Weapons of Mass Destruction: Who Said What When

[ODShowtime]

For bush&friends, getting close to election time means helping the average Joe forget the lies spewed by this administration. I was gonna put together a thread to help us remember, but someone already did the leg work for me:

http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Who Said What When


Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

Exactly wolfy, exactly. Everyone but good ol' Mr. Reality.

[ODShowtime]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041005/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld_iraq&e=5&ncid=

Rumsfeld: No Link Between Saddam, al-Qaida

By RICHARD PYLE, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a speech that he knew of no clear link between the al-Qaida terror network and Saddam Hussein, although he later backed off the statement and said he was misunderstood.

Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terror network at an appearance Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

Several hours after his appearance, Rumsfeld issued a statement from the Pentagon saying his comment "regrettably was misunderstood" by some. He said he has said since September 2002 that there were ties between Osama bin Laden's terror group and Iraq.


"This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then-CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA's understanding of the al-Qaida relationship," he said. This included "solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaida members, including some that have been in Baghdad," he said.

In his New York remarks, Rumsfeld said he had seen intelligence on the Saddam-al-Qaida question "migrate in amazing ways" in the past year, adding that there were "many differences of opinion in the intelligence community." He did not elaborate on that but said relationships among terrorists "evolve and change over time."

On whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war, Rumsfeld told the New York audience flatly that intelligence about such weapons before the invasion was faulty — a markedly different statement than what he told a television interviewer just a day earlier.

"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfeld said Monday in the speech. "Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail."

In an interview aired Sunday on the Fox News Channel, Rumsfeld had said he believed Saddam, the deposed Iraqi president, had weapons of mass destruction before the war, and the truth may unfold over months or years.

"I believe they were there, and I'm surprised we have not found them yet," Rumsfeld said in the Fox interview. "He has either hidden them so well or moved them somewhere else, or decided to destroy them... in event of a conflict but kept the capability of developing them rapidly."

Rumsfeld also said he does not expect civil war in Iraq and pointed to the recent retaking of the former insurgent stronghold of Samarra as evidence of progress in stabilizing the country before elections in January.

"I don't think it's going to happen," Rumsfeld said. "But what has to be done in that country is what basically was done in Samarra over the last 48 hours."

Rumsfeld credited a process of first trying diplomacy, then threatening force and finally using it.

In response to other questions, Rumsfeld said Iran was engaged in "a lot of meddling" in Iraq, and Syria has been "notably unhelpful" by refusing to release frozen Iraqi assets and by allowing foreign terrorist movements across its border with Iraq.

Well, gee rummy, I can think of a couple reasons why the intelligence proved wrong... $$$

I think it's pretty clear what's going on here folks. BTW, I got a recuiting call from the fucking Carlyle Group today. Is that irony or what?

[BigBadBrian]

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry D- MA Oct. 9, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ..And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real."
Sen. John F. Kerry D-MA Jan.23. 2003

[FORD]

Bush lied. Thousands died. End of story.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry D- MA Oct. 9, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ..And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real."
Sen. John F. Kerry D-MA Jan.23. 2003



hey dumb-ass

Kerry made these statements based on the intelligence he was provided as a Senator. The slanted intelligence provided by the CIA, the DIA, and fucking Israel!!! It was slanted because the bush administration told the spooks what they wanted to hear from the spooks. Is this concept too hard for you people to grasp? Because it's not that outrageous. Well, it's outrageous, but not inconceivable.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
hey dumb-ass

Kerry made these statements based on the intelligence he was provided as a Senator. The slanted intelligence provided by the CIA, the DIA, and fucking Israel!!! It was slanted because the bush administration told the spooks what they wanted to hear from the spooks. Is this concept too hard for you people to grasp? Because it's not that outrageous. Well, it's outrageous, but not inconceivable.

I see I struck a raw nerve with you because I simply hit you liberals with something you're not used to...facts.

