cal 6 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Where are the WMD in Iraq? Do you think they will find any? And what if they don't? Answers here please. Link to post Share on other sites
mogski 0 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 They are all in N. Korea! I am not a politician, nor an expert, but a little reading & watching the news and a few searches on the net and I came up with this. Link to post Share on other sites
IIIII 2 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 There are none. But lets bomb lots of other countries anyway to try and find some. That sounds like fun. Link to post Share on other sites
mr cholmondley warner 0 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Bomb them all! They deserve it for being Evil. Link to post Share on other sites
Fattwins 0 Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Who knows if they cant find any they will either plant them there or us propaganda. It seems to be all about the Oil. US is using other countries and their for its social programs. economy needs fixing go to war. Link to post Share on other sites
snowboard_freak 0 Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 I doesn't suprise me that they didn't find any in Iraq. Not suprised at all. If they don't find any they will probably make up some kind of story. Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Although a country capable of making them really should be capable of hiding them properly. I would expect they can be planted if finding some is really important. Link to post Share on other sites
nosaka 0 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Funny old world isn't it? Hands up those surprised to not see any WMDs? Even though "they were ready to be fired within 45 seconds" just before the war, giving "us" the reason to go to war in the first place? Link to post Share on other sites
kintaro 0 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 yeah, funny old world...Nosaka-san. WMD..never existed..the Kurds never experienced them..It's a Bush family story in order to create some drama for their movie premier or just a low-life push to make war with a world friendly nation. Iraq has been a good neighbor. Haven't they?? Damn those American's and their British counterparts for what they've done. The nerve!! Those weapons better spew forth very soon. Or else!! Or else the world is safer if they are hidden so well they don't re-emerge!!! Or else the true peace keeping nations like France, Canada, Germany...might just petition a world court and find the US and the UK in contempt. Don't bark back at me...I'm gone. might reimerge next snowboard/ski season for the snowboard discussions. This offseason discussions is like the UK version of the Brady Bunch. I'm not interested in the outcome. Bye! Link to post Share on other sites
enderzero 0 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 If only I believed you would stay away. Link to post Share on other sites
sunrise 0 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/bush_bravely_leads.html a related story, about the war....... Link to post Share on other sites
big-will 7 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Quote: might reimerge next snowboard/ski season for the snowboard discussions. This offseason discussions is like the UK version of the Brady Bunch. I'm not interested in the outcome. Can't wait.......... Link to post Share on other sites
Fattwins 0 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Didnt america support Iraq when they used all those nasty WMD? Hey they were bad nieghbours, but ah, opps we helped them back in those days, so uh, well please forget those points they dont matter at all now! Next question please. Link to post Share on other sites
miteyak 0 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 WE KNOW THEY HAVE THEM... WE SODDING WELL SOLD THEM TO ... (Ooooppps) Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 WMD are the last thing the war was about. Just a good selling point for the masses. Manufactured consent. a more compelling reason Link to post Share on other sites
HoTRoD 2 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Didn't we report this last year? ---- WASHINGTON (AP) -- Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year. Link to post Share on other sites
Curt 1 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Fox is always good for a laugh, esp Mr Gibson. Check out his commentds today >> Here's how stupid this Saddam and Al Qaeda (search) debate is. OK, let's say Edwards and Kerry and Lockhart et al, are right. There's no WMD (search) connection, no Al Qaeda connection and no Sept. 11 connection. Let's say they're right — despite the evidence that conclusions have been made for political purposes — but let's say they're right for argument's sake: There were no WMD, no Al Qaeda, no 9/11 link. That means Saddam was innocent and that means the war was wrong That means Saddam should still be in charge of his country and that regime change was unjustified and in error. Hey, we can do something about this: Saddam is in our custody. Let's see somebody step forward and say it was all wrong and therefore we should let Saddam free and pop him loose from his jail cell. We should give him back his army. We should give him back his palaces. We should resurrect his two thug murderer sons. We should make things all better again, pre-March 2003. Iraq as it was: The righteous Saddam in charge and all the Iraqis happy. Now who's going to step up and make that argument? That is the logical conclusion of the "Bush was wrong" argument: Bush lied, Bush misled and Bush isn't being straight with the American people. What? Nobody wants to step up and make that argument? Why so bashful? Because Saddam was one of those things Tony Blair called a "tricky issue." And by tricky, Blair said he meant — and I'm quoting now — "something you know has to be done" — that would be getting rid of Saddam — but, quoting again, "you want to have the luxury of criticizing" Bush and the Americans for actually doing it. It's tricky all right. Saddam is an issue that everybody knows Bush was right about: He had to go. Name a reason — any reason — fill in the blank. But because it's politics, some people need to maintain the luxury of criticizing Bush for something they are glad was done. It's as bogus as bogus can be. That's My Word. Link to post Share on other sites
mattlucas 0 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Is there a news source that is un-biassed about this sort of thing? Link to post Share on other sites
Curt 1 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Don't know, but certainly none as entertaining and unintentionally funny as Fox. Link to post Share on other sites
scouser 4 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Toque Try www.thesun.co.uk They even use capitals to emphasise things and you can also see some breasts (probably). Link to post Share on other sites
mattlucas 0 Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 That looks like a fun read Link to post Share on other sites
scouser 4 Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Oh it is. I always take a quick look after reading the real news on bbc and guardian. I never look at the breasts though. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts