digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Saddam Inspecting his Stockpile of Advanced Weapons watch!

youtube.com — Weapons of mass production...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • GhostsAwake, on 12/11/2007, -47/+221We destabilized Afghanistan over box cutters. We killed and displaced millions of Iraqies over slingshots and tacks???? Wonder what Iran has???? Butter Knives?
    • blacklouis, on 12/11/2007, -6/+106Worse... Iran has the spork!
      • jrowny, on 12/11/2007, -1/+8But how? Did Popeye's illegally export them without regard to the sanctions?
        • EditorResponse, on 12/11/2007, -12/+1Do you really think that is Sadamm? I don't. What would a guy who was involved in killing several hundred thousand with sarin and nerve gas in country and against Iran, and having killed several million Iranians in war be doing inspecting slingshots? Believe me he had plenty of weapons. You can find images of planes that were found buried in sand during the second war with him.
        • Dumbledorito, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9Yes, and let us not forget how fearsome the Iraqi air force was when we invaded.
      • jjb123, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Mother of God...
      • mydigga, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2I always thought it was a foon...
      • Shorties, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2Ive seen what a spork can do in Chex Quest... If they do indeed have a spork... God help us all
    • tugger, on 12/11/2007, -5/+46the knife and fork was invented in persia, so it's unlikely they'd adopt sporks. Sugar tongs, however, may be enough to trigger Bush's middle-east-domination part 3. What I'm wondering is whether chopsticks weilded by the chinese are enough to cause the same response. Was it Karate kid who used them to catch flies? Man, thats dangerous... but then the chinese have no oil do they..??
      • dafragsta, on 12/11/2007, -2/+13No, they have our money.
      • Crosshare, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Dugg up for great useless knowledge.
      • mrgreenjeans, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Dugg for "sugar tongs." The forgotten utensil.
    • MerryMortician, on 12/11/2007, -4/+39Listen.. in the right hands.. those knives could... spread violence!
    • Fredtheviking, on 12/11/2007, -39/+8Bush knew they had Weapons of Mass Destruction, because Ronald Regean gave it to them. The Weapons were remove from the country or destroy before the invasion began. I hate to say it, but America supported the initial invasion, it is pathetic they don't support finishing the job. It only goes to show how short-sighted my fellow countrymen are. If we leave Iraq now, it is irresponsible and you all know it.
      • gjokkel, on 12/11/2007, -2/+4OK, but what is the alternative?
        • byronm, on 12/11/2007, -4/+5There is some merit to what he said, all though the blame is not entirely on Ronald Reagan but earlier administrations as well. RR supported the Iran contra affairs, supported the proxy wars between Iran and Iraq and also feed both nations military supplies to keep them distracted and fighting each other.
      • Delphium226, on 12/11/2007, -5/+16Nice theory there. However, on Planet Earth, Saddams WMD were destroyed in 1991 and by subsequent UN inspections. Read the Duelfer report: -
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A121 ...
        http://www.gpoaccess.gov/duelfer/

      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -6/+9Hello, Fred, you really are dumb. How is that whole imbecility thing working out for you?
      • Aero347, on 12/11/2007, -5/+3They could just eliminate the extremist groups and leave. Some wouldn't like the act of attacking based on an extreme religous view but if a few crazy zealot groups cause 70% of the fighting in the middle east it only makes sense to cap them and leave.

        On the other hand, how was it our business to begin with? How about catching bin laden then leave.
        • Delphium226, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3We don't mention Bin Ladens name anymore, might upset Uncle George.
        • thwackitechnica, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Their presence is what causes the level of hatred in extremist groups, and "eliminating" them is as easy as eliminating the Christian Fundie-Extremists.

          Which is to say, it's very easy, if you have a military at your disposal, but you get in trouble for having just wiped 25% of Americans off the map.
      • Mongo61, on 12/11/2007, -1/+15The real question: If Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, WHY DIDN'T HE USE THEM? "Ok, I've stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, but I'll hold off using them until after I'm hanging from a rope."
        • bradbaxter, on 12/11/2007, -6/+4He did use them. Against the Kurds (his own people) and against Iranian troops. He was a genocidal maniac. His list of sins against humanity is a long one. He threatened the USA, financially supported suicide bombers (against Israel) and threw out weapons inspectors (after 10 years of non-compliance with the cease-fire from the previous Gulf War).
          • chicofaraby, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4"He threatened the USA,"

            How?
          • GawtMilk, on 12/11/2007, -3/+3You're right. It'd be a shame for you to get buried, as you're simply stating facts. However, what Mongo61 is saying is that he didn't use them after we decided to invade. Saddam's war crimes against the Kurds required some sort of action...the death penalty did nothing though.
          • lennybird, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2He did use them against the Kurds, but you leave out that fact that the Kurds were rebelling with force. The Kurds made the first move.
          • jgtg32a, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1@lennybird
            Just Wow, do you seriously think like that?
          • Mongo61, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2You're right. He used them against the Kurds-- in 1985. Bush said he had them in 2003! What I meant was-- Why didn't he use them against US? He let the Syrians hold them while we dug him out of the rabbit hole?
            As for weapons inspectors, wasn't there a guy named Hans Blix that the UN sent over there? How about Scott Spencer?
        • tharju, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1"He did use them. Against the Kurds (his own people) and against Iranian troops." ok...what did we do at the time? we are the one supplying weapons to both sides. take some history class
    • raisinbrainMMM, on 12/11/2007, -3/+8They are still Weapons of Mass Mischievousness. Wake up people!
      • MeMongo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2Yes, but they are OUR elected officials
    • DeviantDragon, on 12/11/2007, -6/+18Okay, I think most people can agree that the fighting in Afghanistan was more justified and more complex than just "box cutters."
      • lennybird, on 12/11/2007, -10/+3Yeah... You're probably right, it was those damn uniform staining, blood colored ketchup packet grenades they wielded menacingly.
      • gernblansted, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5The worst part is that as important as Afghanistan is to the security of the world, it is being neglected because of the Iraq mistake, and in some cases gets lumped together with Iraq and is perceived as a mistake. Anyone who believes that Afghanistan wasn't or isn't vitally important might as well be walking around with a bag over their heads.
      • source1984, on 12/11/2007, -4/+0Up to the last days the Taliban wanted to talk to give up bin Laden. We needed to go there to get some "revenge". Well we're still not out.
      • Adamande, on 12/11/2007, -5/+6I'm curious. What justifies the war in Afghanistan?
        • DeviantDragon, on 12/11/2007, -3/+6To pursue and capture Osama Bin Laden because of his connections with the 9/11 attacks, to eliminate al-Qaeda's terrorist training camps, and to remove the Taliban which actually had connections to al-Qaeda in that they were harboring Bin Laden with full knowledge of all the pressure on them. The war occurred after the Taliban rejected the ultimatum presented by the United States. There was solid evidence to conduct this war. It was not over "box cutters" and it wasn't over claims that were not ever validated. It was very justified.
          • Adamande, on 12/11/2007, -4/+6I disagree with you. Osama fled through Afghanistan into Pakistan. The fact that no one followed him kind of undermines him as the reason to claim Afghanistan. That Bush is even supporting the military dictator of Pakistan, even if he harbored Bin Laden, completes the conundrum. The FBI does not have any hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11. He's not even wanted for 9/11.

            And that the US should run around the planet presenting ultimatums under threats of war to any sovereign nation they please is not really something I support very strongly, not being American and all. I don't think your justification has any basis in reality. Seems to me Afghanistan, like Iraq, is a war based on lies and pure speculation.
          • fandyboy, on 12/12/2007, -2/+3Adamande, you're an idiot, you clearly are either delusional or know nothing about the reality of what happened. All the 9/11 hijackers had clear links to, funding from and had met and trained with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. I suggest you read some real history instead of the conspiracy crap on Google Videos.
          • DeviantDragon, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2To: Adamande

            Pakistan is not harboring Bin Laden willingly. If Bin Laden is in Pakistan, the Pakistani government hasnt found him but they are looking. Osama himself claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. People the US have arrested have supported this claim. People the US have captured have also supported the existence of al-Qaeda. On the issue of Osama leaving. Osama fled after the US invaded so it's not like he'd leave on his own. We didn't follow into Pakistan because they cooperated and thus we didn't need to be there with force and with Pakistan resisting us. Anybody we have in Pakistan is welcomed by Pakistani government and allowed to proceed with searching.

            Finally, on the issue ultimatums, you're misrepresenting the situation. The US threatened invasion because we were clearly attacked as a country and we were responding by taking action against those who attacked us. In this case, Afghanistan was complicit in allowing said attacker and said attacking organization to remain and be harbored safely. To compare Iraq and Afghanistan is ***** ridiculous. WE DIDN'T FIND WMDs in IRAQ AND EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS WMDs WAS SKEWED vs. WE HAVE VIDEOTAPE OF TERRORIST TRAINING CAMPS IN AFGAHNISTAN. WE HAVE SUPPORTED CLAIMS BY THE TALIBAN THAT OSAMA WAS THERE. OSAMA CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ATTACKS. INTERNATIONAL OPINION WAS ON OUR SIDE GIVING A MEASURE OF VALIDITY. I don't think your denial has any basis in reality and your analysis is based on ignorance and incompetence.
        • fandyboy, on 12/11/2007, -3/+3Are you serious? How old were you 6 years ago? The Taliban were harbouring and protecting Al Qaeda and their bases before and after 9/11. After 9/11 the US demanded that the Taliban hand over Al Qaeda and close their training camps, the Taliban refused so the US (then NATO) invaded. Simple really!
          • Adamande, on 12/11/2007, -2/+6To get someone to hand over "Al Qaeda" you have to prove "Al Qaeda" exists. Can you do that? There's no coherent evidence of the world wide terror organization Bush is wailing on about. There was no five floor bunker in the mountains of Tora Bora either, even though Rumsfeldt had the floor plan of the place all drawn up, with high tech computers and dining area. Until I see some hard evidence for this planetary terror-network, I'm not believing a single word coming from the Bush-administration.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 12/12/2007, -3/+4you're an ass that is trying to get some much needed attention
    • blakeage, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2Reminded me of Dennis the Mennis, or Calvin and Hobbes or something for some reason.
    • ventralnet, on 12/11/2007, -15/+2Almost as worse... Iran has nukes
      • lesosso, on 12/11/2007, -1/+10no they don't!!!
      • rpi22, on 12/11/2007, -1/+8The US has nukes and we are the only country that has been insane enough to use them. We've also been responsible for the worst holocaust in history, the genocide of 10 million native americans. And then there's slavery...

        Perhaps if we weren't constantly threatening Iran (and arming Israel with nukes and stuff) they wouldn't feel that they needed nukes to protect themselves from one of the largest hypocrites in history.

