or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › We may have Iraq's WMDs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

We may have Iraq's WMDs

post #1 of 120
Thread Starter 
Allah pundit continues to update this interesting story. 500 Chemical Shells!?!




http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/...hells-in-iraq/
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #2 of 120
Mummy, make the funny man go away.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #3 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Mummy, make the funny man go away.....

You mean, like, vanish from the pages of AppleInsider or something?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #4 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
You mean, like, vanish from the pages of AppleInsider or something?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #5 of 120
Actually, we should treat his with respect.

If they have possibly found WMDs then it behooves each and every one of us to stand up and take notice in a solemn and respectful fashion.....

No, I can't, sorry - it's just a tad too lame and pathetic - the dignified and sensible thing for Mr Pundit to do would be just to ignore it and hope it goes away - but no.....

You see, the extreme wing-nut capacity for not being able to recognize something is true even if it falls on your head with the combined force of a grand piano with a 400 lb gorilla hammering at the keys, is a double-edged sword.

It's handy when it is necessary to ignore facts that are inconvenient but when faced with a truth that is already accepted by the huddled masses - especially when they are brainwashed sheep who are already well past the point of being fully conditioned - it just makes you look like a gibbering lunatic who having survived a full-frontal lobotomy is now subsisting purely on a diet of crystal-meth and Fox News.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #6 of 120
the top two stories i see on google news when searching for santorum are: "DOD Disavows Santorum's WMD Claims" and "Santorum Recycles Bogus Iraq WMD Claims". As far as I'm concerned, Santorum doesn't have any respect left; not that I had all that much for 'im b'fore.
post #7 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
You mean, like, vanish from the pages of AppleInsider or something?


Moe's already done that if you'll recall.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #8 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
Allah pundit continues to update this interesting story. 500 Chemical Shells!?!




http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/...hells-in-iraq/


Hmmmm? I just don't seem to find this on any real news sites. Funny as this would be big news.

But then again look at the name of the site.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #9 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Mummy, make the funny man go away.....


Wasn't Moe 16 or something? Of course with him who can tell what's true?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #10 of 120
Did the pundit ever consider the idea that they may have been planted there in order to scew public opinion about the war?
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #11 of 120
They're PRE-1991 shells.

F*cktards!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #12 of 120
What's the limit for laughing faces??? I tried too many I guess. This is absurdly pathetic.
post #13 of 120
The mustard gas and sarin shells were pre-1991 without a doubt. They had decayed to the point of being completely useless as a weapon .... ie..

Quote:
"no more dangerous than the chemicals found under most household sinks".

The Iraqi insurgents had no idea where these materials were anyway... and even if they did, they were of no use to anyone.

It would be interesting to see the lot numbers on these old shells. I wonder which company sold them to Saddam Hussein's military in the first place? Wanna bet it was one of Donald Rumsfeld's buddies' defense contractors?

What a farce.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #14 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
The mustard gas and sarin shells were pre-1991 without a doubt. They had decayed to the point of being completely useless as a weapon .... ie..



The Iraqi insurgents had no idea where these materials were anyway... and even if they did, they were of no use to anyone.

It would be interesting to see the lot numbers on these old shells. I wonder which company sold them to Saddam Hussein's military in the first place? Wanna bet it was one of Donald Rumsfeld's buddies' defense contractors?

What a farce.

No WMD.

No delivery system.

The inspectors said they weren't there.

No real threat.

" What a farce. "

Kind of like the whole invasion huh?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #15 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
the top two stories i see on google news when searching for santorum are: "DOD Disavows Santorum's WMD Claims" and "Santorum Recycles Bogus Iraq WMD Claims". As far as I'm concerned, Santorum doesn't have any respect left; not that I had all that much for 'im b'fore.

I'm begging you, do another google search, and this time just search for "santorum" and go to the top hit.

Sadly it hasn't been updated in a very long time, but it still entertains me.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #16 of 120
I just heard about this yesterday.

In any case,The DOD has confirmed that 500 shells have been found with traces of mustard gas, possibly other agents. They have said the agents were degraded and some reports suggest the shells were in poor condition and could not be used in March of 2003. According to what I've read, the US believes more shells will be found.

On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said: Saddam was required to verifiably destroy and account for all of his chemical weapons under multiple UN resolutions. It is clear he did not do that.

Now that said, it's still clear the intelligence was wrong on the immediate threat that Saddam posed with these weapons, seeing as these weapons were apparently not in condition to be launched.

In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #17 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
[B]I just heard about this yesterday.

In any case,The DOD has confirmed that 500 shells have been found with traces of mustard gas, possibly other agents. They have said the agents were degraded and some reports suggest the shells were in poor condition and could not be used in March of 2003. According to what I've read, the US believes more shells will be found.

