Coalition forces find chemical weapon facility - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Drbio · 03-24-2003, 12:20 AM

Breaking news on CNN

Evilmav2 · 03-24-2003, 12:33 AM

MSNBC is reporting that we have found materials on two seperate sites...

We also have reports that the footage of dead Americans and POW's that the Iraqi's and bastards of Al Jazeera have been showing all day, feature a couple of Marines with gunshot wounds to the head and stomach- execution style...

We also have reports that those damned fake-surrendering, bushwhacking "fedayeen" caught a pair of Brits in another ambush...

seelenjaeger · 03-24-2003, 09:38 AM

Well, some of those Maintenance Guys were severly wounded, and those interviewed by reporters seemed to be in terror. Most of them came from Texas.

Also, an ITN reporter and his crew died under friendly fire in southern iraq.

Interesting aswell is, that when General Franks was asked about the strategy of lying and disinformation ("two days ago you told us here you´d be in control of Umm-Kasar, yesterday you told us to be in control of Basra, today you tell us that there´s fighting in both areas and you´re still in your schedule of GAINING control soon - won´t you say this is kind of disinformaition&quot

by the allied forces he started telling about Iraqi people soon having supply of fresh water and food ... (what´s that an answer to this question?)

And he was not confirming any information about the Chemical Plant (NOT chemical weapon facility) having ANY chemicals in it. Still, there is NO confirmation of ANY sight of banned weapons or weapons of mass destruction (no atomic, no biological, no chemical, no SCUD) by the US army. So keep the ball low.

Bookit · 03-24-2003, 11:22 AM

<< Well, some of those Maintenance Guys were severly wounded, and those interviewed by reporters seemed to be in terror. Most of them came from Texas.

Also, an ITN reporter and his crew died under friendly fire in southern iraq.

Interesting aswell is, that when General Franks was asked about the strategy of lying and disinformation ("two days ago you told us here you´d be in control of Umm-Kasar, yesterday you told us to be in control of Basra, today you tell us that there´s fighting in both areas and you´re still in your schedule of GAINING control soon - won´t you say this is kind of disinformaition&quot by the allied forces he started telling about Iraqi people soon having supply of fresh water and food ... (what´s that an answer to this question?)

And he was not confirming any information about the Chemical Plant (NOT chemical weapon facility) having ANY chemicals in it. Still, there is NO confirmation of ANY sight of banned weapons or weapons of mass destruction (no atomic, no biological, no chemical, no SCUD) by the US army. So keep the ball low. >>

How un-American can you possibly be? Do you feel love for Saddam?

aexchange · 03-24-2003, 11:55 AM

<< How un-American can you possibly be? Do you feel love for Saddam? >>

SJ is german. I believe.

Dooby · 03-24-2003, 12:02 PM

<<

<< How un-American can you possibly be? Do you feel love for Saddam? >>

SJ is german. I believe. >>

Is that a "Yes"?

Seriously, I don't have a real problem with being against this war. I don't have a real problem with anybody's comments. I personally don't like people who don't know what they are talking about insulting the President.

But it is the glee with which people seem to be rooting for the USA's failure that I have a real big problem with.

Bookit · 03-24-2003, 12:24 PM

But it is the glee with which people seem to be rooting for the USA's failure that I have a real big problem with.

Yes, is he afraid of the US? I don't understand how people can root against a true democracy where everbody is completely free and root for a dictator who could care less about his civilian's welfare. Why are you afraid of the US?

seelenjaeger · 03-24-2003, 12:44 PM

sorry guys, but what actually in the article above was ANTI-american???

Bookit · 03-24-2003, 12:47 PM

<< sorry guys, but what actually in the article above was ANTI-american??? >>

Your whole stance, from the beginning, has had a anti-American bias. Just my opinion.

seelenjaeger · 03-24-2003, 01:02 PM

you know the meaning of the word "paranoia"?

the way your guys have been shown in the media (and the way the war is treated in the media anyways) is unacceptable.

Murphy3 · 03-24-2003, 01:04 PM

sj, i pretty much stay out of these arguments..but what exactly do you mean by that?

LRB · 03-24-2003, 01:15 PM

<< Well, some of those Maintenance Guys were severly wounded, and those interviewed by reporters seemed to be in terror. Most of them came from Texas.