        Plus, we overthrew their democratically elected government and install the Shah over oil. Then we wonder why they dont like us...
    • xGORDOx, on 12/11/2007, -2/+5Those were the weapons that were going to be mass produced and handed out to the population in order to fuel the insurgency, just incase facts are of anyones concern.
    • DMCer, on 12/11/2007, -9/+8We "destabilized" Afghanistan because the the Taliban was sheltering al-Qaeda, who's "boxcutters" were used to kill 2,700 Americans. Are you that thick that you're incapable of figuring this out? Idiot.
      • Crosshare, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3Agreed, but I think it was more for humor, lighten up.
        • swiftekho, on 12/11/2007, -3/+32700 lives + the lives of dead soldiers resulting are not humorous... I hate to be a cynic bastard, but those "box cutters" changed the world completely and we are still feeling effects of those "box cutters" every day.

          Those "box cutters" put Bush in such a situation that HE could take more power than any other president before him.
        • NozE8, on 12/11/2007, -3/+1The world didnt change that day, only your perception of it.
      • source1984, on 12/11/2007, -5/+7they were willing to talk. we weren't. we needed to bomb them so people like you could sit in your sofa and be like 'YEAAAAAH, WE GOT EM, F-KIN ARABS' (even though afghans aren't arab, you probably wouldn't know anyway)
      • DFrag, on 12/12/2007, -3/+4Apparently you are too thick to realize that killing and disabling tens of thousands of Americans is not they way to punish those to killed a few thousand. Oh and the boogie men were from Saudi Arabia not Afghanistan. The largest terrorist organization in the world is the CIA. You can't be new so I must assume that your stupid or you work for the government to spread their lies and propaganda. Either way you're pathetic.
    • wishninja, on 12/11/2007, -5/+2I wish digg had a quote of the week section I would vote for this one.
    • dareNmc, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Just to be clear, weapons of mass destruction were legal in IRAQ until they surrendered over the Kuwait war, and agreed to destroy them.
      IRAN weapons of mass destruction are legal (except nuclear because they have agreed to not produce them in 1968 NPT.)
      So all of these items were legal to be possed in the 80's. even if they are illegal today.
    • UnterDenLinden, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I guess 9/11 is far enough away that we can about it now....
      Go nuts digg!
    • 10001, on 12/16/2007, -0/+2yeah ***** the Kurds.. who cares if they were killed with chemical WMDs! Ignore all inconvenient truths!!
  • Napoleone, on 12/11/2007, -15/+112Alas... the incontrovertible truth of Saddam's diabolical plans for world domination finally surface. He was gonna go Dennis the Menace on us!

    Poor Iraqis.
    • Aero347, on 12/11/2007, -23/+4Yea next time you go over there and say poor iraqis and get shot at by them let me know.
      • Murdats, on 12/11/2007, -2/+17maybe they wouldnt want to shoot americans if the poor iraqis hadnt had their families raped and murdered, then let off scott free by americans.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 12/11/2007, -8/+2.
        • GawtMilk, on 12/11/2007, -9/+2Maybe we wouldn't shoot them if they didn't join the terrorist side and start shooting at us. The US Army follows rules of engagement...

          The truth of this is that the first group to man up and admit they lose will in fact win. If the terrorists throw down their weapons and surrender, they'll be on the moral high ground. If Americans leave Iraq, they'll be credited with ending the mindless violence. You cannot end terrorism with fighting...only through compassion. I'm no flower-pressing vagina, but it's ridiculous to think that a war can be won were one group of people fights by planting artillery shells under the road, and the other side fights by calling in million dollar airstrikes.
          • GawtMilk, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4**It's ridiculous to think that an occupation can be won...

            We won the war when we took them out of power. Now it's just a multi-billion, hundred-thousand death toll game of chicken.
      • edzilla, on 12/11/2007, -1/+15You probably are more at risk of being shot by blackwater guys...
        • theaceoffire, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9I am so sad that your right.
        • GawtMilk, on 12/11/2007, -6/+3Well, you're wrong...the insurgents have killed hundreds of thousands with their suicide bombings, celebratory gunfire and blind firing at US convoys. However, the problem isn't that we've killed less than them, but that we've killed civilians...period. It's just wrong.
  • lhbaker, on 12/11/2007, -3/+45Looks like the arsenal from Ben Hur.
    • noots, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9did anyone else "lol" when he fired the catapult at the door?
  • orlando37, on 12/11/2007, -13/+31This cant be a real video .... can it?
    • rpi22, on 12/11/2007, -1/+24why do you think they lost?
    • Terr01, on 12/11/2007, -1/+27AFAIK it is real--I guess Saddam told his guys:

      "When the Americans invade, we need a way to conduct a guerilla war and arm the populace to drive them out. But I don't trust that much of the populace, so we can't just give them guns, because we need the guns so that we can get back to power afterwards. Give me options!"
    • NickSpinner, on 12/11/2007, -4/+1uh, i mean it does look a lot like saddam but i think (and hope) its 100% fake
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6hehe, no, no, that's really him.
  • stephenpjc, on 12/11/2007, -60/+5Which one was Saddam? They all freaking look the same.
  • barryiggins, on 12/11/2007, -15/+75Yeah, you're laughing now... just be grateful we stopped him before he could deploy those weapons along with the secret stockpile of stealth ninjas inside US borders.
    • Delphium226, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8or armored horses
    • gak001, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6I'm a little more worried about the chariots - those things are scary as *****.
      • robberry, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1You laugh, but according to Judges 1:19, even God isn't always powerful enough to overcome the mighty iron chariot.
    • robberry, on 12/11/2007, -0/+14What stealth ninjas? I don't see any stealth nin-- ACK!
      • phybere, on 12/11/2007, -3/+9SYN
      • counterplex, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1"Stealth Ninja" is an example of redundancy. Thank you for your comment robberry, I look forward to making you redundant SOON!
        /askaninja
        • robberry, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Don't blame me, barryiggins used the term first. I was just replying to his post.
          • counterplex, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1true, true. i take back my words towards you and redirect them towards barryiggins instead :)
    • soulkitchen, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Is it hard to "stockpile" ninjas??
  • SpickSlayer, on 12/11/2007, -25/+2The WMD's are underground. Fear me America, FEAR ME!
  • jmyname, on 12/11/2007, -21/+2Im confuseded
  • SoundJudgment, on 12/11/2007, -4/+31The Soviets saw that very video and sent real guns and mortars over to Iraq out of pity. ;)
    • donte, on 12/11/2007, -1/+16They sent them back though because they weren't quite sure which end of the gun the thumb tacks went in.
  • derjames, on 12/11/2007, -6/+12Holly *****.. is this classified or what?... call the CIA immediately!!!
  • ashlvsya, on 12/11/2007, -12/+41Looks like Al Qaeda in the background and a nuke to me /Fox News glasses on
  • underburn, on 12/11/2007, -15/+8This is what we're up against -- and we still cant "win" the war.
    • stevetro, on 12/11/2007, -3/+14The war is over and we did win it. It's the OCCUPATION that we're having a hard time with.
      • byronm, on 12/11/2007, -3/+5Occupation/war.. can you tell me the difference? I mean they're both fought with bullets so why the distinction? They both were terrible ideas to begin with.
        • theaceoffire, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7Well, war is fun, profitable, and easy (If your not on the field).
          Occupation is... slow, costly, and never ending.
    • heliox, on 12/11/2007, -6/+3Tell that to the soldiers dying over there you ***** moron...
      • abuelos84, on 12/11/2007, -2/+5or worse, the civilians dying over there, ***** the soldiers, anyone dumb enough to join the army, marine, etc, it's better death than alive.
        Now digg me down while you yell "My daddy died in Korea for that Flag!"...
        • heliox, on 12/11/2007, -4/+1Yeah...no further comment required.
        • unculturedswine, on 12/11/2007, -1/+0You are one sick, ungrateful bastard
  • DeadRooster, on 12/11/2007, -5/+50Just think if they had discovered the sick combination of loading the tacks into the slingshots--it may have changed the entire course of the war.
    • madrid, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2The way the tacks were designed, they would have struck dull-side first if fired from a slingshot.
      • kimbokasteniv, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1So you're telling me the victims would die a slow painful death? My god...
  • fixty, on 12/11/2007, -12/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS7ddhxQm74
  • steveoco, on 12/11/2007, -24/+37That country was better off under Saddam, diplomacy, maybe using Saddam could have been an alternative to the terrible situation the country now faces.
    Bush really has blood on his hands.
    • Versh, on 12/11/2007, -10/+13Sure, I'll agree with the blood on the hands remark, but do you really think the people were better off with a paranoid dictator? Get some education on the subject...
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -5/+22Actually, in terms of pure standard of living, the sad thing is that the Iraqis WERE better off under Saddam - evil and vicious dictator that he was. The invasion of Iraq has led to more deaths of innocent civilians than were killed by Saddam in over 30 years. Under Saddam, the Iraqis had fresh running water, functioning educational facilities, electricity and other amenities that they *still* do not have now. There were no insurgent gangs roaming the streets massacring people (because Saddam had them all killed or imprisoned). There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq under Saddam, they were opposed to him and him to them. Women were allowed to wear western clothing and to be employed as professionals in medicine, law, etc, in fact Hussein had them in his cabinet. So, really, insane as it sounds, the Iraqis were in fact better off under Saddam. That is how badly this war has been prosecuted. A total disaster for everyone - oh, except the US military manufacturing sector and Halliburton (and other contractors).
        • theaceoffire, on 12/11/2007, -3/+8I want to comment to show my support for your comment, but it hurts.

          We (USA) have been used, lied to, and abused along with the people we are fighting... our solders are dying for the cause of a man, whom 70-80% of USA hates.

          We have 'news' organizations with agendas, a political system that is BUILT with deceit and punishes honesty, and ravaging corporations that exploit the gullible and poor for profit.

          Our scientific endeavors are crippled, our children are being used as ammo in a war of ideology, and our forms of communication are overpriced and underpowered...

          I keep hoping it can all be fixed, but it seems so much...
      • mlostracco, on 12/11/2007, -4/+10Unfortunately, one of the ***** ironies is that dictatorships often bring stability—health care, education, infrastructure. Iraq had one of the highest literacy rates in the world, for example.

        The biggest mistake the U.S. made is not doing anything to preserve those stable infrastructures when they invaded, aside from protecting the oil refineries and pipelines. As for the electrical grid and stuff, pshaw! Who needs that?!
    • bradbaxter, on 12/11/2007, -10/+6People are better off under a democracy -- rather than an evil, genocidal tyrant who gassed his own people, had women raped in front of their families and threw his critics into wood chippers.

      You can say that we are just "forcing our way of life on these people", but you can't force freedom on the unfree. It is a paradoxical claim. IF you do force freedom on the unfree, you have every right to do so, because THEY had no rights (as unfree individuals). Freedom is inherently good, as opposed to slavery.