You also forget Clinton appointed the head of the CIA Bush used and that Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 for failure to yield on the WMD issue. Your move, girly-man. :gulp:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You also forget Clinton appointed the head of the CIA Bush used and that Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 for failure to yield on the WMD issue. Your move, girly-man. :gulp:

"The slanted intelligence provided by the CIA, the DIA, and fucking Israel!!! It was slanted because the bush administration told the spooks what they wanted to hear from the spooks. "

Sorry to repeat myself, but what else am I to do when you don't listen or comprehend? Poor Tenet was just trying to hold onto his job by doing exactly what Bush wanted. Again, is that really so inconceivable?

BTW your Clinton comment was even more irrelevant than usual.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
"The slanted intelligence provided by the CIA, the DIA, and fucking Israel!!! It was slanted because the bush administration told the spooks what they wanted to hear from the spooks. "

Sorry to repeat myself, but what else am I to do when you don't listen or comprehend? Poor Tenet was just trying to hold onto his job by doing exactly what Bush wanted. Again, is that really so inconceivable?

BTW your Clinton comment was even more irrelevant than usual.

Ha ha. :D You're on the ropes and obviously pissed off and babbling incoherently. Go back to your dictionary and history books and try to form a well-formed opinion on the subject, puppydog. :gulp:

[Warham]

OD, Kerry had the same intelligence Bush had.

Kerry believed that Hussein had WMD's.

The only reason Kerry changed his mind was because he was running against Bush, and Dean was going hard core anti-war.

Also, Brian's Clinton comment wipes out your assertion that Tenet would be in Bush's back pocket. Bush didn't put him in that position, Slick Willy did, as Brian said.

By extension of your assumption that Bush lied, I could say that Kerry and Edwards lied as well.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Ha ha. :D You're on the ropes and obviously pissed off and babbling incoherently. Go back to your dictionary and history books and try to form a well-formed opinion on the subject, puppydog. :gulp:

Believe me, I don't get pissed at anything you type biggie because I know you're just a bullshitter. :cool: If my words are incoherent to you, you should consult a dictionary.

We've reached an impass. I clearly stated my views and you've said nothing to make me refute them. Looks like my move was a checkmate, bitch. :killer:

[Warham]

The only problem is, you are playing checkers, OD.

[ODShowtime]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warham
OD, Kerry had the same intelligence Bush had.

Kerry believed that Hussein had WMD's.

[B]Exactly. What you need to fully understand is that the bush administration cherry picked intel to fit its agenda, and then submitted it to the Senate where Kerry read it. Same thing all of use here do. And it is well documented

The only reason Kerry changed his mind was because he was running against Bush, and Dean was going hard core anti-war.

Cheney had a good point there last night, which you are merely repeating. It is a good point though. I stand by my assertions made above about that $87 million.

Also, Brian's Clinton comment wipes out your assertion that Tenet would be in Bush's back pocket. Bush didn't put him in that position, Slick Willy did, as Brian said.

I already answered this one above. And to add something, can't the president fire the DIA at his discretion? I may be wrong about that, but I think he can.

[ELVIS]

Proof of WMD's in Iraq originally posted by lucky wilbury

Tests Confirm Sarin Gas in Baghdad Bomb (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...us_iraq_sarin_2
)

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Comprehensive testing has confirmed the presence of the chemical weapon sarin in the remains of a roadside bomb discovered this month in Baghdad, a defense official said Tuesday.

The determination, made by a laboratory in the United States that the official would not identify, verifies what earlier, less-thorough field tests had found: the bomb was made from an artillery shell designed to disperse the deadly nerve agent on the battlefield.

The origin of the shell remains unclear, and finding that out is a priority for the U.S. military, the defense official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Some analysts worry the 155-millimeter artillery shell, found rigged as a bomb on May 15, may be part of a larger stockpile of Iraqi chemical weapons that insurgents can now use. But no more have turned up, and several military officials have said the shell may have been an older one that predated the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).

It likewise is not known whether the bombers knew they had a chemical weapon. Military officials have said the shell bore no labels to indicate it was anything except a normal explosive shell, the type used to make scores of roadside bombs in Iraq (news - web sites).

