5thSFG.CNUTZ 0 Posted January 16, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People were afraid of Russia when it was a big super power back during the cold war. I'm afraid of America! They are the scarest super power in the world....<span id='postcolor'> LMAO! Â Lets invade Canada! Â Ehhh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nopulse 0 Posted January 17, 2003 Iraq isn't the only country that has biological or nuclear weapons in the middle east. With the budget America has, I'm pretty sure they have biologoical and nuclear weapons to "protect" America. LOL all you need is about 5 M1A2's to take over Canada. Wouldn't take much. I say go ahead, sooner or later America will dominate globally! NWO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badgerboy 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess 11 years of his SAM's and MIG's engaging U.N. mandated flights over the no fly zone have nothing to do with it.<span id='postcolor'> They are not UN mandated. The UK and Britain enforce them under their own auspices. The other countries pulled out a few quite a few years ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 17 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The mere fact that he engages U.N. aircraft today is a violation of the latest U.N. resolution. <span id='postcolor'> No it's not. Kofi Annan said so. Most others of the security council - exept from Bush of course - second the general secretary. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When will the U.N. get some balls! <span id='postcolor'> UN is not a warmongering organisation. It's a forum of members trying to establish peace and wellbeing of the world. It's not supposed to be a tool of USA. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No Pulse if it is all about the oil, why didn't the US take it the first time? <span id='postcolor'> You really have to be a hardliner if you fail to see the relevance of the oil. Because it is about oil too! I don't see how Bush would be overly excited about the oilprices in Iowa. However, it would surely be in his interest to seccure the oilsupply for the future. Secondly, if Bush manages in this high risk venture, he would brake the opec-cartells privilige of deciding the minimum price of crude oil. That implies a political dimension too. But - you are partially right in my view, it's about something else too - and that scares the living daylights out of me. Too me, the ideological factor is the worst. It's resembles the McCarthyism of the 50's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Jan. 17 2003,06:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq isn't the only country that has biological or nuclear weapons in the middle east.<span id='postcolor'> No, but it's the only one to be breaking UN resolutions AND its own terms of surrender. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With the budget America has, I'm pretty sure they have biologoical and nuclear weapons to "protect" America.<span id='postcolor'> Bullets don't stop bullets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 17 2003,06:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UN is not a warmongering organisation. It's a forum of members trying to establish peace and wellbeing of the world. It's not supposed to be a tool of USA.<span id='postcolor'> Oh please. The USA is trying to enforce the UN's resolutions, not the other way around. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You really have to be a hardliner if you fail to see the relevance of the oil. Because it is about oil too! I don't see how Bush would be overly excited about the oilprices in Iowa. However, it would surely be in his interest to seccure the oilsupply for the future. Secondly, if Bush manages in this high risk venture, he would brake the opec-cartells privilige of deciding the minimum price of crude oil. That implies a political dimension too.<span id='postcolor'> I think he meant that it isn't entirely about oil, which it isn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nopulse 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 17 2003,01:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bullets don't stop  bullets.<span id='postcolor'> Oh, I see... Its ok if "America" to have nuclear or biological weapons to "protect" its country, but not any other country. Honestly, IMHO its all propaganda.  All we here is one side of the story. UN is nothing more than the U.S's tool used to "snoop" around in other countries. Does the UN inspect America? Nope! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 17 2003,01:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 17 2003,06:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UN is not a warmongering organisation. It's a forum of members trying to establish peace and wellbeing of the world. It's not supposed to be a tool of USA.<span id='postcolor'> Oh please. Â The USA is trying to enforce the UN's resolutions, not the other way around.<span id='postcolor'> What exactly is there to enforce? Shouldn't that be decided by the security council AFTER the weapon inspectors eventually find something that UN/security council decides as "not complying to the resolutions" ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harnu 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What disgusts me is that American soldiers are going to war and lose their lives over OIL! <span id='postcolor'> You're missing something here. It's not up to the American soldiers to choose if they want to fight. It's up to the politicians and the president, and his advisors, etc. Soldiers/Marines just follow their orders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harnu 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Jan. 17 2003,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 17 2003,01:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bullets don't stop  bullets.<span id='postcolor'> Oh, I see... Its ok if "America" to have nuclear or biological weapons to "protect" its country, but not any other country. Honestly, IMHO its all propaganda.  All we here is one side of the story. UN is nothing more than the U.S's tool used to "snoop" around in other countries.  Does the UN inspect America? Nope!<span id='postcolor'> Because were a stable nation not very willing to use biological weapons on neighbors or our own people! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 17 2003,06:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What exactly is there to enforce? Shouldn't that be decided by the security council AFTER the weapon inspectors eventually find something that UN/security council decides as "not complying to the resolutions" ?