      Bush has blood on his hands? No more than our Founding Fathers who fought a revolution to bring us freedom. Unfortunately, freedom usually comes with a price... because those who take freedom aren't usually willing to peacefully give it back.
      • chicofaraby, on 12/11/2007, -3/+7How is a nation occupied by a foreign army "free" exactly?
      • counterplex, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3You may think you can impose freedom on a people but what good is that freedom if the people don't value it? In my humble opinion freedom (of speech, press, etc), democracy and other such values which empower the people need to be earned. The people themselves need to want it enough to pay for it with their own blood and sweat. Try imposing it and you will get a bastard child born of what the people are used to and what you are trying to convert them to and the people will blame you for it.
      • brickandwind0w, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Is that you, Dick?
      • ninepointfive, on 12/12/2007, -0/+0Freedom Isn't Free


        So you are somehow under the impression that we are giving them their freedom?! ha!
    • atrain15, on 12/11/2007, -5/+5"That country was better off under Saddam"

      Sure...unless you were one of the millions of Kurds he gassed. Or a woman who wouldn't give it up to one of his sons. Or a losing Olympic athlete. Or someone anyone in the army didn't like for any reason. Or one of the 0.1% who voted against Saddam in an election. Or...

      There is no question the war in Iraq was predicated on a sham and has be mismanaged to an alarming degree. That said, to imagine that life under a brutal dictator was better than even the ***** there now is ludicrous. I had a roommate in college from Iraq. You would not believe the things he'd seen. The horrible incidents like the Blackwater stuff and Abu Grhaib are a disgrace and must be stopped. The thing is, they are a huge deal and you know about them NOW because they are the exceptions to the rule. 5 years ago they wouldn't have registered as a drop in the bucket to the daily atrocities of Saddam's ruling power.

      The fact that so many diggers appear to be so short sighted as to imagine life under a cruel, genocidal dictator is better than even TRYING for something better scares the ***** out of me.
    • ropers, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4Well, they could have just paid off Saddam and gotten rid of him that way:
      http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2341401 ...
      Sure, it's not justice, but it would have saved a million Iraqi lives and would have been A LOT cheaper. Also, letting the Bush administration have their way with Iraq hardly isn't justice either; and these neocon pots don't have the right to call the Saddam kettle black.
  • osirislink, on 12/11/2007, -15/+5Those aren't WMDs they be BLTs. Get with the program. BOOYA KASHA!
  • jackalsclaw, on 12/11/2007, -18/+4This might have been a propaganda film made by Hussein to make his forces look less deadly.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -3/+14I've read some pretty dumb statements on digg in my time.. but that one really is outstandingly stupid. Congratulations. I just hope that you were being sarcastic and forgot the tag.
    • NickSpinner, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6yes, outstandingly stupid. good call warty
    • unculturedswine, on 12/11/2007, -1/+0I guess I'm a jackass, cause that's exactly what I thought too. Saddam isn't doing a press conference over hand weapons for his soldiers, he's having a press conference to show the people that he 'approves' of the weapons that they probably sold to people as protection.

      As a dictator he was probably pleased to be forcing those kind of 'weapons' to the people, thus guaranteeing that he and his wicked fedayeen (sp) fighters could kill any resistance with minimal effort.
  • hangtown2004, on 12/11/2007, -21/+7***** Bush

    www.zeitgeistmovie.com
  • Deomonte21, on 12/11/2007, -5/+18ok...so we have some sharpened jacks, a wrist rocket slingshot, and a water balloon launcher. I wasn't aware you could buy your army's tactical weapons in the sporting goods section at Wal-Mart.
    • Micetro, on 12/12/2007, -3/+0we? i dont know were u are from but in America, which is were im guessing u are from, we have real weapons that kill every towel head that every walk this good green earth!
  • dearacc, on 12/11/2007, -6/+11If that video does not scare the ***** out of you I don't know what will. They were going to bring all that ***** to a street near you!
  • Boddhistava, on 12/11/2007, -5/+33Mission accomplished
  • fixyourthinking, on 12/11/2007, -14/+2Of course you can take what you want from this video ... I take it that it was a set up to cover or fool or even mock the weapons inspectors.
    • Delphium226, on 12/11/2007, -1/+6Yeah, weapons inspectors are going to be fooled by nightsticks. 'Hey that must be a Scud with a chemical warhead!'.

    • saisumimen, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1@fixyourthinking

      You smacktards will try to spin anything, won't ya? Christ.
      • unculturedswine, on 12/11/2007, -2/+0and you won't? Look in the mirror hypocrite.
  • gtluke, on 12/11/2007, -13/+8you know that saddam had mig 29's right? well until we shot them down. they were the finest fighter jets money could buy.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -0/+13Sarcasm tag? no? I find it hard to parse sarcasm these days, seeing as how some people seem to be utterly dumb as *****.
    • whisperedlie, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9you mean the *few* MiG-29s they had, right? the ones that were mostly unusable because they didn't have the parts or training to keep in working (much less, combat) condition?
      • saisumimen, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Not to mention the fact that the Mossad (Israeli secret Intelligence service) had one stolen and brought back to Israel to be examined for weaknesses. The US Air Force knew exactly how to destroy them before they even engaged them in the air. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