No one was injured in the shell's initial detonation, but two American soldiers who removed the round had symptoms of low-level nerve agent exposure, officials said last week.

The shell was a binary type, which has two chambers containing relatively safe chemicals. When the round is fired from an artillery gun, its rotation mixes the chemicals to create sarin, which is supposed to disperse when the shell strikes its target.

Since it was not fired from a gun but was detonated as a bomb, the initial explosion on May 15 dispersed the precursor chemicals, apparently mixing them in only small amounts, officials said then. In battle, such shells would have to be fired in great numbers to effect a large body of troops.

Iraq's first field-test of a binary-type shell containing sarin was in 1988, U.S. defense officials have said.

Saddam's government only disclosed the testing and production after Iraqi weapons chief Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majid, Saddam's son-in-law, defected in 1995. Saddam's government never declared any sarin or shells filled with sarin remained.

Saddam's alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was the Bush administration's chief stated reason for invading Iraq. U.S. weapons hunters have been unable to validate the prewar intelligence.

Some trace elements of mustard agent, an older type of chemical weapon, were detected in an artillery shell found in a Baghdad street this month, U.S. officials said previously. The shell also was believed to be from one of Saddam's old stockpiles.



:elvis:

[Warham]

Yeah, he should have fired Tenet as soon as he took office, as well as any other Clinton holdovers.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by ODShowtime

Exactly. What you need to fully understand is that the bush administration cherry picked intel to fit its agenda, and then submitted it to the Senate where Kerry read it. Same thing all of use here do. And it is well documented



If it's "well documented", let's see it!

Cherry picked intel...:rolleyes:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
If it's "well documented", let's see it!

Cherry picked intel...:rolleyes:


"well documented"... I knew I shouldn't have typed that. I'm slowly learning the ropes. I promise I'll dig something up...

And Elvis, you really should know better. One measely artillery shell stashed away for a decade and then used in an IED by insurgents who merely thought it was a high explosive or incindiary round does not constitute vast stockpiles of WMD. If they had, they'd be usin' 'em.


For the record, I was very dissapointed that Bush wasn't vindicated on that issue. But it's 2004 and he was wrong-ola. It was just a bluff Saddam used to scare his neighbors. Not that hard to figure out really.

[jacksmar]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force � if necessary � to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Oh shit!!!!

Did these assholes actually say that?

:fu: KERRY

[Sarge's Little Helper]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force � if necessary � to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Oh shit!!!!

Did these assholes actually say that?

:fu: KERRY

Oops. I wasn't paying attention. Tell me again what is going on.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, he should have fired Tenet as soon as he took office, as well as any other Clinton holdovers.

Yes, but he could more easily control Tenet by holding that over his head. That and Bush is lazy and didn't even think about streamlining intelligence until The Senate and the 9-11 comission told him to.

[Warham]

Did Clinton cherry pick his intel when he said Saddam had WMDs?

Also, why didn't Clinton streamline the CIA and FBI, and set up the Department of Homeland Security. We were attacked by terrorists repeated in the 90's. Two examples: the 1993 WTC bombing, and the bombing of the USS Cole. Those two attacks alone killed hundreds.

Was Clinton too busy under the desk to bother with terrorists?

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
Bush lied. Thousands died. End of story.

Yeah leftists are good at sloganeering - it doesn't matter if the slogan is a complete lie - if it sounds good then it's fine. Remember - the ends justify the means. Once again the left wants to redefine what LIE is - during Clinton they skewed it one way - now that have reversed it completely.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
It was just a bluff Saddam used to scare his neighbors.

..and in a post 9/11 world, It was absolute grounds to take him out without question...

Not even debatable!

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Bush lied. Thousands died. End of story.

Tired Jessie Jackson quote...:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Was Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in the late 80's a bluff?

[Sgt Schultz]

Leftist Commie Pinkoweenie Socialist Democrats have a recurring problem with amnesia. All of them, and all other countries (well you can except Syria here and a few others) believed Iraq had and/or was pursuing WMDs. So why is the left now saying "Bush lied" - simple, it's an election year. THey don't give a flying fuck about our troops and wish the U.S. would lose in Iraq so Bush will lose or look bad. Pathetic.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham
Was Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in the late 80's a bluff?

