aight, lets get back on topic...this is a big deal...here's what i think...the missiles thing may be untrue, but something was found...check out what foxnews.com said. call it unreliable, but fox news is definately better than some local iraqi paper. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Nuclear Weapons - REPORTEDLY - found in Iraq
- Thread starter 46Driver
- Start date
- Status
whoops, didn't realize that.. on that, though, i'm surprised that didn't get more coverage by fox news...what i read in that story alone seemed pretty newsworthy...didn't seem to need to 'develop' into anything..but about the current situation. today, i talked to someone who said she saw on the news that nuclear missiles were found in iraq. this is all too weird to be nothing, but i still wonder to what extent it's true (or not).
I can't but help think that most networks are conservative, because every show I see on tv is conservative. Except the Daily Show, which I guess you could say is more liberal, but he makes fun of everybody. I actually find that is my best source for information I wouldn't hear anywhere else and it doesn't board me to tears.
Maybe you don't hear the info you get on The Daily Show because it isn't news or factual but the product of a comedy writer. Get a grip! Do you go to Letterman for the news on Wall Street? Just because a guy sits on a set that looks like a evening news program doesn't mean it is a news program of any sort, funny or otherwise.
Said Shoo: "Even if it is confirmed, you'll probably never see it on any of the main stream media... heaven forbid all their liberal rantings about how Bush lied about the war be wrong."
I kinda agree with Shoo: I think that finding WMD in Iraq would be just the sort of thing to be downplayed by the media. I can't really explain it, but I suspect that reporting proof that someone was actually justified (the President, for example) is not nearly as interesting to them as accusations that someone was very wrong and making things look way nastier than they are. They'd find something else to report instead.
Unless, of course, the person who was finally proven justified is a former pop star/child molester/freak beyond description. They'd be all over that with their psycho-analytic experts telling us that we can breathe a sigh of releif - they day has been saved.
I kinda agree with Shoo: I think that finding WMD in Iraq would be just the sort of thing to be downplayed by the media. I can't really explain it, but I suspect that reporting proof that someone was actually justified (the President, for example) is not nearly as interesting to them as accusations that someone was very wrong and making things look way nastier than they are. They'd find something else to report instead.
Unless, of course, the person who was finally proven justified is a former pop star/child molester/freak beyond description. They'd be all over that with their psycho-analytic experts telling us that we can breathe a sigh of releif - they day has been saved.
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
Hold on, I think we're losing the forest for the trees here. After all the whining about the "liberal media" and the "better ratings" talk and Daily Show stuff, the facts remain:
We still haven't found the stockpiles of WMDs in the quantities that were so solidly claimed by the Administration before the war (que clip of Cheney/Rummy/Rice saying "We know where they are," "there is no doubt.")
There was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-qaida, no link between Iraq and the events of 9/11 (Iran let several of the hijackers pass through their borders).
Iraq had no nuclear weapons. If we're gonna focus on that anyway, then lets do it in order of imminent threat: North Korea, which has nukes, Iran which is producing them, and Iraq, which wanted them.
Let's not lose sight of whats factual and whats not.
We still haven't found the stockpiles of WMDs in the quantities that were so solidly claimed by the Administration before the war (que clip of Cheney/Rummy/Rice saying "We know where they are," "there is no doubt.")
There was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-qaida, no link between Iraq and the events of 9/11 (Iran let several of the hijackers pass through their borders).
Iraq had no nuclear weapons. If we're gonna focus on that anyway, then lets do it in order of imminent threat: North Korea, which has nukes, Iran which is producing them, and Iraq, which wanted them.
Let's not lose sight of whats factual and whats not.
El Cid
You're daisy if you do.
Point One: The war in Iraq wasn't fought just because there were thoughts of WMD. He had them and used them on the Kurds in the North circa 1989.
Point Two: The intel was bad not just from the Bush years but back to Bush Sr. Even Clinton authorized force against Iraq numerous times for violations of UN mandates.
Point Three: There maybe no direct tie between Sadam and his bathists and AQ but with his open consent for terrorist actions against the US it makes him just as guilty. By the way when you pay the families of homicide bombers that kill US citizens and their allies you forfiet your "right" to the benefit of the doubt. Oh, and the whole Iran issue... that puppet gov't couldn't be any more linked to AQ and the Bathists
Point Four: As far as facts go NK does NOT have nukes, Iran and NK both want them. The difference between Iran/Iraq and NK is that the muslim countries have used their WMD and NK is just a failing communist country that wants more aid before it fizzles out ( thanks to Clinton and his botched "no nukes" for food program).
So if you are going to attempt to be definative... brush up on your history.
Point Two: The intel was bad not just from the Bush years but back to Bush Sr. Even Clinton authorized force against Iraq numerous times for violations of UN mandates.
Point Three: There maybe no direct tie between Sadam and his bathists and AQ but with his open consent for terrorist actions against the US it makes him just as guilty. By the way when you pay the families of homicide bombers that kill US citizens and their allies you forfiet your "right" to the benefit of the doubt. Oh, and the whole Iran issue... that puppet gov't couldn't be any more linked to AQ and the Bathists
Point Four: As far as facts go NK does NOT have nukes, Iran and NK both want them. The difference between Iran/Iraq and NK is that the muslim countries have used their WMD and NK is just a failing communist country that wants more aid before it fizzles out ( thanks to Clinton and his botched "no nukes" for food program).
So if you are going to attempt to be definative... brush up on your history.
El Cid said:
Um...I think your facts might be mistaken. NK has been running the reprocessing plant at Yongbyon for months now and has certainly produced weapons grade material - you think they DIDN'T put it in warheads? I'd kinda expect a power hungry slightly unbalanced dictator to put these nukes together as fast as they can...they have the technology and the materials.
- Status