        You should check out this book: "Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad" by Gordon Thomas
    • mckinnej, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7As the USAF will quickly admit and even point out, the best aircraft ever built are worthless without good pilots. Iraq did not have these, so those MiGs were just sitting targets.
  • Zarchon, on 12/11/2007, -18/+6And the loons that are Digg speak up. Kevin, sell quick, Digg is jumping the shark.
  • scottmoss, on 12/11/2007, -9/+20Wrong...Wrong.... This was a video of weapons that were confiscated from "dead" Anti-Saddam activists. That is if you really want to know the truth...
    • OsiVert, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3I don't believe that's true either, since he says "Let's mass produce these". When I saw this video many years ago I was told it was for civilians to fight back against invaders.
      • unculturedswine, on 12/11/2007, -2/+0That's what I was thinking as I watched it... some kind of 'look everyone, these are awesome' video to propogate to the unlearned imprisoned people.
        That are now free.
      • Misogyny, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1You heard him say that in Arabic? Or you read it off a subtitle that any yahoo could have put there?
  • imnojezus, on 12/11/2007, -7/+46I don't know about this one, it seems like it's being taken out of context. To me, it looks like he's inspecting confiscated weapons. Saddam's ego was FAR too big to be proudly displaying something like this unless these weapons were used in a failed protest or crushed uprising. I think we went to war on false pretenses, but I don't think this is evidence of that.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -2/+2Why is he demonstrating one for the cameras?
      • imnojezus, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6Same reason we made a big deal about aluminum tubes. "Look at how dangerous this is! Aren't you glad we quelled this uprising?" Again, I don't know the facts, but neither does anyone else commenting on this.
        • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2It doesn't seem like he would be showing off these weapons in some boastful way, true, it seems like he might be saying these are the weapons that "ordinary patriotic Iraqis can use against the infidel invaders".
          I'm having a hard time believing this is a bit of propaganda for Saddam showing off what he's confiscated from some rebels, because he didn't need to prop up his cult of personality like that, he had huge statues built, wrote books about himself and had songs dedicated to him, so this seems like slumming it. I guess we won't know until someone who speaks Arabic comes in here and explains it.
    • NickSpinner, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3wow wow wow, are you saying that theres debate over whether this is REAL??? THERES A CHANCE THIS IS REAL?!
    • inf0, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3thank-you captain oblivious

  • GiggleStick, on 12/11/2007, -6/+15Can someone who speaks their language please translate what they are saying into English. This is obviously not the Iraqi Army's state of the art weaponry. I hear him saying "molotov" when holding the glass bottle. I'm assuming that they are reviewing the weapons found with some dissidents (believe it or not one or two Iraqis were against Sadaam before we invaded). You see, the dissidents would only have these kinds of weapons, because regular citizens were not allowed to have guns, lest they revolt against Sadaam's iron grip. Now that I think about it though, you guys are right. It is pretty funny thinking about those oppressed Iraqis longing for freedom enough to risk torture and death to fight against Sadaam. I'll be chuckling about that all day.
    • Arkavus, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3I've seen this video before with an explanation. Apparently he's being shown weapons that, in case of an invasion, he can quickly give to his people to help fight with Saddam. Of course that could be wrong, I don't speak Arabic so what I know isn't firsthand.
  • Vtorch, on 12/11/2007, -21/+7If Sadaam Hussein really wanted to prevent War with the United States, he should've let the U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs and let them have free access to all places in Iraq. You don't mess with the U.S. especially ...ESPECIALLY.....after 9/11.

    Sadaam Hussein did all this to himself...not the United States.
    • Hey_Vern, on 12/11/2007, -13/+3Dugg for most relevant comment on this article. Thank you for making it.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -3/+7Pity he was completely wrong, huh? Making both him and you look like empty-headed Bush supporters who know ***** all about even recent history. Maybe you can be WH Press Secretary.
        • bradbaxter, on 12/11/2007, -2/+3Wow. Do you realize that you didn't actually say anything?
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -1/+14Totally wrong. Hussein allowed inspectors in. U.N. weapons inspectors entered Iraq on November 27th, 2002. They searched for illegal weapons, finding few and only minor violations, "no evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program," and "no mobile facilities for producing weapons." (source: Arms Control Today, the publication of the Arms Control Association, citing UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix).

      Weapons Inspectors only left Iraq in March 2003 when the U.S. told them to leave, because an American attack was imminent. They had not yet completed their work.

      Bush tried to bluff Saddam with the weapons inspection deal. Saddam allowed them in, but Bush, pissed off, effectively spluttered "but but but it's too late!" and attacked anyway.
      If anyone tells you different, they are lying.
      • bradbaxter, on 12/11/2007, -3/+2They had not completed their work because Saddam was preventing them from inspecting certain areas.

        Poor Saddam, he was tricked by stupid Bush. Really, it is as if you think Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein. You really need to pull your head out of your ass and at the very least give your country the benefit of the doubt BEFORE giving it to an out-spoken enemy of your country. You people must feel good about yourselves when you are able to take a position siding with an evil dictator (against your own President) because it makes you feel "above it all" and unbiased... so much so, that your knee-jerk reaction is to immediately see things from the OTHER side's point of view.
        • chicofaraby, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4Saddam didn't invade the USA for no reason. George Bush did invade Iraq for no reason.

          Who is "evil" here?
        • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2"They had not completed their work because Saddam was preventing them from inspecting certain areas."
          /boggle. You must really work hard to bend reality in your head. I stated the facts that are supported by history and can be researched by anyone. The teams were doing their jobs unhindered by Saddam, the reason they had to stop was because Bush was itching for a war. Bush thought Saddam would not let them in. When he did, calling Bush's bluff, the latter was left without an excuse for action. It's really pretty simple to follow.
          "Poor Saddam, he was tricked by stupid Bush." - WRONG. Hussein called Bush's bluff by letting the inspectors in, which they didn't expect.
          "Really, it is as if you think Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein." - Bush is responsible for more deaths of innocent Iraqis, that much is certain. The death toll from Bush's illegal Iraq war dwarfs the death toll under Hussein's regime. In terms of killing Iraqis, Bush is worse than Hussein, that is a fact.
          Bush is not my president. Even if he was, I would renounce him. Anyone with a spine, with real love for America and for the values for which it stands would renounce him. That you support him in spite of his horrendous errors, provable lies and absolute incompetence and lack of Christian values says that you have no guts, you support him blindly, like a mindless drone. If you had any real fortitude, you would look at reality and admit you were wrong, face the truth of the Bush Administrations' many wrongdoings, and attempt to make things better in any way you can. Instead, you're a cheerleader.
          I guarantee you, in years to come, you won't openly admit your support for this administration. You will side with the Bush haters. Why? Because you are a moral coward.
    • objectcode, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3if you are not with us, you are against us
    • NickSpinner, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3actually Saddam offered to go into exile a month or so before the war. that just came out like 2 months back
  • justfark, on 12/11/2007, -12/+2Just think, those were the kinds of weapons that helped them take Kuwait and fight the Iranians for years. No wonder he did not want the UN weapons inspectors there.

