Following Iraq's bioweapons trail

Did Iraq still have WMD's?


  • Total voters
    12

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

do not foget what was found even through TV media.............Iraq/French and Soviet chemical suits in abandoned and partially buried in the sands bunkers
Imagine that!

08.jpg
 
welllllllllllllll gollllllllllllllllllllllley Fly there is 1 piece of junk out of 50

you've proven my point friend, now lets get into Syria and open the bag of worms even more
 
Yeap I was there at the site in Northern Iraq. I have pictures of it somewhere, as well as used anthropene injectors and other evidence of WMD's.

But hey Erich my own eyes were decieving me. It cant be true because someone else says it was not.
 
And FBJ I think that Foxbat there was the one found at our camp. There are things burried all over Iraq including Chemical Weapons which I have allready said some of which has been found. There is much more out there and it will take decades to find them all.
 
I remember when that was actually announced at the beginning of the war. The ones they found were thoroughly scrubbed and they surmised that they were whisked away to Syria and Iran. They thoroughly scrubbed them because they new that the US would fly UAVs with sniffers over Iraq to search them out. It was in the news for exactly one day. And then magically they no longer existed. No WMD program links. Saddam was innocent.
 
I remember when that was actually announced at the beginning of the war. The ones they found were thoroughly scrubbed and they surmised that they were whisked away to Syria and Iran. They thoroughly scrubbed them because they new that the US would fly UAVs with sniffers over Iraq to search them out. It was in the news for exactly one day. And then magically they no longer existed. No WMD program links. Saddam was innocent.

Funny how that happens. :lol:
 
also remember the video shot and posted so many times on the media of the overhead of trucks moving ? out and the units noncoms asking the Babylonian hierarchy where they were to go with the so called ?, because they were expecting the EU silly inspector board to show up as the EU had given the unit plenty of warning beforehand, and as a side note isn't it interesting that the EU seemed to give notification well beforehand where they were wanting to go and what they wanted to see.............. ? > do we see a set up here

it doesn't matter as the crap was all wheeled off and we covered this slop years ago on the board and now buried in archival matter
 
It has already been mentioned that even the Pres and his cabinet were not given the full reports
That doesn't make sense. They grabbed every little indication of WMDs to start this war, and now you're telling me that after the war the president wasn't told there were WMDs?
Oh c'mon, the CIA and the Pentagon were behind the Iraq Survey Group. They would have sold their mothers to find WMDs and show the world they were right all along.


Is the EU as a whole a UN member?
That's not the point FlyboyJ, you said the EU was just an economical union on my claim that the EU countries donate more money than the US. Sure, they donate it seperately but the fact remains.


Yeap I was there at the site in Northern Iraq. I have pictures of it somewhere, as well as used anthropene injectors and other evidence of WMD's.
But hey Erich my own eyes were decieving me. It cant be true because someone else says it was not.
So now you're also a scientist and expert on WMDs? Personally, I couldn't be sure something is a WMD if you put it right on my desk. And then I start couphing up blood and my eyes start popping out... ;)


also remember the video shot and posted so many times on the media of the overhead of trucks moving ? out and the units noncoms asking the Babylonian hierarchy where they were to go with the so called ?, because they were expecting the EU silly inspector board to show up as the EU had given the unit plenty of warning beforehand, and as a side note isn't it interesting that the EU seemed to give notification well beforehand where they were wanting to go and what they wanted to see.............. ? > do we see a set up here
Erich, I'm sorry, but I don't understand a word of what you're saying. Well, not quite, the words are ok but I don't understand what you're saying. noncoms, eu, inspector board??

Kris
 
Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. I didn't see him personally do it. Thus can't be true.

Civ, your a broken record. Pfttt-pftt. Pfttt-pftt. Pfttt-pftt.
 
