Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kerrys Biggest Lie Yet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Trooth
    LOL - not your favourite branch then?

    Would they be the ones (to quote Black Adder Goes Forth - British sitcom based around WWI) "whose entire role is to work out how many deaths are needed to move the drinks cabinet 6 feet closer to Berlin"
    Loved that series. Actually, I'm thinking more of Monty Python's skits.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trooth
    replied
    Rear Echelon Mother Fucks.
    LOL - not your favourite branch then?

    Would they be the ones (to quote Black Adder Goes Forth - British sitcom based around WWI) "whose entire role is to work out how many deaths are needed to move the drinks cabinet 6 feet closer to Berlin"

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Trooth
    You can make bombs from fertilizers and so on. But what would make Iraq any different from any other nation in the "could" department.
    None but my point was that I, and the military, were very specific what we were looking for, specifically, those mustard and VX.

    Originally posted by Trooth
    I agree it is somewhat perplexing. My theory has been that the Iraqi beaucracry was not up to the task of dcoumenting the activites of the Iraqi military (especially as they were being deliberately vague anyway. Perhaps is simply wasn't accounted for when it was destroyed? Or perhaps it is still there to be found, but i think the latter is looking remote now.
    Destroying VX and mustard is a very tedious and very labour intensive event. You need to burn the materials in very superhot, concealed ovens. The Iraqis said they just dumped it and the site they said they dumped it was clean (ie there were some pretty birds flying around instead of skeletons everywhere). I imagine they dumped it in which case, finding them is even more paramount. This is now an ecological timebomb.

    Originally posted by Trooth
    Forgive my ignorance, what is a REMF?
    Rear Echelon Mother Fucks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trooth
    replied
    [QUOTE=Officer of Engineers]Hold on a second. I can find exactly that for you right now. It's called pesticide and the Iraqis have tons of it and is still manufacturing them. Any agricultural nation do that and it's a very small step to actually produce chem warfare agents from that point.
    [quote]
    You can make bombs from fertilizers and so on. But what would make Iraq any different from any other nation in the "could" department.

    What we, the military, have always been harping on is the tons of VX and mustard that was not and is still not accounted for.
    I agree it is somewhat perplexing. My theory has been that the Iraqi beaucracry was not up to the task of dcoumenting the activites of the Iraqi military (especially as they were being deliberately vague anyway. Perhaps is simply wasn't accounted for when it was destroyed? Or perhaps it is still there to be found, but i think the latter is looking remote now.

    Yes, we did and there was a few surprises for me also. I didn't know they had weaponized sarin.
    Sorry, i meant the mechanism to turn them from weapons to mass weapons.

    At this point, I think that's the political REMFs trying to save their collective ass from political lynching.
    Forgive my ignorance, what is a REMF?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Trooth
    But the debacle within the UN was all about WMD.
    I ain't a politician but I know the military has admitted we were wrong. Wonder why the military don't get the press about admitting we were wrong.

    Originally posted by Trooth
    My personal view is that Weapons of Mass Destruction have to be pretty much capable of mass destruction. Don't get me wrong, if we hadn't found a single active, filled, ready to go shell (and we are close to that number!) but we had indeed found mobile anthrax labs, or just huge vasts of the stuff and so on, that would be "Mass Destruction" because even if they didn't have the delivery mechanism, they could dump it in rivers etc.
    Hold on a second. I can find exactly that for you right now. It's called pesticide and the Iraqis have tons of it and is still manufacturing them. Any agricultural nation do that and it's a very small step to actually produce chem warfare agents from that point.

    What we, the military, have always been harping on is the tons of VX and mustard that was not and is still not accounted for.

    Originally posted by Trooth
    And we didn't find the delivery mechanism.
    Yes, we did and there was a few surprises for me also. I didn't know they had weaponized sarin.

    Originally posted by Trooth
    I still think Iraq was a purely military strategic move to position for Iran, Syria et al, put pressure on SA (a friend too good to actually put real military pressure on) and to reduce dependancy upon Israel and Turkey.
    I think the oil did come into it, but as a bonus along with liberation for the Iraqis from an oppressive regime.
    At this point, I think that's the political REMFs trying to save their collective ass from political lynching.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trooth
    replied
    Originally posted by Confed999
    The decade leading up to the liberation was rarely about WMD, unless it was to justify a military action. It was virtually all about the humanitarian situation, wasn't it? At least that's the timeline I remember.
    But the debacle within the UN was all about WMD.

    Now see, that's a qualifier. Had you said WMD able to kill 500,000 wasn't found, you would probably be right. I don't remember that being presented without the Saddam claim, and without the intel qualifier, though.
    My personal view is that Weapons of Mass Destruction have to be pretty much capable of mass destruction. Don't get me wrong, if we hadn't found a single active, filled, ready to go shell (and we are close to that number!) but we had indeed found mobile anthrax labs, or just huge vasts of the stuff and so on, that would be "Mass Destruction" because even if they didn't have the delivery mechanism, they could dump it in rivers etc.

    However we didn't. And we didn't find the delivery mechanism. There is no mass. Certainly Saddam had weapons of destruction and some of them were illegal. But they in now way were mass, nor could they have been mass.

    I still think Iraq was a purely military strategic move to position for Iran, Syria et al, put pressure on SA (a friend too good to actually put real military pressure on) and to reduce dependancy upon Israel and Turkey.
    I think the oil did come into it, but as a bonus along with liberation for the Iraqis from an oppressive regime.

