/n1/ - News » Thread #681088

[124 / 4 / ?]

US 'intercepted Russian bombers'

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 14:56:00 No.681088 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>682059

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7240197.stm

The fucking Russians are paranoid as hell.
Naturally this forces us to be paranoid of them.

ITT thoughts on US-Russian relations and what it means for other countries on Earth.

Foreignfags especially welcome.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:01:00 No.681092 Report

Quoted By:

Cold war.
Cold war never changes...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:03:00 No.681094 Report

Quoted By:

WE WANT WAR!!! WAKE UP!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:06:00 No.681099 Report

Quoted By:

Used to happen all the time not so long ago ...
Can't worry about this, personally.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:07:00 No.681100 Report

Quoted By: >>681103

The US honestly wanted to end the Cold War.
The Russians think we have some dark motive for overtaking them.
This is bullshit.

We're much more interested in our problems with China right now.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:08:00 No.681101 Report

Quoted By:

Dammit, not this shit again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:10:00 No.681103 Report

Quoted By:

>>681100
Russians = white. China = Flat faces chink, known as flink.

Ausfailian

Ausfailian Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:13:00 No.681105 Report

Quoted By:

Nothing to worry about here. It's just internal Russian politics. If the Nimitz wanted to shoot down those bombers, they'd have been in the ocean about 300km from the carrier.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:14:00 No.681107 Report

Quoted By:

>Dammit, not this shit again.

In retrospect (seeing that it never went to "hot war"), the cold war wasn't a bad thing, for the West at least.
Though it's scary that we went very close to total destruction at least twice, and didn't even knew about it on one occasion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:17:00 No.681112 Report

Quoted By: >>681127

It's to back up Putin's recent speech with actions. Not a coincidence that it also happened twice in Japanese airspace recently.
I can't blame it either, seeing how Eastern Europe countries are joining NATO and this missile project in Poland.

Must be good news to pro-military US candidates, as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:27:00 No.681127 Report

Quoted By: >>681143

>>681112

The missile project in Poland is meant to be defensive, not offensive. Still the US should have been more cooperative with Russia over such a plan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:30:00 No.681133 Report

Quoted By: >>681143

I don't believe the vast majority of what my country officially says, but I do believe the missile pads in Europe are honestly being put there to defend against rogue missiles from countries that actually do hate us, like North Korea and Iran. And we're keeping an eye on China. At least I hope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:34:00 No.681143 Report

Quoted By: >>681934

>>681127
>>681133
But old paranoias die hard. And with Putins history...

Besides, even if it's defensive, it weakens russias missile-deterrent and thus, russia itself.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 15:37:00 No.681151 Report

Quoted By:

>Cold war never changes...
it does

Anonymous

FUCK

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 21:44:00 No.681734 Report

Quoted By:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7241470.stm

WHAT NOW?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 21:45:00 No.681739 Report

Quoted By: >>681764

Russians are made of fail and AIDS (literally). No threat to Amerikkka.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 21:54:00 No.681764 Report

Quoted By:

>>681739

Fix'd

>Amerikans are made of fail and AIDS (literally). No threat to Scientology

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:24:00 No.681850 Report

Quoted By:

ZOMG ! another Missile Crisis !

It's getting scary though, first one was dangerous enough with JFK at the helm, I can only be afraid at how Bush could (mis-)handle this.

Putin gets top points, however, for perfect style, form, and timing. His training paid off well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:34:00 No.681891 Report

Quoted By: >>681915 >>681919

The Cold war is different now because we know Russia is broke and incompetant. They want attention and we are to busy to care.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:36:00 No.681899 Report

Quoted By:

WOW OMFG BREAKIN NEWS LOL DON'T GET OUT OF YOUR BASEMENT YET
END OF THE WORLD ANY DAY NOW JUST READ THOSE SURVIVAL BOOKS AND BE PREPARED

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:41:00 No.681915 Report

Quoted By: >>681921

>>681891
>The Cold war is different now
No, the Cold War is OVER now. Jesus fucking Christ, get the fuck out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:42:00 No.681919 Report

Quoted By: >>681939

>>681891

I sure hope it's only YOUR moronic (and misspelled) opinion. They're still as dangerous today. They can raze the US several times over and there's nothing we could do about it. On the other hand, our now incompetent leadership puts us at great risk. Not to mention idiotic citizens like yourselves.