That's not the point FlyboyJ, you said the EU was just an economical union on my claim that the EU countries donate more money than the US. Sure, they donate it seperately but the fact remains.
Collectively they do - but they don't vote as the EU, they vote as individual nations, that's my point.
 
to the above it makes perfect sense if you ready it for what it is worth..........Kris read between the lines as we say, I cannot go deeper nor more clear with specifics

the same applied when we were in Nam and tricky dicky did not know all of what was happening especially on the secret end when we were involved in what we now call stealth operations

to the last item you quote the same applies there was at least 3 different video's channelled chopped, applied for public video amusement, Collin Powell was on hand rather nervously talking via new media from all over the world as to what was happening though he was trying deliberately to cover up the find. It still was a poor show but it was clear enough that it showed movement of weapons systems in stages and I mean broken down into crates and hauled away by trucks with bunker personell trying to receive further orders on where to take their cargo. Panic was in the background and actually the Iraq translators were not translating the script correctly anyway ............... ok enough nomore on this ...............you better keep a more open mind Kris and any others if you doubt what was there and what is still buried
 
Matt and Erich, I'm asking you specific questions. I would appreciate it if you would answer them as I take the effort of replying to your comments. It's not that they are that difficult:
- Matt, can you tell me where you sharia quote comes from?
- Erich, can you rephrase your comment, as I find it difficult to understand?


Collectively they do - but they don't vote as the EU, they vote as individual nations, that's my point.
And you're absolutely right.
But like I said, it was about paying for the UN. So instead of saying the "EU pays more than the US" I should have said "the EU countries collectively pay more than the US". :)

Kris
 
And you're absolutely right.
But like I said, it was about paying for the UN. So instead of saying the "EU pays more than the US" I should have said "the EU countries collectively pay more than the US". :)

Kris


Agree - but that still has little or nothing to do with UN clout if they all vote independantly
 
Agree - but that still has little or nothing to do with UN clout if they all vote independantly
True.
The current situation is not manageable. Although the principle of having about 190 members having their say is a wonderful expression of democracy, it's really too difficult. Not only should the general assembly be modified so it would resemble more of a international parliament, the security council should be reorganized and the veto should have to go. I have often thought about this though it's damn difficult. Not only will one or another member refuse to give up their seat and will another refuse to give up their veto, or both, the other problem is how to have the entire world represented in this security council. And this works directly against the principle of every country equal to eachother.
For instance, I was thinking of having the following members: US, EU, non-EU Europe, Russia, China, Japan/S-Korea, SE-Asia, India, Commonwealth, Arabia, Black Africa, Latin America, Others but it is not perfectly balanced and especially the "others" are difficult to fill in: you'll have countries like Iran, Israel, Mongolia, Pakistan, which don't belong anywhere.
But I'm drifting off...

Kris
 
True.
The current situation is not manageable. Although the principle of having about 190 members having their say is a wonderful expression of democracy, it's really too difficult. Not only should the general assembly be modified so it would resemble more of a international parliament, the security council should be reorganized and the veto should have to go. I have often thought about this though it's damn difficult. Not only will one or another member refuse to give up their seat and will another refuse to give up their veto, or both, the other problem is how to have the entire world represented in this security council. And this works directly against the principle of every country equal to eachother.
For instance, I was thinking of having the following members: US, EU, non-EU Europe, Russia, China, Japan/S-Korea, SE-Asia, India, Commonwealth, Arabia, Black Africa, Latin America, Others but it is not perfectly balanced and especially the "others" are difficult to fill in: you'll have countries like Iran, Israel, Mongolia, Pakistan, which don't belong anywhere.
But I'm drifting off...

Kris

Actually I agree....
 
True.
The current situation is not manageable. Although the principle of having about 190 members having their say is a wonderful expression of democracy, it's really too difficult. Not only should the general assembly be modified so it would resemble more of a international parliament, the security council should be reorganized and the veto should have to go. I have often thought about this though it's damn difficult. Not only will one or another member refuse to give up their seat and will another refuse to give up their veto, or both, the other problem is how to have the entire world represented in this security council. And this works directly against the principle of every country equal to eachother.
For instance, I was thinking of having the following members: US, EU, non-EU Europe, Russia, China, Japan/S-Korea, SE-Asia, India, Commonwealth, Arabia, Black Africa, Latin America, Others but it is not perfectly balanced and especially the "others" are difficult to fill in: you'll have countries like Iran, Israel, Mongolia, Pakistan, which don't belong anywhere.
But I'm drifting off...

Kris

100 % agree also, I have thought about it alot also. It really is near impossible to make work.....but is fun to try and come up with a workable plan.

I would not want to be grouped in with "Commonwealth" either. What do Canadians have in common with UK or any other Commonwealth? I don't really care about UK anymore than any other euro country.

Canada has more in common with USA, Mexico then UK.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back