    Leave a comment:


  • Confed999
    replied
    Originally posted by Trooth
    That was one shell
    You said "no" WMD, I was simply showing you were wrong. ;)
    Originally posted by Trooth
    I seem to remember presenting lots of hard and cold facts about what Iraq had.
    The only ones I remeber being listed without the "intel" qualifier were the ones Saddam admited to having reported by the UN. Like I said before, we may just be hearing what we want to hear.
    Originally posted by Trooth
    They were trying to manage the agenda by keeping the debate on one topic and moving to another as that topic was brought into question.
    The decade leading up to the liberation was rarely about WMD, unless it was to justify a military action. It was virtually all about the humanitarian situation, wasn't it? At least that's the timeline I remember.
    Originally posted by Trooth
    I'd still like to see evidence that Iraq possessed WMD that could kill 500,000 people.
    Now see, that's a qualifier. Had you said WMD able to kill 500,000 wasn't found, you would probably be right. I don't remember that being presented without the Saddam claim, and without the intel qualifier, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trooth
    replied
    Originally posted by Confed999
    Are you sure? The topic, and story, I recall was posted by you... Here it is: http://www.militaryaffairsboard.com/...ead.php?t=2048 there are other stories linked from here that include mustard gas finds, production equipment, and precursors.

    The statements above were the cold hard facts, the WMD info, except for what Saddam admitted to, was labled intelligence and not fact. All of those statements I posted were pre-war. Now you can believe what you wish, but while you heard WMD, I heard the statements I quoted, and they are just a few. You say there was nothing other than incorrect intel to provide cause, I see incorrect intel as frosting. We all see what we want to see.
    That was one shell that came from unknown sources, and was described as carrying a small amount. I agree it isn't nothing. But i don't remember Mr Powell's presentation to the UN highlighting that Iraq possed one very old shell containing a small amount of Sarin, one unweaponisable vial of Anthrax stored in a researchers fridge, half a dzen clean but empty chemicals shells and some missles that were a bit too efficient. I seem to remember presenting lots of hard and cold facts about what Iraq had.

    I don't deny that politicos mentioned the things you say and i don't deny that they mentionew them before the war. However the timeline is the issue. They were trying to manage the agenda by keeping the debate on one topic and moving to another as that topic was brought into question.

    I'd still like to see evidence that Iraq possessed WMD that could kill 500,000 people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Confed999
    replied
    Originally posted by porsteamboy
    Being a patriot is great, as long as your not blinded by that patriotism!
    One who is blinded by patriotism is a nationalist, not a patriot.
    Originally posted by porsteamboy
    neocons
    LOL figures...
    Originally posted by porsteamboy
    no one saw Dubya a the neocons move in to take Afkanastan and Iraq!
    I saw it. I support the removal of tyranical governments, and that has nothing to do with patriotism or nationalism. IMHO, it's sad that's political to so many.
    Originally posted by porsteamboy
    When emotions rule Government, she rules unwisley!
    I don't want a government without emotion, sounds ominous.

    I do wonder how that speach came from what you quoted?

    Leave a comment:


  • porsteamboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Confed999
    US forces in general? Or really covert stuff? I bet various intel agencies had been running operations there for many years by '68. Has anyone here said we weren't in there? I've seen it said Kerry wan't there, but I haven't researched that for myself. BTW, what's wrong with being a patriot?
    Being a patriot is great, as long as your not blinded by that patriotism! There were so many flags flying after 911, no one saw Dubya a the neocons move in to take Afkanastan and Iraq! When emotions rule Government, she rules unwisley!

    Leave a comment:


  • Confed999
    replied
    Originally posted by porsteamboy
    Don't go there, the whole Bush cabinet would be doing time with Martha Stewart!
    What?

    Leave a comment:


  • Confed999
    replied
    Originally posted by porsteamboy
    Your assuming that some one gives a shit! All that shit is political smoke and mirriors!
    It's a proven lie by a political candidate, so I care.

    Try to watch the language please.

    Leave a comment:


  • porsteamboy
    replied
    Originally posted by M21Sniper
    Lying to congress is a crime.

    Whether or not congress itself is subject to that law, i don't know.
    If they take an oath!

    Leave a comment:


  • porsteamboy
    replied
    Originally posted by M21Sniper
    It does carry a penalty Trooth, now that you mention it.

    If this is indeed true(and i believe that it is), it could be the thread that unravels Kerry once and for all.
    Don't go there, the whole Bush cabinet would be doing time with Martha Stewart!

    Leave a comment:


  • porsteamboy
    replied
    Originally posted by M21Sniper
    "Vietnam Vet Kerry Told Senate He Saw Military Action in Cambodia
    Posted May 16, 2004
    By J. Michael Waller

    Did decorated Vietnam War veteran John F. Kerry see military action in Cambodia? He says nothing about it on the campaign trail, but he stated it as fact on the floor of the U.S. Senate on March 27, 1986. In that speech, Kerry accused President Ronald Reagan of leading the United States into another Vietnam in Central America, accusing the administration of Nixon-like duplicity and saying that he should recognize it because of his Vietnam experience.

    Kerry told his colleagues he was on Navy duty in Cambodia at a time when President Richard M. Nixon lied to the public and said that there were no U.S. forces in that country. He even took enemy fire. In his words, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared - seared - in me."

    www.insightmag.com

    One small problem with Kerrys assertions.

    HE NEVER SERVED IN THE CAMBODIAN INVASION.

    I bet this is what got Burkett interested in Kerry to begin with.

    NOTE: Just to be fair, i must point out that to the best of MY knowledge, and based on the records Kerry has released, he did not serve in Cambodia.

    If anyone can provide firm evidence to the contrary, i will retract my claim that Kerry is a NO GOOD DIRTY ROTTEN LIAR.
    Your assuming that some one gives a shit! All that shit is political smoke and mirriors!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X