They hope we forgot about that. Oops, we didn't. :gulp:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham Was Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in the late 80's a bluff?


Originally posted by BigBadBrian
They hope we forgot about that. Oops, we didn't. :gulp:

No, I didn't forget that Reagan, Bush, and Rumsfeld gave Saddam mustard and VX gas to use against Iranians and his own people.

It wasn't a bluff then. But it was after years of sanctions and disarmament.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Originally posted by Warham Was Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in the late 80's a bluff?



No, I didn't forget that Reagan, Bush, and Rumsfeld gave Saddam mustard and VX gas to use against Iranians and his own people.

It wasn't a bluff then. But it was after years of sanctions and disarmament.

Yes, and Roosevelt sold scrap metal to the Japanese who turned them into Zeros. This point about us selling arms to Iraq a long time ago is pointless.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Yes, and Roosevelt sold scrap metal to the Japanese who turned them into Zeros. This point about us selling arms to Iraq a long time ago is pointless.

Why is that pointless? Rumsfeld goes and shakes hand with Saddam and sells him WMD. 20 years later he's shaking his fist at Saddam and condemning him for possessing WMD. I think it's pretty damn relavant. Pretty fucking hypocritical.

Yes, Saddam was thought to be the greater of two evils back then. But is it really a morally acceptable strategy to encourage two enemies to fight a pointless war with over 1,000,000 casualties just to keep them busy with each other? When many of the more effective weapons used were bought from us? BY BOTH FUCKING SIDES?


Shultz, while I see your analogy, I think weaponized chemical weapons and scrap metal are a little different. I will be happy to discuss this in more detail...

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Why is that pointless? Rumsfeld goes and shakes hand with Saddam and sells him WMD. 20 years later he's shaking his fist at Saddam and condemning him for possessing WMD. I think it's pretty damn relavant. Pretty fucking hypocritical.

Yes, Saddam was thought to be the greater of two evils back then. But is it really a morally acceptable strategy to encourage two enemies to fight a pointless war with over 1,000,000 casualties just to keep them busy with each other? When many of the more effective weapons used were bought from us? BY BOTH FUCKING SIDES?


Shultz, while I see your analogy, I think weaponized chemical weapons and scrap metal are a little different. I will be happy to discuss this in more detail...

My point is that pointing this stuff out is just partisan "gotcha-ism". Enemies, alliances, threats, friends enemies, pragamatism etc etc - all this stuff comes into play when dealing with foreign policy and war.

We sold and GAVE the Soviet Union tons of weapons and materie'l yet by late '46 - '46 we were enemies with them. The Argentinians killed British sailors and soldiers with AMERICAN Skyhawks and F4s - and French Exocet missles. THe Brits sunk a Argentine warship - which WE sold to them (it was a Pearl Harbor ship!). We financed and supplied the muhajadeen in Afghanistan and most of these turned into the Taliban. George Washington fought with the British against the French in the French Indian War yet he fought against the Brits and with the Frnch in the Revolutionary War. List could go on and on....

[Jano]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
My point is that pointing this stuff out is just partisan "gotcha-ism". Enemies, alliances, threats, friends enemies, pragamatism etc etc - all this stuff comes into play when dealing with foreign policy and war.

We sold and GAVE the Soviet Union tons of weapons and materie'l yet by late '46 - '46 we were enemies with them. The Argentinians killed British sailors and soldiers with AMERICAN Skyhawks and F4s - and French Exocet missles. THe Brits sunk a Argentine warship - which WE sold to them (it was a Pearl Harbor ship!). We financed and supplied the muhajadeen in Afghanistan and most of these turned into the Taliban. George Washington fought with the British against the French in the French Indian War yet he fought against the Brits and with the Frnch in the Revolutionary War. List could go on and on....

Sad,sad but true,good reply sgt schultz !