FFS we can't even handle crummy Iraq these days, what are we going to do with an angry Russia on top of that ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:42:00 No.681921 Report

Quoted By:

>>681915
CHINA NEW EMPIRE

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:48:00 No.681934 Report

Quoted By: >>681953 >>681976

>>681143
wow... u guys sure do love obaying what ever they say on the tv... i got a suggestion, why dont u google the issues, and see what russian people actually think of putin.... in western media he is portrayed as an asshole tyrant... mostly because the mafia and the people who lost their Criminal Careers are pissed at putin, because he cleaned up the russian government to a point where its actually back on track somewhat.... if u really think the shield is deffensive, with all the military tech available to everyone, how long do u think will it take to switch the rockets from hitting other rocket, to hidding a location on the ground? my estimate: less then a minute....

i think russia is the last country to have a mind of its own, and not be bullied by us and allies, do some basic google....

china uses child/slave labor to produce shit for us

India only has the rich and the poor

US, well they just want pretty much everyone and everything under their control. to make the world a "better and safer place"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:49:00 No.681939 Report

Quoted By:

>>681919
>Not to mention idiotic citizens like yourselves.

then you go and say something stupid like this:

>we can't even handle crummy Iraq these days

... Newsflash: We won the war... then it was HUGELY mishandled in rebuilding. The surrounding countries open borders/media (NO, not the "libfags".. there's always argument in washington during war; THE MEDIA)/daily civil patty-cake wars and oh, maybe the biggest problem, we never should of been there in the first place. No amount of military power is the key for today's Iraq to evolve.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:50:00 No.681942 Report

Quoted By: >>681960

also search on google. about the new missles russia test fired with sucsess that penetrate the missle defense shield, it was on the news like 3 months ago, but hardly recieved any attention on the US media.. humm wonder why....

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:54:00 No.681953 Report

Quoted By:

>>681934
>wow... u guys sure do love obaying what ever they say on the tv... i got a suggestion, why dont u google the issues

oh the irony.

wow, you guys sure do love obeying what any fucktard link google gives you online... i got a suggestion, why don't you read your news via newspaper. /sarcasm. idiot.

>US, well they just want pretty much everyone and everything under their control. to make the world a "better and safer place"
>"better and safer place"

ask any country. i'm sure you'll get the same response.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:55:00 No.681956 Report

Quoted By: >>681966 >>681975 >>682028

>... Newsflash: We won the war...

Yep, that sure is news to me. Call me odd, but I'm pretty sure that when foreigners kill your troops and destroy your tanks, you're still at war.
Get a hint, a war isn't over until BOTH SIDES agree that it is.

Perhaps the Iraqis didn't get your news ? you should go and tell them. I bet they'll be mighty surprised.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:56:00 No.681960 Report

Quoted By:

>>681942
i know a lot of people are lazy so here .... http://www.rense.com/general69/tiddosdzdd27makes.htm

and

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/29/91940.shtml

and to quote from that article "Russia reacted calmly when Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 in order to develop a nationwide missile shield. But Moscow has since complained about Washington's plans to build new low-yield nuclear weapons." i dont watch CNN much, but i think i would have remembered hearing about that if it was on the Nations Media.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:57:00 No.681966 Report

Quoted By:

>>681956
ugh, you idiot. invasion (war) =/= occupy (rebuild)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:58:00 No.681968 Report

Quoted By:

sorry one last quote from this "With the Topol, these dynamics simply don't come into play. To start with, the damn thing can be manoeuvred mid-flight. This makes it practically impossible for any radar system in the world to figure out what trajectory it will follow.