Also, an ITN reporter and his crew died under friendly fire in southern iraq.

Interesting aswell is, that when General Franks was asked about the strategy of lying and disinformation ("two days ago you told us here you´d be in control of Umm-Kasar, yesterday you told us to be in control of Basra, today you tell us that there´s fighting in both areas and you´re still in your schedule of GAINING control soon - won´t you say this is kind of disinformaition&quot by the allied forces he started telling about Iraqi people soon having supply of fresh water and food ... (what´s that an answer to this question?)

And he was not confirming any information about the Chemical Plant (NOT chemical weapon facility) having ANY chemicals in it. Still, there is NO confirmation of ANY sight of banned weapons or weapons of mass destruction (no atomic, no biological, no chemical, no SCUD) by the US army. So keep the ball low. >>

SJ just because some pockets of guerilla like resistance remain does not mean that the area is not secured. By secured we mean that we have the area controled to the degree that the Iraqis cannot offer up any organized resistance nor move any conventional units of any size of consequence into the area. Since this is a war of liberation and not of occupation we are interesting in disarming every single person in the areas that we control. We are attempting to secure strategic objectives and prevent the Saddam regime from using them or destroying them. To the best of my understanding that is exactly what is taking place. It is very easy to misunderstand any of the military's statements when taken out of context. Furthermore it is unreasonable to expect our military not to occasionally make mistakes. They share the very best information that they have at the time. However, even the military commanders are not all knowing. Usually the information is right on. However is a few instances mistakes will be made. If you want to look at a campaign of lying and disinformation check out some Iraqi TV. Or how about some Russian TV, as there is currently being reported that there and Russian advisors in Bagdad helping the Iraqis fight the Coalition forces. Something the Russians have denied as well as selling prohibited weapons to the Iraqis in violation of the UN ban.

Actually the Russian violations are some of the strongest arguments for the war. The UN sanctions were obviously failing since countries like Russia, France, China, and others continued to work around them or out right ignore them. That and the 100 acre secret complex that has been captured that is almost assuredly a WMD complex.

Bookit · 03-24-2003, 01:27 PM

<< you know the meaning of the word "paranoia"?

the way your guys have been shown in the media (and the way the war is treated in the media anyways) is unacceptable. >>

So I ask the question. Why do you feel more comfortable supporting Saddam's regime than supporting the American regime and people? I say the American regime and people because 70% of the US population supports President Bush. What is it about the US that you don't like as compared to Saddam?

seelenjaeger · 03-24-2003, 05:25 PM

Why I do this: because there´s some hope left on my side that not all of you believe in everything they get told by their TV news. That´s why I try to provide another view, another angle every now and then.

Why I am supporting Saddam more than the US: believe me, on every Iraqi message board I´m posting I am very anti-Saddam. For some reason (maybe because I am not linked to Iraqi sites at all, since they cannot offer me anything of interest) there is none. But the very moment I start, be assured I won´t let one-sided posts unanswered.

Why I am critizing the US: because you are on your way to ruining your future and mine, at least in my opinion.

Why do I not shut up? Because I won´t let one-sided and propagandic information spread if there´s more to a story than meets the eye.

Then again - show me where I did support Saddam Hussein please.

Murphy3 · 03-24-2003, 05:28 PM

why do we do what we do?
because if it is up to people with view points similar to the one that you have, nothing will get done and the world will be ruined for everyone.

someone has to step up and eliminate such a ruthless man/family/regime. The U.S. is one of the few that are willing to do so.

sorry, sj, enough sitting around on our asses. it's time to eliminate the problem one step at a time. one way or another, war will come about with the many problems occuring in the middle east/china/north korea and so on.

It's time to be pro active before there's no choice in the matter..before it's all too late.

Murphy3 · 03-24-2003, 05:30 PM

IMO, if we people like SJ were in control of the U.S. for the next 20-40 years, there would be no earth to speak of.

the dangers are that numerous and that horrific

MavKikiNYC · 03-24-2003, 05:39 PM

<< Interesting aswell is, that when General Franks was asked about the strategy of lying and disinformation ("two days ago you told us here you´d be in control of Umm-Kasar, yesterday you told us to be in control of Basra, today you tell us that there´s fighting in both areas and you´re still in your schedule of GAINING control soon - won´t you say this is kind of disinformaition&quot by the allied forces he started telling about Iraqi people soon having supply of fresh water and food ... (what´s that an answer to this question?) >>

You took this as an honest inquiry?

In any case General Franks explained that the U.S. would be in sufficient control of the town of Basra to allow humanitarian aid to begin arriving into the town in as soon as 36 hours. He couldn't have been any clearer or more explicit. Somehow it appears that you missed it and 'interpreted' his response as evasiveness.

Bookit · 03-24-2003, 05:55 PM

Why do I not shut up? Because I won´t let one-sided and propagandic information spread if there´s more to a story than meets the eye.

Then again - show me where I did support Saddam Hussein please.

You appear to support Saddam because we haven't heard a peep from you negatively about Saddam or his regime. We have, however, heard you rip on America for days. How do you feel about Saddam? Do you support America or Saddam? It has to be one or the other. You can't rip both.

seelenjaeger · 03-24-2003, 06:58 PM

I support justice, and justice cannot be brought by self-justice.

There are ways to supply justice, and breaking laws and rules is not one of them.

And there have been various occasions where I showed my opinion about the Saddam-regime.

Saddam Hussein is a dictator, who came to power by making deals with several national and international forces, one of them has been the CIA (and this is one of the main reasons why I am calling for double standards all the time).

Although most of his war crimes and attacks on his own people occured in the 1980´s, a time when he was of great use for some European countries economically and for the US to keep Iran in check, he is going to be punished now, because of some diplomatical failures and some events that are not necessarily direcly linked to Saddam Hussein. Therefore, I do not accept the point that he has to be punished for killing his own people, since he is not nearly as brutal as he was when he was your ally. If he should have been punished, it should have been back then, not now. Does that lift any guilt of his shoulders? Of course not. Is it worth the suffering that is delivered on the people in Iraq? Imho not.

About the deliberation of the suppressed Iraqi people.
You´re trying to deliberate a great number of shiitic moslems. The same group of moslems who supported you during the Gulf War and tried to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but were left alone and suffered SEVERE problems because of their courage to be on your side. They don´t trust you anymore, and that´s one of the reasons you cannot take Southern Iraq as quick as planned. And they are the same people who appear quite high on your foe´s list, because Iran has also quite alot Shiitic moslem.
You´re trying to deliberate a great number of Kurdish. The same Kurdish, who get suppressed by your ally Turkey, and the same Kurds who have one of the most radical and dangereous European Terroristic Groups, the PKK. Until you grant those Kurdish people an own state, which will not be supported by any Arab state, those Kurdish might become the Palestinians of the 21st century. Those Kurdish people are not an Iraqi problem, but their situation is a problem to be solved involving ALL arabian folks.
And you´re trying to deliberate the minority of Sunnit moslems. Saddam Hussein is from this folk, and since they are a minority, the may fear genocide attacks from the other two major groups once you leave.

What I hink about Saddam Hussein and the Iraq - Saddam Hussein has created a regime of fear and horror, which is able to control the powers and tensions between those groups. They control it by force, as a dictatorship usually does it, and that´s inacceptable.

Still, blowing this system up by force may, maybe will, lead to situations like those in Bosnia, Serbia and Macedonia after Yugoslavia broke up, with countries around like Turkey, who are eager to get their share of the oil.

In Addition, the arabic peninsula is not, and nowhere, based on democracy (the lonely democracy which was there once got overthrown with the help of the CIA to install the Shah again - I´m speaking of Iran, which once was a religious based, young and fragile democracy long ago). It´s a very complex system of Emirates, and I doubt that this change towards a democratic structure can be achieved without severe cultural and economical changes, which will cahnge the surface, both politically as economically, of the WHOLE arab peninsula. The risk you´re taking by forcing a democratic structure down there is the aggressive destabilization of the whole arab world. This might backfire.

Do I agree that there was a need to do something about Saddam Hussein?

