August 07, 2003

Jets hidden in the Desert

So just to get this straight. Saddam hid over 30 fighter jets in the sand in the vicinity of our own troops and you think that we should just walk in a find his WMD without problem and when we dont find them right away then you want to jump to all kinds of conclusions?

And DF. If you do repond to this. Please stick to the point and dont give us a 3000 word reply that has little to do with the original post.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2003/n08062003_200308063.html

Posted by at August 7, 2003 07:25 PM | TrackBack



Comments

hehe...

He didn't hide them. They sat so long unused that the desert winds covered them with sand. :-)

Posted by: Muddy at August 9, 2003 04:01 AM

As if I was used to long and unrelated postings...
I've never said there is not any chance you would find WMD. I've said there is not any chance you will find enough to make anyone believe Irak was a threat to anybody... Lousy armed forces, poor economy. I mean, even France would have won against Irak, and alone if needed...
quote "A U.S. military search team prepares to move a Cold War-era MiG- 25 Foxbat interceptor that was found buried beneath the sands in Iraq. "
Since when are cold war era AIr-planes any threat to any developped country (including France).
If you look carefully you'll find hidden swords from the time of the califes in Baghdad...

Posted by: DF at August 12, 2003 04:48 PM

DF:

"I've never said there is not any chance you would find WMD"

Actually you did, more than once:

"But no there were no Weapons of mass destruction"

AND

"So far I told you there were no WMD, none were found"

Check your own comments at "Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found and removed"

This is exactly why your opinions are worthless

Posted by: cwilli at August 13, 2003 12:39 AM

I told you you would not find WMD (implied in the numbers announced). And fact is none has been found. This shows my hability to form correct predictions.

Now of course You can find some 20 years old fighters and some lost chemical components.

Is that clearer. Do I need to explain everything so clear and sharp so you get the point ?

You may find a chemical missile ready to be launched somewhere in the desert.
I won't care.
I mean everybody has seen the accuracy of the Irakis missiles.

But you will never find the WMD announced, mobile missile launchers, drone, nuclear program, dangerous germs and the like... This is paranoia in the oval office.

In irak you may find some remnants of the chemical program of a third world country that has undergone 10 years of UN scrutiny. Which approximates to zilch.

My room mate has been telling me she thinks Saddam is dead.. Might be the same with oussama. And this makes me laugh. The situation is just like when Darth Vador kills Obi Wan kenobi. Now these people will never get killed, and never be seized and always rally to their cause.

any way. So far no WMD and as you put it "This is exactly why your opinions are worthless"

Posted by: DF at August 16, 2003 08:40 AM

This is a classic example of when I asked you not to reply if you are not going to stick to the point.

You said
"I've never said there is not any chance you would find WMD. I've said there is not any chance you will find enough to make anyone believe Irak was a threat to anybody"

but that was not true. I pointed out at least a couple times that you did say we would not find *ANY* WMD.

Then you want to misdirect the point so you dont look so dumb and say "I told you you would not find WMD, This shows my hability to form correct predictions " (followed by some mumbling about Darth Vador which shows your correct ability to form idiotic symbolism)

which one is it? Did you never say that 'we wouldnt find any WMD' or did you say that 'we would not find any WMD'?

Posted by: cwilli at August 16, 2003 11:28 PM

Don't pretend to be more stupid than you are.
WHat is a Weapon of mass destruction ?
Can you consider One fighter or one rocket a weapon of mass destruction ?
Or do you need a complete program to have something that really can bring mass destruction ? Something threatening.
You have to place my sentence in the context, we've had 6 months of USA lies about nuclear programs, unmanned fighters and the like ... They kept on saying saddam was dangerous.

These will never come true.
But of course you may find one rocket with some chemical in it, forgotten by the UN inspectors or some papers about how to make poison and the like...
BUt I do not call these weapons of mass destruction.
SO Yes I stick to the point, you will never find any (so defined) WMD in Irak.

Is it clearer now ? Are you happier ?