The other thing is the kind of evasion technology built into the missile. That makes it invulnerable to any kind of radiation and electromagnetic and physical interference." ...

and im sure the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT knows about this.. yet they still push to put "missle shields" yeah.. i dunno about all that, seems like an easy way to put missles right next to russia which they can lunch as soon as they want.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 22:59:00 No.681975 Report

Quoted By:

>>681956
>Call me odd, but I'm pretty sure that when foreigners kill your troops and destroy your tanks, you're still at war.

seeing how the majority of those are attacks on muslims, i find that rather odd too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:00:00 No.681976 Report

Quoted By: >>681984 >>681996

>>681934

America was originally never even involved with NATO. They were asked to join. Russia should join NATO or fuck even the EU so they can be tuned in and not butthurt. Putin was never portrayed as a tyrant in western media, but he has been portrayed as being extremely paranoid which appears to be true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:01:00 No.681984 Report

Quoted By:

>>681976
i actually respect Putin's decisions, but he is acting a bit paranoid, but I guess having a president like mine, there is means to be so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:04:00 No.681993 Report

Quoted By: >>681999

Diz is SO cool. We gonna kick dat ruskie ass like in Red Dawn. I fuckin luv Patrick Swayzee. FUCK YEAH AMERICA!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:04:00 No.681996 Report

Quoted By: >>682014

>>681976
actually he was, in almost every speech or address he made the western media made him seem like he was restricting freedom of speech/election/democracy by removing some of the people from power and preventing others to run against him..... which just happens to be that those are the same politicians who got payed by the russian crime bosses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:05:00 No.681999 Report

Quoted By: >>682019

>>681993
lulz. red dawn was one of those unrealistic possibilities, but good entertainment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:06:00 No.682002 Report

Quoted By: >>682021

>ugh, you idiot. invasion (war) =/= occupy (rebuild)

LOL
Is that what you call REBUILDING Iraq ? Try looking at photos of what it looked like before, and what it looks like now.

Apparently, it's much worse than bad spelling, in your case. Get a dictionary, and look up "war" and the difference between "build" and "destroy".
Apparently you learned English from Bush, he has a way of altering the definitions of common words.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:06:00 No.682007 Report

Quoted By: >>682012

>>Foreignfags especially welcome.

Unsere alte/neue russische Oberherren werden von mir besonders begrüßt...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:07:00 No.682012 Report

Quoted By: >>682031

>>682007
ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT!!!!???

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:07:00 No.682014 Report

Quoted By: >>682027

>>681996
>preventing others to run against him
that's not rly being a "tyrant", but isn't this what he did?

Super Nazi Chink !3GqYIJ3Obs

Super Nazi Chink !3GqYIJ3Obs Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:08:00 No.682019 Report

Quoted By:

>>681999

NO movie made by Patrick Swayze is unrealistic. Not even Ghost.

Don't talk shit about Patrick Swayze.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:08:00 No.682021 Report

Quoted By: >>682029

>>682002
yea... guess who's blowing up the fucking place? americans or insurgents? TAKE A WILD GUESS... jesus christ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:09:00 No.682027 Report

Quoted By:

>>682014
i think he did it for the betterment of the country... i would rather have him run the presidency, then having some guy getting payed by the mafia making the decisions for the entire country, would u not agree, even if that means democracy in that sense is restricted?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:09:00 No.682028 Report

Quoted By: >>682047

>>681956

>destroy your tanks

We have lost like 2 tanks in the entire war.

In any event, the terrorists in Iraq just kill anyone they can indiscriminately. Randomly bombing civilians is the only thing they can do effectively. They aren't beating us in any sense of the word. That would be like me saying that Chechnya is BEATING Russia.

Yeah, it would be fucking stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:09:00 No.682029 Report

Quoted By: >>682046

>>682021

No need to guess. Look at the number of violent deaths in Bagdad before the invasion, and since : they skyrocketed. Are you suggesting it's a coincidence ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:10:00 No.682031 Report

Quoted By: >>682034

>>682012

That's not a very hospitable attitude you have there. Just for that, I won't speak English from now on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:10:00 No.682034 Report

Quoted By: >>682036

>>682031
Hospitality? On my /b/?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:11:00 No.682036 Report

Quoted By:

>>682034
Correction: */n/* LOL

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:12:00 No.682046 Report

Quoted By:

>>682029
no... but i know outsiders coming in to blow themselves up or in some cases, attach bombs to 2 retarded women, are not caring one bit about the iraqi population.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:13:00 No.682047 Report

Quoted By: >>682055 >>682057 >>682079

>>682028

>They aren't beating us in any sense of the word.

