# WMD Found in Iraq



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

*I am sure the anti Bush people will now come up with another argument for why we should not have gone to Iraq. Something that maintains the previously high intellectual bar set by their previous arguments. Therefore, it would have to be something like, "...Well...we still should not be there cuz I hate George Bush..."*

*DRUDGE*






























National Security & Defense WMDs Found in IraqPosted Nov 9, 2005














A new book by New York _Times_ best-selling author Richard Miniter reveals WMDs have been found in Iraq.

• *Found:* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• *Found:* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• *Found:* Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• *Found: *1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• *Found:* 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

Developing.........


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

why is the bush admin letting a ny times writer disclose this in a book. If this is the slam dunk they have been looking for, you would think they would at least have a press conference, especially at a time when the bush admin is taking some blows.


----------



## seharebo (Jul 19, 2004)

It is BS.


----------



## wasabi-glow (Jun 30, 2005)

mdmedicine said:


> *I am sure the anti Bush people will now come up with another argument for why we should not have gone to Iraq. Something that maintains the previously high intellectual bar set by their previous arguments. Therefore, it would have to be something like, "...Well...we still should not be there cuz I hate George Bush..."*
> 
> *DRUDGE*
> 
> ...


How come it's not in the news? Why in a book and not spread out in the media???? Any reliable source/link to this claim?????


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

scrubbs said:


> why is the bush admin letting a ny times writer disclose this in a book. If this is the slam dunk they have been looking for, you would think they would at least have a press conference, especially at a time when the bush admin is taking some blows.


Probably because the hippies will think he placed them there and then say "Oh he's lying" WAH WAH WAH.

Do you have any links for this? It would be very nice to send the link to all my old hippie roommates and say "SEE THIS BITCH, SEE IT, READ IT! NOW WHOSE RIGHT!" and then i'd tell them to get off the computer because hippies don't belong on computers.


----------



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

One of the more frustrating things for Bush supporters is that he doesn't seem to give a sh*t about what his detractors say when he knows he's right. We want him to address, for instance, Fat Boy Teddy Kennedy (D) Papa Ginos (aka the swimmer) head on but he couldn't be bothered. I guess in the end, he knows that much like the argument made against His Holiness, Sir Ronoldis Reaganous during his successful cold war against the Soviets, these people just sort of go away until their next hysterical moment. Rememeber the argument made by some of the same democrats who are STILL in government? "Reagon is going to cause nuclear Armageddon..." Don't forget their favorite well thought position: We should disarm first as a sign of good faith to the Soviets.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

Polish forces found vast amounts of sarin warheads a while ago, that's good enough for me

Also: http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.ph...risy_weapons_of .


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)




----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time. How naieve to think it would be made public through a newspaper report...









If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs - understandable Bush and his fellow neonazi... ehhm.... neocons don't mention that...


----------



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time. How naieve to think it would be made public through a newspaper report...:laugh:
> 
> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs - understandable Bush and his fellow neonazi... ehhm.... neocons don't mention that...


Calling Bush a Nazi removes whatever credibility you had left in your argument. From way over in the Netherworld, arguably one of the most insignificant spots on the globe, you choose to continually and incessantly take pot shots at the U.S. but we never seem to see you take any shots at the Netherworld. Is it because everything is wonderful there or because you know nobody would care? I think you know it is the latter and that is what burns your ass. Just once I would like to see someone like you acknowledge the good that America and this president has done. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

mdmedicine said:


> Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time. How naieve to think it would be made public through a newspaper report...:laugh:
> 
> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs - understandable Bush and his fellow neonazi... ehhm.... neocons don't mention that...


Calling Bush a Nazi removes whatever credibility you had left in your argument. From way over in the Netherworld, arguably one of the most insignificant spots on the globe, you choose to continually and incessantly take pot shots at the U.S. but we never seem to see you take any shots at the Netherworld. Is it because everything is wonderful there or because you know nobody would care? I think you know it is the latter and that is what burns your ass. Just once I would like to see someone like you acknowledge the good that America and this president has done. I won't hold my breath.
[/quote]
Dude, show me where I say the Netherlands are a beautiful, troublefree place, or that we are better than the US...







If you want to discredit me go ahead, but at least find something credible: it would most definitely make it easier to take your comments seriously








I'm not criticizing my own country as the amount of topics about my country in the last year or so can be counted on one hand: and starting about it in threads unrelated to my own country I'm not going to do either. But if someone starts a discussion about Europe or Holland I'm quite sure to add my two pennies there as well. But not out of the blue for no reason in a thread where there's no place for that.
I criticise what I see, and I see a lot of things the US does that I believe should be criticized en discussed, as it's obvious an open debate is not something we can expect from the likes of you. Of course you say I'm a one-sided and biased anti-American (I would be disappointed if you didn't), as that's the republicans/(neo)cons blind and conditioned reflex answer as soon as someone has the f'n nerve to say something about their country they don't like. Even worse, they are subsequently labelled as traitor, treehugger or even terrorist supporter, just because some dumbass in the White House told "_you're either with us or against us_", and subsequently that was taken over by the dumbass half of the same country's population.
If you actually read properly you'd see I'm critical indeed, but not just of the US, and that I'm indeed critical, or to be more precise, full of loathing, towards the American government and their hypocritical actions that mess up this planet - but also that that has nothing to do with how I view Americans themselves. If anyone thinks that's the case, it's his own problem, not mine - I don't have to defend myself against allegations based on my words bended and twisted so it suits someone's purpose.

I wouldn't advice you to hold your breath either: for the coming almost 3 years I don't expect any useful political decisions and policy coming from your area...

btw: whether I call Bush a Nazi or not, and no matter how that would affect my 'credibility', the use of illegal weapons in Iraq remains a fact - what you think about me or that , or what I say about that, are two completely different, 100% unrelated things...


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2005)

Um, anyone care to post a link of how many thousand times quantity of each of those can be found in the U.S.

Maybe Canada should invade U.S again under the same reasoning :laugh:


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs


Any sources for this?


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

CichlidAddict said:


> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs


Any sources for this?[/quote]
Do a Google search for Falluja...


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Judazzz said:


> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs


Any sources for this?[/quote]
Do a Google search for Falluja...
[/quote]

I did, but didn't find anything credible. One link referenced napalm, but brought up an empty article. Any specific links?


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2005)

CichlidAddict said:


> Um, anyone care to post a link of how many thousand times quantity of each of those can be found in the U.S.
> 
> Maybe Canada should invade U.S again under the same reasoning :laugh:


There's one big difference: Do you really think that Saddam would have thought twice to give some of his weapons to someone/group that planned to use them against people in a major city such as New York or London?
[/quote]

Yes. Evidence is in the fact that we have yet to see any of those used on the US or Britain.

You know, the US seems to worry about everyone else Nukes...but isnt the US the only country to ever release a nuclear weapon on a civilian population?


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Um, anyone care to post a link of how many thousand times quantity of each of those can be found in the U.S.
> 
> Maybe Canada should invade U.S again under the same reasoning :laugh:


There's one big difference: Do you really think that Saddam would have thought twice to give some of his weapons to someone/group that planned to use them against people in a major city such as New York or London?
[/quote]

Yes. Evidence is in the fact that we have yet to see any of those used on the US or Britain.

You know, the US seems to worry about everyone else Nukes...but isnt the US the only country to ever release a nuclear weapon on a civilian population?
[/quote]

Yes. To end a war we didn't start and to prevent many times more casualties. It was the lesser of two necessary evils. You think we feel good about it?? Maybe you should read up on it.


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

Maybe people need to re-visit what Hitler and the Nazi's did, then they would KNOW the US isn't anything like them.

I don't mind if anyone bashes America, or it's leaders.. Just know what you are saying when you call us Nazi's. When we mass genocide by the millions, then you can call us Nazi's. They also nationalized all business in Germany, and was planning on doing it all over 'conquered' Europe. They did many things that took the identity, and honor away from it's people.

The very fact that you are still breathing after criticizing America's leaders is absolute proof we are not Nazi's. Under Hitler, (Nazi's) you would have no head left.. BTW, all of Europe with the exception of the United Kingdom bowed in a submissive pose to the Nazi's. I would rather die then bow to them.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2005)

CichlidAddict said:


> Um, anyone care to post a link of how many thousand times quantity of each of those can be found in the U.S.
> 
> Maybe Canada should invade U.S again under the same reasoning :laugh:


There's one big difference: Do you really think that Saddam would have thought twice to give some of his weapons to someone/group that planned to use them against people in a major city such as New York or London?
[/quote]

Yes. Evidence is in the fact that we have yet to see any of those used on the US or Britain.

