vpFREE2 Forums

While most of the media continues to lie, USA Today amazingly prints the TRUTH!

#1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm

For you has-been Cobol programmers from Minnesota, you'll need the
Flash-plugin on your PC to view it.

Open the link, then, fwd to picture number two.

Well, looky there, it's a shitload of Sarin gas. Hmmm, chemical
weapons? Hmmm, I wonder what that is doing in the peaceful, loving,
Muslim city of Fallujah?

But yeah, we should have given the UN more time to search every,
and I mean EVERY single vehicle in Iraq. Let the inspectors do their
job says Kofi!!! Hahahahahahahahaha!!

-Tom

#2

For more details see:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

It appears these are some of the old chemical weapons used by Saddam
against his own people.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bonuspokergod"
<bonuspokergod@y...> wrote:

···

http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm

For you has-been Cobol programmers from Minnesota, you'll need the
Flash-plugin on your PC to view it.

Open the link, then, fwd to picture number two.

#3

You're mealy-mouthing it again. What kind of flunky would distinguish
what, when , where, or why the WMD's are there? The fact is THEY ARE
THERE--in the hands of the enemy who wants to kill us over here. If
you had your way, we'd have never discovered them or any like them,
and you'd prefer to give these animals a chance to use them over
here. What an un-American moron....Still reeling from the election of
GWB back again!

For more details see:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

It appears these are some of the old chemical weapons used by

Saddam

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

against his own people.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bonuspokergod"
<bonuspokergod@y...> wrote:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm
>
> For you has-been Cobol programmers from Minnesota, you'll need the
> Flash-plugin on your PC to view it.
>
> Open the link, then, fwd to picture number two.
>

#4

Seems from the label on the package that this is that good old USA
made sarin. We sure make some of the best WMD's ever imagined, as do
our (now) good friends: the russians. At least these insurgents
appreciate quality.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

You're mealy-mouthing it again. What kind of flunky would

distinguish

what, when , where, or why the WMD's are there? The fact is THEY

ARE

THERE--in the hands of the enemy who wants to kill us over here.

If

you had your way, we'd have never discovered them or any like

them,

and you'd prefer to give these animals a chance to use them over
here. What an un-American moron....Still reeling from the election

of

GWB back again!

> For more details see:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
>
> It appears these are some of the old chemical weapons used by
Saddam
> against his own people.
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bonuspokergod"
> <bonuspokergod@y...> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm
> >
> > For you has-been Cobol programmers from Minnesota, you'll need

the

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

> > Flash-plugin on your PC to view it.
> >
> > Open the link, then, fwd to picture number two.
> >

#5

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

You're mealy-mouthing it again. What kind of flunky would

distinguish

what, when , where, or why the WMD's are there?

The rest of the world. I hope you realize these are not the WMDs that
were used by GWB as a reason to invade. It was the biological and
nuclear weapons that posed the real threat and were central to the
administrations' claims. These are the weapons that will never be
found since no one has been found that worked on them. It's pretty
hard to view these old chemical weapons as a reason to invade since
they existed for over ten years BEFORE our invasion and had never
been used. Why do you think the administration has not made a big
deal about them?

In any event, it is great to have found SOMETHING. It does improve
our credibility a little bit. It clearly demonstrates Saddam was not
cooperating with the UN. Which was obvious anyway to anyone who cared.

The bottom line is that this will probably do little to change the
viewpoint of the Iraqis insurgents and new terrorists from other
countries.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#6

You're mealy-mouthing it again. What kind of flunky would
distinguish what, when , where, or why the WMD's are there?

The rest of the world.

You mean the rest of YOUR world. Maybe you don't know the damage just
one of those viles can do. I saw quite a few. and what difference
does it make where and when they date back to? Saddam kept saying
they didn't have this stuff, GWB THANKFULLY stayed the course, and
that WAS a reason to attack. So now why also would you believe GWB is
wrong when he says they moved other nukes and biological weapons and
buried them? You believe Saddam more than you do GWB??

I hope you realize these are not the WMDs that

were used by GWB as a reason to invade. It was the biological and
nuclear weapons that posed the real threat and were central to the
administrations' claims. These are the weapons that will never be
found since no one has been found that worked on them. It's pretty
hard to view these old chemical weapons as a reason to invade since
they existed for over ten years BEFORE our invasion and had never
been used. Why do you think the administration has not made a big
deal about them?

In any event, it is great to have found SOMETHING. It does improve
our credibility a little bit. It clearly demonstrates Saddam was

not

cooperating with the UN. Which was obvious anyway to anyone who

cared.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

The bottom line is that this will probably do little to change the
viewpoint of the Iraqis insurgents and new terrorists from other
countries.

#7

Considering the size of these vials it is safe to believe that if
the insurgents wanted them they could easily have taken them. We
gave plenty of advance notification that we would be taking Fallujah
so both civilian and insurgent knew and were able to vacate with
whatever they could carry.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> You're mealy-mouthing it again. What kind of flunky would
> distinguish what, when , where, or why the WMD's are there?
>
> The rest of the world.

You mean the rest of YOUR world. Maybe you don't know the damage

just

one of those viles can do. I saw quite a few. and what difference
does it make where and when they date back to? Saddam kept saying
they didn't have this stuff, GWB THANKFULLY stayed the course, and
that WAS a reason to attack. So now why also would you believe GWB

is

wrong when he says they moved other nukes and biological weapons

and

buried them? You believe Saddam more than you do GWB??

I hope you realize these are not the WMDs that
> were used by GWB as a reason to invade. It was the biological

and

> nuclear weapons that posed the real threat and were central to

the

> administrations' claims. These are the weapons that will never

be

> found since no one has been found that worked on them. It's

pretty

> hard to view these old chemical weapons as a reason to invade

since

> they existed for over ten years BEFORE our invasion and had

never

> been used. Why do you think the administration has not made a

big

> deal about them?
>
> In any event, it is great to have found SOMETHING. It does

improve

> our credibility a little bit. It clearly demonstrates Saddam was
not
> cooperating with the UN. Which was obvious anyway to anyone who
cared.
>
> The bottom line is that this will probably do little to change

the

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

> viewpoint of the Iraqis insurgents and new terrorists from other
> countries.

#8

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> You're mealy-mouthing it again. What kind of flunky would
> distinguish what, when , where, or why the WMD's are there?
>
> The rest of the world.

You mean the rest of YOUR world. Maybe you don't know the damage

just

one of those viles can do.

Nowhere NEAR as much as a nuke or biological weapon. That's the point
moron. They are not WMDs. While very destructive to human life the
damage is localized and containable.

I saw quite a few. and what difference
does it make where and when they date back to? Saddam kept saying
they didn't have this stuff,

And everyone knew it was a lie because we had plenty of evidence that
he never destroyed these old chemical weapons. The problem was these
weapons were not sufficient to make our case to invade Iraq or we
would have done it years before.

GWB THANKFULLY stayed the course, and
that WAS a reason to attack. So now why also would you believe GWB

is

wrong when he says they moved other nukes and biological weapons

and

buried them? You believe Saddam more than you do GWB??

It's very simple and I have explained it to you TWICE already. I'll
do it again. These weapons required DEVELOPMENT. They did not exist
PREVIOUSLY. Therefore, the people involved in the development would
provide us with the facts. They did. They told us there weren't any.
These folks are scientists, not terrorists. Iraq only had so many
people with the expertise to develop WMDs.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#9

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

Considering the size of these vials it is safe to believe that if
the insurgents wanted them they could easily have taken them. We
gave plenty of advance notification that we would be taking

Fallujah so both civilian and insurgent knew and were able to vacate
with whatever they could carry.

Probably true. What that says to me is there is plenty more available
in other parts of Iraq.

#10

Nowhere NEAR as much as a nuke or biological weapon. That's the

point moron. They are not WMDs. While very destructive to human life
the damage is localized and containable.

Most people don't need this, but this stuff can do enough damage to
get the country mad again as well as kill hundreds of thousands. You
and your vague theories again. Glad we have REAL PEOPLE in the White
House.

And everyone knew it was a lie because we had plenty of evidence

that he never destroyed these old chemical weapons. The problem was
these weapons were not sufficient to make our case to invade Iraq or
we would have done it years before.

Bozo, the reason we DIDN'T do anythin years before except enforce the
no-fly zones is because he was playing hide-and-seek with your fabled
inspectors. But once 9-11 occured, and our intelligence had links to
Iraq with a number of terrorists groups, the case was made. The
election agreed with it. Most Americans agree with it. But you agree
with the likes of Michael "Secretary of Foreign Affairs" Moore,
Ed "Director od Homeland Security" Asner, Susan "Secretary of State"
Sarandon, and Sean "CIA Director" Penn. See why we won??

> GWB THANKFULLY stayed the course, and
> that WAS a reason to attack. So now why also would you believe

GWB is wrong when he says they moved other nukes and biological
weapons and buried them? You believe Saddam more than you do GWB??

It's very simple and I have explained it to you TWICE already. I'll
do it again. These weapons required DEVELOPMENT. They did not exist
PREVIOUSLY. Therefore, the people involved in the development would
provide us with the facts. They did. They told us there weren't

any. These folks are scientists, not terrorists. Iraq only had so
many people with the expertise to develop WMDs.

You copied that out of your liberal newspapers, and thankfully our
Government had the sense to move beyond all that hypocritical,
baseless crap. Now you'll come up with ANY reason to pacify your sour
grapes--even if the nukes were discovered in Syria where they already
are. You'd first wait until the NY Times ran an article for all local
papers to syndicate, then you'd blabber that nonsensical excuse here.
On and on with the BS.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#11

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
>
> Considering the size of these vials it is safe to believe that

if

> the insurgents wanted them they could easily have taken them. We
> gave plenty of advance notification that we would be taking
Fallujah so both civilian and insurgent knew and were able to

vacate

with whatever they could carry.

Probably true. What that says to me is there is plenty more

available

in other parts of Iraq.

Possibly, could be just their way of telling us that they have them
but they haven't used them.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#12

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

> Probably true. What that says to me is there is plenty more
available in other parts of Iraq.

Possibly, could be just their way of telling us that they have them
but they haven't used them.

Yeah, but these are barbaric people who place zero value on life. I'm
sure they have plenty more somewhere anyway. That's why we can't let
up, pull out, or give into terrorists regardless of the methods they
use.

#13

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> And everyone knew it was a lie because we had plenty of evidence
that he never destroyed these old chemical weapons. The problem was
these weapons were not sufficient to make our case to invade Iraq

or

we would have done it years before.

Bozo, the reason we DIDN'T do anythin years before except enforce

the

no-fly zones is because he was playing hide-and-seek with your

fabled

inspectors. But once 9-11 occured, and our intelligence had links

to

Iraq with a number of terrorists groups, the case was made.

If that was the case then why all the discussion about nukes and
biological weapons? Your logic doesn't jive with the facts.

>
> > GWB THANKFULLY stayed the course, and
> > that WAS a reason to attack. So now why also would you believe
GWB is wrong when he says they moved other nukes and biological
weapons and buried them? You believe Saddam more than you do GWB??
>
> It's very simple and I have explained it to you TWICE already.

I'll

> do it again. These weapons required DEVELOPMENT. They did not

exist

> PREVIOUSLY. Therefore, the people involved in the development

would

> provide us with the facts. They did. They told us there weren't
any. These folks are scientists, not terrorists. Iraq only had so
many people with the expertise to develop WMDs.

You copied that out of your liberal newspapers, and thankfully our
Government had the sense to move beyond all that hypocritical,
baseless crap. Now you'll come up with ANY reason to pacify your

sour

grapes--even if the nukes were discovered in Syria where they

already

are. You'd first wait until the NY Times ran an article for all

local

papers to syndicate, then you'd blabber that nonsensical excuse

here.

On and on with the BS.

Lot's of words, no facts to refute my statement. That's because what
I just said is so resaonable. By the way, these comments came from
INSIDE the administration, not the NY Times.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#14

If that was the case then why all the discussion about nukes and
biological weapons? Your logic doesn't jive with the facts.

Huh? Saddam hid the WMD's, he would not allow the inspectors get
close, and you ask such a stupid question once again? Facts are
facts, and even if they refute your sissified pacifists beliefs, they
are the facts that mae this country make the proper wartime
decisions.

> You copied that out of your liberal newspapers, and thankfully

our

> Government had the sense to move beyond all that hypocritical,
> baseless crap. Now you'll come up with ANY reason to pacify your
sour
> grapes--even if the nukes were discovered in Syria where they
already
> are. You'd first wait until the NY Times ran an article for all
local
> papers to syndicate, then you'd blabber that nonsensical excuse
here.
> On and on with the BS.

Lot's of words, no facts to refute my statement. That's because

what

I just said is so resaonable. By the way, these comments came from
INSIDE the administration, not the NY Times.

It's the good thing more Americans agree with me, and label such
stupidity which you spew forth with as unreasonable, irresponsible,
and aimless.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#15

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> If that was the case then why all the discussion about nukes and
> biological weapons? Your logic doesn't jive with the facts.

Huh? Saddam hid the WMD's, he would not allow the inspectors get
close, and you ask such a stupid question once again? Facts are
facts, and even if they refute your sissified pacifists beliefs,

they

are the facts that mae this country make the proper wartime
decisions.

Wow, you missed the point entiresly, again. You should get off the
hard stuff or the internet.

>
> > You copied that out of your liberal newspapers, and thankfully
our
> > Government had the sense to move beyond all that hypocritical,
> > baseless crap. Now you'll come up with ANY reason to pacify

your

> sour
> > grapes--even if the nukes were discovered in Syria where they
> already
> > are. You'd first wait until the NY Times ran an article for all
> local
> > papers to syndicate, then you'd blabber that nonsensical excuse
> here.
> > On and on with the BS.
>
> Lot's of words, no facts to refute my statement. That's because
what
> I just said is so resaonable. By the way, these comments came

from

> INSIDE the administration, not the NY Times.

It's the good thing more Americans agree with me, and label such
stupidity which you spew forth with as unreasonable, irresponsible,
and aimless.

More ridiculous garbage. If you think "more Americans" agree with
your warmongering positions then you are outright crazy. Go see that
shrink.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#16

> Huh? Saddam hid the WMD's, he would not allow the inspectors get
> close, and you ask such a stupid question once again? Facts are
> facts, and even if they refute your sissified pacifists beliefs,
they are the facts that made this country make the proper wartime
> decisions.

Wow, you missed the point entiresly, again. You should get off the
hard stuff or the internet.

No answers AGAIN? Come on Dicky, shake off the old age cobwebs and
try try try.

> It's the good thing more Americans agree with me, and label such
> stupidity which you spew forth with as unreasonable,

irresponsible, and aimless.

More ridiculous garbage. If you think "more Americans" agree with
your warmongering positions then you are outright crazy. Go see

that shrink.

HAHAHA! The ultimate in sour grapes! It brings me great satisfaction
to know the stomach ulcers you must be creating as you squirm and
hobble in pain while this administration carries on to your dismay.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote: