
Going off the "top of your brain" may suit you but I prefer to fight with facts, not "off the top of my head" BS...


Go figure.......


regards
seekerof



posted on Dec, 15 2003 @ 11:38 PM
link   
** Calling the Drama Tramua Squad **
** 10-40 **
** Looks like some trouble's brewing. **
** I think we may have to bomb the village to save it... **
** Or at least transplant it into the Mud Pit... **
** Aye aye. 10-4 **



posted on Dec, 15 2003 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Like Iraqi WMDs?



Give me a break!

All this ultra-patriotic BS that your giving me/us is comming straight from the White House.

You dont have a mind of your own, and that is sad because most people can see that they lie about anything and everything.

They twist the truht in way that you cant even imagine.

But it really seems that you are satisfied with the 'truht' that they provide, so why bother with you.

You are a lost cause and lost soul.



Btw,

You dont know who or what i see when i look at the mirror.

I do.

I see a man that sees and speaks the truht.

And not anykind if twisted revision of it.




posted on Dec, 15 2003 @ 11:42 PM
link   
What are you guys arguing about, we got the WMD's didn't they find SADDAM?



posted on Dec, 15 2003 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
What are you guys arguing about, we got the WMD's didn't they find SADDAM?


good one Neo...


isnt killing atleast 300,000 people mass destruction?


I would think so...

so now US has found the WND...



posted on Dec, 15 2003 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
What are you guys arguing about, we got the WMD's didn't they find SADDAM?


Right Wing Gladiator..

No wonder,

Neo did you know that fascism and Right Wing go had in had..

And so does stupidity.

You are a good examble.



THERE IS NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!




posted on Dec, 15 2003 @ 11:57 PM
link   


"Iraqi Weapons: Five Unanswered Questions"
Link:
www.iraqwatch.org...

Excerpt:

"1. VX

The inspectors never could figure out what happened to 3.9 tonnes of VX, the deadliest kind of nerve gas. Iraq admitted producing VX in 1988 and 1990, but furnished no convincing evidence that it was destroyed in 1991, as Iraq claimed. This failure was not cured by an Iraqi report handed to inspectors in March 2003, which attempted to account for up to 63 percent of the missing VX.

2. Anthrax

The inspectors concluded that Iraq may not have destroyed about 10,000 liters of the biological agent anthrax, which if properly stored, could still be viable. Iraq admitted producing 8,425 liters of anthrax, but claimed it had disposed of all the agent in 1991, and provided inspectors with a series of technical reports aimed at substantiating the claim. However, the reports failed to prove exactly how much anthrax was disposed of.

3. Other Germ Warfare Agents

Iraq did not explain what happened to thousands of liters of other biological agent that it admitted producing, including more than 340 liters of clostridium perfringens - though inspectors concluded that Iraq had enough growth medium to have made "much larger quantities." This agent would still be viable today if properly stored. The inspectors were also unable to account for some 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin and at least 2,200 liters of aflatoxin. Neither of these agents would be viable today, but accounting for them is necessary to determine the total amount of germ agent and the individual amounts of each agent that Iraq produced.

4. Chemical and Biological Munitions

Iraq consumed 6,526 fewer chemical-filled aerial bombs - containing some 1,000 tons of agent (mostly mustard gas, but also sarin and tabun) - during the Iran-Iraq war than it claimed, according to the "Air Force document" handed over by Iraq in December 2002. Moreover, inspectors could not account for 550 mustard-filled artillery shells that Iraq claimed to have lost. The inspectors determined that Iraqi mustard gas was still of a very high quality. Also unaccounted for are 29 germ-filled bombs, some possibly containing anthrax.

5. Missiles

The inspectors were in the process of destroying illicit Al Samoud 2 missiles and related equipment but were unable to complete the task before the start of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Twenty-five missiles are still in the country, along with 38 warheads, 6 launchers, 6 command and control vehicles and 326 engines."



regards
seekerof



posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Fulcrum,

tell me this oh wise one,

if I robbed a bank would I run with the gun?

would I hang on to it when the police close in to arrest me? maybe.

if I knew I was to do time would I make it easier for my accusors to make me guilty?

why was Saddam hiding?

he could have walked out long ago and given up.

something about deception appeals to him and his supporters.