Didn't say that they were BEATING us, but that we couldn't handle them. Which is the case. We still haven't found any of the WMDs and Iraq is LESS stable than it was. None of the objectives have been achieved, and we've suffered heavy losses (not to mention paid a heavy financial and diplomatic cost).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:15:00 No.682055 Report

Quoted By: >>682065

>>682047
Bush is responsible for Iraq.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:15:00 No.682057 Report

Quoted By:

>>682047
what's this "we".

>but that we couldn't handle them.
not in any civilized manner :)

>and Iraq is LESS stable than it was.
oh, is this what happens after a war in a country? gee. thanks sherlock.

>None of the objectives have been achieved, and we've suffered heavy losses (not to mention paid a heavy financial and diplomatic cost).
agreed, but saged for above.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:16:00 No.682059 Report

Quoted By:

>>681088
sorry guy.. welcome to /n/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:16:00 No.682060 Report

Quoted By:

The missile defense in poland will use a very powerful radar that probes deeply into russian space.
It's like a 24/7 surveillance.
Imagine russia decided to plant such a station on cuba.
I'm sure the USA would react similar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:17:00 No.682065 Report

Quoted By:

>>682055
Bush is responsible for the Iraqis, he's responsible for their economy, he's responsible for their hopes and dreams.

That's why Iraq is shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:19:00 No.682072 Report

Quoted By: >>682078 >>682087 >>682103

>Bush is responsible for Iraq.

no underage faggot, congress is responsible for iraq.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:19:00 No.682073 Report

Quoted By:

Russians don't understand that the defense system is for China.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:19:00 No.682076 Report

Quoted By:

>oh, is this what happens after a war in a country? gee. thanks sherlock.

You might remember that one of the objectives of the war was to establish a stable democracy in Iraq. We've acheived the exact opposite, which is hardly a victory. I take it that you also have a warped definition of "victory" ?

Also, may I inform you that saging in every single of your replies is admitting that you're feeling like you're losing this argument ? note that THAT is a thing we agree on, at least.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:20:00 No.682078 Report

Quoted By:

>>682072
Oh, yes he is. His invasion, his occupation. His responsibility.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:20:00 No.682079 Report

Quoted By: >>682092 >>682102 >>682105

>>682047

>Didn't say that they were BEATING us, but that we couldn't handle them.

We are handling them just fine. Violence is way down, the Iraqis are cooperating with the US more than ever and the security situation is much improved.

>We still haven't found any of the WMDs and Iraq is LESS stable than it was.

NO one argued or thought that Saddam didn't have WMDs prior to the war. Saddam acted like he had them all the way up to the invasion. Who gives a shit if we found any or not?

>None of the objectives have been achieved, and we've suffered heavy losses (not to mention paid a heavy financial and diplomatic cost).

NONE have been achieved? NONE?

Heavy losses? You have to be fucking joking. The death rate is extremely low. Diplomatic cost? FOR EXAMPLE? Financial cost is exaggerated by liberals as is the civilian casualty numbers. They predict future costs and try to pretend like the money has already been spent. Don't even get me started on the complete bullshit Lancet report.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:21:00 No.682087 Report

Quoted By: >>682095

>>682072
Because he told congress the truth. Yeah, that's the ticket. And my wife is Paris Hilton.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:24:00 No.682092 Report

Quoted By:

>>682079
>We are handling them just fine. Violence is way down, the Iraqis are cooperating with the US more than ever and the security situation is much improved.
uh, much more importantly mr republicunt.. it's the iraqis who are doing the work.

>FOR EXAMPLE? Financial cost is exaggerated by liberals as is the civilian casualty numbers.
OHHH okay!.. the point is: we should have never been there, idiot.. whether 1 billion or 50 trillion.. they money should of spent else ware. god damn i hate republicans.

>They predict future costs and try to pretend like the money has already been spent.
the "liberals" aren't the only ones predicting costs, idiot.