Of course it is likely that more old shells will be found. They are scattered all over Iraq, but as (a) they are useless and (b) the records of their whereabouts have been missing since 1991, even to the pro-Saddam Baathist contingent of the insurgency, and (c) nobody is actively searching for them, these chance discoveries will crop up from time to time when coalition forces stumble upon them during unrelated activities.

Quote:
On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said: Saddam was required to verifiably destroy and account for all of his chemical weapons under multiple UN resolutions. It is clear he did not do that.

As far as Saddam Hussein was concerned, he ordered all chemical and bio weapons to be destroyed in 1991 after Gulf War 1. That country was in total chaos after that war and for awhile it wasn't certain who would take the reins of power, until Bush Sr. sided with Saddam to brutally squash the postwar Shiite uprising. The custody, security, records and known whereabouts of any residual chemical weapons were largely unknown quantities, hence these occasional discoveries.

Quote:
Now that said, it's still clear the intelligence was wrong on the immediate threat that Saddam posed with these weapons, seeing as these weapons were apparently not in condition to be launched.

That is only partially true: The intelligence was bad on the remaining highly degraded shells that are showing up on a random basis since the invasion. The intelligence was very good regarding the fact that Saddam destroyed Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stocks in 1991, but unfortunately, that particular intelligence was inconvenient to the parties who had been aching to go to war, so the "intelligence" they eventually went along with was manufactured, bogus, and fiction. Recall Saddam's pilotless drones about to spray US cities with Sarin pushed relentlessly by Fox etc., causing that run on plastic sheeting and duct tape? Or the endless statements repeated ad nauseam by our weasel-media such as:
* "Iraq has mobile biological weapons labs" or
* "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program", or
* "Iraq can launch chemical weapons 45 minutes from the order being given", or
* "Iraq is using highly pure aluminum tubes to use in its Uranium enrichment program", or
* "Iraq has been acquiring uranium ore from Niger for its nuclear weapons program" or
* Saddam Hussein/Iraq was linked with Al Qaida
etc.

This crap was being presented to the US people as if gospel truth, and it scared those people who were unaware of what was going on over there (ie the majority of the US public), to the point of supporting the war when the invasion was finally launched. It is understandable. Most people, if they werent aware of the reality, woul;d be justifiably scared by such statements; I recall 70%+ of the US population were conned into believing the war was conducted to protect our national security. Now if a genuinely dodgy situation comes about in the future and some truly dangerous ideolog took a run at power, would we still have trust in the powers-that-be, after their appalling track record of serial lies?

Quote:
In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.

That is probably true also. There are still some folks around who still believe the war was fought because of WMDs, no matter what the evidence, or lack of it.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #18 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
There are still some folks around who still believe the war was fought because of WMDs, no matter what the evidence, or lack of it.

Heck, there's probably a good 30% who still think Saddam was behind 9/11 (never having recovered any sense of reality after the very dedicated effort by the Republican noise machine to plant the idea, while never actually saying it).

Who knows how many of that 30% even know there's a difference between Saddam, bin Laden, and any other "ay-rab"?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #19 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I just heard about this yesterday.

In any case,The DOD has confirmed that 500 shells have been found with traces of mustard gas, possibly other agents. They have said the agents were degraded and some reports suggest the shells were in poor condition and could not be used in March of 2003. According to what I've read, the US believes more shells will be found.

On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said: Saddam was required to verifiably destroy and account for all of his chemical weapons under multiple UN resolutions. It is clear he did not do that.

Now that said, it's still clear the intelligence was wrong on the immediate threat that Saddam posed with these weapons, seeing as these weapons were apparently not in condition to be launched.

In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.

I know this guy in Montana who tells me that he got drunk with Saddam once and that Saddam told him that he had reconstituted his nuclear program and had drones that could deliver nerve gas to Chicago.

On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said, Saddam obviously would have loved to be able to deliver nerve gas in drones to Chicago and we should never forget that.

Now, that said, it's clear that the intelligence that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program and had drones was wrong, seeing as he wasn't and didn't.

In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #20 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Heck, there's probably a good 30% who still think Saddam was behind 9/11 (never having recovered any sense of reality after the very dedicated effort by the Republican noise machine to plant the idea, while never actually saying it).

Who knows how many of that 30% even know there's a difference between Saddam, bin Laden, and any other "ay-rab"?

In a poll taken earlier this year (!!!)... http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075 some 90% of US troops stationed in Iraq are under the impression that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were behind the 9-11 attacks. (!!!!!!!!!) If they knew the truth, I think we would see much more discontent within the ranks, as they would then be aware there is no valid reason why they are risking their lives, apart from making certain corporate entities close to this adminsitration extremely wealthy, extremely quickly.