Depends. You claimed he has weapons of mass-destrucion and connections to international terrorism. Answer: destroy his weapons, and use his connections to get control of his terrorists. The UN weapons inspectors are a powerful tool (thanks to your effort), and could have accomplished the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein if they would have been provided with intelligence information you claim but fail to prove to have. Why didn´t you use your intelligence and surveillance data - which you claim to be precise enough to locate Saddam Hussein in Bagdad on A-Day - to get hold of the terrorists outside of Iraq? Wouldn´t that be a far more useful tool for you, if you were able to get all those data about terrorists around the world by simply watching one guy? If Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were or are linked, is there a better way to get Osama than to catch him on the phone with Saddam?

So what would I have done?

Established a solid environment to get hold of any Iraqi weapons program by using the UN and their powerful tools to solve the situation.

Focus on both the Israel - Palestina and North Corea - South Corea conflicts to find solutions for those smoking gunpowder magazines, instead of building up an own. You´re currently building up enemies in the Arab world, and you´re losing ground with your friends, and all that for removing and old, unpopular dictator like Saddam Hussein, who would die by himself sooner or later? There is no justice for what he has done one way or another, is he really worth the effort, and, since I expect a yes, is this effort not a bit late?

Drbio · 03-24-2003, 08:22 PM

What a crock of shit.

LRB · 03-25-2003, 12:18 AM

<< What a crock of shit. >>

ditto

Morisson · 03-25-2003, 03:45 AM

<<

<< What a crock of shit. >>

ditto >>

See and that's exactly the problem with you guys. You don't have a clue what's going on. Everything SJ posted were historical facts (btw he is right) and logical arguments and everything you answered can be seen above. You're absolutly not opened to any kind of arguments against your extremely one-dimensional point of view.

Where does this come from? I'm pretty sure it's because of the information politics of the U.S. government. They only show information they want to show to make people think that war is some sort of a Playstation game. You can also see that on threads like "Amazing Iraq photo" by Drbio. But believe me it's not!!! A lot of soldiers from the operation Desert Storm back in 1991 still suffers the consequences of this war. It will be the same this time. Not even mentioned the many people who will die in this conflict.

Don't get me wrong I'm definatly do not support the regime of Saddam but we were on the best way to accomplish the UN resolution and disarm the Iraqi. Anyway the USA decided against the will of the UN to start this war. That is what I convict. What kind of attitute is that to believe "everybody who is not with us - is against us"? It's absolutely possible to convict Saddams regime and still be against the war!

LRB · 03-25-2003, 04:05 AM

And yet another propaganda statement.

Morisson · 03-25-2003, 04:39 AM

<< And yet another propaganda statement. >>

Seems to be your standard argument. Maybe you only see what you wanna see. Please don't be that narrow minded.

OzMavs · 03-25-2003, 05:44 AM

SJ. I understand what you are saying, but I believe the point of view we come from is totally different.

Sure, we should have got Saddam earlier. He should not have become the problem he is. Everything is easier in hindsight. The fact is, since September 11, 2001, the world is different. Its not paranoia, its reality. Where we might have settled for the machinations of the UN previously, I don't believe they could provide the necessary assurance that Saddam could be satisfactorily disarmed. The games he was playing were always one step ahead of the UN. He was laughing in their faces.

The UN could not bring about regime change. Its not their job. I believe that Saddam's sons were next in line and where would that leave us? Back where we started. I am betting the lone reason that Saddam Hussein was co-operating with the weapons inspectors was because Bush and Blair were threatening war.

12 years was far too long to leave action in Iraq, agreed. But if we continued to sit on our hands and rely on the UN weapons inspectors, I am convinced that there would come a time when it would absolutely be too late.

Usually Lurkin · 03-25-2003, 08:01 AM

SJ, let me see if I understand your arguments:

<< I support justice, and justice cannot be brought by self-justice. >>

-When noone will stand for justice, anyone who can refer to themselves as 'self' should what, lie down and take one for the unjust?

about the US history with Hussein:
-Because the peaceful influence didn't work (he got worse), because the peaceful sanctions didn't work (he has not followed UN sanctions), we should what, give him another chance?
-Because the world made a mistake before by not forcing him out of power, we should make the same mistake again?

About Democracy in the area:
-You're saying because something hasn't been there, it's to risky to try to help build it there. Count how many democratic states there were in the world 100 years ago. 50 years ago. 25 years ago. Just because there has been no democracy in an area does not mean there can't be.

About the risks involved:
-You're saying it's better to assume the risks of leaving evil in power than to assume the risks of removing evil from power.

