Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Bluepeter
- Thread starter maxpain
- Start date
hamstershaver
New member
bluepeter is a commie!!@!!!
T
The Shadow
Guest
hamstershaver said:
is he online at the same time as kimjong?
bluepeter
New member
I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to this drivel but you did read the article and you do comprehend the claims that were being made by the White House right?
Let me summarize for you. The claims were that Saddam and Iraq had a 'current, functional program' for WMD. They continuously insinuated or flatout claimed that weapons were being made there NOW and that there was a grave danger both to the US (lmao) and the rest of the ME. Remember the 'mushroom cloud' hyperbole?
Now let me summarize the article for you real simple. Pre-Gulf War. Period.
Dude, everyone and their brother knows and has known for decades that Iraq had shit like that 20 years ago.
el-oh-el
Let me summarize for you. The claims were that Saddam and Iraq had a 'current, functional program' for WMD. They continuously insinuated or flatout claimed that weapons were being made there NOW and that there was a grave danger both to the US (lmao) and the rest of the ME. Remember the 'mushroom cloud' hyperbole?
Now let me summarize the article for you real simple. Pre-Gulf War. Period.
Dude, everyone and their brother knows and has known for decades that Iraq had shit like that 20 years ago.
el-oh-el
maxpain
New member
bluepeter said:
I sure did. Did YOU ?
bluepeter said:
No my friend that's what SADDAM made the world believe NOT the Americans. Another piece of bullshit spewed by the you.
bluepeter said:
What was pre-Gulf war ?? The war heads being made? WTF does that have to do with anything? No matter when they were made does not make them any less a WMD. Does it?
bluepeter said:
What the hell does finding these weapons since 2003 have to do with 20 years ago???
maxpain
New member
bluepeter said:
Why of course not, because you don't have a dog in the fight.
Read ??? I see it for what it says. Not for what I want it to say. ie--bluepeter and 99% of other liberals.
I have exposed you for the misinformed individual you are. And the so called "knowledge" you spew. If you only knew half as much as you think you do. You would be a expert on what you "claim" to know so much about.
Phenom78
New member
You're both right.
Those represent weapons Saddam claimed he destroyed, and as we now know obviously lied about.
And they wee also likely pre gulf war 1 and do not represent evidence of an ongoing effort to manufacture WOMD's post ceasefire agreement.
That he had an ongoing research and development program hasd already been confirmed by inspectors. Evidence that he was actually manufacturing said weapons has not.
So both sides will continue to argue their point.
As a proponent of action Ill simply state that there is no doubt he was in violatiuon of his ceasefire agreements or his legal duty to fully cooperate with inspections and accoutn for his activities. Everything else is guessing. I see no logic in the assertion that we should have overlooked his violations and given him the benefit of the doubt after a decade+ of non compliance.
Those represent weapons Saddam claimed he destroyed, and as we now know obviously lied about.
And they wee also likely pre gulf war 1 and do not represent evidence of an ongoing effort to manufacture WOMD's post ceasefire agreement.
That he had an ongoing research and development program hasd already been confirmed by inspectors. Evidence that he was actually manufacturing said weapons has not.
So both sides will continue to argue their point.
As a proponent of action Ill simply state that there is no doubt he was in violatiuon of his ceasefire agreements or his legal duty to fully cooperate with inspections and accoutn for his activities. Everything else is guessing. I see no logic in the assertion that we should have overlooked his violations and given him the benefit of the doubt after a decade+ of non compliance.
mrplunkey
New member
Well that's the point...
1) We know for a fact he had WMD's
2) We know for a fact he had an R&D program for more WMD's
What does the liberal tin-foil hat crowd want? Does he need to have a 1M square foot state-of-the art manufacturing facility cranking the shit out via a robotic assembly system?