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
My point is that pointing this stuff out is just partisan "gotcha-ism". Enemies, alliances, threats, friends enemies, pragamatism etc etc - all this stuff comes into play when dealing with foreign policy and war.

We sold and GAVE the Soviet Union tons of weapons and materie'l yet by late '46 - '46 we were enemies with them. The Argentinians killed British sailors and soldiers with AMERICAN Skyhawks and F4s - and French Exocet missles. THe Brits sunk a Argentine warship - which WE sold to them (it was a Pearl Harbor ship!). We financed and supplied the muhajadeen in Afghanistan and most of these turned into the Taliban. George Washington fought with the British against the French in the French Indian War yet he fought against the Brits and with the Frnch in the Revolutionary War. List could go on and on....


I agree that such dealings have been happening since the dawn of man and will continue where there is profit and bloodshed.

But I am specifically advocating voting out a regime that is responsible for such doings. Right now. They are partly responsible for arming and encouraging two regimes to fight to the death. 1,000,000 died and we helped. That's what, 1/6 of the holocaust? Like 1/70 of WWII? It's 1,000,000 dead arab casualties and not only did we not try to stop it, we (as in Bush and Rumsfeld and others) helped them both out! This is not an academic debate. This is serious and removing these jokers from power could prevent horrible bloodshed in the future.

Again I'll make it clear, I'm not a socialist liberal trying to use these facts to convince people to vote for Kerry. This isn't the side-show for me, it's the main act. I'm a rational person who is against stopping warfare for greed and manipulation of the human race for the benefit of a few.

[Warham]

At LEAST 18,000,000 died in the Holocaust.

Why do you think the war on terror is greedy, OD?

They attacked us first. How is it greedy to attack them back?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
At LEAST 18,000,000 died in the Holocaust.

Why do you think the war on terror is greedy, OD?

They attacked us first. How is it greedy to attack them back?

Because Bush had his sites set on Iraq before he was even elected. Why?


Why do you think we didn't have enough troops on the ground in Afghanistan and had to use the Northen Alliance as surrogates? The Northern who?

Why did Bin Laden supposedly get away?

Maybe we still wouldn't have caught him, but we would have had a much better chance.

[jacksmar]

Because Bush had his sites set on Iraq before he was even elected.

President Reagan had his sights set on Russia before he was even elected.

Your point?

:fu: KERRY

[FORD]

Originally posted by jacksmar
Because Bush had his sites set on Iraq before he was even elected.

President Reagan had his sights set on Russia before he was even elected.

Your point?

:fu: KERRY

Russia had Nuclear ICBM's aimed at the United States. Saddam Hussein didn't have shit.

Big difference.

[ODShowtime]

nice

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Russia had Nuclear ICBM's aimed at the United States. Saddam Hussein didn't have shit.

Big difference.

Yep, and Kerry voted against all the weapons systems Reagan wanted.

So, he was useless then in the Cold War, and he's useless now in this war.

[ODShowtime]

I'm gonna refer to an old favorite here. Prove it.

[Warham]

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq—but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s—modified to carry conventional munitions—were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars—the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions—there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

[Warham]

The Kerry apologists, who were all over the media the morning after the Miller speech, tried to suggest that when a Senator votes against a bill containing a weapons system it may be because he has some other problem with the bill that has nothing to do with the weapons system. Therefore, you see, Senator Kerry really isn't against all of those weapons after all. You have to understand these votes in context, so they told us.

Nice try. However, my Internet angel Alex Mulkern unearthed a campaign flyer from Lt. Governor John Kerry's campaign for the United States Senate in 1984. It is priceless. In this flyer, Kerry says of the Reagan defense buildup ''the biggest defense buildup since World War II has not given us a better defense. Americans feel threatened by the prospect of war.'' Kerry goes on to say that ''...our national priorities become more and more distorted as the share of our country's resources devoted to human needs diminishes.''