Bush Fan No.1 !8bwUGEbACc

Bush Fan No.1 !8bwUGEbACc Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:24:00 No.682095 Report

Quoted By: >>682104

>>682087
You tell em! Not like congress is supposed to actually read the intellegence reports or think for themselves. They are only allowed to make decisions based on information directly from Bush's mouth.

Stop trying to make excuses for them. They provided no resistence for a chance at alternatives. They approved a war.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:26:00 No.682100 Report

Quoted By:

>NO one argued or thought that Saddam didn't have WMDs prior to the war.

Are you kidding ? pretty much every other country with intel services thought that. France and Germany even started a ruckus at the UN. Remember the idiotic "Freedom Fries" thingy ? it was because of that.

>Who gives a shit if we found any or not?
Well, everybody in his right mind (i.e. not you, but almost everyone else) would. You start a war about WMDs, so it's better if you find them. Also, if you still think that Saddam had WMDs, aren't you a little worried about where they might be ?

>The death rate is extremely low.
Not for the people killed. I hope you went there or plan to, to have this kind of attitude ?

>Diplomatic cost? FOR EXAMPLE?
Well, before 2003, almost everybody liked us and trusted us, now we're one of the most hated and feared countries. Which is NOT good when you're eager to avoid terrorism at home.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:26:00 No.682102 Report

Quoted By:

>>682079
>>NO one argued or thought that Saddam didn't have WMDs prior to the war. Saddam acted like he had them all the way up to the invasion. Who gives a shit if we found any or not?

well i think THE MAIN reason US went to war with iraq is that they convinced the international community that sadam had nukes and it was an immideat thread to the security of the world.... and

> Saddam acted like he had them all the way up to the invasion.
oh u mean when him and all his political cabinet kept denying that they had WMD's and when they let the inspectors check out all the facilities? ... u sir are 100% correct 'good on' ya' mate'

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:26:00 No.682103 Report

Quoted By:

>>682072
No, uninformed faggot,
Congress never ratified Bush's declaration of war.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:27:00 No.682104 Report

Quoted By: >>682114

>>682095
>Not like congress is supposed to actually read the intellegence reports or think for themselves.

yea... actually they're only fed what the president wanted them to see.

>They approved a war.
no they approved for war IF diplomatic resorts weren't allowed (wmd inspections, which they found none, harr harr). it was just the final check list for the bush war.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:27:00 No.682105 Report

Quoted By:

>>682079
>>The death rate is extremely low.

For Americans. If you're an Iraqi, not so much.

>>Who gives a shit if we found any or not?

Pretty much everyone on the planet.

>>They predict future costs and try to pretend like the money has already been spent.

Sort of reminds you of the economy. And the budget. And healthcare. And finances for education. And pretty much everything in America that involves/uses money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:29:00 No.682114 Report

Quoted By: >>682117 >>682144 >>682165 >>682322

>>682104

>yea... actually they're only fed what the president wanted them to see.

Show me ANYONE in ANY COUNTRY(including Iraq) that said Iraq did not have WMD prior to 2003.

>no they approved for war IF diplomatic resorts weren't allowed (wmd inspections, which they found none, harr harr).

REVISIONIST HISTORY IS REVISIONIST! The inspectors were constantly denied access in Iraq. John Edwards fucking co-sponsored the war authorization bill for fucks sake.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:30:00 No.682117 Report

Quoted By:

>>682114
russia... give me a min to find a good link

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:33:00 No.682133 Report

Quoted By: >>682139 >>682147

>Show me ANYONE in ANY COUNTRY(including Iraq) that said Iraq did not have WMD prior to 2003.

French Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the UN (before representatives of every country). He also said that an agression would be unjustified, and warned us that we were headed into a nightmare. And Germany joined.
Also, Saddam vehemently denied, and agreed to ALL inspections demands of international agencies. Which is pretty hard to do for a dictator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:34:00 No.682139 Report

Quoted By:

>>682133
this is very true. We were all lied to pretty bad. I believed it and Even Colin Powel did. He only stepped down when he realized he was wrong. It all goes back to bad intelligence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:35:00 No.682142 Report

Quoted By: >>682161

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=1543

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:35:00 No.682144 Report

Quoted By:

>>682114
>The inspectors were constantly denied access in Iraq.
bullshit. they had been there for long enough- the inspectors just kept coming back empty handed.