Any way your play on definitions can not erase this reality : no WMD have been used by Irak upon the USA troops, the only WMD used were used at a time where Saddam was heavily supported by the former Reagan and bush administration, and no WMD have been found yet after 4 months of occupation.
Meanwhile, Irak is still the mess everybody told you it would turn out to be.
Some progress has been made toward democracy. Great. Let's hope it will go on.

Posted by: DF at August 18, 2003 09:16 AM

And in this corner weighing in at 92lbs. hailing from some backwards town with no running water in France and wearing no trunks cause he's a nudist, DF!
And in the other corner weighing in at 135lbs. sporting the official Marine haircut and nuclear breath wearing the Marine issue olive drab trunks, Cwilli!

Now this bout to determine the feather weight champion of internet trash talking.

Gentlemen, you know the rules, now come out swinging!

....

Fight!

*ding*

Posted by: Muddy at August 18, 2003 03:14 PM

Both on the slight side...

Short I suppose.LOL

Posted by: les at August 18, 2003 03:57 PM

DF. The reality is this;

First, You said that there were no WMD and then you said that you never said we would not find any. It does not matter the amount. You said none. You completely counterdicted yourself. That is my point.

Second, I personally dont care about your incorrect facts such as US lies about a nuclear weapons program (The US never said he HAD them but that he tried to obtain them. If you think he didnt than your a bigger idiot than any of us thought.) Of course you dont think Saddam was dangerous. The French governement was on his payroll. He was of no danger to you. I understand that is all you care about. I am sure the Serbs did not feel the same way. (You remember the Serbs? The ones who were able to live because of the no fly zone, otherwise Saddam would have killed them all.) Or how about the Children who didnt want to join the Jr Baath Party and found themselves in prison? I am sure they didnt see Saddam as a danger either.

Here is the only fact that I care about. There are over 60+ mass graves that were found. Many women and children. Thanks to the US there will never be another mass grave at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Like it or not thats the way it is. I did see Saddam as a threat to our security.

I also see your country as the next Arab state. Again another reason why you would not see any of this. Why would your media say anything even remotely against the Arab people? They would not. It a growingly hugh portion of their viewers. Everybody know that the French are appeasers.

My government is by no means perfect but at least we arent French.

Posted by: cwilli at August 19, 2003 03:13 PM

I am sure the Serbs did not feel the same way. (You remember the Serbs? The ones who were able to live because of the no fly zone, otherwise Saddam would have killed them all.)

I can not believe you mixed up the serbs and the kurds. For your information the serb leader Slobodan milosevic is under trial for crimes of war and against humanity. He is accused of ethnic cleansing against the croats and albanians in Kosovo. Serbia has been bombed by the US and France without UNO approval (because Russia was against it) at the time though there was imminent danger.
Now about the kurds. They've been bombed by Irak at a time where he was heavily supported by the reagan administraion. And Bush Senior continued to support irak until the day Saddam invaded Kuwait. So don't make me cry about these crimes your interest for them is way to recent, and as I can see, in 10 years you'll be mixing up Irakis and afgahns and turks ...

There is no shame in being arab, no shame in being an arab country. If by way of immigration the arab population becomes the majority of the french population so be it. As I told you in an earlier post the % of arab people is about the same as the latinos in the USA. You'll be speaking spanish before we start learning arab...
Anyway.
Now I know you're way to stupid to get my points. It's not a matter of ignorance after all serbia and kurdistan and Irak are small and far away countries to you, I can understand that. It's more a matter of intelligence and much important ability to open your mind. You are a fanatic. Basically.

Posted by: DF at August 21, 2003 06:52 PM

you're funny muddy. And I appreciate your pro linux stance. I'm not posting on that, because I'm still waiting for the day cwilli will change his mind... say in 50 years...

The bet in France goes, the US find saddam, they say everything is over, pack up, bush wins the election and he leaves the mess to others to clean...
And what a mess... Israel, Irak, afganhistan... Everywhere is war...

Posted by: DF at August 21, 2003 06:58 PM

no worries DF, just trying to bring a little humor to the intense little fight you and cwilli have going. :-)

Posted by: Muddy at August 21, 2003 11:53 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?