You know, the US seems to worry about everyone else Nukes...but isnt the US the only country to ever release a nuclear weapon on a civilian population?
[/quote]

Yes. To end a war we didn't start and to prevent many times more casualties. It was the lesser of two necessary evils. You think we feel good about it?? Maybe you should read up on it.
[/quote]

Are you kidding me? NECESSARY? Maybe you should read up on it, in a non-American history book.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Um, anyone care to post a link of how many thousand times quantity of each of those can be found in the U.S.
> 
> Maybe Canada should invade U.S again under the same reasoning :laugh:


There's one big difference: Do you really think that Saddam would have thought twice to give some of his weapons to someone/group that planned to use them against people in a major city such as New York or London?
[/quote]

Yes. Evidence is in the fact that we have yet to see any of those used on the US or Britain.

You know, the US seems to worry about everyone else Nukes...but isnt the US the only country to ever release a nuclear weapon on a civilian population?
[/quote]

Yes. To end a war we didn't start and to prevent many times more casualties. It was the lesser of two necessary evils. You think we feel good about it?? Maybe you should read up on it.
[/quote]

Are you kidding me? NECESSARY? Maybe you should read up on it, in a non-American history book.
[/quote]

Yeah, all the accounts of the war that I've read from many different places are all just propoganda. 








Why don't you tell me what your perfect canadian history book says about it?


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

^^^I bet if you canadians had a huge war on 2 fronts, and 100,000 more of your people would surely die in battle, you would approve the dropping of a nuke.. end of that subject.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

DiPpY eGgS said:


> ^^^I bet if you canadians had a huge war on 2 fronts, and 100,000 more of your people would surely die in battle, you would approve the dropping of a nuke.. end of that subject.


Not just that, but many times more japanese would have died if we would have had to invade.


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

CichlidAddict said:


> ^^^I bet if you canadians had a huge war on 2 fronts, and 100,000 more of your people would surely die in battle, you would approve the dropping of a nuke.. end of that subject.


Not just that, but many times more japanese would have died if we would have had to invade.
[/quote]

another understatment. think of all the "more" people that would have had to die in the event of an invasion. They were relentless.


----------



## sneepizzle (Oct 21, 2005)

thats bullshit, therew owuld have been a news conference dumbass


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

DiPpY eGgS said:


> The very fact that you are still breathing after criticizing America's leaders is absolute proof we are not Nazi's. Under Hitler, (Nazi's) you would have no head left.. BTW, all of Europe with the exception of the United Kingdom bowed in a submissive pose to the Nazi's. I would rather die then bow to them.


If you think most of Europe 'submissively bowed down' to Hitler voluntarily, you got some serious gaps in your historic knowledge







The Germans were too strong for many countries, especially the smaller ones. Besides that, the UK was only spared because of the Channel: if it was mainland Europe, it was likely to have been overrun just as easily...

btw: what's up with all that fuzz about calling the Americans Nazi's?? It was obviously meant as a joke, as I already said in many other threads that the two aren't even comparable - but selective reading here is a virtue.
Funny how y'all join hand in hand to talk down the French or other countries, religions or ethnic groups, but as soon as someone dares to make a joke about the US, everyone turns PC all of a sudden - how sad, how hypocrite...

btw2: I'm still looking forward to evidence of the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, as none has been presented so far. The reason Al Qaeda is present in Iraq was the invasion and the subsequent power vaccuum and lack of control...

btw3: feed Google "falluja phosphorous" - true, a lot is propaganda rubbish, but not all...


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2005)

CichlidAddict said:


> Um, anyone care to post a link of how many thousand times quantity of each of those can be found in the U.S.
> 
> Maybe Canada should invade U.S again under the same reasoning :laugh:


There's one big difference: Do you really think that Saddam would have thought twice to give some of his weapons to someone/group that planned to use them against people in a major city such as New York or London?
[/quote]

Yes. Evidence is in the fact that we have yet to see any of those used on the US or Britain.

You know, the US seems to worry about everyone else Nukes...but isnt the US the only country to ever release a nuclear weapon on a civilian population?
[/quote]

Yes. To end a war we didn't start and to prevent many times more casualties. It was the lesser of two necessary evils. You think we feel good about it?? Maybe you should read up on it.
[/quote]

Are you kidding me? NECESSARY? Maybe you should read up on it, in a non-American history book.
[/quote]

Yeah, all the accounts of the war that I've read from many different places are all just propoganda. 








Why don't you tell me what your perfect canadian history book says about it?
[/quote]

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/time...w2time.htm#1945

More people would have died? Do you know how many generations of people were affected by Lukemia.


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

Judazzz said:


> The very fact that you are still breathing after criticizing America's leaders is absolute proof we are not Nazi's. Under Hitler, (Nazi's) you would have no head left.. BTW, all of Europe with the exception of the United Kingdom bowed in a submissive pose to the Nazi's. I would rather die then bow to them.


If you think most of Europe 'submissively bowed down' to Hitler voluntarily, you got some serious gaps in your historic knowledge







The Germans were too strong for many countries, especially the smaller ones. Besides that, the UK was only spared because of the Channel: if it was mainland Europe, it was likely to have been overrun just as easily...

btw: what's up with all that fuzz about calling the Americans Nazi's?? It was obviously meant as a joke, as I already said in many other threads that the two aren't even comparable - but selective reading here is a virtue.
Funny how y'all join hand in hand to talk down the French or other countries, religions or ethnic groups, but as soon as someone dares to make a joke about the US, everyone turns PC all of a sudden - how sad, how hypocrite...

btw2: I'm still looking forward to evidence of the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, as none has been presented so far. The reason Al Qaeda is present in Iraq was the invasion and the subsequent power vaccuum and lack of control...

btw3: feed Google "falluja phosphorous" - true, a lot is propaganda rubbish, but not all...
[/quote]
OH< i get it, now the NAZI comment is a joke.. whatever. Enough is enough with those false queer statements about the US. OK?

And the fact stands no matter how you look at it, that Europe basically bowed submissively to the Nazi's. --If a guy tougher than me is trying to kill my family, would I let him, or bow down to him because he is stronger than me>? How am i a hypocrite in saying that your country wouldn't even exist if it were not for the US, GB and Can? If your nation got into a squabble it would be up to those same countries to bail you out again. Fact. Where is the selective reading there?
United states has more other religions than any place on earth and you rant like you know we are a bunch of ******* racists??? LOL LOL where is your countrys great love for other cultures? And arent you guys a bunch of atheists? I'm asking you, not telling.. religion is defined as a system of beliefs, so atheism is actually a religion.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Judazzz said:


> Funny how y'all join hand in hand to talk down the French or other countries, religions or ethnic groups, but as soon as someone dares to make a joke about the US, everyone turns PC all of a sudden - how sad, how hypocrite...


Joking about the french throwing wine and cheese at rioters is one thing. Joking that the US is like hitler and loves killing innocent people is another.
Hardly comparable.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2005)

Judazzz said:


> Funny how y'all join hand in hand to talk down the French or other countries, religions or ethnic groups, but as soon as someone dares to make a joke about the US, everyone turns PC all of a sudden - how sad, how hypocrite...


Joking about the french throwing wine and cheese at rioters is one thing. Joking that the US is like hitler and loves killing innocent people is another.
Hardly comparable.
[/quote]

Theres a difference between a joke, and the raw, hate filled comments users make about French people on here everyday


----------



## Clay (Feb 28, 2003)

America dropped an atomic bomb, not a nuclear bomb - just for clarification.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

phosphorous bombs and grenades arent illegal...but they sure do f*ck things up









reading some accounts from the Falklands and Iraq about guys tossing white phos grenades into trenches, and hearing the occupants screaming as they burn alive at 4000 degrees. pretty fucked up...but at the same time, one hell of an effective weapon.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2005)

Puff said:


> phosphorous bombs and grenades arent illegal...but they sure do f*ck things up
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How does it work?


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

BREAKING NEWS

Monkeys spotted flying out of my ass.. apparently the facts presented in this post are so believable that monkeys have actually flown out of my ass. I did not personally witness the event because they flew straight out behind me but it was confirmed by several witnesses who where later assaulted by the winged monkeys throwing poo at them for believing such a crap post..


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time


Well, that really sums it up right there. It'd be all over every news channell in no time


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

yeah and i realyl belive everything i see on the news..

what i dont undersstnad is if bush and his conspiritors can manipulate the evidence to get the support for war then why didnt he just plant WMD evidence to frame sadam and back up his claims?

who goes so far to accuse someone of something and take tehm down with out finishing the job? an idiot that who

seriously it would have saved bush alot of flak if he did something to prove his reasoning was correct, if we had agents already working in iraq then why wasnt this done?


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

As an ardent Bush supporter I must say I cant believe this without more proof. I agree, if this was true, it would be released in more obvious channels.


----------



## MR HARLEY (Aug 12, 2003)

nismo driver said:


> BREAKING NEWS
> 
> Monkeys spotted flying out of my ass.. apparently the facts presented in this post are so believable that monkeys have actually flown out of my ass. I did not personally witness the event because they flew straight out behind me but it was confirmed by several witnesses who where later assaulted by the winged monkeys throwing poo at them for believing such a crap post..


