Author Topic: 130 known ammunition caches many of which are more than twice the size of Manhattan (Read 1519 times)

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #15 on:** October 23, 2003, 11:32:45 AM »

rude

at this point they didnt have them where they could use them or anywhere near the point of using them. cirtainly not 45 minutes like they lied. they probly didnt have them at all

im not willing to go from massive stockpiles to hey we found a bucket of insecticide that counts !!! you are asking me what happens when something impossible happens. no answer there sorry.

bush was lieing in a calculated way and no one but party drones in america believes he didnt. ( no white house tapes this time he saw to that )
your guys a liar a deserter and a criminal facts is facts.

and skidmark im not 15 or 16 i just spell bad thanks for the insult.

please ohh please take a moment to ignore list me. thanks

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #16 on:** October 23, 2003, 11:37:17 AM »

JBA, Im going to steal this from you and post it elsewhere unless you object.

10Bears · « **Reply #17 on:** October 23, 2003, 12:34:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
rude

im not willing to go from massive stockpiles to hey we found a bucket of insecticide that counts !!!

Hey Dolf, is that like a bucket of bug spray?..

Heh-heh.. good job wacking these rednecks

Rude · « **Reply #18 on:** October 23, 2003, 12:48:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
rude

at this point they didnt have them where they could use them or anywhere near the point of using them. cirtainly not 45 minutes like they lied. they probly didnt have them at all

im not willing to go from massive stockpiles to hey we found a bucket of insecticide that counts !!! you are asking me what happens when something impossible happens. no answer there sorry.

bush was lieing in a calculated way and no one but party drones in america believes he didnt. ( no white house tapes this time he saw to that )
your guys a liar a deserter and a criminal facts is facts.

and skidmark im not 15 or 16 i just spell bad thanks for the insult.

please ohh please take a moment to ignore list me. thanks

Well Towd....I hope you're wrong for all of our sakes....if they are not there and never have been and Bush is proven to have deliberately lied to us, then I'll be as, if not more, pissed off then you always seem to be.

Until that happens, I'm going to trust the man.

Our political system is so corrupt on both sides...the needs of the citizenship have long been cast aside....Washington serves itself. Having said that, I stand in hope of better times both here and abroad....I suppose that after sitting here watching for so many years, it makes some sense to me to take some action.....perhaps things are not as bad as you seem to believe?

Time will tell.

Scootter · « **Reply #19 on:** October 23, 2003, 02:11:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
rude

at this point they didnt have them where they could use them or anywhere near the point of using them. cirtainly not 45 minutes like they lied. they probly didnt have them at all

im not willing to go from massive stockpiles to hey we found a bucket of insecticide that counts !!! you are asking me what happens when something impossible happens. no answer there sorry.

bush was lieing in a calculated way and no one but party drones in america believes he didnt. ( no white house tapes this time he saw to that )
your guys a liar a deserter and a criminal facts is facts.

and skidmark im not 15 or 16 i just spell bad thanks for the insult.

please ohh please take a moment to ignore list me. thanks

LDV I also spell badly that’s why I use Spell Check on my posts (most of the time).

My question is in response to your comments and rebuttal not your spelling.

I called you no names and asked a question (albeit loaded with sarcasm, however you could be 14 and then the question was a complement).

You regressed to calling me names and by that I guess you have used up you wit and have in effect answered my question.

I now think I over estimated your age.

Regards, LDV

P.S. I will NOT add you to an ignore list as I find you entertaining and every now and again with a good point.

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2003, 02:31:11 PM »

Every day that goes by, I begin to think a little more that we may actually find something sooner or later. I am still amazed at the caches that our grunts are finding.

Thursday, October 23, 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. forces acted on a tip about an Iraqi weapons supply Thursday and ended up discovering a much larger find — a hidden cache of buried surface-to-air missiles and mines.

Military officials are still tallying the cache but have retrieved at least 317 4-foot rockets and 220 anti-tank mines. Fox News had exclusive access to the military during the operation about 45 miles south of Baghdad.

JBA · « **Reply #21 on:** October 23, 2003, 02:40:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
JBA, Im going to steal this from you and post it elsewhere unless you object.

go ahead. got plenty were that came from.

JBA · « **Reply #22 on:** October 23, 2003, 02:49:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader

at this point they didnt have them where they could use them or anywhere near the point of using them. cirtainly not 45 minutes like they lied. they probly didnt have them at all

He never said this. This is becomeing a Myth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2670-2003Sep25¬Found=true

"Imminent threat? How many times does one have to repeat this: When Bush laid out the case for the war in his 2003 State of the Union address, he deliberately denied imminent threat. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent," he explained, but this president disagreed. The entire assumption underlying the Bush Doctrine of preemption is that Sept. 11 taught us that we live in a world where the enemy is too stealthy, his capacity for destruction too great and the margin for error too small to permit the traditional luxury of waiting for imminence. Indeed, in the U.N. speech one year ago that launched us on the road to war, Bush spoke not of a "clear and present danger," the traditional formulation of imminence, but of a "grave and gathering danger," an obvious allusion to Churchill's two-decade-long "gathering storm."