2517 US soldiers have died for the corporate welfare crooks, so far.



EDITED for link, and corrected percentage
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #21 of 120
These weapons are so old they belong in a museum:
Declassified report

Strangely before elections terror activity and "success" stories seem to increase in frequency.
Turn on that spin machine.

Latest news from the white house, saddam is married to a man!!! Must kill him!!!!!
post #22 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
The mustard gas and sarin shells were pre-1991 without a doubt. They had decayed to the point of being completely useless as a weapon

This sort of artillery weren't very useful as weapons pre-1991 in the first place. So, one can say they were useless pre-1991 too. Chemical munitions aren't really good weapons (offensive or defensive), otherwise we'd have them in the arsenal.

The so called Weapons of Mass Destruction was in of itself just convenient and powerful political and media rhetoric absent any realism in the days leading up to the war and continues to this day.

Quote:
What a farce.

Yeah. For some, believing in the myth is easier than accepting the truth.
post #23 of 120
Hey, Moe! This is your thread. Are you going to respond at all to any of the other posts?

post #24 of 120
There was a special news program in Japan earlier this year wherein they had traced various shells (chemical and not) that Iraq had purchased from, wow, the US during the Iran-Iraq war (can't remember what sources they had, but they did have various documents). I'll bet the CIA was supporting Iraq over Iran, just like they supported the Taliban against the Soviets (remember the Taliban even visited the US?). It's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend until I have no more need for him or people find out how crappy he really is" dance.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #25 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I just heard about this yesterday.

In any case,The DOD has confirmed that 500 shells have been found with traces of mustard gas, possibly other agents. They have said the agents were degraded and some reports suggest the shells were in poor condition and could not be used in March of 2003. According to what I've read, the US believes more shells will be found.

On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said: Saddam was required to verifiably destroy and account for all of his chemical weapons under multiple UN resolutions. It is clear he did not do that.

Now that said, it's still clear the intelligence was wrong on the immediate threat that Saddam posed with these weapons, seeing as these weapons were apparently not in condition to be launched.

In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.


Oh I think there's a real story here. That being that there was no real reason for this war. Quit trying to play this down as it kind of underscores the fact that this war was started under false pretenses.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #26 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I know this guy in Montana who tells me that he got drunk with Saddam once and that Saddam told him that he had reconstituted his nuclear program and had drones that could deliver nerve gas to Chicago.

On the surface, this is a slam dunk for neither side of the debate. That said, Saddam obviously would have loved to be able to deliver nerve gas in drones to Chicago and we should never forget that.

Now, that said, it's clear that the intelligence that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program and had drones was wrong, seeing as he wasn't and didn't.

In the end this is kind of a non-story. It won't change anyone's perceptions of the war at this point.

Stop being an ass. Tell me what is unreasonable about my post.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #27 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Stop being an ass. Tell me what is unreasonable about my post.


Stop calling people names and post something real.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #28 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Oh I think there's a real story here. That being that there was no real reason for this war.

That may have been a "story" three years ago, but now? Everyone knows this already. Some just don't like to face it.

(Of course, there arguably never is "a real reason for a war".)
post #29 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
That may have been a "story" three years ago, but now? Everyone knows this already. Some just don't like to face it.

(Of course, there arguably never is "a real reason for a war".)

Yes but some ( no names please ) stupidly continue to talk like it is still viable and justifiable. They also still think that we'll still find those WMD just over the next sand dune. This war was sold on the idea that there was a threat. It never would have gotten off the ground without that element. As for changing the reason after the fact well it's logic doesn't hold up either and is just as silly. Now that we know the original reason ( excuse ) didn't exist we should get out as soon as possible.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #30 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Stop being an ass. Tell me what is unreasonable about my post.

It's predicated on the notion that there is a "debate" over WMD in Iraq and that shells scattered here and there from the Iran-Iraq war speak to Saddam's compliance with UN mandates, but that you're magnanimously choosing to be "balanced" by finding that this report is not a "slam dunk" for "either side" and actually a "non-story" (but again, only after making a completely false statement about what the "non-story" means).

In the real world there is no debate, and these shells have nothing to do with Saddam's compliance or lack thereof.

Saying this is not a slam dunk for either side is like saying that finding evidence that there was confusion in the chain of command is not a "slam dunk" for "either side' of the "who bombed Pearl Harbor" "debate", and declaring same a "non-story" while insisting that we take due note of certain irregularities in Allied radio communications that day.

