DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... From today's USAToday

"Iran blows up fake U.S. aircraft carrier during war games."

W..W..What?

Why do they even bother?

Talk about playing make-believe.

Any US aircraft carrier could lay Iran to waste without closing the galley.

Stop talking to yourself and post this in the existing Iran thread.
Interesting tho.

To paraphrase Bruce Lee, "Fake carrier don't shoot back."

Did you read the on line comments?

First, Iran attacked the mock carrier with what sounded like speed boats. The mock carrier did not fire back. The mock carrier was not sunk. The mock carrier didn't have radar to warn of boats approaching. The mock carrier didn't have jets in the air. And lastly, the mock carrier did not have the normal complement of support vessels, i.e. cruisers, destroyers and whatever else a carrier group entails.

Didn't Iran hit an American ship a long time ago with missiles Ronald Reagan sold them?

you realize every nation does this kind of practice, including the US, right?

why is there even a thread on this?

Ideological boogeymen help rise sentiments of jingoism.

Iraq hit the USS Stark, a guided missile frigate, with two French Exocet missiles in 1987. Neither missile exploded, but they still punched a hole in the ship and started a fire. This was during the Iran-Iraq war. According to the Iraqis, the pilot mistook our frigate for a Iranian tanker (yeah, right) and they claimed they later executed the pilot. That report was disputed, and the pilot was unpunished. 37 US sailors were killed in that attack.

It was kind of comical. The 'carrier' they attacked was actually several barges welded together with a flight deck put on the top.

We use to train for urban combat by strapping on old ass laser tag all over our gear.

trust me, we're just as comical.

Thanks Erik.

The world sure does spin around a lot when you're allies then enemies then allies, especially in the middle east.

It's hard to keep up.

Probably bought it from North Korea.

I remember those days!

It's a little counterproductive to use live rounds against your own people. The comical part was the Iranians sitting around congratulating themselves for shooting up a modified barge, as if they really destroyed a carrier.

BTW, I already know we use old ships, planes, and other old military hardware for target practice, and I know we use laser tag type gear for war games. We don't tend to celebrate like we destroyed the Russian fleet.

We don't?

Should I show you personal vids of us acting like asses when we destroyed fake crap?

If you're talkinabout the media, then ok. But if you're talking about the military, well I got news for you. Every military celebrates like little ass kids when we complete training. Mainly because we're finally glad that crap is over with and we can go home, but usually because we completed something as a team.

Sorry man but you guys comments are getting far out there. Yall seem to have this idea of what American soldiers are like, or ANY military is like.

So let me tell you how much of some little ass kids militaries around the world are.

There's a famous 100 miles ruck march in France we do. Some Arab militaries, European militaries and us start the ruck march. Takes about 4-5 days.

At the end of the ruck march, we all get suuuuuppppeeeerr drunk with each other. And the shenanigans that went on we're of epic proportions, resulting in a lot of juries for no real reason other than, well, just because.


What's my point? Don't comment about people's military if you aren't sure if we don't do the same are not. You might be surprised.

They anchored a few barges toghter, then shot some cruise missiles at it and some rockets from what looked to be boats about 20-30 feet in length.

Sure, it was a training exercise. I get it. They can celebrate all they want. It simulated them attacking an aircraft carrier.

Now, in real life......is an aircravt carrier ever by itself? Or is an aircraft carrier basically surrounded by support boats?

Would 20-30 foot speed boats actually even be able to get close enough to a carrier to even launch rockets?

Don't all the ships in a carrier group have radar? Aren't all of them armed? Don't carriers have jets in the air? Can't carriers launch jets in minutes?

What they did was anchor a "ship", then send 12 speed boats towards it. I get it, it was target practice. Why celebrate target practice.

That's like me putting up a deer decoy in my back yard, then running at it and shooting it from 20 yards. And saying "oh, heck yeah, I got it!!!!" (forgetting that it was a non moving target, with no hearing, sight, or smell to use in defense.)

Let them celebrate. They earned it. It benefits them in no way, but who cares.

Just imagine what they will be able to do to an entire Fleet once they have a Nuke. They will own the Persian Gulf.

Just imagine what Saddam will do with his nuclear arsenal!

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 19902 that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses."

Iraq's WMD: The Shameless New York Times Moves the Goalposts

Larry Elder | Oct 23, 2014


Contrary to the expectations of all 16 of our U.S. intelligence agencies, the "weapons hunters" sent to Iraq by President George W. Bush found no "stockpiles" of WMD.

Never mind that there was a 15-month run-up to the war, during which time Saddam was not combing his moustache. A former Iraqi general, Georges Sada, who met with members of Congress, has long claimed Saddam Hussein moved tons of WMD by land and air into Syria during the run-up to the 2003 invasion. James Clapper, the current Director of National Intelligence, has also said publicly that he, too, believes the WMD were there. But Bush's two weapons hunters found no stockpiles.

President George W. Bush looked like a fool.

Bush-hating critics chanted, "Bush lied, people died." About the prewar intelligence, Sen. Ted Kennedy said, "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie." Critics said the lives of over 4,000 troops were wasted, in addition to the money supposedly squandered prosecuting the Iraq War.

Now comes the 10,000-word, eight-part story in The New York Times. The front-page story, called "The Secret Casualties Of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons," says WMD were in Iraq: "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."

Moreover, the soldiers were told to keep quiet about the WMD:

"Troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. ?'Nothing of significance' is what I was ordered to say,' said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.

"Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of 'wounds that never happened' from 'that stuff that didn't exist.' The public, he said, was misled for a decade. 'I love it when I hear, 'Oh there weren't any chemical weapons in Iraq,' he said. 'There were plenty.'"

This is not new news to those who get news from publications other than the Times. Following a 2010 WikiLeaks leak, Wired magazine wrote: "By late 2003, even the Bush White House's staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction. But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

But, rest assured, the Times emphatically insists, the discovered WMD "did not support the government's invasion rationale." It doesn't? Well, you see, according to the Times, Bush still misled Americans because the discovered WMD were "old" and "degraded," not part of an "active" weapons program. "Active?"

But only days before the bombshell Times piece, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow restated why she felt Bush "lied." Not once during her three-minute send-up about Bush "lies" and "wrong" intel, did Maddow ever use the word "active," let alone the term "active weapons program":

"There still exists -- on the right -- a sort of dead-ender fringe who believe that actually Saddam Hussein really did have weapons of mass destruction. He must have. George Bush couldn't have been wrong about that. I say it's a dead-ender fringe because even ... George W. Bush had to admit he was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not have them. ...

"We are four weeks out from the elections this year. It is 10 years today since our own government officially admitted the whole WMDs thing about Iraq was a lie. It's not like an accusation that it was a lie. It's a lie. We've admitted it was a lie."

Maddow then handed the floor to colleague Lawrence O'Donnell, who promptly piled on. But again O'Donnell, like Maddow, said nothing about "active": "Rachel, I wish this wasn't true, but I do have a prediction for you -- and that is that you have not done your last segment about a Republican who believes that there were (starts laughing) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Now we know. WMD were, in fact, in Iraq.

The New York Times, Democrats and the doofi at MSNBC should apologize to President George W. Bush, an honorable man who attempted to do the right thing, only to be savaged by his critics. Fox's Charles Krauthammer has a term for this inability to acknowledge a scintilla of decency in our 43rd president -- "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

It is more toxic than Ebola.

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelde...08782/page/full

Well of course. They found all of this which would have proven to the American people they were right, and kept it all secret from us. Because they wanted to look like liars. Makes perfect sense! lol

I went to lunch, logged back in, and thought I had been transported back to 2005.

Actually since many of the decisions back then are having such a huge impact on the world today, maybe we are further back than 2005.

Starting in 2004, some members of the George W. Bush administration and Republican lawmakers began to find evidence of discarded chemical weapons in Iraq. But when the information was brought up with the White House, senior adviser Karl Rove told them to “let these sleeping dogs lie.”

Rove insisted that Bush not respond to his fierce critics during his presidency, allowing their slurs to become received wisdom, not just on WMDs but in general. (snip)

Dave Wurmser—who served at the time as a senior adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on national-security issues—remembers receiving a similar message from Rove.

According to Wurmser, “in 2005-6, Karl Rove and his team blocked public disclosure of these (findings) and said ‘Let these sleeping dogs lie; we have lost that fight so better not to remind anyone of it.’”

Rove declined to comment for this story.

At least part of the Bush administration’s case against Saddam Hussein was based on the fact that he never properly accounted for the chemical-weapons stockpile he had built up in the 1980s. AsSantorum himself said during his 2006 press conference, the Pentagon’s report at the time “proves that weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, in Iraq.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/report_rove_kept_discovery_of_iraqs_wmd_secret.html

If you insist on believing that the Bush administration wouldn't provide the public with evidence that he was right about WMD in Iraq, you go right ahead and believe that. I quoted exactly what Bush claimed and there has never been any physical evidence to back up his claims. Nice political blog you posted though.

Bro, do you realize that if they actually had found WMD, that Bush would've pushed that so hard in the media because that makes him RIGHT and would be a step below GOD status in this country during his term?

There's ZERO reason to hold that information back. ZERO. that would've justified ANYTHING he did. Hell, we would've had an ACTUAL reason to stay in Iraq.

lol, wow.

I agree.

But what's with this: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/16/ny...demanded-by-un/

http://www.redstate.com/2015/02/17/nyt-iraqi-wmd-existed-cia-bought/


I know the sources may be a bit iffy.......that's why I am asking "What's up with this?"

After all, it's not like our gov't. wouldn't lie to us - but like Swish said: "Why wouldn't they have told us" if they found/bought wmd?

You're seriously trying to use Hotair as a source? Have you even looked at their homepage?

Come on man! lol

Maybe just maybe President Bush had more class than all the pinhead Liberals who chanted Liar Liar all those years. Maybe he didn't care what the Liberals cried about. And they still can't admit they were wrong about WMD.

I will get a message off to the soldiers who were injured handling the stuff and tell them it didn't happen.

Actually, I had heard something about this earlier this week. When I searched for it to post there was "NYT" in front of it. I thought it meant New York Times.

My bad. I'll crack the egg, you can all smear a little on my face. (if it's false)

I'm not one to question sources, even though that looks a bit iffy. But everybody seems to do the "lol that source isn't credible" so i'll avoid that on these boards.

Arch, man bro we ALL know there are some massive conspiracies going on. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the CIA was somehow involved in trying to make Bush look like an idiot.

however, we didn't find any weapons, he lied, and he STILL got a second term. i guess in the end it doesn't even matter.

There so much back door politics and covert operations going on that I don't even wanna touch that with a ten foot pole.

All I'm saying if that Bush had his people come up to him and show hard proof of weapons, 10 secs later it would've been on the news that they found it. This topic alone almost costed him his second term, With that information, if it was real, would've all but guarantee him in office for another 4 years.

BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq!

By Alexa Coombs

How many times have we been told that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq? I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it millions of times. I’ve read stories here and there over the last several years about WMDs being found, but of course it never got much news coverage – until now.

The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war:

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
So, now it needs to be repeated millions of times: there WERE WMDs found in Iraq! But of course The Times couldn’t admit that their discovery vindicates President Bush. Instead they claim that these WMDs don’t count and that an active WMD program was the only rationale for the Iraq War:

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/

40:

Fox news ain't even reported that, so I'm not sure if that's legit or not. not questioning you, just food for thought.

Facts never held the Liberals back before. Lets hear it, all together now...

Bush is a Liar
Bush is a Liar

We Libbys hate him
We Libbys hate him

Your link didn't prove anything though. I read a bunch of speculation paragraphs.

Sorry but that sounds a lot more like a baby throwing a tantrum than a Hamma.

LOL