    I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but if any of you think that those weapons were the weapons the Iraqi military had to defend itself, you are doomed and deservedly so.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8After Kuwait, the West destroyed the Iraqi military, which never recovered. During sanctions, the UN repeatedly shelled and bombed Iraq. The Iraq-Iran war had been over since 1988.
      So they were left with sweet ***** all. More than what we see on display here, and no doubt this video is something other than what it appears to be, but the weapons available to the Iraqis did not amount to very much compared to the US, and they were certainly no threat to their neighbours, let alone America or Europe (their pitiful SCUD missiles could barely even make it into Israel during the first Gulf War, after which they didn't have any)
      Next time, try doing a little cursory research before spouting off a load of garbage. It's a bit more of a challenge, at least.
    • bradbaxter, on 12/11/2007, -2/+1Really, do we all have to begin or end our statements with how much we hate Bush? Is hating Bush now a pre-requisite for having an opinion?
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4It is prerequisite to having an intelligent opinion. Because anyone who doesn't recognize his mendacity is immediately seen as lacking any intellectual credibility.
  • Rich711, on 12/11/2007, -15/+7What about all the weapons the liberals love to shout about us selling him? All thehundreds of millions of dollars in F-14s and anti-aircraft missles... oh, yeah, when he started acting like a dick we stop selling him the replacement components that are only made in America so they didnt work anymore...another fact liberals love to leave out.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/11/2007, -4/+10You got your Qs and Ns mixed up again.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -3/+12LLLLLIBERALLLLSSSS!!!
      Damn, boy, do you know how ***** retarded that sounds?
      All of the ***** sold to Saddam by the US (and yes, it was real, we have the receipts!) were destroyed either by us during the first Gulf War, or by Saddam himself in order to avoid sanctions. It was clear to all observers long before 2003 that Saddam's arsenal had been wiped out. Both Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice stated that he was no threat in 2001 (before Bush and the Neocons decided it was expedient to say that he *was* a threat, as a justification for attack, a bit later). This does not mean that he did not receive arms from the US during the Iran-Iraq war, which ended in 1988. Wars tend to deplete weapons.
      Nice try, though.
      • CourtesyFlush, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Actually, I prefer "Cubicle monkey action committee."

        Post some reliable links, monkey, or STFU.

        Here's one for you to read while you're trolling.

        archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/no.fly.zones/

        Nah, Saddam never attacked US Airmen protecting those giving much needed humanitarian aid to those who had been denied medicine by a tyrant.
    • NickSpinner, on 12/11/2007, -2/+6why is it liberal to believe your government is run by homocidal maniacs
      • objectcode, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2because bush supporters want more blood, and you are a liberal if you aren't with them
    • objectcode, on 12/11/2007, -1/+5those damn liberals are smoking some dope
    • unreg, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3We didn't sell F-14's to Iraq, that was Iran
      • Rich711, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Then where did they get all those F-14's we bombed in the first gulf war? The US is the only manufacturer. All those jets Saddam had placed next to pyramids and other landmarks because he couldnt get them off the ground but paid millions for. Iraq was the 4th largest and most advanced military on the planet before the first gulf war. And as far as the weapons they actually have used to kill people, like guns, rifles, RPGs, anti-personel weapons, what countries are those made in?
  • removesstains, on 12/11/2007, -4/+6ROFLMAO damn he had the most bad ass since of humor for a bad guy.
  • h3lx, on 12/11/2007, -7/+7Whatever it is he's doing, he's dead now. Our administration saw fit to kill him. Nothing is going to change that now and the spineless lackeys we've got in office guarantee not a single solitary ***** is going to held to account for the gross misrepresentations and outright lies. All we can pray for now are rapture or rogue snipers, whichever come first is fine with me.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2Actually, a free Iraqi people executed him.
      • Napoleone, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Really? I thought a kangaroo court did that?
  • asaturn, on 12/11/2007, -3/+7they hate our freedom!
    • fuctifino, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6your freedom? are you stoned? what other country in the civilised world:
      tolerates torture
      has a gestapo style organisation monitoring every move it's citizens make i.e. CIA
      has a so called patriot act that permits internal spying