----------



## Oscar5001 (Sep 22, 2005)

Judazzz said:


> Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time. How naieve to think it would be made public through a newspaper report...:laugh:
> 
> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs - understandable Bush and his fellow neonazi... ehhm.... neocons don't mention that...


Calling Bush a Nazi removes whatever credibility you had left in your argument. From way over in the Netherworld, arguably one of the most insignificant spots on the globe, you choose to continually and incessantly take pot shots at the U.S. but we never seem to see you take any shots at the Netherworld. Is it because everything is wonderful there or because you know nobody would care? I think you know it is the latter and that is what burns your ass. Just once I would like to see someone like you acknowledge the good that America and this president has done. I won't hold my breath.
[/quote]

Typical American arrogance. I'm begining to see why the rest of the worls loaths us.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Oscar5001 said:


> Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time. How naieve to think it would be made public through a newspaper report...:laugh:
> 
> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs - understandable Bush and his fellow neonazi... ehhm.... neocons don't mention that...


:nod: 100% agreed. This is a war over oil and not weapons of mass deception.
[/quote]

that is the biggestmisconception about this war, all the anti war hippies can come up with is oil. iraq can only provide about 7 percent of the world oil we use far more then that. its not just about oil theres also bush going after sadam because his pops didnt finish the job, and bush is a war monger.


----------



## Oscar5001 (Sep 22, 2005)

nismo driver said:


> Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time. How naieve to think it would be made public through a newspaper report...:laugh:
> 
> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs - understandable Bush and his fellow neonazi... ehhm.... neocons don't mention that...


:nod: 100% agreed. This is a war over oil and not weapons of mass deception.
[/quote]

that is the biggestmisconception about this war, all the anti war hippies can come up with is oil. iraq can only provide about 7 percent of the world oil we use far more then that. its not just about oil theres also bush going after sadam because his pops didnt finish the job, and bush is a war monger.
[/quote]

Sure he wanted to make daddy proud. Oil is the main factor however. Iraq may only supply 7 % of the world's oil, but Iraq is just the beginning. Watch. I would also like to add I am the farthest thing from a hippie.







Think I'll go put on some Phish and burn one down, later dudes.









j/k


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

the only way well get a signifcatn amount of oil out of the mieast is to do something issaudi arabia and that will never happen since there kings (the citizens hate us and there kings) have been one of our biggest allies over there and they are the ones putting us over the barrelll .. if bush really wanted a war for oil that would have some kind of humanitarian prospective he should have invaded the sudan, now there are some atrocities going on right now and they have oil.. all bush has done in iraq is open up a terrorist breeding ground, it like digging a big hole filling it with water for mosquitos to breed..


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

Clay said:


> America dropped an atomic bomb, not a nuclear bomb - just for clarification.


Could you please explain the difference?


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Markosaur said:


> America dropped an atomic bomb, not a nuclear bomb - just for clarification.


Could you please explain the difference?








[/quote]

um last time i checked an atomic bomb creates a nuclear reaction..

and to be more specific wasnt one a hydrogen bomb?


----------



## [email protected]° (Jun 16, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> America dropped an atomic bomb, not a nuclear bomb - just for clarification.


Could you please explain the difference?








[/quote]

um last time i checked an atomic bomb creates a nuclear reaction..

and to be more specific wasnt one a hydrogen bomb?
[/quote]

Hydrogen bombs weren't developed until after the war...


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Civic Disobedience said:


> America dropped an atomic bomb, not a nuclear bomb - just for clarification.


Could you please explain the difference?








[/quote]

um last time i checked an atomic bomb creates a nuclear reaction..

and to be more specific wasnt one a hydrogen bomb?
[/quote]

Hydrogen bombs weren't developed until after the war...
[/quote]

a bombs and H bombs are stil nuclear devices though arent thay?


----------



## [email protected]° (Jun 16, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> America dropped an atomic bomb, not a nuclear bomb - just for clarification.


Could you please explain the difference?








[/quote]

um last time i checked an atomic bomb creates a nuclear reaction..

and to be more specific wasnt one a hydrogen bomb?
[/quote]

Hydrogen bombs weren't developed until after the war...
[/quote]

a bombs and H bombs are stil nuclear devices though arent thay?
[/quote]

Yes, both involve nuclear chain reaction.


----------



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> yeah and i realyl belive everything i see on the news..
> 
> what i dont undersstnad is if bush and his conspiritors can manipulate the evidence to get the support for war then why didnt he just plant WMD evidence to frame sadam and back up his claims?
> 
> ...


So Bush is an idiot if he believed there were WMD, thought they were a threat, found out they are no longer there, but didn't cheat/lie in order to make himself look better? But, of course, he is a liar on every other issue...You just gave the best endorsement of Bush's veracity possible which is to say that coming from you, his believability factor just skyrocketed.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

mdmedicine said:


> yeah and i realyl belive everything i see on the news..
> 
> what i dont undersstnad is if bush and his conspiritors can manipulate the evidence to get the support for war then why didnt he just plant WMD evidence to frame sadam and back up his claims?
> 
> ...


So Bush is an idiot if he believed there were WMD, thought they were a threat, found out they are no longer there, but didn't cheat/lie in order to make himself look better? But, of course, he is a liar on every other issue...You just gave the best endorsement of Bush's veracity possible which is to say that coming from you, his believability factor just skyrocketed.
[/quote]

yeah more stupid support for bush.. like you actually belive taht bush really thought there were WMD and was shocked to find out they werent there so it was easier for him to fall back on teh reasoning that sadam was a bad guy and needed to be removed?

i love how republicans have a talent for twisting words to make it sound like what there trying to say..

i never said bush belived there were WMD there i said "bush and his conspiritors can manipulate the evidence to get the support for war"

my point is he was lying all along why not just plant a few pieces to prove his lies.. dont twist my words..


----------



## Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom (Dec 21, 2003)

There are no WMD there...

This war is stupid... and I agree with the manipulation part, Nismo...


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

just an fyi, if europe had really bowed "submissively" to nazi germany, i don't think there would have been partisans, but there were in many countries. including france and poland (who seem to have been decimated the fastest). being defeated by an army who attacks without notice is not "bowing submissively", especially if people of that country are willing to fight back (as the partisans did).

it's easy to say this since american hasn't been invaded since colonial times, but i assure you that the overly confident americans would be singing a different tune had a large army invaded us.


----------



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> yeah and i realyl belive everything i see on the news..
> 
> what i dont undersstnad is if bush and his conspiritors can manipulate the evidence to get the support for war then why didnt he just plant WMD evidence to frame sadam and back up his claims?
> 
> ...


So Bush is an idiot if he believed there were WMD, thought they were a threat, found out they are no longer there, but didn't cheat/lie in order to make himself look better? But, of course, he is a liar on every other issue...You just gave the best endorsement of Bush's veracity possible which is to say that coming from you, his believability factor just skyrocketed.
[/quote]

yeah more stupid support for bush.. like you actually belive taht bush really thought there were WMD and was shocked to find out they werent there so it was easier for him to fall back on teh reasoning that sadam was a bad guy and needed to be removed?

i love how republicans have a talent for twisting words to make it sound like what there trying to say..

i never said bush belived there were WMD there i said "bush and his conspiritors can manipulate the evidence to get the support for war"

my point is he was lying all along why not just plant a few pieces to prove his lies.. dont twist my words.. [/quote]

In fairness, I agree that you never said that. Sorry. I misread. Be that as it may, we just disagree about this topic. You believe the WMD were never there and that Bush had knowledge of that fact but decided to lie in order to bolster support for the war. I disagree. Lets put that disagreement aside for the moment. Lets suppose that there were WMD there and you (Nismo) were satisfied that this was a fact. In that scenario, should Bush have invaded Iraq?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

all nuclear weapons involve the splitting of the nucleus of an atom...meaning that all atomic bombs are also nuclear bombs/weapons. however, some use different methods of splitting, and also use different materials. the hydrogen bomb split the hydrogen atom, todays bombs split a nuclear isotope of uranium, called uranium-235. just to give you an idea, a pound of U235 is about the size of a baseball, and contains the same energy as 1 million gallons of gasoline. which would fill a cube with 50ft sides. also, weapons grade uranium must be 90% pure in order for it to be useable.
two methods are used for splitting, nuclear fusion, and nuclear fission. but mostly every bomb ever made has been a fission bomb. fusion bombs are a lot harder to make work, however, they have a theoretical yeild 700 times greater than a fission bomb. in the little boy bomb, a U-235 "bullet" was made, and placed into a gun barrel type thing, then it was shot into a core of U-235 at high speeds, triggering a nuclear reaction. in the fat man bomb, a center of fat man was comprised of beryllium/polonium, where as other implosion devices were made with u235. anyway, it was a sphere of U235, and around the sphere, a high explosive charge was placed, such as TNT, which triggered an implosion of the material, which triggered a reaction, which triggered a 23 kiloton explosion. quite large. 23,000 tons of TNT. lots of TNT.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

DannyBoy17 said:


> > Yes. To end a war we didn't start and to prevent many times more casualties. It was the lesser of two necessary evils. You think we feel good about it?? Maybe you should read up on it.
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me? NECESSARY? Maybe you should read up on it, in a non-American history book.