IF Saddam had WMD then there is high probability that they are still hiding somewhere.

But that is not the problem because if they turned up tomorrow that would not be good enough for you.

you would say they were planted or some kind of lie then demand SOMETHING ELSE!

this is just a game to you and the rest of the people playing it.

Even if you are correct it is but a technicality and not a moral victory because you are not concerned about morality to begin with.



posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


5. Missiles

The inspectors were in the process of destroying illicit Al Samoud 2 missiles and related equipment but were unable to complete the task before the start of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Twenty-five missiles are still in the country, along with 38 warheads, 6 launchers, 6 command and control vehicles and 326 engines."



regards
seekerof


All but this point that you made are totally invalid.

And you know it.

And Al-Samouds are a really poor excuse to anything.

Some doctored computer simulation being your 'proof' that they could fly beyond 150km.

Supposedly to 180kms.

So what?

Its not like they could hit US with them anyways..




posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Seekerof, I have appreciated yours, and TC's posts very much, and I have recognized in the past that you two seem to be gushing fire-hydrants of proof any time you make a point. That is a good thing, which is why I have to ask these questions in honest search for the truth. So here they are:

1. We went to Iraq to free the Iraqi's right? That was one of our reasons I thought. If that is the case, why Iraq? It seems that there are a TON more countries out there that are just as bad off, but for other reasons. Why is it that every time we come to the aid of a country, that country has some kind relationship with oil? A few months back we were called upon to the Ivory Coast for help, and we sent like 200 troops or so and didn't hear much more about it. I am sure there are plenty of folks that need to be freed there as well (Although I don't pretend to know the political landscape of that area).

2. Why was it that we had a plan for fighting terror, so quickly after Sept 11th, and that as soon as we defeated forces in Afganistan, we almost imediately started looking towards Iraq, as if that was the plan all along?

3. Why is it that one of Bush's primary backers during his campaign was one of the companies most involved in the reconstruction of Iraq (Haliburton)?

I am sorry if this was brought up in other threads. I honestly believe I have been keeping good track of those threads, but maybe I just missed this stuff. I ask this stuff not because I am being accusatory or anything, and if sufficient reasons are demonstrated for these issues, I will respect that. I seek the truth, not any particular viewpoint.

I think on some level Fulcrum wants to know this too, but prefers to invalidate his own POV by going off about stuff. I guess the difference with me is that I just question stuff. I am hoping that somone will answer back with some really good points and prove me wrong.

-P


Originally posted by Seekerof
I play with "absolutes" Fulcrum...if anyone don't know crap....look in the mirror!
You talk out your ass and provided nothing, only when you choose to and then it is all simply twisted to fit your perspective and views.
You condemn and yet in your condemnation, fail to ever included your self-rightous ass in the same sentence.....
Going off the "top of your brain" may suit you but I prefer to fight with facts, not "off the top of my head" BS...


Go figure.......


regards
seekerof



posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM


Some doctored computer simulation being your 'proof' that they could fly beyond 150km.

Supposedly to 180kms.

So what?

Its not like they could hit US with them anyways..




it is still a theart to US allies...



posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO

But that is not the problem because if they turned up tomorrow that would not be good enough for you.


Your wrong.

This would do..

Its just that it isnt going to happen.

There is and was not WMDs.



But i wonder why i even bother..

As you will go on thinking that there is/were until they are found..

And they arent going to be found as there werent any, and so you will most likely die thinking that there were..

Sad, absolutely sad..




posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian

it is still a theart to US allies...


Treath to Kuwait and Saudis..
(Kuwait being really a 'break away part of Iraq' and Saudi being the most corrupt place on earth..)



Oh boy, oh boy..

Corrupt and criminal Kuwaitis and Saudis that make up for the bulk of Al-Qaida..

And these 'nations' really dont treat their citizens that much better than Iraq did or Iran does.