Scootter · « **Reply #23 on:** October 23, 2003, 02:55:38 PM »

Good post JBA,

this should be a thread of it's own

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2670-2003Sep25¬Found=true

Udie · « **Reply #24 on:** October 23, 2003, 02:57:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JBA
He never said this. This is becomeing a Myth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2670-2003Sep25¬Found=true

"Imminent threat? How many times does one have to repeat this: When Bush laid out the case for the war in his 2003 State of the Union address, he deliberately denied imminent threat. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent," he explained, but this president disagreed. The entire assumption underlying the Bush Doctrine of preemption is that Sept. 11 taught us that we live in a world where the enemy is too stealthy, his capacity for destruction too great and the margin for error too small to permit the traditional luxury of waiting for imminence. Indeed, in the U.N. speech one year ago that launched us on the road to war, Bush spoke not of a "clear and present danger," the traditional formulation of imminence, but of a "grave and gathering danger," an obvious allusion to Churchill's two-decade-long "gathering storm."

GREAT NOW YOU'VE DONE IT! They will have to make up more lies now....

Krusher · « **Reply #25 on:** October 23, 2003, 03:56:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
It wasn't Bush who uttered the "45 minute readiness" claim. It was Powell in the UNSC.

then by lord dolf vader standards, lord dolf vader is a liar

Lazerus · « **Reply #26 on:** October 23, 2003, 07:21:17 PM »

Quote

at this point they didnt have them where they could use them or anywhere near the point of using them. cirtainly not 45 minutes like they lied. they probly didnt have them at all

im not willing to go from massive stockpiles to hey we found a bucket of insecticide that counts !!! you are asking me what happens when something impossible happens. no answer there sorry.

bush was lieing in a calculated way and no one but party drones in america believes he didnt. ( no white house tapes this time he saw to that )
your guys a liar a deserter and a criminal facts is facts.

At the very least he is making unsubstantiated accusations. The implication that Bush was involved in lying is there by your own reply.

As far as the 45 minute claim goes, I don't have the exact text in front of me, but I would assume that Saddam knew where they were amid his stockpiles. I imagine that there isn't a huge dump where they piled up rounds of ammunition and they would have to dig in and try to find the exact ones that might have weapons prohibited by the armistice. If you walk in a 500,000 sq. ft wharehouse and go looking for a particular item, you might never find it. But if you have a system, like any half assed organization would, you would be able to walk right to it. With a delivery system in place (artillery equipment, mobile rocket launchers), it is entirely possible that the 45 minute claim is fairly accurate.

Of course, these are all assumptions, including the assumption that the capacity was there, and that the statement was even made as presented by the very biased members of this BBS. Like I said, I don't have the original text in front of me.

It's very easy to cry 'liar' when the evidence is not clear or unavailable to you. Even when all is said and done in Iraq, proving that the current administration knowingly provided the world with false information will be very difficult. You are however entitled to your opinion, and I think that everyone that ventures on these boards is well aware of where you stand, and what you stand for.

JBA · « **Reply #27 on:** October 23, 2003, 08:10:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Scootter
Good post JBA,

this should be a thread of it's own

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2670-2003Sep25¬Found=true

Thanks.
Swatting down liberal blather is like arguing with a 5 year old. After all the screaming and yelling stops, they call you names and go away mad.

Gixer · « **Reply #28 on:** October 23, 2003, 08:23:10 PM »

IMHO if they haven't found WMD"s in six months they never will. We were all lead to believe that there were 1000's of tons of the stuff waiting in warheads and ready to launch. Or huge stockpiles in bunkers.

Seems neither has been found, and now using evidence of "possible programes of WMD"s? hardly the same. Especially if that's to try back up the arguments of going to war.

Maybe when they find Sadam himself he can tell us, or was that the scientists?

Whole thing is turning into the biggest farce for quite sometime and certinly doing more harm then good for all involved.

...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~

Lazerus · « **Reply #29 on:** October 23, 2003, 10:48:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gixer
IMHO if they haven't found WMD"s in six months they never will.

What do you base your opinion on?

Do you discount the fact that there are several hundred thousand square miles of ammunition dumps that have to be searched?

I'm actually curious how you come to the conclusion that a 6 month time frame is sufficient given the enormity of the search involved. I actually felt that we would find them right away myself at first, but after learning a bit more about the situation, I feel that more time is needed before calling the game.