In other words, true as far as it goes but bizarrely, pointedly disingenuous.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #31 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
Allah pundit continues to update this interesting story. 500 Chemical Shells!?!

Are you some sort of propaganda plant that spreads his retarded stories of Right Wing glory across the more liberal sites? Because dude even the most retarded of us can see that this administration has seized power and is vastly becoming the 4th Reich. Just stop it, leave some boards as free zones, PLEASE!
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #32 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
In a poll taken earlier this year (!!!)... http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075 some 90% of US troops stationed in Iraq are under the impression that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were behind the 9-11 attacks. (!!!!!!!!!)

The most believable explanation at this point would be that there was something wrong with the poll.

If the poll were accurate, those 90% would be the worst kind of morons: ones who do not even *care* to know. This stuff has been all over media, there is no excuse for not knowing.
post #33 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Chemical munitions aren't really good weapons (offensive or defensive), otherwise we'd have them in the arsenal.



I had some chemical weapon training just weeks ago and I left with the impression they are very good weapons.

It says something that nerve gas development slowed down after VX was invented in the 50's because it was deemed so lethal that any more potent substance would be functionally equivalent. The early-1900's mustard gas is very good, too. Even if these things never got through to your skin, it would still drop your fighting efficiency for at least 20% just because you have to wear the protective gear. This figure is for well-trained and motivated troops. If you have less than stellar troops and they get partial to full exposure, there is no way they can fight.

Anyway, I thought you were from the US who do have a chemical weapon arsenal.
http://www.cma.army.mil/home.aspx
post #34 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Gon
The most believable explanation at this point would be that there was something wrong with the poll.

If the poll were accurate, those 90% would be the worst kind of morons: ones who do not even *care* to know. This stuff has been all over media, there is no excuse for not knowing.

Not only is the poll inaccurate but it is appalling that these lies are even spewed. It should have been obvious, the poll was conducted by John Zogby an administration cheerleader. Remember all those skewed public opinion polls in 2000 whither or not there should be judicial intervention in the Gore vs. Bush dilemma, Zogby lead that the pack with it's obvious Bush won so let's get on with our lives crap (look the polls show it).
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #35 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Relic
Because dude even the most retarded of us can see that this administration has seized power and is vastly becoming the 4th Reich.

I think that's pushing it.

Enjoy this quiz, though.
post #36 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
I think that's pushing it.

Enjoy this quiz, though.

Yes I've seen that pretty strange/funny. I know it's pushing it with the Hitler innuendo but you have to wonder what Bush's ultimate goal is. Whatever it is it's definitely not in our best interests, this administration has done NULL/NADA/ZERO for the good of his people.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #37 of 120
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #38 of 120
Enjoyed the 'test'. I missed two answers by attributing them to Ann Coulter. Not sure that this means anything of importance other than I might understand Hilter's motivations better than AC's, but I have only heard her rant for a couple of minutes on TV.

I wonder how the "Bush is a Nazi crowd" will score?

Round 1 scores at 11:00!

Paz
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
post #39 of 120
I only got 3 wrong.
post #40 of 120
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
It\\\\\\'s predicated on the notion that there is a \\\\\\"debate\\\\\\" over WMD in Iraq and that shells scattered here and there from the Iran-Iraq war speak to Saddam\\\\\\'s compliance with UN mandates, but that you\\\\\\'re magnanimously choosing to be \\\\\\"balanced\\\\\\" by finding that this report is not a \\\\\\"slam dunk\\\\\\" for \\\\\\"either side\\\\\\" and actually a \\\\\\"non-story\\\\\\" (but again, only after making a completely false statement about what the \\\\\\"non-story\\\\\\" means).

In the real world there is no debate, and these shells have nothing to do with Saddam\\\\\\'s compliance or lack thereof.

Saying this is not a slam dunk for either side is like saying that finding evidence that there was confusion in the chain of command is not a \\\\\\"slam dunk\\\\\\" for \\\\\\"either side\\\\\\' of the \\\\\\"who bombed Pearl Harbor\\\\\\" \\\\\\"debate\\\\\\", and declaring same a \\\\\\"non-story\\\\\\" while insisting that we take due note of certain irregularities in Allied radio communications that day.

In other words, true as far as it goes but bizarrely, pointedly disingenuous.


The debate has always been who would you rather be cheering for. I wont be surprised to find out that in the fullness of time Iran has been hiding OBL, that Saddam inspired the World Trade Center hit. That France, Russia, and China have been playing a no-limit double-game has obvious from the start. Again, any semi intelligent person that sees the behavior of the left has little to wonder about who really controls the minions of useful idiots. What\\\\\\'s harder to discern is who really are the idiots and who are just pretending.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › We may have Iraq's WMDs