Then Kerry suggests that there is a better alternative. He lists weapons system after weapons system that he would cancel and the amount of money that would be ''saved'' by canceling them. Among those which would have been put on the chopping block back in 1984 are as follows:

The MX Missile. Cancel. Savings: $5 Billion.
The B-1 Bomber. Cancel. Savings: $8 Billion
Anti-satellite system. Cancel. Savings: $99 Million
Star Wars. Cancel. Savings: $1.3 Billion
Tomahawk Missile. Reduce by 50%. Savings: $294 Million
AH-64 Helicopter. Cancel. Savings: $1.4 Billion
Division Air Defense. Cancel. Savings: $638 Million
The Patriot Air Defense Missile. Cancel. Savings: $1.1 Billion
Aegis Air Defense. Cancel. Savings: $400 Million
Battleship reactivation. Cancel. Savings: $453 Million
AV 88 vertical take off and landing plane. Cancel. Savings: $1.0 Billion
F-15 fighter aircraft. Cancel. Savings: $2.3 Billion
F-14A fighter aircraft. Cancel. Savings: $1.0 Billion
F-14B fighter aircraft. Cancel. Savings: $286 Million
Phoenix air-to-air missile. Cancel: Savings: $431 Million
Sparrow air-to-air missile. Cancel. Savings: $264 Million

So there you have it. Did Zell Miller exaggerate? Before John Kerry was even elected senator he was calling for the elimination of some of the most effective weapons systems that we have.

Kerry said in this flyer: ''If we don't need the MX and the B-1 or these other weapons systems, there is no excuse for casting even one vote for unnecessary weapons of destruction and as your senator I never will.''

He got that right. This was back in 1984. Mikhail Gorbachev had just come to power. It was Gorbachev and his generals who concluded that they could not keep up with weapons development in the USA, especially the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars), and that is one of the reasons that the Soviets threw in the towel. Imagine, 20 years later, if the Kerry view had prevailed, we would still be facing a menacing super power known as the Soviet Union. If the Soviets didn't have to compete with all of those sophisticated weapons systems, they would be fighting on to this day. The Baltics would still be Soviet Republics, as would Ukraine, Armenia, and Georgia. The Berlin Wall would likely still be up. Poland and the satellite nations would not be free. Get the picture?

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9869&catcode=11&mode=print

[jacksmar]

Oops.

" Now we find ourselves in the midst of a conflict unlike any we've ever known, faced with the possibility that terrorists could smuggle a deadly biological agent or a nuclear weapon into the middle of one of our own cities."

Not missiles anymore is it?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham


The MX Missile. Cancel. Savings: $5 Billion.
The B-1 Bomber. Cancel. Savings: $8 Billion
Anti-satellite system. Cancel. Savings: $99 Million
Star Wars. Cancel. Savings: $1.3 Billion
Tomahawk Missile. Reduce by 50%. Savings: $294 Million
AH-64 Helicopter. Cancel. Savings: $1.4 Billion
Division Air Defense. Cancel. Savings: $638 Million
The Patriot Air Defense Missile. Cancel. Savings: $1.1 Billion
Aegis Air Defense. Cancel. Savings: $400 Million
Battleship reactivation. Cancel. Savings: $453 Million
AV 88 vertical take off and landing plane. Cancel. Savings: $1.0 Billion
F-15 fighter aircraft. Cancel. Savings: $2.3 Billion
F-14A fighter aircraft. Cancel. Savings: $1.0 Billion
F-14B fighter aircraft. Cancel. Savings: $286 Million
Phoenix air-to-air missile. Cancel: Savings: $431 Million
Sparrow air-to-air missile. Cancel. Savings: $264 Million
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9869&catcode=11&mode=print


How many of these systems were put into regular service? How many have been decisive? I am genuinely curious.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I agree that such dealings have been happening since the dawn of man and will continue where there is profit and bloodshed.

But I am specifically advocating voting out a regime that is responsible for such doings. Right now. They are partly responsible for arming and encouraging two regimes to fight to the death. 1,000,000 died and we helped. That's what, 1/6 of the holocaust? Like 1/70 of WWII? It's 1,000,000 dead arab casualties and not only did we not try to stop it, we (as in Bush and Rumsfeld and others) helped them both out! This is not an academic debate. This is serious and removing these jokers from power could prevent horrible bloodshed in the future.