>Show me ANYONE in ANY COUNTRY(including Iraq) that said Iraq did not have WMD prior to 2003.
uh.. i'm pretty sure EVERYONE thought iraq was a threat, but that the idea of saddam seeking "wmd's", remained very real. he didn't have any.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:35:00 No.682147 Report

Quoted By:

>>682133

>French Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the UN (before representatives of every country).

UNSOURCED CLAIM IS UNSOURCED.

>Also, Saddam vehemently denied, and agreed to ALL inspections demands of international agencies.

He agreed right before the invasion occurred as a last ditch effort to save his skin. SORRY SADDAM FIND THAT SPIDER HOLE.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:37:00 No.682154 Report

Quoted By: >>682173

>UNSOURCED CLAIM IS UNSOURCED.

Youtube video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ_1hWqSz6I

You'll also find in archives of pretty much every TV on Earth. It was even broadcast in the US, for a short time, before being censored.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:39:00 No.682161 Report

Quoted By: >>682178 >>682189

>>682142

Broken link is broken.

IF BUSH LIED, was is it so hard for you to find evidence that anyone disagreed with his assessment?

YOU GUYS SAY THE WMD ISSUE IS IMPORTANT. However, both you and I know that its a diversionary tactic. If we found WMDs tomorrow you would all BAAAAWWWW and claim Bush planted them or something.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:39:00 No.682165 Report

Quoted By:

>>682114
Hans Blicks. Weapons inspector.

>>denied access
to 2 buildings that FauxNews said were bunkers for weapons research. Then they started on "mobile weapons research labs".

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:41:00 No.682173 Report

Quoted By:

>>682154

HAHAHAAH You didn't even watch the video.

He said that the primary goal was to DISARM Iraq.

HOW IS THIS A DENIAL?

GTFO

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:41:00 No.682178 Report

Quoted By:

>>682161
u are right sir... because it has taken us over 3 years to find those nukes with full access to all parts of the country.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:43:00 No.682187 Report

Quoted By: >>682193

>HAHAHAAH You didn't even watch the video.

I've seen it at the time, and since. It's pretty famous around the world, now. Except in the US, of course.

On the other hand, YOU didn't watch it, since it's 15 minutes long and you replied barely 4 mins after it was posted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:44:00 No.682189 Report

Quoted By:

>>682161
no i wouldn't. i would laugh and come back to troll /n/ and /b/ for eurofags. but the fact remains as of now: there are none.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:45:00 No.682193 Report

Quoted By: >>682229 >>682247

>>682187

Once again, you are misrepresenting the speech.

IT is an argument AGAINST war and for MORE TIME for the weapons inspectors. At NO TIME IN THIS SPEECH does he claim that Iraq DOESN'T have WMDs.

KEEP SPINNING BULLSHIT!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:46:00 No.682202 Report

Quoted By: >>682234 >>682254

Russia only have like 500 nukes, a lot less than America. The Russian army is smaller than the US army and the Russians are sorely lacking in updated equipment. Putin has pledged a lot of money towards defense over the next 8 years, but nothing will dig them out of the hole they are in. Russia pose zero threat to the US.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:50:00 No.682218 Report

Quoted By:

>Russia have like 500 nukes
>Russia pose zero threat to the US

Wut ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:51:00 No.682219 Report

Quoted By: >>682228 >>682253

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd7qlGXt6vg

CLINTON LIED.

GORE LIED.

HILDOG LIED.

EDWARDS LIED.

REID LIED.

ALBRIGHT LIED.

DEAN LIED.

BERGER LIED.

PELOSI LIED.

ROCKEFELLER LIED.

BIDEN LIED.