Dude it was necessary. A land invasion on Japan would have been at least another year or two, not counting all the Japanese lives , British lives, Russian lives, American lives that would have been lost. Then just think of all the Japanese cities that would have been destroyed. We are not proud we had to use that weapon, but it was either that or millions more lost on both sides.


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> all nuclear weapons involve the splitting of the nucleus of an atom...meaning that all atomic bombs are also nuclear bombs/weapons. however, some use different methods of splitting, and also use different materials. the hydrogen bomb split the hydrogen atom, todays bombs split a nuclear isotope of uranium, called uranium-235. just to give you an idea, a pound of U235 is about the size of a baseball, and contains the same energy as 1 million gallons of gasoline. which would fill a cube with 50ft sides. also, weapons grade uranium must be 90% pure in order for it to be useable.
> two methods are used for splitting, nuclear fusion, and nuclear fission. but mostly every bomb ever made has been a fission bomb. fusion bombs are a lot harder to make work, however, they have a theoretical yeild 700 times greater than a fission bomb. in the little boy bomb, a U-235 "bullet" was made, and placed into a gun barrel type thing, then it was shot into a core of U-235 at high speeds, triggering a nuclear reaction. in the fat man bomb, a center of fat man was comprised of beryllium/polonium, where as other implosion devices were made with u235. anyway, it was a sphere of U235, and around the sphere, a high explosive charge was placed, such as TNT, which triggered an implosion of the material, which triggered a reaction, which triggered a 23 kiloton explosion. quite large. 23,000 tons of TNT. lots of TNT.


fusion bombs are a fission and fusion, they need a small nuclear fission reaction for the fusion reaction, its the fusion process that creates the immense power of the hydrogen bombs, not the fission


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

mdmedicine said:


> In fairness, I agree that you never said that. Sorry. I misread. Be that as it may, we just disagree about this topic. You believe the WMD were never there and that Bush had knowledge of that fact but decided to lie in order to bolster support for the war. I disagree. Lets put that disagreement aside for the moment. Lets suppose that there were WMD there and you (Nismo) were satisfied that this was a fact. In that scenario, should Bush have invaded Iraq?


nope I think he should have sent more troops to support the U.N.'s effort to aid the inspectors to prove the existence of these weapons, to let Sadam's shenanigans bolster the support against him instead of bush rushing the issue..

Sadam's own actions would eventually have built up the necessary support to remove him, however I think it would have been better to contain him then to have the current situation.. the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

it was also proven by many groups that sadam was not connected to or supporting al quadia, Iraq is more of a home to terrorist now and will continue to be much more of an on going problem then it ever was under Sadam..

sadam was a tyrant, a scammer and an asshole, the food for oil things that have been uncovered is more proof to this, but that is not a reason to justify invasion. it also exposes the problems with the UN..

there really are a huge number of issues to discuss here beyond arguing about bush's deception for war.. and its all a result of scumbag politicians on all sides..

My biggest issue with bush is that he has opened a door that the US has always fought to keep locked.. we are supposed to be the strong nation that leads by example.. meaning invasion is not an option because if we can justify the unprovoked invasion of another country then why cant other countries justify the unprovoked invasion of the US..

lets say Iran, north Korea, and a few other nations joined forces they could justify that we have provoked them and that we have become threat to the rest of the world and they could produce there own evidence to basically start world war three....

it wouldn't be hard we do have WMD and we are lashing out at the world and drawing lines between nations when we should be building a global alliance against terrorist we are creating more harbors for terrorist..

my ramblings aren't just anti bush im pro American all the way and all im see is our own destruction shielded by patriotism and an environment of for us or against us.. if your not for the war your not a patriot, this attitude is leading to very bad things.. I don't want to compare our issues to past nations path to down fall ill leave that to you to see the similarities for your self..

praise allah bush wasnt president durign the cold war, it would have ended in nuclear winter..


----------



## we have sound (Apr 27, 2005)

DiPpY eGgS said:


> OH< i get it, now the NAZI comment is a joke.. whatever. Enough is enough with those false queer statements about the US. OK?
> 
> And the fact stands no matter how you look at it, that Europe basically bowed submissively to the Nazi's. --If a guy tougher than me is trying to kill my family, would I let him, or bow down to him because he is stronger than me>? How am i a hypocrite in saying that your country wouldn't even exist if it were not for the US, GB and Can? If your nation got into a squabble it would be up to those same countries to bail you out again. Fact. Where is the selective reading there?
> United states has more other religions than any place on earth and you rant like you know we are a bunch of ******* racists??? LOL LOL where is your countrys great love for other cultures? And arent you guys a bunch of atheists? I'm asking you, not telling.. religion is defined as a system of beliefs, so atheism is actually a religion.


By saying that Europe bowed down to the Germans you are insulting the millions of people who died fighting for their countries, because they beleived that protection their homeland was something worth dying for. A tough guy _was_ trying to kill their famillies, and he _was_ stronger than them, but you are sadly mistaken if you think for one minute that those people who died bowed down and gave in.

The part played by us was large in WWII, but there was still 13 countries that suffered more total casualties than GB. At least 5 of those were defending thier countries against the Axis. So I don't see how you can ever come to the conclusion, or even imagine, that Europe submissed like you said.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

i think its generally accepted the decision to bomb japan was warranted. Instead of millions deaths, a couple cities were sadly sacrificed. The japanese are fanatical....not like western cultures who value life over honorable deaths. Every citizen would have fought to death to save their emperor. Think of a fanatical iraq where the whole country are suicide bombers.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

diddye said:


> i think its generally accepted the decision to bomb japan was warranted. Instead of millions deaths, a couple cities were sadly sacrificed. The japanese are fanatical....not like western cultures who value life over honorable deaths. Every citizen would have fought to death to save their emperor. Think of a fanatical iraq where the whole country are suicide bombers.


the muslim extremist are finatical do you think nuking them would stop there quest to kill the zionist infidells?


----------



## we have sound (Apr 27, 2005)

diddye said:


> i think its generally accepted the decision to bomb japan was warranted. Instead of millions deaths, a couple cities were sadly sacrificed. The japanese are fanatical....not like western cultures who value life over honorable deaths. Every citizen would have fought to death to save their emperor. *Think of a fanatical iraq where the whole country are suicide bombers.*


Which, it is worth mentioning, is totally not the case.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

we have sound said:


> i think its generally accepted the decision to bomb japan was warranted. Instead of millions deaths, a couple cities were sadly sacrificed. The japanese are fanatical....not like western cultures who value life over honorable deaths. Every citizen would have fought to death to save their emperor. *Think of a fanatical iraq where the whole country are suicide bombers.*


Which, it is worth mentioning, is totally not the case.
[/quote]

Huh? He's not saying iraq is like that, he's trying to point out the mindset of the japanese at the time of WWII. They were fierce fighters that were very willing to fight and die to the last man.


----------



## we have sound (Apr 27, 2005)

CichlidAddict said:


> Huh? He's not saying iraq is like that, he's trying to point out the mindset of the japanese at the time of WWII. They were fierce fighters that were very willing to fight and die to the last man.


I never said he was. It was just kinda an ambiguous statement, and there are some people on here who seem inept at beleiving anything other than stupid stereotypes.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

what i was saying was that two seperate reactions are done for nuclear bombs. fusion and fission. the fact that fusion relies on a fission reaction to be so powerful, wasnt really what i was saying, im saying the two are still seperate because the main energy of a fusion bomb is generated by fusion, not fission. therefore it's a fusion bomb and not a fission bomb, whereas, a fission bomb relies on conventional explosive to create the reaction. you're correct though, it does rely on a fission reaction to create a fusion reaction.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

we have sound said:


> Huh? He's not saying iraq is like that, he's trying to point out the mindset of the japanese at the time of WWII. They were fierce fighters that were very willing to fight and die to the last man.


I never said he was. It was just kinda an ambiguous statement, and there are some people on here who seem inept at beleiving anything other than stupid stereotypes.
[/quote]

Aahh.. gotcha. Hard to detect those kinds of things in a forum like this.


----------



## we have sound (Apr 27, 2005)

No worries.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2005)

b_ack51 said:


> > Yes. To end a war we didn't start and to prevent many times more casualties. It was the lesser of two necessary evils. You think we feel good about it?? Maybe you should read up on it.
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me? NECESSARY? Maybe you should read up on it, in a non-American history book.