Again I'll make it clear, I'm not a socialist liberal trying to use these facts to convince people to vote for Kerry. This isn't the side-show for me, it's the main act. I'm a rational person who is against stopping warfare for greed and manipulation of the human race for the benefit of a few.

The amount of military help we provided to the protagonists in the Iran / Iraq War resulted in an insignificant amount of casualties. The 1,000,000 dead were overwhelmingly the result of a brutal, 8 year war that was reminiscent of the trench fighting of the Western Front during the Great War. If I’m not mistaken much of the weapons came from the good ‘ol soviet Union. Countires are going to fight wars and they’ll get the weapons they need from where they can. Much of the Confederate army, and even some Federal units were supplied with British Enfield rifled muskets during the Civil War.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
The amount of military help we provided to the protagonists in the Iran / Iraq War resulted in an insignificant amount of casualties. The 1,000,000 dead were overwhelmingly the result of a brutal, 8 year war that was reminiscent of the trench fighting of the Western Front during the Great War. If I’m not mistaken much of the weapons came from the good ‘ol soviet Union. Countires are going to fight wars and they’ll get the weapons they need from where they can. Much of the Confederate army, and even some Federal units were supplied with British Enfield rifled muskets during the Civil War.

I was expecting you to make a point like that. Yes, you are correct. From my understanding, the majority of the casualties came from WWI-type stalemate warfare due to equipment constraints and pathetic leadership from both sides.

But wars don't spring from the ground. And this one was really pointless. We back Saddam the whole way or he wouldn't have started it. The chemical weapons we gave him LATE in the war aren't a huge factor, they just sound really, really bad.

But surely the US was involved in the diplomacy (even backdoor style) that led up to the war. I refuse to believe otherwise based on what I've read.

Again, you are also correct that much of the basic weaponry was of Soviet origin. Once it kicked off, they were gonna get guns from any source possible.

Bottom line for me is this war looks like we basically staged a cockfight.

[ODShowtime]

time to wrap this thread up...

Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue — whether the invasion was justified because Saddam was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

Ridiculing the Bush administration's evolving rationale for war, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry shot back: "You don't make up or find reasons to go to war after the fact."

Vice President Dick Cheney brushed aside the central findings of chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles ' — that Saddam not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either — while Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

"The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions," Bush said as he prepared to fly to campaign events in Wisconsin. "He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away."

Duelfer found no formal plan by Saddam to resume WMD production, but the inspector surmised that Saddam intended to do so if U.N. sanctions were lifted. Bush seized upon that inference, using the word "intent" three times in reference to Saddam's plans to resume making weapons.

This week marks the first time that the Bush administration has listed abuses in the oil-for-fuel program as an Iraq war rationale. But the strategy holds risks because some of the countries that could be implicated include U.S. allies, such as Poland, Jordan and Egypt. In addition, the United States itself played a significant role in both the creation of the program and how it was operated and overseen.

For his part, Cheney dismissed the significance of Duelfer's central findings, telling supporters in Miami, "The headlines all say `no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad.' We already knew that."

The vice president said he found other parts of the report "more intriguing," including the finding that Saddam's main goal was the removal of international sanctions.

"As soon as the sanctions were lifted, he had every intention of going back" to his weapons program, Cheney said.

The report underscored that "delay, defer, wait, wasn't an option," Cheney said. And he told a later forum in Fort Myers, Fla., speaking of the oil-for-food program: "The sanctions regime was coming apart at the seams. Saddam perverted that whole thing and generated billions of dollars."

Yet Bush and Cheney acknowledged more definitively than before that Saddam did not have the banned weapons that both men had asserted he did — and had cited as the major justification before attacking Iraq in March 2003.

Bush has recently left the question open. For example, when asked in June whether he thought such weapons had existed in Iraq, Bush said he would "wait until Charlie (Duelfer) gets back with the final report."

In July, Bush said, "We have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," a sentence construction that kept alive the possibility the weapons might yet be discovered.

On Thursday, the president used the clearest language to date nailing the question shut:

"Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there," Bush said. His words placed the blame on U.S. intelligence agencies.

In recent weeks, Cheney has glossed over the primary justification for the war, most often by simply not mentioning it. But in late January 2004, Cheney told reporters in Rome: "There's still work to be done to ascertain exactly what's there."

"The jury is still out," he told National Public Radio the same week, when asked whether Iraq had possessed banned weapons.

Duelfer's report was presented Wednesday to senators and the public with less than four weeks left in a fierce presidential campaign dominated by questions about Iraq and the war on terror.

In Bayonne, N.J., Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Thursday called "amazing" Cheney's assertions that the Duelfer report justified rather than undermined Bush's decision to go to war, and he accused the Republican of using "convoluted logic."

Kerry, in a campaign appearance in Colorado, said: "The president of the United States and the vice president of the United States may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq."

A short time later, while campaigning in Wisconsin, Bush angrily responded to Kerry's charge he sought to "make up" a reason for war.

"He's claiming I misled America about weapons when he, himself, cited the very same intelligence about Saddam weapons programs as the reason he voted to go to war," Bush said. Citing a lengthy Kerry quote from two years ago on the menace Saddam could pose, Bush said: "Just who's the one trying to mislead the American people?"

[ODShowtime]

sounds like a bunch of flip-floppin' to me

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
How many of these systems were put into regular service? How many have been decisive? I am genuinely curious.

Damn! I know we trade barbs here but I'm astounded by that remark. I guess I just take it for granted because a lot of us come from a military background or at least take an interest in military matters.

To answer your question: ALL of them have been vital weapons systems since brought online in their respective services.

:gun:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Damn! I know we trade barbs here but I'm astounded by that remark. I guess I just take it for granted because a lot of us come from a military background or at least take an interest in military matters.

To answer your question: ALL of them have been vital weapons systems since brought online in their respective services.

:gun:

I'm much more familiar with WWII era weaponry. F-16, F-18 blah blah a jet's a jet to me. Of course I recognize a lot of these systems and understand what various inventions are meant for...

I thought these two definitely were mothballed:

Aegis Air Defense. Cancel. Savings: $400 Million
AV 88 vertical take off and landing plane. Cancel. Savings: $1.0 Billion - in fact, hasn't this thing contributed to a couple test pilots deaths?

I know a lot about military matters for someone who never enlisted. But I will defer to those who have more knowledge.

[lucky wilbury]

your thinking of the osprey. the av 88 is the harrier jump jet. the aegis is state of the art anti missle systems. we have that deployed all over the world. we got aegis class destroyers off the coast of koera to shoot down any missle threat that might come our way

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
your thinking of the osprey. the av 88 is the harrier jump jet. the aegis is state of the art anti missle systems. we have that deployed all over the world. we got aegis class destroyers off the coast of koera to shoot down any missle threat that might come our way

There you go. Thanks lucky. Now I'm more informed.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
your thinking of the osprey. the av 88 is the harrier jump jet. the aegis is state of the art anti missle systems. we have that deployed all over the world. we got aegis class destroyers off the coast of koera to shoot down any missle threat that might come our way

What are your thoughts on the main subject of this thread? Didn't you make a challenge and promise to leave this site if it was ultimately determined that there was no WMD? It may have been at DDLR, I don't remember.

Just razzin' ya dude. ;)

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
What are your thoughts on the main subject of this thread? Didn't you make a challenge and promise to leave this site if it was ultimately determined that there was no WMD? It may have been at DDLR, I don't remember.

Just razzin' ya dude. ;)


i said that at ddlr and sesh brought it up a few months ago but we HAVE found wmd in iraq and the report says that. what the report says is "large stockpiles are unaccounted for" and says they might not have exisited but they might have. the report also says we've found something around 100 shells,bombs,muntions etc etc that were load with wmd and that botcholism was also found but again the headlines don't say that. it's just the "large stockpiles" haven't been found. again if someone doubts that nothings been found talk to those guys that got exposed to sarin back in may.