BAYH LIED.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:53:00 No.682228 Report

Quoted By: >>682231 >>682239

>>682219
clinton never said he had wmd's.. he said in that video... saddam is thought to continue his search for seeking materials for "wmd's".

nice slick, fagged, youtube video though

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:53:00 No.682229 Report

Quoted By:

>>682193
So when you say you don't have any illegal drugs in your house, you're lying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:54:00 No.682231 Report

Quoted By: >>682237

>>682228BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:54:00 No.682234 Report

Quoted By:

>>682202

You seem to know little about nuclear weapons. A single one can kill YOU, and the people around you in a large radius, too.
Even if they have "only" 500 nukes and can "only" nuke the 500 largest cities in the US, I wouldn't call that "zero threat". I'd most likely be among the dead.
And I don't think putting a missile shield in Ukraine is worth losing the top 500 cities for.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:54:00 No.682237 Report

Quoted By:

>>682231
go back and listen to it, idiot. he never said he "had" wmd's. jesus christ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:55:00 No.682239 Report

Quoted By: >>682265

>>682228
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

LOLWUT?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:56:00 No.682247 Report

Quoted By: >>682249 >>682258

>>682193

You dumbfuck ... nobody could prove that Iceland, Switzerland, or whatever, doesn't have WMDs. Doesn't it would be okay to invade them tomorrow.
Also, why are we doing nothing about countries that DO have WMDs ? North Korea, Israel, France ... ? should we invade them, too ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:57:00 No.682249 Report

Quoted By: >>682255

>>682247

North Korea, Israel and France didn't attack us on 9/11.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:57:00 No.682250 Report

Quoted By:

amerka fuk ya

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:58:00 No.682253 Report

Quoted By:

>>682219

This is a candidate for some delicious copypasta.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:58:00 No.682254 Report

Quoted By: >>682263 >>682276

>>682202
guy.... u are very smart, because a country really needs over9000 nukes to destroy shit... sorry but they just need 8 or 9 to hit the right places and that would be more then enough to cripple any country..... the number of nukes means jack shit, only the fact that they have to spend less time and money maintainig things they dont really need... and the Western Media has been great at making russians seem as a nonethreat.. if u read up on this thread, and look at my link.. u will notice the fact that Russia's new missle make the missle defense shield usless and absolete, and they in fact have their own missle defense system which is better then the US one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:58:00 No.682255 Report

Quoted By: >>682261

>>682249

Neither did Iraq ? most of the guys were Saudis, and AQ and Bin Laden are from there too.
And North Korea threatened us of nuke attack, unlike Saddam.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:58:00 No.682258 Report

Quoted By:

>>682247

well, because north korea shut down its reactors, israel is an ally, and france is too pussy to ever use a nuke ever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Feb 2008 23:59:00 No.682261 Report

Quoted By:

>>682255

Then what was Saddam? A buddhist? lol...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:00:00 No.682263 Report

Quoted By:

>>682254

No its not.

All it is a nuclear tipped missile that they plan on exploding high above Moscow.

The technology required is nothing compared to the Airborne laser or the Kinetic kill missiles the US has.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:00:00 No.682265 Report

Quoted By: >>682284

>>682239
fucking idiot. he was speaking as if they had them during the speech. you can clearly see all throughout that page that he's talking about saddam acquiring weapons, NOT having and developed ones.

>And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the thread of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...

apparently you can't read.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:02:00 No.682276 Report

Quoted By:

>>682254

Yep, anything on the scale of British or French nuclear forces (4+ submarines, about 60+ missiles) or above is sufficient to deter ANY country (including the USA). They can kill much more Americans than their own population, which makes any war against them not worthwhile.
Russia has more than enough. And by the way, I have NO IDEA why we have so much. We can nuke Russia a thousand times, yet there's only one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:03:00 No.682279 Report

Quoted By:

ITT: Writers strike ends too fucking late, LOL!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:04:00 No.682284 Report

Quoted By: >>682295 >>682307

>>682265

>apparently you can't read.

Apparently you are a fucking retard. What about this Clinton quote on Febuary 17th, 1998 at the Pentagon?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too..."

GET THE FUCK OUT.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:06:00 No.682295 Report

Quoted By:

>>682284

LIBFAGS crushed.

Embarrassing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:06:00 No.682296 Report

Quoted By:

>Then what was Saddam? A buddhist? lol...

