Weapon evidence not needed says Hoon - Page 3

The Mad Viking · January 20, 2003, 16:23

I remember clearly the US media's description of the vaunted Iraqi military, just prior to Desert Storm. It was the 4th largest military machine in the world, complete with modern air force; battle hardened veterans of the Iranian war, anchored by the elite troops of the Republican Guard.

Turned out to be a pile of shytte, fed to them by the US Govt. dept of propaganda and duly regurgitated to the gullible public.

I rather suspect that if Iraq had any WoMD they would have used them in Desert Storm. They launched their scuds at Israel, and managed to inflict infinitely less damage than a teenage Palestinian zealot.

Iraq's power is once again being hugely oversold. They don't have a pot to p!ss in.

OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 16:40

There's more oil in Texas than the USA could ever use.
Take your tired ass oil arguement home.

Traianvs · January 20, 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
There's more oil in Texas than the USA could ever use.
Take your tired ass oil arguement home.

alright that's the biggest pile of bs I've ever heard...

Big oil fields deep below are getting scarcer all around the world man, only in several regions such as Saudi-Arabia there are still huge oil fields...

Check Australia, whose oil is nearly depleted, they've got a problem.... the North sea is currently at it's maximum, in 10 years we will be down with a puny amount of oil left that's not worth pumping up... Russia, blah, you won't believe how the soviets used their oil, they received only half of the oil pumped up, the other half was lost due to leaking pipes or whatever bad equipment of theirs!!

About the US having oil, sure they still have huge amounts of oil, but all in small seperate oil fields usually about the size of a football pitch, which isn't cost effective... you can only exploit large fields, those installations cost a bunch of money, so you just can't go out there somewhere in Texas and start drilling!!!

you guys need foreign oil, 60% has to come from other countries... if I'm not mistaken (it could also be that you guys pump 60% yourself, doesn't matter anyway) but seeing you are so dependant on Saudi arabia, it wouldn't be a bad thing at all for the US huh, this war.. remember the pipelines in Afghanistan!

Maybe i'll stop the oil argument of you leave the argument that Saddam is a threat to the US, which he obviously isn't... they don't have a USS lincoln floating around somewhere near New York, right?

he would surely be the major power in the middle east, just like anyone else... besides Pakistan also has nukes, is a dictatorship and is a bad place to live if ye don't have any $$$... only diff of course is that it is friendly to the US

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 18:06

You constantly insist on putting your foot squarely in your mouth, don't you?

Texas wells have been capped for decades.
Then there's Alaska and wherever else.
You want to think it's oil, go ahead. Think it's about oil.

Traianvs · January 20, 2003, 18:40

-I don't know what "capped" means, in any case you won't all your oil in Texas
-Sure there is Alaska, but are you so naive to think you can get all your oil there?

Quote:

You want to think it's oil, go ahead. Think it's about oil.

-Have you even read my post...?

Ned · January 20, 2003, 18:51

Let's face. If Iraq has WoMD, Saddam has been successful hiding them. If Iraq does not have them, Saddam has nothing to hide and should be fully cooperative with the U.N. weapons inspectors. Which of these two is more likely given 1) Saddam's December 8th report and 2) his history of cooperation with the weapons inspectors?

From my understanding, the December 8th report fails to identify what happened to tens of thousands of chemical and biological warheads that were identified by the U.N. weapons inspectors in its final report of 1998.

We also apparently have indications (photos) that bio-weapons labs have been put on wheels. How could the weapons inspectors find these in the first place?

Finally, I understand that Saddam has not provided full access to scientists. Many critical scientists have not been listed on the lists we have asked Saddam to provide. Second, none of the scientists, for whatever reason, have been interviewed outside Iraq. If this is because the weapons inspectors themselves have not asked the scientists to be interviewed outside Iraq, this is a significant failure. However, I think it's more likely that the scientists themselves have not agreed to leave because of intimidation by Saddam.

What we're left with is the impression that Saddam continues to hide WoMD. Undoubtedly Blair and Bush or both aware of the evidence and have come to the same conclusion. Otherwise it is very hard to explain the large troop movements toward Iraq.

KrazyHorse · January 20, 2003, 21:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan

Fine, show me some evidence of that rather than ranting on that it's false.

Of what? You made a quite extraordinary claim. An offhand reference in an ABC story doesn't cut it.

DinoDoc · January 20, 2003, 22:31

Quote:

OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL

Could you explain the oil arguement to me? It doesn't make much sense given the facts of the situation.

I'd also like a reference for the charge that the fears of the Iraqi military were based on lies fed to the media by the US government. Preferably from contemporary writings.

Edan · January 20, 2003, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Of what? You made a quite extraordinary claim. An offhand reference in an ABC story doesn't cut it.

What extraordinary claim? What offhand reference? I quoted directly from the ABC article and then you dismiss the article by claiming that they were hiding the real truth without showing any evidence to validate that claim. Why should I believe that?