      Iraq may have had a dictatorship but at least it's people weren't deluded enough to hold the moral high ground. Freedom? What freedoms do you have? Marching against the war now is somewhat of a crime.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Pretty sure asaturn is being sarcastic.
      • DephexTwin, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Why do you hate our sarcasm????? :(
    • jake8689, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1thats why were gonna win by not having what they hate
  • jakobrowning, on 12/11/2007, -10/+9Tell me again, why were we afraid of this guy for so long? He had all the military power of Dennis the Menace.
    • heliox, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4The hundreds of thousands of Kurds and other "undesirables" he killed with his chemical weapons would beg to differ.
      • jakobrowning, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I guess you have a point there. But he was still a little to fascinated with the sling-shot.
        • heliox, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Aren't all boys fascinated by them :-)
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Hussein was a sadistic maniac, a mass murderer. But as to the gassing of the Kurds, experts have shed doubt on whether he was actually responsible. Some have laid blame on the Iranians (it was during the Iran-Iraq war). It happened during a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, and the Kurdish civilians were caught in the crossfire. But they were not Iraq's target.
        Stranger still, immediately after the battle the US Defense Intelligence Agency produced a report that stated that it was *Iranian* gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The Kurds were killed with a cyanide-based gas, which the Iraqis did not use. The Iraqis used mustard gas in that battle.
        In any case, whatever pitiful weapons Saddam actually had at one time, he was never a threat to Europe or the West, which was the justification for the invasion. He could barely lob primitive SCUD missiles across the border into Israel during the first Gulf War, and his military was completely ruined after that, never to be repaired. Whatever he did to his own people was nothing that should have motivated the war. That's the UN's job, sorting out that sort of stuff.
    • NickSpinner, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4because if we werent somewhat scared of him, how would the u.s. government use iraq to start and endless war and take our basic civil liberties away while destroying our name in the world and create massive amounts of human suffering for them to feed on (because they are demons)
  • halex2007, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4that's some video.
  • chrismgtis, on 12/11/2007, -2/+3OMG Saddam is back from the dead!??!

    Heh. :)
  • break99, on 12/11/2007, -5/+5Good thing he got bombed with these WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception...
  • gmillerd, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1This footage taken by the sales liaison from the us pentagon?
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/11/2007, -1/+6I guess 43 billion dollars worth of arms sales doesn't go very far.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_19 ...
  • phoephus, on 12/11/2007, -4/+20Good thing he was stopped before he acquired nunchuck technology.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3It was a Long Game against him acquiring flying guillotines.
  • Shao00, on 12/11/2007, -4/+6That's all the justification i needed to see. Quick throw another 100 billion dollars at it!
  • peregrine, on 12/11/2007, -8/+10Poor Iraqi people....we've ruined their hopes, dreams, and lives. I'm so sorry.
    • NickSpinner, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5yeah, but theyll stop being born with horrible mutations in like 100,000,000,000 years so get over it
      • phoephus, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3They should've thought twice before living on top of all that oil.
    • objectcode, on 12/11/2007, -1/+7it will be ok when you go back to watching American Idol
    • counterplex, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3I'm sorry you're sorry. If it wasn't for those brave Iraqi souls how do you think we would test our latest and greatest military gadgets? The Afghani terrain wasn't exactly conducive to conducting war games with live ammunition - not to mention the people there are just not creative enough to give a good fight.

      At least in Iraq we can not only test out any new weapon we want to test without worrying about the consequences to the local population but we can, for the first time, also test out military tactics. What firing rate and turning rate to use when firing a machine gun into a crowd of people gathered at e.g. a busy intersection? What's the smallest school that can be accurately targetted by a JDAM? What's the fastest moving target a Maverick AGM can track? This is the knowledge we need to stay #1 in the world. Those people who die contribute to testing and perfecting our military superiority and should be justly proud!

      /sarcasm
  • dn11, on 12/11/2007, -3/+8where were the slingshots after the invasion!? clearly they were smuggled out of the country during those two weeks that the inspectors weren't allowed in!... seriously, that is Sid Meir's Civilization material right there. We sent mechanized infantry and jet fighters into to destroy a dangerous uprising of club wielders
  • darkmotion, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Better watch out for the kids on instructables.com with their knex guns..
  • NickSpinner, on 12/11/2007, -8/+3look at these comments everybody! it appears that people are finally understanding the propaganda on a much bigger level than before. www.infowars.com (you know the mainstream news are lies, now get the REAL news) www.truthnews.us
    • tooloney, on 12/11/2007, -3/+4Yes because everything Alex Jones says is true too /sarcasm
      • NickSpinner, on 12/11/2007, -2/+3he tries, and he did say that the government would hit the world trade center and blame bin laden to take our freedoms before it happened. just because you dont do the research on what he says doesnt mean its not true, and just because you believe in false reality doesnt make it the truth. how come no one can ever call the alex jones show and debunk anything he says? he doesnt screen calls. end of story
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3He's got a higher rate of accuracy than Dick Cheney, I will give him that.
        • NickSpinner, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2wasnt it amazing how he SHOT SOMBODY IN THE FACE and then the guy APOLOGIZED to cheny??
        • tooloney, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1My dick has a higher rate of accuracy than Dick Cheney, but that doesn't mean anything.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/11/2007, -4/+1If you thought those weapions were part of Saddams arsenal, then you aren't the one to talk about propaganda.
    • unculturedswine, on 12/12/2007, -1/+0I almost respected your view until I saw your 'truthnews' site is just Ron Paul Propoganda. It's as biased as any major news network.
      • NickSpinner, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1its not about ron paul its about peace and freedom and kicking the fascists out of the government
  • movd, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Kim Jong Il: "Now take your weapons of mass destruction and get the bleep outta here!"
  • unreg, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8In the spirit of the Holiday season

    "You'll shoot your eye out kid"
  • atchon, on 12/11/2007, -1/+9not sure if anyone else mentioned this, but this was actually like a promotional video of some of the weapons Saddam wanted to get into the hands of Iraqis so they could fight the Americans once the Iraqi army had failed. This is also a really old video this came out I think right after the invasion.

    Funny nonetheless
  • aroundtown, on 12/11/2007, -2/+10Weapons of Major Disappointment.
  • crowmind, on 12/11/2007, -3/+1Wow Bush saved Us from these weapons. Thanks Bush!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.