1) We know for a fact he had WMD's
2) We know for a fact he had an R&D program for more WMD's
What does the liberal tin-foil hat crowd want? Does he need to have a 1M square foot state-of-the art manufacturing facility cranking the shit out via a robotic assembly system?
mrplunkey
New member
When the thing was percolating, the US claimed:bluepeter said:
1) He had chemical and biological weapons
2) He had an ongoing research programs into chemical and biological weapons
I can't find anywhere that the US said he had some massive manufacturing facility in place and was cranking out new, fresh weapons. Do you have a link?
bluepeter
New member
mrplunkey said:
The insinuation was that he had a current up-to-date program and just to crank up the fear factor, terms like 'mushroom cloud' were thrown out there. It was made to seem as if there was an imminent possibility of some biological/nuclear attack if Saddam was not disarmed. THAT is what 'liberals' have a problem with.
mrplunkey
New member
Well his agents met somewhere (I forget where) and were trying to buy nuclear triggers, which would tell most rational observers that he's trying to set-off a nuclear reaction. Of course, maybe it was for a science fair project but my guess is he was trying to make a nuke bomb.bluepeter said:
And we know the guy could launch things out of his country with scud missles -- albiet poorly since the shit sometimes fell apart in the air. If he's got 500+ chemical weapons shells, had demonstrated the ability to launch things outside his borders, has a history of using chemical weapons on people, and talks about "death to the zionists" what more did we need?
Let me just be blunt... were you specifically looking for a massive, state-of-the art maufacturing facility that was cranking-out the latest weapons? Would nothing short of that qualify as "WMD"?
bluepeter
New member
Phenom78 said:Whatever we may think individually about our reasons for going to war,or the presence of WMD's in Iraq, I think we can all agree on the fact that BluePeter is a dumbass.
Perhaps but also inescapable is the fact that you are a pompous, condescending windbag that cannot see past the end of his nose.
bluepeter
New member
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/
But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991.
Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time."
lol
Poor Max.
But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991.
Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time."
lol
Poor Max.
maxpain
New member
bluepeter said:
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE PETER NOT JUST WHAT YOU WANT TOO!!
QUOTE FROM "YOUR" ARTICLE:
We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told NBC. "However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces."
AGAIN, REBUTTED. See if you read the whole article. The truth comes out. Something you liberals seem not to be able to do.
bluepeter said:
You kidding right. I guess if the police come in with a warrant and find something other than what they are there for you are less guilty of having it. GEEZ !! Ah, the liberals and their reasoning.
You come back now peter. It is SO MUCH FUN embarassing you for your "knowledge" or lack thereof.
POOR PETER !!
bluepeter
New member
maxpain said:
So you're saying Iraq was invaded because Saddam had 20 year old degraded biological weapons (that everyone ALREADY KNEW he had)? He gassed his own people Sally, this is common knowledge.
I'll try again. That Saddam had stuff like this has been common knowledge for decades. That IS NOT consistent with the reasons/hyperbole/scare tactics that were enumerated when this invasion was conceived.
maxpain said:
Ah, the liberals and their reasoning.
You come back now peter. It is SO MUCH FUN embarassing you for your "knowledge" or lack thereof.
POOR PETER !!
I'm sorry. Did you just quote an article whose sources are PENTAGON intelligence officials and then try and use that same article as fodder for denigrating Liberal reasoning?
Oh my god. It cannot possibly be this hard to grasp. Wow.
Where's Mr. Plunkey, I'm losing brain cells each time I have to respond to one of your asinine posts.
maxpain
New member
bluepeter said:
Again, another spin. That's NOT what you said. "You" posted that it was said in the article that the weapons were not dangerous.
I simply pointed out. That you did not post ALL the quotes from the article. Where it was said they did pose a threat. My response was to your article. Because you used the article as your base.
The conversation was NOT invasion. It was in response to the article and the quotes you used from it about weapons not invasion.
bluepeter said:
You used the statement as to they were not looking for those types of weapons. You tried to spin it has "they were not looking for those." "So it was less important that they were found." That's what your reasoning. I responded to your reasoning. Not the article.
bluepeter said:
I know that's why I can't understand why you don't.
bluepeter said:
Your just tired of being EXPOSED. It's ok most liberals are used to it.