Dude it was necessary. A land invasion on Japan would have been at least another year or two, not counting all the Japanese lives , British lives, Russian lives, American lives that would have been lost. Then just think of all the Japanese cities that would have been destroyed. We are not proud we had to use that weapon, but it was either that or millions more lost on both sides.
[/quote]

Millions. I know a lot of people try to rationalize the use of the A-bomb, but I honestly doubt it was "necesrry". Germany and Italy had just surrendered, Russia, the US and Britain had all just mad major moves in on on Japanese fronts and Japan had become constrained back to thier main islands...it was not necessary IMO.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Judazzz said:


> Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time. How naieve to think it would be made public through a newspaper report...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmmm.. Napalm hasnt been used since WWII.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time. How naieve to think it would be made public through a newspaper report...:laugh:
> 
> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs - understandable Bush and his fellow neonazi... ehhm.... neocons don't mention that...


Hmmm.. Napalm hasnt been used since WWII.:rasp:
[/quote]

veitnam hello?

one of the most famus movies ever


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time. How naieve to think it would be made public through a newspaper report...:laugh:
> 
> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs - understandable Bush and his fellow neonazi... ehhm.... neocons don't mention that...


Hmmm.. Napalm hasnt been used since WWII.:rasp:
[/quote]

veitnam hello?

one of the most famus movies ever









[/quote]

If you actually look it up... Napalm was not actually used in Vietnam.


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

Ex0dus said:


> Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time. How naieve to think it would be made public through a newspaper report...:laugh:
> 
> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs - understandable Bush and his fellow neonazi... ehhm.... neocons don't mention that...


Hmmm.. Napalm hasnt been used since WWII.:rasp:
[/quote]

veitnam hello?

one of the most famus movies ever









[/quote]

If you actually look it up... Napalm was not actually used in Vietnam.








[/quote]

look it up yourself









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> Yeah right, if something serious was found, Bush or one of his senior staff would appear triumphantly on the TV in no time. How naieve to think it would be made public through a newspaper report...:laugh:
> 
> If you want WDM and illegal weapons, just follow the path of the Americans in Iraq: napalm, phosporous bombs - understandable Bush and his fellow neonazi... ehhm.... neocons don't mention that...


Hmmm.. Napalm hasnt been used since WWII.:rasp:
[/quote]

veitnam hello?

one of the most famus movies ever









[/quote]

If you actually look it up... Napalm was not actually used in Vietnam.








[/quote]

actually if you look it up youll find your wrong kind sir..

"Napalm bombs were first used during the Battle of Tinian. In World War II, Allied Forces bombed cities in Japan with napalm, and used it in bombs and flamethrowers in Germany and the Japanese-held islands. It was used by the Greek army against communist guerilla fighters during the Greek Civil War, by United Nations forces in Korea, by Mexico in the late 1960s against guerrilla fighters in Guerrero and by the United States during the Vietnam War."

from this source


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2005)

> Danny,
> Come on man. Truman was your kind of president... A TRUE liberal. You think someone like that would 'want' to release a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent lives? You can blame generals hungry to see the true nature of the beast feeding the statistics of military casualties if we invaded mainland japan. The numbers were inflated, but it would have cost as many american soldiers lives to take japan. So was the use of nuke justified? You bet ya


I think bombing was necessary. But the nuke has affected millions.

I will admit that I odnt think they realized the long term affects it would have on the population in question...


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Napalm was a mix of gasoline and a jelly like substance discovered in wwII. In future wars it was no longer napalm (naphthenic palmitic acids) the name simply stuck. I will try and dig up some info on modern day 'napalm'. Anyways, 'napalm' was banned in 1980 by the UN. We havnt used napalm since wwii. Ill be back in a few with some quotes


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

Clay said:


> America dropped an atomic bomb, not a nuclear bomb - just for clarification.


...your kidding me. right?


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

Clay said:


> America dropped an atomic bomb, not a nuclear bomb - just for clarification.


just for clarification, an atomic bomb IS a nuclear bomb. i'm hoping you understand that the atomic bombs dropped in japan used nuclear fission, which classifies it as a nuclear bomb.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

DannyBoy17 said:


> > Yes. To end a war we didn't start and to prevent many times more casualties. It was the lesser of two necessary evils. You think we feel good about it?? Maybe you should read up on it.
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me? NECESSARY? Maybe you should read up on it, in a non-American history book.


Dude it was necessary. A land invasion on Japan would have been at least another year or two, not counting all the Japanese lives , British lives, Russian lives, American lives that would have been lost. Then just think of all the Japanese cities that would have been destroyed. We are not proud we had to use that weapon, but it was either that or millions more lost on both sides.
[/quote]

Millions. I know a lot of people try to rationalize the use of the A-bomb, but I honestly doubt it was "necesrry". Germany and Italy had just surrendered, Russia, the US and Britain had all just mad major moves in on on Japanese fronts and Japan had become constrained back to thier main islands...it was not necessary IMO.
[/quote]

Yes other countries already surrendered. But did Japan care, no. They would have kept fighting, like its been already posted, they would fight to the death. Just imagine if everyone in Japan decided to keep fighting for their emperor and country, the losses of human life on both sides were have been far greater than the bomb and also the country would have just been demolished.

And yes it affected millions, not just right away but over time. And they probably didn't know the long term affects, but did anyone at the time know?


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> > Danny,
> > Come on man. Truman was your kind of president... A TRUE liberal. You think someone like that would 'want' to release a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent lives? You can blame generals hungry to see the true nature of the beast feeding the statistics of military casualties if we invaded mainland japan. The numbers were inflated, but it would have cost as many american soldiers lives to take japan. So was the use of nuke justified? You bet ya
> 
> 
> ...


Now you say it was necessary? 2 posts earlier you said it wasn't necessary. Make up your mind.
Since you think you're such an expert on whether or not we should have dropped the bomb at that time, I'll fill you in with a little info.

Japan would have surrendered eventually without the use of atomic weapons. However, the Japanese code of bushido meant that Japanese valued honor and country more than their lives. (A prime example of this is the kamikazee pilots.) Therefore we (the Allies) would have lost (hundreds of) thousands of soldiers running a conventional invasion of the Japanese home islands. Think of the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa multiplied by a thousand times. It would have made D-Day look like a cake walk.

Another factor in the atomic decision was the post war world. While we were technically allies with the Russians, the western allies had already started planning how to deal with the Russians once it was clear that the Axis were beaten. In fact, General Patton believed that we were fighting the wrong enemy. He wanted to accept a German surrender and have the German troops join the western allies to fight the Russians. (Roughly early 1943 after Stalingrad, El Alamein, and the turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic.) Using atmoic weapons on Japan was also a method to show the Russians our strength. And it prevented Russia from occupying half of the country. A conventional invasion would have ended with Japan divided like Germany. (Or even Korea, since the Russians did occupy that before the war ended.)

In the end, I think the use of atomics against Japan was justified. I think you'd definitely get that answer from any World War II soldier.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

DiPpY eGgS said:


> And the fact stands no matter how you look at it, that Europe basically bowed submissively to the Nazi's. --If a guy tougher than me is trying to kill my family, would I let him, or bow down to him because he is stronger than me>? How am i a hypocrite in saying that your country wouldn't even exist if it were not for the US, GB and Can? If your nation got into a squabble it would be up to those same countries to bail you out again. Fact. Where is the selective reading there?
> United states has more other religions than any place on earth and you rant like you know we are a bunch of ******* racists??? LOL LOL where is your countrys great love for other cultures? And arent you guys a bunch of atheists? I'm asking you, not telling.. religion is defined as a system of beliefs, so atheism is actually a religion.


I don't know at what thing you just said I laugh (or cry, if I felt pity) the most, but in general, this little fellow here sums up my thoughts quite nicely ~>


----------



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

CichlidAddict said:


> > Danny,
> > Come on man. Truman was your kind of president... A TRUE liberal. You think someone like that would 'want' to release a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent lives? You can blame generals hungry to see the true nature of the beast feeding the statistics of military casualties if we invaded mainland japan. The numbers were inflated, but it would have cost as many american soldiers lives to take japan. So was the use of nuke justified? You bet ya
> 
> 
> ...


Now you say it was necessary? 2 posts earlier you said it wasn't necessary. Make up your mind.
Since you think you're such an expert on whether or not we should have dropped the bomb at that time, I'll fill you in with a little info.

Japan would have surrendered eventually without the use of atomic weapons. However, the Japanese code of bushido meant that Japanese valued honor and country more than their lives. (A prime example of this is the kamikazee pilots.) Therefore we (the Allies) would have lost (hundreds of) thousands of soldiers running a conventional invasion of the Japanese home islands. Think of the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa multiplied by a thousand times. It would have made D-Day look like a cake walk.

Another factor in the atomic decision was the post war world. While we were technically allies with the Russians, the western allies had already started planning how to deal with the Russians once it was clear that the Axis were beaten. In fact, General Patton believed that we were fighting the wrong enemy. He wanted to accept a German surrender and have the German troops join the western allies to fight the Russians. (Roughly early 1943 after Stalingrad, El Alamein, and the turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic.) Using atmoic weapons on Japan was also a method to show the Russians our strength. And it prevented Russia from occupying half of the country. A conventional invasion would have ended with Japan divided like Germany. (Or even Korea, since the Russians did occupy that before the war ended.)

In the end, I think the use of atomics against Japan was justified. I think you'd definitely get that answer from any World War II soldier. [/quote]

I think further evidence of the Japanese likelihood of fighting to the end was the fact that they did not surrender after Hiroshima was vaporized. It took a second vaporization to accomplish their unconditional surrender.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

They also trained everyone they could to kill the allies, they even trained school girls for fucks sake.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

mdmedicine said:


> > Danny,
> > Come on man. Truman was your kind of president... A TRUE liberal. You think someone like that would 'want' to release a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent lives? You can blame generals hungry to see the true nature of the beast feeding the statistics of military casualties if we invaded mainland japan. The numbers were inflated, but it would have cost as many american soldiers lives to take japan. So was the use of nuke justified? You bet ya
> 
> 
> ...


Now you say it was necessary? 2 posts earlier you said it wasn't necessary. Make up your mind.
Since you think you're such an expert on whether or not we should have dropped the bomb at that time, I'll fill you in with a little info.

Japan would have surrendered eventually without the use of atomic weapons. However, the Japanese code of bushido meant that Japanese valued honor and country more than their lives. (A prime example of this is the kamikazee pilots.) Therefore we (the Allies) would have lost (hundreds of) thousands of soldiers running a conventional invasion of the Japanese home islands. Think of the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa multiplied by a thousand times. It would have made D-Day look like a cake walk.

Another factor in the atomic decision was the post war world. While we were technically allies with the Russians, the western allies had already started planning how to deal with the Russians once it was clear that the Axis were beaten. In fact, General Patton believed that we were fighting the wrong enemy. He wanted to accept a German surrender and have the German troops join the western allies to fight the Russians. (Roughly early 1943 after Stalingrad, El Alamein, and the turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic.) Using atmoic weapons on Japan was also a method to show the Russians our strength. And it prevented Russia from occupying half of the country. A conventional invasion would have ended with Japan divided like Germany. (Or even Korea, since the Russians did occupy that before the war ended.)

In the end, I think the use of atomics against Japan was justified. I think you'd definitely get that answer from any World War II soldier. [/quote]

I think further evidence of the Japanese likelihood of fighting to the end was the fact that they did not surrender after Hiroshima was vaporized. It took a second vaporization to accomplish their unconditional surrender.
[/quote]

very true.

also after around 300,000 US soldies die in a war we didn't start, why the hell should we want to put more soldiers to death by invading japan?


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2005)

CichlidAddict said:


> > Danny,
> > Come on man. Truman was your kind of president... A TRUE liberal. You think someone like that would 'want' to release a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent lives? You can blame generals hungry to see the true nature of the beast feeding the statistics of military casualties if we invaded mainland japan. The numbers were inflated, but it would have cost as many american soldiers lives to take japan. So was the use of nuke justified? You bet ya
> 
> 
> ...


Now you say it was necessary? 2 posts earlier you said it wasn't necessary. Make up your mind.
Since you think you're such an expert on whether or not we should have dropped the bomb at that time, I'll fill you in with a little info.

Japan would have surrendered eventually without the use of atomic weapons. However, the Japanese code of bushido meant that Japanese valued honor and country more than their lives. (A prime example of this is the kamikazee pilots.) Therefore we (the Allies) would have lost (hundreds of) thousands of soldiers running a conventional invasion of the Japanese home islands. Think of the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa multiplied by a thousand times. It would have made D-Day look like a cake walk.

Another factor in the atomic decision was the post war world. While we were technically allies with the Russians, the western allies had already started planning how to deal with the Russians once it was clear that the Axis were beaten. In fact, General Patton believed that we were fighting the wrong enemy. He wanted to accept a German surrender and have the German troops join the western allies to fight the Russians. (Roughly early 1943 after Stalingrad, El Alamein, and the turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic.) Using atmoic weapons on Japan was also a method to show the Russians our strength. And it prevented Russia from occupying half of the country. A conventional invasion would have ended with Japan divided like Germany. (Or even Korea, since the Russians did occupy that before the war ended.)

In the end, I think the use of atomics against Japan was justified. I think you'd definitely get that answer from any World War II soldier. [/quote]

I think further evidence of the Japanese likelihood of fighting to the end was the fact that they did not surrender after Hiroshima was vaporized. It took a second vaporization to accomplish their unconditional surrender.
[/quote]

I actually said that I thought BOMBING was necessary, read you mofo.

Also, werent the bombs dropped over a very small time period? Like less than a week? Didnt give them much time to surrender, did they?

Oh well, wont win this one.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

DannyBoy17 said:


> > Danny,
> > Come on man. Truman was your kind of president... A TRUE liberal. You think someone like that would 'want' to release a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent lives? You can blame generals hungry to see the true nature of the beast feeding the statistics of military casualties if we invaded mainland japan. The numbers were inflated, but it would have cost as many american soldiers lives to take japan. So was the use of nuke justified? You bet ya
> 
> 
> ...


Now you say it was necessary? 2 posts earlier you said it wasn't necessary. Make up your mind.
Since you think you're such an expert on whether or not we should have dropped the bomb at that time, I'll fill you in with a little info.

Japan would have surrendered eventually without the use of atomic weapons. However, the Japanese code of bushido meant that Japanese valued honor and country more than their lives. (A prime example of this is the kamikazee pilots.) Therefore we (the Allies) would have lost (hundreds of) thousands of soldiers running a conventional invasion of the Japanese home islands. Think of the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa multiplied by a thousand times. It would have made D-Day look like a cake walk.

Another factor in the atomic decision was the post war world. While we were technically allies with the Russians, the western allies had already started planning how to deal with the Russians once it was clear that the Axis were beaten. In fact, General Patton believed that we were fighting the wrong enemy. He wanted to accept a German surrender and have the German troops join the western allies to fight the Russians. (Roughly early 1943 after Stalingrad, El Alamein, and the turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic.) Using atmoic weapons on Japan was also a method to show the Russians our strength. And it prevented Russia from occupying half of the country. A conventional invasion would have ended with Japan divided like Germany. (Or even Korea, since the Russians did occupy that before the war ended.)

In the end, I think the use of atomics against Japan was justified. I think you'd definitely get that answer from any World War II soldier. [/quote]

I think further evidence of the Japanese likelihood of fighting to the end was the fact that they did not surrender after Hiroshima was vaporized. It took a second vaporization to accomplish their unconditional surrender.
[/quote]

I actually said that I thought BOMBING was necessary, read you mofo.

Also, werent the bombs dropped over a very small time period? Like less than a week? Didnt give them much time to surrender, did they?

Oh well, wont win this one.
[/quote]

A week is a long time. Crap it only took what a few days to invade Iraq.


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2005)

b_ack51 said:


> A week is a long time. Crap it only took what a few days to invade Iraq.










Ya, because that war is over


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> A week is a long time. Crap it only took what a few days to invade Iraq.


:laugh: Ya, because that war is over








[/quote]








Ya, shame that has nothing to do with what he said







.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

DannyBoy17 said:


> A week is a long time. Crap it only took what a few days to invade Iraq.


:laugh: Ya, because that war is over








[/quote]

Let me help you with the statement I made, because it appears you cannot understand such big words. Invade is different word than war.

But isn't technically the war against Suddam over and now its just back to the war on terror.









A wise man once said "Better to keep your mouth shut and look stupid, then open your mouth and prove it."


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Lol. I have to laugh every time I read one of DannyBoy's posts. He'd fit in perfect in San Fran.
He should probably stick to petting kitties and hugging rainbows since he can't handle the fact that war isn't perfect - people die. And not just the ones who signed up to fight.

Just for the record, the one quote where he pretended to know what he was talking about:


DannyBoy17 said:


> Millions. I know a lot of people try to rationalize the use of the A-bomb, but I honestly doubt it was "necesrry". Germany and Italy had just surrendered, Russia, the US and Britain had all just mad major moves in on on Japanese fronts and Japan had become constrained back to thier main islands...it was not necessary IMO.


Not quite true. Russia only declared war on Japan after the first nuke had leveled Hiroshima.
I'll give him an A for effort though.
No hard feelings DannyBoy.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2005)

CichlidAddict said:


> Millions. I know a lot of people try to rationalize the use of the A-bomb, but I honestly doubt it was "necesrry". Germany and Italy had just surrendered, Russia, the US and Britain had all just mad major moves in on on Japanese fronts and Japan had become constrained back to thier main islands...it was not necessary IMO.


Not quite true. Russia only declared war on Japan after the first nuke had leveled Hiroshima.
I'll give him an A for effort though.
No hard feelings DannyBoy. 








[/quote]

Actually this had me interested, and the night before I posted that I read those things. So I guess "The World History Factfinder" by Colin McEvedy, "The Kingfisher History Encyclopedia" are wrong.



> Lol. I have to laugh every time I read one of DannyBoy's posts. He'd fit in perfect in San Fran.
> He should probably stick to petting kitties and hugging rainbows since he can't handle the fact that war isn't perfect - people die. And not just the ones who signed up to fight.


Does it make you feel like a bigger, smarter man because you support war? I wont say your wrong or flame you, I will just be happy in knowing that believing in peace and life is not a crime, even if others think so. I guess thats just the Canadian in me.

I think you guys are not seeing one thing...this is my opinion, never have I said that it was fact or that only I was right. Im open to others opinions, which is more than what can be said for most on this board.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

CichlidAddict said:


> Does it make you feel like a bigger, smarter man because you support war? I wont say your wrong or flame you, I will just be happy in knowing that believing in peace and life is not a crime, even if others think so. I guess thats just the Canadian in me.


Hey, I'm all for peace and life. I'd be just as happy as everyone else if there was never another war. But I'm not so naive as to think that will be the case. Sometimes war is necessary and in those cases I support it. Are you anti-war no matter what the circumstances?


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2005)

CichlidAddict said:


> Does it make you feel like a bigger, smarter man because you support war? I wont say your wrong or flame you, I will just be happy in knowing that believing in peace and life is not a crime, even if others think so. I guess thats just the Canadian in me.


Hey, I'm all for peace and life. I'd be just as happy as everyone else if there was never another war. But I'm not so naive as to think that will be the case. Sometimes war is necessary and in those cases I support it. Are you anti-war no matter what the circumstances?
[/quote]

Im for fighting wars where we are defending freedoms. War is never neccesary. You think WWII was neccesary? It was important that we fought, but the war itself was never *needed*.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Does it make you feel like a bigger, smarter man because you support war? I wont say your wrong or flame you, I will just be happy in knowing that believing in peace and life is not a crime, even if others think so. I guess thats just the Canadian in me.


Hey, I'm all for peace and life. I'd be just as happy as everyone else if there was never another war. But I'm not so naive as to think that will be the case. Sometimes war is necessary and in those cases I support it. Are you anti-war no matter what the circumstances?
[/quote]

Im for fighting wars where we are defending freedoms. War is never neccesary. You think WWII was neccesary? It was important that we fought, but the war itself was never *needed*.
[/quote]

Can you explain further what you mean by that? Do you mean it didn't have to happen in the first place or other countries shouldn't have gotten involved? Not sure what you're getting at..


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2005)

CichlidAddict said:


> Does it make you feel like a bigger, smarter man because you support war? I wont say your wrong or flame you, I will just be happy in knowing that believing in peace and life is not a crime, even if others think so. I guess thats just the Canadian in me.


Hey, I'm all for peace and life. I'd be just as happy as everyone else if there was never another war. But I'm not so naive as to think that will be the case. Sometimes war is necessary and in those cases I support it. Are you anti-war no matter what the circumstances?
[/quote]

Im for fighting wars where we are defending freedoms. War is never neccesary. You think WWII was neccesary? It was important that we fought, but the war itself was never *needed*.
[/quote]

Can you explain further what you mean by that? Do you mean it didn't have to happen in the first place or other countries shouldn't have gotten involved? Not sure what you're getting at..
[/quote]

Im saying that I am proud we fought in WWII because we were defending other peoples freedoms in Europe, and maybe eventually our own. But war is NEVER the only option, nor is it ever the right option. Now obviously Germany thought different, and America thinks differently now, and if disagreeing with them makes me a "Kitty petting hippy" then I guess I can accept that :laugh: .


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Im saying that I am proud we fought in WWII because we were defending other peoples freedoms in Europe, and maybe eventually our own. But war is NEVER the only option, nor is it ever the right option. Now obviously Germany thought different, and America thinks differently now, and if disagreeing with them makes me a "Kitty petting hippy" then I guess I can accept that :laugh: .


There was no war if Britain didn't declare it on them.

It would of just been Germany invading everyone and raping them, hardly a war.

War was the only option.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> Im saying that I am proud we fought in WWII because we were defending other peoples freedoms in Europe, and maybe eventually our own. But war is NEVER the only option, nor is it ever the right option. Now obviously Germany thought different, and America thinks differently now, and if disagreeing with them makes me a "Kitty petting hippy" then I guess I can accept that :laugh: .


There was no war if Britain didn't declare it on them.

It would of just been Germany invading everyone and raping them, hardly a war.

War was the only option.
[/quote]

Yep, and I am trying to agree with you.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Yep, and I am trying to agree with you.


Well that's good then


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> Yep, and I am trying to agree with you.


Well that's good then :laugh:
[/quote]








To the veterans.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Yep, and I am trying to agree with you.


Well that's good then :laugh:
[/quote]








To the veterans.
[/quote]


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Im saying that I am proud we fought in WWII because we were defending other peoples freedoms in Europe, and maybe eventually our own. But war is NEVER the only option, nor is it ever the right option. Now obviously Germany thought different, and America thinks differently now, and if disagreeing with them makes me a "Kitty petting hippy" then I guess I can accept that :laugh: .


There was no war if Britain didn't declare it on them.

It would of just been Germany invading everyone and raping them, hardly a war.

War was the only option.
[/quote]

Yep, and I am trying to agree with you.
[/quote]

LOL
You just made my eyes cross, dannyboy. First you said war is NEVER the only option. Then G23.40SW said in this case war was the only option. Then you said you agree. I think you gotta pick one or the other.








Anyway, lets agree that you can be the "kitty petting hippy" and I can be the "kitty shooting warmonger".









Like you just said.. Here's to the vets!


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

at least we know that the original "article" didnt come from a biased site either...

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle....=10101&o=DIB004


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2005)

CichlidAddict said:


> Im saying that I am proud we fought in WWII because we were defending other peoples freedoms in Europe, and maybe eventually our own. But war is NEVER the only option, nor is it ever the right option. Now obviously Germany thought different, and America thinks differently now, and if disagreeing with them makes me a "Kitty petting hippy" then I guess I can accept that :laugh: .


There was no war if Britain didn't declare it on them.

It would of just been Germany invading everyone and raping them, hardly a war.

War was the only option.
[/quote]

Yep, and I am trying to agree with you.
[/quote]

LOL
You just made my eyes cross, dannyboy. First you said war is NEVER the only option. Then G23.40SW said in this case war was the only option. Then you said you agree. I think you gotta pick one or the other.








Anyway, lets agree that you can be the "kitty petting hippy" and I can be the "kitty shooting warmonger".









Like you just said.. Here's to the vets!








[/quote]

What I am saying is that it's important to fight some wars, but its never necessary to create a war, and that reffering to the hippy comment and the original topic of this thread. We've learned from out mistakes, so thier should never be another war like that again...and if there is, it most definitely wont be necessary (Im sick of that word :laugh: )

War for the allies was the only option, but for the people who started the war, the Axis, it was not the only option. Kinda like Iraq!


----------



## Cobra (Sep 25, 2004)

"War for the allies was the only option, but for the people who started the war, the Axis, it was not the only option. Kinda like Iraq!"

This remark really made no sense boy. Iraq might have been part of Bush's "Axis of Evil" , but they weren't the ones that began the war. Have you been living under a rock for the past two years? If I recall, the war bagan with Bush's "Shock and Awe" campaign.

If you would have replaced Iraq with Saudi-Arabia or Afghanistan, then your comment would have made sense because those 2 countries did have the choice between starting the war on terror with 9-11 or calling in sick that day.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2005)

Cobra said:


> "War for the allies was the only option, but for the people who started the war, the Axis, it was not the only option. Kinda like Iraq!"
> 
> This remark really made no sense boy. Iraq might have been part of Bush's "Axis of Evil" , but they weren't the ones that began the war. Have you been living under a rock for the past two years? If I recall, the war bagan with Bush's "Shock and Awe" campaign.
> 
> If you would have replaced Iraq with Saudi-Arabia or Afghanistan, then your comment would have made sense because they did have the choice between starting the war on terror with 9-11 or calling in sick that day.


We all have our opinions


----------



## Cobra (Sep 25, 2004)

I cant argue with that


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

Dammit, everyone else is drinking and I'm stuck at work for another 38 minutes.

Can't wait for later tonight and this







and hopefully none of these guys







Maybe I could take it easy and stay in like bullsnake







Well either way its the weekend









And WW2 was a lot different circumstances. Countries thought if they gave hitler some land, he would be happy. So they gave him parts of land, and he decided he wanted more. Then more, then more. And well you know the story, the rest is history.