Saddam was a bastard but had nothing to do with 9/11. The guys that did this still haven't been caught, BTW.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:07:00 No.682307 Report

Quoted By: >>682317

>>682284

guess how clinton would of done it? (if in fact this improbable situation arrose) WITH THE UN AND NATO ALLIANCES. that's what they're there for. to take some of the blow and costs. something republicans CLEARLY can't comprehend.

BUSH: "WELL I'M GONNA DO IT ON MY OOOWN THEN!"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:09:00 No.682317 Report

Quoted By: >>682325 >>682337

>>682307

GUESS WHAT FAGGOT.

YOU FUCKING FAIL.

EVERY SINGLE LIBFAG HAS BEEN CRUSHED BY THE EVIDENCE.

GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

Damn, this thread is auto-saging now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:10:00 No.682322 Report

Quoted By: >>682333

>>682114
President Jacques Chirac of France, by contrast, said that the west's intelligence services, including his own, were "intoxicating each other"; believed that Iraq's WMD did not exist; and predicted that a war would be the worst outcome, inflaming anti-western feeling among Muslims.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0306-08.htm

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:10:00 No.682325 Report

Quoted By: >>682338 >>682345

>>682317
hahhahaha, got you talking in all caps lock. you don't know what you're talking about.

you lost the game.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:12:00 No.682333 Report

Quoted By: >>682371

>>682322

After the fact hindsight bullshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:13:00 No.682337 Report

Quoted By:

>>682317
>EVERY SINGLE LIBFAG HAS BEEN CRUSHED BY THE EVIDENCE.
>BY THE EVIDENCE

wut lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:13:00 No.682338 Report

Quoted By: >>682347

>>682325
>you lost the game.
fucking fagget

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:13:00 No.682340 Report

Quoted By: >>682353

Can't believe nobody (honestly) remembers the French position at the time ? that's the reason we were told shortly after that "from now on, we hate the French". Forgotten the "Freedom fries" silliness already ?
Germans agreed too that there was no evidence of WMDs and that war was premature and unjustified.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:13:00 No.682345 Report

Quoted By: >>682358

>>682325

>hahhahaha, got you talking in all caps lock. you don't know what you're talking about.

OH MAN THE MASTER TROLL GOT ME TO HIT MY CAPS LOCK.

YOUR TROLL FOO IS STRONG. YOU REALLY KNEW ALL ABOUT THE PRE-WAR IRAQ WMD STATEMENTS.

TOO SMART FOR US.

Gb2/b/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:14:00 No.682347 Report

Quoted By:

>>682338
>fagget

at least spell it right.. fucking ingrate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:15:00 No.682353 Report

Quoted By: >>682367

>>682340

>Germans agreed too that there was no evidence of WMDs and that war was premature and unjustified.

This is just PLAIN FALSE. They wanted more time for the weapons inspectors. NO ONE CLAIMED IRAQ DID NOT HAVE ANY WMDs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:16:00 No.682358 Report

Quoted By:

>>682345
>YOUR TROLL FOO IS STRONG. YOU REALLY KNEW ALL ABOUT THE PRE-WAR IRAQ WMD STATEMENTS.

no one ever said he wasn't a threat, you douche. it's the way bush handled this war with a middle finger to the world. all those 1988 "statements" were those of saddam needing further attention b/c he might be seeking WMD's in the future like he did in the 80's.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:19:00 No.682367 Report

Quoted By:

>>682353

Could you at least read what you quote please ? here it is again : "there was no evidence of WMDs". So war was unjustified. They didn't say bluntly "there are no WMDs" in order not to embarass us at the UN. There shouldn't have been a war before the inspectors provided proof. And nobody believed that this proof existed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:20:00 No.682371 Report

Quoted By: >>682390

>>682333
Your reading comprehension sucks. Hans Blix is talking about events leading up to the war. That's what Chirac said before the war started.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:24:00 No.682390 Report

Quoted By:

>>682371
HANZ BRICKS, awwww noooooooooo..

OH! How you doin' Hanz..?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Feb 2008 00:36:00 No.682425 Report

Quoted By:

soooo back on topic... i think the only thing this effects is the mass public... all the major governing countries in the world know each other's capabilities and nothing of this magnitude makes anyone in charge be more or less paranoid.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

US 'intercepted Russian bombers'