About the use of US intelligence:
-Because the intelligence is not 100% complete 24hours aday, the US is wrong to use it when it is reliable?

About the powerful tools of the UN:
-?????

p.s. I think you mean 'liberating', not 'deliberating'. Though I would say the Allied forces are liberating as deliberately as possible [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Epitome22 · 03-25-2003, 09:16 AM

Evidence of Iraq Weapons Remains Elusive
1 hour, 59 minutes ago

-

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

In months of allegation and investigation on the way to war, no firm evidence emerged that Iraq (news - web sites) held weapons of mass destruction. Now it is up to the U.S. invasion force to find such weapons — if they exist.

Coalition commander Gen. Tommy Franks said Monday nothing conclusive has been uncovered thus far, but the U.S. military said it was investigating a chemical plant seized in southern Iraq's Najaf area as a "site of interest."

"It could be difficult to find ... this stuff," Pentagon (news - web sites) spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said a day earlier.

The U.S. and British accusations that Baghdad was hiding chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs were the reason most commonly cited by Washington for attacking Iraq. The credibility of those claims was undercut, however, by disclosures of forgery and misrepresentation underlying some of them, and by the failure of U.S. intelligence reports to lead U.N. inspectors to any important finds.

If U.S. units now quickly report uncovering concealed arms programs, critics may question the authenticity of the reports or suggest that intelligence had been kept from the U.N. inspectors — and ask why.

If few such weapons are found, the war's very premise will come under question.

"I think that we probably have received several . . . bits of information over the last three or four days about potential WMD (weapons of mass destruction) locations," Franks said Monday.

British troops have found what was described as "suspected" Scud missiles and warheads in a chemical factory at Damaniyah, south of Basra, according to a British press pool report. Experts have been called in to determine what is in the warheads.

Skepticism about U.S.-British claims could be heard in last week's resignation of House of Commons leader Robin Cook from the British Cabinet to protest London's support of U.S. war plans.

"Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term, namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target," said Cook, who had access to high-level British information.

In the U.S. Congress, meanwhile, the disclosure that another U.S. allegation in the nuclear area was based on a forged document led Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D.-W.Va., to ask the FBI (news - web sites) to investigate whether a "larger deception campaign" on Iraq was under way.

For months, officials of the U.S. administration have asserted Iraq maintains stocks of such prohibited arms. In his television address two days before launching the invasion, Bush said U.S. troops would enter Iraq "to eliminate weapons of mass destruction."

A day earlier, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) claimed on a TV talk show the Iraqis have "reconstituted nuclear weapons" — an assertion no specialist has supported. Chief nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council on March 7: "We have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program."

Those inspections have now halted. But the on-again, off-again U.N. disarmament effort accomplished much after Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).

The bulk of Baghdad's old chemical and biological weapons was certified by U.N. inspectors to have been destroyed in the 1990s, and the teams that returned to Iraq last November were pressing the Iraqis for documents and witnesses to clear up discrepancies and certify destruction of the remainder.

Iraq's uranium-based nuclear program of the 1980s, which never produced a weapon, was dismantled by the U.N. nuclear agency in the early 1990s. ElBaradei's inspectors were in Iraq to guard against any resurrection of the nuclear work.

Gaps and discrepancies in the record — combined with known Iraqi efforts a decade ago to conceal weapons programs — were the basis for U.S. allegations that, for example, the Iraqis today might retain as much as 500 tons of chemical agents or 25,000 liters of anthrax. The Iraqis claim to have destroyed it all.

On the nuclear side, meanwhile, a U.S. State Department report in December alleged that Iraq had secretly tried to import uranium from the African nation of Niger, an assertion repeated in Bush's State of the Union address.

Earlier this month, however, ElBaradei reported that the basis for the allegation — said to be a Niger government document — was a forgery.

Another element in the U.S. nuclear allegations also came under questioning. Last September, the Bush administration leaked information about Iraqi purchase orders for aluminum tubes, which they said appeared intended for gas centrifuges that enrich uranium for bombs.

In his Security Council report on March 7, ElBaradei said his experts had determined it "highly unlikely" the tubes were for nuclear weapons work. Powell persisted, saying two days later that new information "indicated the tubes were meant for centrifuges." But in an Associated Press interview on March 13, ElBaradei said, "We have this information and it doesn't change our assessment."

Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, the British government issued a dossier Feb. 3 on Iraq's "infrastructure of concealment," a paper praised by Powell in his own indictment of Iraq before the Security Council two days later. But the British dossier was subsequently determined to have been lifted in large part from published articles and a researcher's paper — not from fresh intelligence.

Powell's UN presentation was densely detailed, speculating on the meaning of satellite photos, audio intercepts and other, unattributed information. But his claims drew a rebuff from Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector. Among other things, Blix said that a satellite photo the American secretary contended showed movement of proscribed munitions "could just as easily have been a routine activity."

By the time of his next report, March 7, Blix was referring to such U.S. statements as "contentions" and "claims."

Two months after U.S. officials said they had begun providing "significant" intelligence to the inspectors, Blix told the council he was still awaiting "high-quality information." He said no evidence had emerged to support U.S. contentions Iraq was producing chemical or biological weapons underground or in mobile laboratories.

The inspectors, privately, disparaged the "leads" they were receiving from the U.S. government.

After more than 700 surprise inspections at hundreds of sites since November, the U.N. teams had compiled a short list of proscribed items found: fewer than 20 old, empty chemical warheads for battlefield rockets, and a dozen artillery shells filled with mustard gas — shells tagged by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s but somehow not destroyed by them.

Now, with the inspectors gone, it will fall to U.S. military forces to locate any secret weapons programs and to convince the world they're the real thing.

Usually Lurkin · 03-25-2003, 09:51 AM

no doubt it will not be good for the US if the world remains unconvinced that Iraq has had WMD.

but of all the things in this article that might fuel a theory of mistrust and conspiricies, this stands out most of all:

<< a dozen artillery shells filled with mustard gas — shells tagged by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s but somehow not destroyed by them >>

what's that all about? Isn't Iraq on the global disarmament committee, or something like that?

Drbio · 03-25-2003, 11:44 AM

Morrison is a propaganda panda. He calls you narrowminded because you do not agree with his drivel.

Stay the course LRB. The righteous shall endure.

Murphy3 · 03-25-2003, 11:57 AM

It's Morisson, not Morrison

Mavdog · 03-25-2003, 01:30 PM

Just so you know, here's the latest on this suspected site. From the Jersusalem Post whose reporter below first broke the story:

Mar. 25, 2003
Weapons found at suspect site; no chemicals
By CAROLINE GLICK

In an inspection Tuesday of a military complex captured by US troops in the Iraqi town of Najaf, Army officials found no evidence of chemical agents to support suspicions that the plant was producing or storing illegal nonconventional weapons.

The monitors did find an ample store of conventional weapons, including mortars, artillery shells and anti-aircraft guns at the heavily fortified and camouflaged facility, Lt. Robert Anspaugh, the head of the inspection team, said.

Anspaugh said that his Site Survey Team 4 examined a sample of five out of about 100 bunkers at the complex that was captured Sunday by soldiers of the Third Infantry Division, near the town some 150 kms. (90 miles) south of Baghdad.

"In the bunkers we looked at, we did not find positive hints," of any chemical or nuclear agents, Anspaugh said. "We did not get indicators that there are any WMD (weapons of mass destruction) at the site right now. However, we only saw a small part."

Anspaugh said he could not rule out the possiblity that further sampling of the site would be done, once a laboratory analysis was conducted on his findings.

He added that no matter what their findings, only President George Bush or Prime Minister Tony Blair would be authorized to announce whether a site in Iraq was indeed found to contain weapons of mass destruction.

When the 100-acre Najaf complex was captured on Sunday, US officials described the site as a suspected chemical weapons plant, but stressed that this judgment was pending an inspection of the grounds.

Nellie · 03-25-2003, 04:37 PM

I just found this thread today and I am absolutely amazed. One thing that this war has brought out is the amount of irrational people that chose to only observe what they want and think completely inside the box rather than on a global scale. It baffles me that people like SJ don't even realize they are in danger and that the future is riding on everything that is happening right this very second. Thank God for America and the UK, cause we seem to be the ONLY people that can see the writing on the wall.

SJ, maybe we should have let Hitler finish his plans huh?

Pathetic.

LRB · 03-25-2003, 04:52 PM

<<

<< And yet another propaganda statement. >>

Seems to be your standard argument. Maybe you only see what you wanna see. Please don't be that narrow minded. >>

Morisson you call everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion narrow minded. It is you who has the narrow mind. All you have posted is pure and simple propaganda drivel.

soulscape · 03-25-2003, 08:15 PM

LRB, it's kinda ridiculous to call other peoples talk propaganda when Mavdog just caught you spreading propaganda yourself...

BTW you guys lack any sense of discussion, you just call other peoples opinions propaganda and rants and stuff while your opinion is just so ridicously one sided and biased.
I guess you are beyond the point where you realise just how ridiculous your talk is.

Drbio · 03-25-2003, 08:17 PM

yet another meaningless contribution.

murph- thanks. Did you get a job as an English teacher? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

LRB · 03-25-2003, 08:23 PM

<< LRB, it's kinda ridiculous to call other peoples talk propaganda when Mavdog just caught you spreading propaganda yourself...

BTW you guys lack any sense of discussion, you just call other peoples opinions propaganda and rants and stuff while your opinion is just so ridicously one sided and biased.
I guess you are beyond the point where you realise just how ridiculous your talk is. >>

`

Soulscape thankyou for your totally ridiculous contribution to the propaganda on this thread. Nice job of attempting to pass opinion as fact as well. Maybe you should contact Michael Moore for a part in his next movie.

Morisson · 03-26-2003, 05:57 AM

<<

<< LRB, it's kinda ridiculous to call other peoples talk propaganda when Mavdog just caught you spreading propaganda yourself...

BTW you guys lack any sense of discussion, you just call other peoples opinions propaganda and rants and stuff while your opinion is just so ridicously one sided and biased.
I guess you are beyond the point where you realise just how ridiculous your talk is. >>

`

Soulscape thankyou for your totally ridiculous contribution to the propaganda on this thread. Nice job of attempting to pass opinion as fact as well. Maybe you should contact Michael Moore for a part in his next movie. >>

Oh well, where to start? LRB and Drbio you call my posts propaganda. Please explain? I think I'm well informed about many aspects of this situation. I get my information mostly from the internet (both American and European sites) and watch German TV as well as CNN Europe. Only uninformed people fall for propaganda and I'm NOT!!! Btw have you ever watched German TV news or read a German internet site to call it propaganda? I guess not.

To strengthen the argument that many Gulf War (1991) veterans suffer consequences because of the usage of Depleted Uranium shells see blow URL. If you support war you have to deal with all the consequences as well. Here are the facts:

Uranium Medical Research Centre

For the historical facts Seelen brought up please check your history books or ask your history teacher (if you guys ever had one)!

My opinion that the U.S. overlooked the will of the UN doesn't need explantion. Everybody knows that! U.S. diplomacy just has failed. Why is there a UN if the USA (in the main part) can do whatever they want without international permission? That behavior is breaking international agreements and therefore so many people complain about this war!

Drbio · 03-26-2003, 10:29 AM

yet another ignorant and totally worthless non-contribution.

LRB · 03-26-2003, 10:31 AM

And yet more propaganda by Morisson. Thanks for contributing to Global Warming with your hot air.

BTW Morisson I really don't care if you read every site on the interent and watch every news channel. Goodie for you. Collect you gold star and go home. I'm sure the Iraqis watch even more than you and read even more sites than you and it doesn't prevent them from spreading blatant propaganda. Your source of news doesn't preclude you from spreading propaganda.

But thanks again for spreading your personal conclusions and political beliefs as facts. Maybe you can apply for a job with the Iraqi Information Ministry. Better hurry though because they won't be around for long.

DwD · 03-26-2003, 01:33 PM

Ok, first of all, US was trying to actually enforce the resolutions that the UN has passed, but is spineless to do anything about. Sadam voluntarily agreed to do a bunch of things in 91 as part of the cease-fire agreement with the US and UN, every word of which he has broken. When the US tried to pass a resolution that would set firm deadlines for Saddam's disarmament, France and Russia vowed to veto it in the Security Council.

Want more facts? Check this out -
3000 Chemical suits found in Iraqi hospital

Top Ten Myths about the war on Iraq