----------



## Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom (Dec 21, 2003)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Weapons NOT FOUND in Iraq...


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

i read an article over the weekend about the valerie plam CIA agent being uncovered. the Govt. had operatives working with turkey to bring vx gas (wmd) into iraq and VP's CIA team had stopped the material from being brought into iraq so they exposed herso she wouldnt be able to work against there efforts anymore..

now im not saying this is what happened but it would make sense for the govt to want these materials to be in iraq to prove there reason fo war. and it would also make sense to blow her cover as retaliation for sabotaging there covert plans..


----------



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> i read an article over the weekend about the valerie plam CIA agent being uncovered. the Govt. had operatives working with turkey to bring vx gas (wmd) into iraq and VP's CIA team had stopped the material from being brought into iraq so they exposed herso she wouldnt be able to work against there efforts anymore..
> 
> now im not saying this is what happened but it would make sense for the govt to want these materials to be in iraq to prove there reason fo war. and it would also make sense to blow her cover as retaliation for sabotaging there covert plans..


Nismo

If you have that article I would be very interested in reading it. Where did you read this anyway? The Village Voice? LOL.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

mdmedicine said:


> i read an article over the weekend about the valerie plam CIA agent being uncovered. the Govt. had operatives working with turkey to bring vx gas (wmd) into iraq and VP's CIA team had stopped the material from being brought into iraq so they exposed herso she wouldnt be able to work against there efforts anymore..
> 
> now im not saying this is what happened but it would make sense for the govt to want these materials to be in iraq to prove there reason fo war. and it would also make sense to blow her cover as retaliation for sabotaging there covert plans..


Nismo

If you have that article I would be very interested in reading it. Where did you read this anyway? The Village Voice? LOL.
[/quote]

ask and yee shall recieve, like i said though this isnt exactly a "factual" source, i tmay just be more conspriocy theory but then again isnt that what this whole thread started as?

the govt tried to frame iraq and theCIA stopped it


----------



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> i read an article over the weekend about the valerie plam CIA agent being uncovered. the Govt. had operatives working with turkey to bring vx gas (wmd) into iraq and VP's CIA team had stopped the material from being brought into iraq so they exposed herso she wouldnt be able to work against there efforts anymore..
> 
> now im not saying this is what happened but it would make sense for the govt to want these materials to be in iraq to prove there reason fo war. and it would also make sense to blow her cover as retaliation for sabotaging there covert plans..


Nismo

If you have that article I would be very interested in reading it. Where did you read this anyway? The Village Voice? LOL.
[/quote]

ask and yee shall recieve, like i said though this isnt exactly a "factual" source, i tmay just be more conspriocy theory but then again isnt that what this whole thread started as?

the govt tried to frame iraq and theCIA stopped it [/quote]

The above blog has about as much credibility and humor as this story (Below)

Strathclyde--- Garry Kleigg , a man known locally for heated discussions and often times loud arguments with benches, trees, lamp posts, signs , Al Gore and assorted other inanimate objects, but rarely known for winning them has made a brief flash in the public eye.

Tales of his antics have been spread in wider and wider circles over the past two years, and may by this time next year reach outside the 20 foot square space he usually inhabits during the day.

But the many colourful and embarassing tales of his life don't need to go that far, since they made a commotion yesterday when the outlying and more nomadic of Garry's personalities heard tell of them. 
Speaking from behind a trash can and addressing a press conference made up of two red squirrels and a crumpled issue of National Geographic, Garry's assorted personalities took control long enough to call himself out and demand he turn in his symbols of office, mainly his bottle of Bailey's and an elastic band.

"Just exactly Who do I think we are? By what right dragging us and our name through the mud with my disassociatedly wacky antics? " cried one personality who sounded like the crypt keeper.

When we attempted to contact Mr. Kleigg, the original, regarding these questions, we realized he didn't have a phone. About the same time, we realized that we don't, as a rule, put up with such nonsense, so we called the proper authorities and had the man safely removed to a mental healthcare facility in "scenic" tepid area of Greenock where he will undoubtedly go unnoticed amongst the locals.


----------



## mdmedicine (Dec 20, 2004)

Or more on subject...this one!

White House Addresses Alleged Inhumane Conditions for Guantanamo Bay Prisoners

Fresh from a tour of Guantanamo Bay where he personally participated in the interrogation of terror suspects for a photo op, President Bush said Tuesday he was impressed by the luxurious accomodations and was more than comfortable with the double-secret detentions at the prison camp.

Amnesty International and many other human rights groups have condemned the detentions as a "human rights scandal" because the detainees have not been charged with any crime and are being held incommunicado with the outside world.

"Nonsense," says Bush. "Look here at these photos I took!" (more...)









"As you can clearly see here," said President Bush, "the terrorists have a great many recreational activities made available to them, good food and heck, they live in the tropics. I envy their lifestyle, I may retire down here," said a smiling Bush with a big Texas nod.

Bush spent roughly five hours Monday at the U.S. military base in Cuba. He said he requested the visit so he could see detainees' treatment firsthand, and tell the American people the lies that have been perpetrated of their condition by political enemies. He found no reason for concern other than deteriorating conditions on the golf greens and a lack of qualified stablehands for the riding ponies, he said.

He met with base officials, guards, interrogators and masseuses, and returned praising their dedication and professionalism.








Many prisoners have been at the base since January 2002, awaiting trial on still unspecified charges. There are now about 680 prisoners from 42 countries, mostly Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Amnesty International and several nations have demanded the detainees be charged with crimes or released, however Bush said the U.S. tried to let them go, but none wanted to leave.

"The gate is open, they just don't want to go," said Bush. "As to the leftist accusations detailing gross disregard and violation of our constitutional principles, well it's an election year, what did you expect? Next thing you know they'll say theres no WMDs in Iraq, what a hoot," Bush folksily said with an affable chuckle.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

mdmedicine said:


> i read an article over the weekend about the valerie plam CIA agent being uncovered. the Govt. had operatives working with turkey to bring vx gas (wmd) into iraq and VP's CIA team had stopped the material from being brought into iraq so they exposed herso she wouldnt be able to work against there efforts anymore..
> 
> now im not saying this is what happened but it would make sense for the govt to want these materials to be in iraq to prove there reason fo war. and it would also make sense to blow her cover as retaliation for sabotaging there covert plans..


Nismo

If you have that article I would be very interested in reading it. Where did you read this anyway? The Village Voice? LOL.
[/quote]

ask and yee shall recieve, like i said though this isnt exactly a "factual" source, i tmay just be more conspriocy theory but then again isnt that what this whole thread started as?

the govt tried to frame iraq and theCIA stopped it [/quote]

The above blog has about as much credibility and humor as this story (Below)

Strathclyde--- Garry Kleigg , a man known locally for heated discussions and often times loud arguments with benches, trees, lamp posts, signs , Al Gore and assorted other inanimate objects, but rarely known for winning them has made a brief flash in the public eye.

Tales of his antics have been spread in wider and wider circles over the past two years, and may by this time next year reach outside the 20 foot square space he usually inhabits during the day.

But the many colourful and embarassing tales of his life don't need to go that far, since they made a commotion yesterday when the outlying and more nomadic of Garry's personalities heard tell of them. 
Speaking from behind a trash can and addressing a press conference made up of two red squirrels and a crumpled issue of National Geographic, Garry's assorted personalities took control long enough to call himself out and demand he turn in his symbols of office, mainly his bottle of Bailey's and an elastic band.

"Just exactly Who do I think we are? By what right dragging us and our name through the mud with my disassociatedly wacky antics? " cried one personality who sounded like the crypt keeper.

When we attempted to contact Mr. Kleigg, the original, regarding these questions, we realized he didn't have a phone. About the same time, we realized that we don't, as a rule, put up with such nonsense, so we called the proper authorities and had the man safely removed to a mental healthcare facility in "scenic" tepid area of Greenock where he will undoubtedly go unnoticed amongst the locals.
[/quote]

















well i never claimed it to be a most reliable source.. how ever i do find it odd that i posted this on the 9th:

nismo driver Nov 9 2005, 01:32 PM Post #35

" yeah and i realyl belive everything i see on the news..

what i dont undersstnad is if bush and his conspiritors can manipulate the evidence to get the support for war then why didnt he just plant WMD evidence to frame sadam and back up his claims?

who goes so far to accuse someone of something and take tehm down with out finishing the job? an idiot that who

seriously it would have saved bush alot of flak if he did something to prove his reasoning was correct, if we had agents already working in iraq then why wasnt this done?

This post has been edited by nismo driver: Nov 9 2005, 01:34 PM "

then on the 11th or 12th this guy wayne madson comes out with an article claiming that the govt was attemping to do exactly what i said, to try to frame iraq.. that is odd, do you think that guy read my post?


----------

