The media is out of hand

[Bustem' Down]

Hmmm, I'm thinking there's more to your statement but ok!

No, there's not.

 

[itsbob]

But they did debate the issue?

Did they waste our money in holding that debate?

Would they have been getting paid if they weren't debating it? Yes, so how was any money wasted??

 

[itsbob]

C'mon.

We had satellites watching very closely for that kind of activity. I thought the same thing too, but it's just not the case. We had satellites watching for that kind of activity and we would've seen them if they did.

How can a satellite tell if a truck travelling between Iraq and Syria has a load of milk, or canisters full of Nerve Agent? HMMMM??

 

[SouthernMdRocks]

No, there's not.

Well I don't mind the razzing.

 

[Kerad]

How can a satellite tell if a truck travelling between Iraq and Syria has a load of milk, or canisters full of Nerve Agent? HMMMM??

The same way Colin Powell can go to the U.N. with a satellite image of a truck parked outside a building and say "Inside that truck is a mobile biological wepaons lab!"

 

[SouthernMdRocks]

How can a satellite tell if a truck travelling between Iraq and Syria has a load of milk, or canisters full of Nerve Agent? HMMMM??

A satellite can't, but Andy can, cuz he's special, intelligent and on crack, all at the same time.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The same way Colin Powell can go to the U.N. with a satellite image of a truck parked outside a building and say "Inside that truck is a mobile biological wepaons lab!"

The same way the Democrats in Congress stand behind him and say "yes he's right"

 

[Kerad]

The same way the Democrats in Congress stand behind him and say "yes he's right"

A lesson learned about taking an administration at it's word.

 

[Bustem' Down]

A lesson learned about taking an administration at it's word.

But you have to. You cannot second guess everything someone does because he sits at another table. Nothing would ever get accomplished. The democrats did right, there was evidence from intellegence that there were WMD's and they voted for the war resolution. Turns out the intelegence was wrong, but hindsight is 20/20. What if there were WMD's and congress did nothing because the didn't want to "take thier word". Nothing could have happened, or someone could have been nuked.

 

[Kerad]

But you have to. You cannot second guess everything someone does because he sits at another table. Nothing would ever get accomplished. The democrats did right, there was evidence from intellegence that there were WMD's and they voted for the war resolution. Turns out the intelegence was wrong, but hindsight is 20/20. What if there were WMD's and congress did nothing because the didn't want to "take thier word". Nothing could have happened, or someone could have been nuked.

The intelligence that the administration chose to illuminate while selling the invasion was wrong. Intelligence that contradicted that position was stifled. But that's a whole different debate, one that's been run into the ground countless times in other threads.

What was the point of this thread? Oh yeah...the media has WMD's and must be dealt with. Or something to that effect...

 

[gwa]

I've got a friend who works in The Pentagon that says the government was behind the 9-11 attacks. It's true, you know why? He works at the Pentagon and he said so...

I thought Cartman said that Stan was behind 9/11

 

[ylexot]

I thought Cartman said that Stan was behind 9/11

It was Kyle

 

[gwa]

I knew it was one of em. Thanks for the correction

 

[itsbob]

The same way Colin Powell can go to the U.N. with a satellite image of a truck parked outside a building and say "Inside that truck is a mobile biological wepaons lab!"

Some specialized vehicles you can tell.. and I thought this was after we already had people on the ground verifying what they thought at the time was a portable lab.

Specialized vehicles are usually really easy to identify. There is some kind of 'tell' that gives it away.. an antenna, a sensor of some kind.. relocation of the spare tire even.. but a cargo truck is a cargo truck, and satellites can't see through tarps to identify inanimate objects.

 

[Kerad]

Some specialized vehicles you can tell.. and I thought this was after we already had people on the ground verifying what they thought at the time was a portable lab.

Specialized vehicles are usually really easy to identify. There is some kind of 'tell' that gives it away.. an antenna, a sensor of some kind.. relocation of the spare tire even.. but a cargo truck is a cargo truck, and satellites can't see through tarps to identify inanimate objects.

I understand that, certainly. But I specifically used that example because we did find a few of "those" trucks after the invasion...the kind identified by Powell as wepaons labs. They weren't. There was something about railcars being misidentified as something sinister, as well...if I remember correctly.

 

[forestal]

Hey, according to DOD it didn't exist..

Lance CPL Matty Hull's widow is happy its finally been brought out..


Lance Corporal Hull's widow said she was glad the video was now public.

"I would have preferred to hear the evidence from the US pilots themselves. However, they cannot be compelled to come and they have not come voluntarily. The video is therefore vital evidence and must be shown," Susan Hull said in a statement.

"After years of being told that it did not exist or was secret I feel that it was right not to give up hope."

Friendly fire has been a burning issue for both countries since the first Gulf War in 1991, when nine British servicemen were killed in a mistaken attack by US aircraft.

This should never be in the news.




http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/06/iraq.video/index.html

 

[itsbob]

Hey, according to DOD it didn't exist..

Lance CPL Matty Hull's widow is happy its finally been brought out..


Lance Corporal Hull's widow said she was glad the video was now public.

"I would have preferred to hear the evidence from the US pilots themselves. However, they cannot be compelled to come and they have not come voluntarily. The video is therefore vital evidence and must be shown," Susan Hull said in a statement.

"After years of being told that it did not exist or was secret I feel that it was right not to give up hope."

Friendly fire has been a burning issue for both countries since the first Gulf War in 1991, when nine British servicemen were killed in a mistaken attack by US aircraft.

SO what's your point?

Have you ever been in a situation those pilots were in? Can you tell the difference between a soviet IFV and a British IFV at night, from say 3 miles away?

I think the US was right in trying to protect these pilots, they are suffereing enough knowing they made a mistake, why put them through the media wringer, and let dickheads like you have their way with them??

There was no intent on the pilots part to kill 'friendly', it's war, mistakes happen, luckily today, not as often as say in WWII.

 

[Kerad]

Doesnt anyone remember when we first got into the outskirts of Baghdad, the reports of the US Military finding Gas Masks, CB Suits etc in the holdouts of the Iraqi Military?

Link



The Iraqis knew, of course, that coalition forces did not have chemical weapons; so the only reason for this gear is to protect against their own weapons.

The fact that they had gas masks doesn't mean crap. If Saddam had chemical weapons to use against us, he would have.

And you are wrong...the U.S. does indeed have chemical weapons. We just don't advertise it.

 

[itsbob]

If Saddam had chemical weapons to use against us, he would have.

.

This statement is wrong..

During the first Gulf War his generals and his field commanders had a multitude of chemical weapons.. Saddam gave the order to use them, but the generals realizing they were going to lose, and what would happen to them if they did use them, refused to fire a single round..

We did find all of those chemical weapons after the first war.. artillery shells, bombs.. etc.. Where'd they go??

 

[PsyOps]

The fact that they had gas masks doesn't mean crap. If Saddam had chemical weapons to use against us, he would have.

And you are wrong...the U.S. does indeed have chemical weapons. We just don't advertise it.

How about this theory... Saddam was approaching this from the aspect that he would lose, escape and come back to form a rebellion and retake the country with the help of Syria, where the WMD were hidden.

The "Saddam never had WMD" or "Clinton destroyed them when he bombed Iraq" (or whatever argument you want to use) argument just doesn't fit. If Saddam didn't have them, then why didn't he just allow inspectors in to verify? Instead he played the cat-and-mouse game making everyone believe he had them. He snubbed his nose 17 times over 12 years at the entire world, the entire world believed he was armed. He hid them somewhere. Instead of playing the old "Bush lied" game perhaps you ought to be worried about whose hands they are in.