They are ruled by dictators.



These are not safe heavens for freedom and justice.




posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Fulcrum:
"All but this point that you made are totally invalid"

They ain't my claims you are disproving...they are UN/UNSCOM documented reports your are trying to disprove....

Now which would I believe?
Were you part of the UNSCOM weapon inspection teams?
You have any credentials that would make the UN/UNSCOM change anything that they have documented?

You can scoff at it, throw crap on it....don't matter, its all black and white and on paper, and has been for sometime.


regards
seekerof



posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Say what you want.

But the lack of evidence speaks for itself.

Also,

Scott Ritter and Hans Blix have told both that UNSCOM was a HOAX controlled by US and there were no WMDs.

As they had already destroyed all.

And you cant deny that the UNSCOM did spy on things that they had no right to spy on.




posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 12:30 AM
link   
How about back-up your assertions buddy:
"As they had already destroyed all."
Got a link showing CONCLUSIVELY that Iraq had no WMD and that they were all destroyed? I would think that if they were "all" destroyed, then the UN/UNSCOM would not still be posting these reports saying what was posted above, now would they?

The most recent reports I have read have said nothin to this degree....even Blix admits to this, yet you still use his name as if he has said that "Iraq had and has NO WMD".....I have posted, to you, on another thread that indeed Hans Blix did not claim thus.

Then you bring up Ritter, whose own crediability was sent to the bottom of the ocean when it was shown that he recieved $400,000 by the Iraqi's.........seems that money caused him to change his tune....


regards
seekerof



posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Play down what is evident if it doesnt suite you.

"Got a link showing CONCLUSIVELY that Iraq had no WMD?"



Got a link showing CONCLUSIVELY that Iraq has WMD?



No you dont.

You talk about UNSCOM, a organistaion that has lost all its credibility that it once had.
(that was lost quite soon, as they did spying work for US in non-WMD related matters..)

All they do is make claims.

They dont have anykind of proof that would hold water.

UNSCOM only CLAIMS, they make CLAIMS.

But anyhow,

All info CLAIMED by them that you have shown me has been dated pre-2000, you have not shown any reports from 2002.
(That is because you dont have any from 2002 that include violations.. etc..)

Except that Al-Samoud thing, and we both know that, that is BS.

Al-Samouds were conventional battlefield weapons with conventional warheads.



[Edited on 16-12-2003 by FULCRUM]



posted on Dec, 16 2003 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Yeah...I figured as much coming from you Fulcrum!
Since you won't, I will though...here is a couple links to what Mr. Hans Blix says:

"Blix statement: Key excerpts"
Link:
news.bbc.co.uk...


And here's Mr. Hans Blix's full report to the UN Security Council:

"AS DELIVERED BRIEFING OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 14 FEBRUARY 2003
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix"

Link:
www.un.org...

Here's an UNSCOM Full Report:

"IRAQ: THE UNSCOM EXPERIENCE"
Link:
editors.sipri.se...

And here is UNSCOM's Final Report:

"UNSCOM Final Disarmament Report"
Link:
www.iraqwatch.org...



In none of these reports do I read where Mr. Hans Blix or Ritter mention or claim that Iraq had destroyed all their WMD's, as per past UN resolutions. I have yet to read a report that sayss that Saddam/Iraq properely documented those "mysterious" destructions of WMD and then provide said evidences to the UN, again, per resolutions....

Lack of not finding them does not mean that Saddam/Iraq did not have them....documentation shows otherwise. Those are the 'facts' that I argue many here with...facts that are in black and white and have no need to come of the top of my head............
Don't argue with me, nor argue with me providing the links....argue the black and white writings on those documents. I give what is already known but continually ignored because it WMDs have not been found.....be it that it may, I mean, just a couple days ago, many where throwing around that we hadn't caught Saddam yet....my, my, how things change, just overnight, eh?

As with Saddam, WMD will be found and when they do, the denial will continue, just as it does with Saddam being captured.....


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 16-12-2003 by Seekerof]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join