<span id='postcolor'> Our president had evidence that he was breaking these resolutions. Not only breaking them though, he had done that before, but that he was developing WMDs. As a matter of fact, the UN weapons inspectors KNEW of WMDs before they were kicked out in 1998. They didn't get a chance to destroy these WMDs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Jan. 17 2003,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 17 2003,01:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bullets don't stop bullets.<span id='postcolor'> Oh, I see... Its ok if "America" to have nuclear or biological weapons to "protect" its country, but not any other country. Honestly, IMHO its all propaganda. All we here is one side of the story. UN is nothing more than the U.S's tool used to "snoop" around in other countries. Does the UN inspect America? Nope!<span id='postcolor'> Actually according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty it is alright. According to this treaty, and signed by 187 "parties," WMDs are strictly regulated and limited to the original 5 nuclear nations. Non-Proliferation Treaty EDIT: Redundancy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 17 2003,01:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Our president had evidence that he was breaking these resolutions. <span id='postcolor'> I doubt it. Perhaps that's why Mr Blix was so frustrated - you wouldn't share the information on what and where to find. The latest findings of empty shells is not evidence enough. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not only breaking them though, he had done that before, but that he was developing WMDs. <span id='postcolor'> Yes, highly propable. But that doesn't neccesarily imply he has so now. Let the weapons inspector do their work - even with help of CIA and MI6. If WMD's are found, woudn't you say the best alternative would be a peacefull solution - not war? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5thSFG.CNUTZ 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Jan. 16 2003,19:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess 11 years of his SAM's and MIG's engaging U.N. mandated flights over the no fly zone have nothing to do with it.<span id='postcolor'> They are not UN mandated. The UK and Britain enforce them under their own auspices. The other countries pulled out a few quite a few years ago.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The United States has put more planes in the air to enforce the no-fly zone, imposed by the United Nations in 1991, Pentagon spokesman Kenneth H. Bacon said in a news conference Oct. 9. "The Operation Southern Watch flights are flying farther north, ... closer to the 33rd parallel," he said. <span id='postcolor'> From HERE YES, the no fly zones are U.N. mandated! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5thSFG.CNUTZ 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Jan. 16 2003,19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq isn't the only country that has biological or nuclear weapons in the middle east. With the budget America has, I'm pretty sure they have biologoical and nuclear weapons to "protect" America. LOL all you need is about 5 M1A2's to take over Canada. Â Wouldn't take much. Â I say go ahead, sooner or later America will dominate globally! NWO<span id='postcolor'> Pulse, I am a X-Files fan but come on man.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I doubt it. Perhaps that's why Mr Blix was so frustrated - you wouldn't share the information on what and where to find. The latest findings of empty shells is not evidence enough.<span id='postcolor'> I didn't mention the empty shells. And yes, we did have evidence. Why would president Bush start this out of nowhere? Why would president Bush and his cabinet lie? Why would the majority of the US senate lie about this? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, highly propable. But that doesn't neccesarily imply he has so now. Let the weapons inspector do their work - even with help of CIA and MI6. If WMD's are found, woudn't you say the best alternative would be a peacefull solution - not war?<span id='postcolor'> Yes it does imply he has them now. Why would he kick out the weapons inspectors then disarm voluntarilly? It makes no sense for him to do that. And of course I think we should find a peacful solution. But that's not likely with Saddam. He'd lie or cheat his way out of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tovarish 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 17 2003,00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LMAO! Lets invade Canada! Ehhh?<span id='postcolor'> You already tried that ..The War of 1812 http://academic.algonquincollege.com/student....812.mp3 *edit* apparently mp3's in URL's don't work too well with iconboard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5thSFG.CNUTZ 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 16 2003,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 17 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The mere fact that he engages U.N. aircraft today is a violation of the latest U.N. resolution. Â <span id='postcolor'> No it's not. Kofi Annan said so. Most others of the security council - exept from Bush of course - second the general secretary. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When will the U.N. get some balls! <span id='postcolor'> UN is not a warmongering organisation. It's a forum of members trying to establish peace and wellbeing of the world. It's not supposed to be a tool of USA. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No Pulse if it is all about the oil, why didn't the US take it the first time? Â <span id='postcolor'> You really have to be a hardliner if you fail to see the relevance of the oil. Because it is about oil too! I don't see how Bush would be overly excited about the oilprices in Iowa. However, it would surely be in his interest to seccure the oilsupply for the future. Secondly, if Bush manages in this high risk venture, he would brake the opec-cartells privilige of deciding the minimum price of crude oil. That implies a political dimension too. But - you are partially right in my view, it's about something else too - and that scares the living daylights out of me. Too me, the ideological factor is the worst. It's resembles the McCarthyism of the 50's.<span id='postcolor'> Actually, Kofi Anan just said it was not a material breach. That doesn't mean it's ok. One sentence in Resolution 1441 says Iraq "shall not take or threaten hostile acts" against any personnel of any U.N. member state who are "taking action to uphold" any Security Council resolution. The flights were implemented to uphold an April 1991 U.N. resolution (688) designed to keep Iraq from repressing its civilian population. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5thSFG.CNUTZ 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 16 2003,19:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 17 2003,01:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Our president had evidence that he was breaking these resolutions. <span id='postcolor'> I doubt it. Perhaps that's why Mr Blix was so frustrated - you wouldn't share the information on what and where to find. The latest findings of empty shells is not evidence enough. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not only breaking them though, he had done that before, but that he was developing WMDs. <span id='postcolor'> Yes, highly propable. But that doesn't neccesarily imply he has so now. Let the weapons inspector do their work - even with help of CIA and MI6. If WMD's are found, woudn't you say the best alternative would be a peacefull solution - not war?<span id='postcolor'> Hell, even Scott Ritter (UNSCOM) said Iraq was a threat and had WMD programs in 1998 when he was kicked out. Do you really think that Saddam disarmed himself in the meantime? Please! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5thSFG.CNUTZ 0 Posted January 17, 2003 The US should invade Canada to get the beer so vital to our national security. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5thSFG.CNUTZ 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 16 2003,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 17 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The mere fact that he engages U.N. aircraft today is a violation of the latest U.N. resolution. Â <span id='postcolor'> No it's not. Kofi Annan said so. Most others of the security council - exept from Bush of course - second the general secretary. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When will the U.N. get some balls! <span id='postcolor'> UN is not a warmongering organisation. It's a forum of members trying to establish peace and wellbeing of the world. It's not supposed to be a tool of USA. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No Pulse if it is all about the oil, why didn't the US take it the first time? Â <span id='postcolor'> You really have to be a hardliner if you fail to see the relevance of the oil. Because it is about oil too! I don't see how Bush would be overly excited about the oilprices in Iowa. However, it would surely be in his interest to seccure the oilsupply for the future. Secondly, if Bush manages in this high risk venture, he would brake the opec-cartells privilige of deciding the minimum price of crude oil. That implies a political dimension too. But - you are partially right in my view, it's about something else too - and that scares the living daylights out of me. Too me, the ideological factor is the worst. It's resembles the McCarthyism of the 50's.<span id='postcolor'> I have never said oil wasn't a factor but I am saying it is not the only factor. Â People are saying oil is the ONLY reason, not true! Â That still doesn't explain why we didn't stay there and take the oil the first time if that is why we were there. Â Also, I would think that Bush would be worried about gas prices in Iowa since Iowa has the first Caucas (spelling) in the US. Â If prices are high here, then they are high in Chicago, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Omaha... Â Guess that would be a issue huh? Â People get pissed when gas is high. Â Haven't heard many complaints recently have you? I also know that the UN is not a warmongering organisation. Â However, after 11 years of UN mandates the man is still violating resolutions. Â Blix said it today, he imported some items that should not have been. Â You need to have some bit behind the bark. Â If they are percieved as all talk then why would anyone comply... now or in the future? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 17 2003,02:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I didn't mention the empty shells. And yes, we did have evidence. Why would president Bush start this out of nowhere? Why would president Bush and his cabinet lie? <span id='postcolor'> Someone here presented an article in Washington Post wich I personaly find believable. It did state that the thought of removing Saddam was a footnote in a memo. The rest you can ascribe to massmanipulation: someone screams "WAR-WAR" and the rest follows screaming without knowing whatever happened - sort of like "COMMUNISM-COMMUNISM" in the 50's (does that make me smartass or what) </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes it does imply he has them now. Why would he kick out the weapons inspectors then disarm voluntarilly? It makes no sense for him to do that.<span id='postcolor'> Again, I think you might be right. However there are rules to follow. It's the name of the game - even if it takes longer time. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And of course I think we should find a peacful solution. But that's not likely with Saddam. He'd lie or cheat his way out of it.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, it's not likely with Saddam - and I bet he is lying too. But even though he should be given the chance to destroy (or hopefully by UN personell) his WMD's. Especially for the sake of the Iraqi civilians and generally for the middle eastern stability. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 17 2003,02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That still doesn't explain why we didn't stay there and take the oil the first time if that is why we were there. Â <span id='postcolor'> The desert storm coallition would have broken apart. You would have lost the remaining support in some (also the most important) countries in the middle east. There was at that time also serious doubt in your own government about the consequenses. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Guess that would be a issue huh? Â People get pissed when gas is high. Â Haven't heard many complaints recently have you? <span id='postcolor'> That was actually my point. If he succeds with this war there will be a steady flow of crude oil into US. Look at your oil reserves at the present moment. Guess you need someone more reliable that Venezuela, right? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blix said it today, he imported some items that should not have been. Â <span id='postcolor'> This could very well be - but it's still under investigation! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted January 17, 2003 Huh... If you look at the first article I posted it said there were 11 warheads found. This one now says 12 were found.... 12 now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted January 17, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 17 2003,02:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Huh... If you look at the first article I posted it said there were 11 warheads found. This one now says 12 were found.... 12 now?<span id='postcolor'> "Aftenposten" (the most respected) a norwegian newspaper said from the start that 12 warheads were found - but one was being looked further into. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
