It's not "evidence" until we find 'em. Until then, it's speculation, theories and worst-case scenarios dreamed up by an administration that decided within days of taking office that they wanted Saddam gone. They just needed the justification to put their plans in motion.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
I don't see it in here but you can all stop whining about no WMD found.
They found some old Mustard Gas Missles from the 1980's buried under the sand.
"We Got It!"
They found some old Mustard Gas Missles from the 1980's buried under the sand.
"We Got It!"
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
2003 SoTU:
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax..."
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin..."
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent..."
"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 accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions."
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s 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."
But wait - Bush made it all up
CkG
Thanks for the info CAD. What do you think of the combination of "Our intel indicates..." phrase with "Without a doubt..." phrases?
I've expressed my opinion about WMDs - I was merely providing you with evidence that Bush has infact used the wording you suggested you never heard.
CkG
Excuse me? I never asked anything about WMD? The question was what do you think of the combination of "Our intel indicates..." with "Without a doubt..." phrases.
Oh, I get it. This is yet another of those occasions where my questions are *loaded* and if you answer it, people might get the wrong impression.
I think, Gaard, that you're actually referring to cranio-rectal interface area rather than actual cranium capacity. A commonly held belief among Admin supporters is that only by maximizing the size of the interface will they eventually be able to see the light at the other end of the tunnel...
9/11 wasn't a reason, it was a golden opportunity, found money, ruthlessly and skillfully exploited. The source of those attacks were and are obvious- wahabbist extremism, fostered and fed by elements in the weak and corrupt Saudi govt with our own money. By softening the focus, American rage was displaced onto all muslims in general, then refocused on the Baathist regime in Iraq... The psychology is similar to an old time southern lynch mob, who'd often as not hang the wrong people...
Neocons sought the invasion of Iraq all along, even petitioned Clinton to do so, but needed a shift in leadership and public opinion to allow their ambitions to be realized. GWB and 9/11 provided those shifts, even if the latter required skillful handling to be properly utilized...
While brutal and corrupt, Saddam's regime had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11- zero, zilch, zip, nada. But the American people supported that conquest, more to satisfy their blood lust and desire to lash out against the muslim world than for any truly articulable reason... We were duped, and many remain duped, their emotional weaknesses being exploited in a truly cynical fashion...
Only now does the horror and shame of our own action begin to sink in. Finding out that we lynched the wrong guys, we choose denial, pointing out that the world is a better place without them...
For a lynch mob, it's all over and forgotten rather quickly. For the US in Iraq, we'll continue to pay for a long time, stuck in an incomprehensible morass, attempting to establish a government over a diverse and little understood population with diverse differences, long standing grudges and an obvious willingness to employ violence to meet their ends...
The war isn't over, it's just beginning, with us in the middle...
9/11 wasn't a reason, it was a golden opportunity, found money, ruthlessly and skillfully exploited. The source of those attacks were and are obvious- wahabbist extremism, fostered and fed by elements in the weak and corrupt Saudi govt with our own money. By softening the focus, American rage was displaced onto all muslims in general, then refocused on the Baathist regime in Iraq... The psychology is similar to an old time southern lynch mob, who'd often as not hang the wrong people...
Neocons sought the invasion of Iraq all along, even petitioned Clinton to do so, but needed a shift in leadership and public opinion to allow their ambitions to be realized. GWB and 9/11 provided those shifts, even if the latter required skillful handling to be properly utilized...
While brutal and corrupt, Saddam's regime had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11- zero, zilch, zip, nada. But the American people supported that conquest, more to satisfy their blood lust and desire to lash out against the muslim world than for any truly articulable reason... We were duped, and many remain duped, their emotional weaknesses being exploited in a truly cynical fashion...
Only now does the horror and shame of our own action begin to sink in. Finding out that we lynched the wrong guys, we choose denial, pointing out that the world is a better place without them...
For a lynch mob, it's all over and forgotten rather quickly. For the US in Iraq, we'll continue to pay for a long time, stuck in an incomprehensible morass, attempting to establish a government over a diverse and little understood population with diverse differences, long standing grudges and an obvious willingness to employ violence to meet their ends...
The war isn't over, it's just beginning, with us in the middle...
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
2003 SoTU:
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax..."
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin..."
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent..."
"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 accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions."
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s 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."
But wait - Bush made it all up
CkG
Thanks for the info CAD. What do you think of the combination of "Our intel indicates..." phrase with "Without a doubt..." phrases?
I've expressed my opinion about WMDs - I was merely providing you with evidence that Bush has infact used the wording you suggested you never heard.
CkG
Excuse me? I never asked anything about WMD? The question was what do you think of the combination of "Our intel indicates..." with "Without a doubt..." phrases.
Oh, I get it. This is yet another of those occasions where my questions are *loaded* and if you answer it, people might get the wrong impression.
No - what I said was that I've already expressed my opinion on WMDs - which includes all inferences and statements about them. It is pointless to keep yammering on and on about people's perception of what Bush did or didn't say, because you can opine however you wish - I was just providing you with the evidence you seemed to have missed.
CkG
<<...because it makes little difference in any of our lives.>>
<<...because you can opine however you wish.>>
Did I miss any?
<<...because you can opine however you wish.>>
Did I miss any?
You didn't see any information or intelligence therefore it doesn't exist? How fscking stupid and self-centered are you? Why in God's name would you be privy to classified intelligence? Ever hear of "sources and methods" needing to be protected?
heh heh zero, you sound just as bad as clinton on the stand. "bush did not lie, but what is a lie?" hee hee
if bush didn't lie, he definitely set out to mislead or deceive people (is that a lie?). his intelligence reports constantly told him that things could not be confirmed, and instead of qualifying this in his speeches, he stated these as if they were already known facts to him.
if bush didn't lie, he definitely set out to mislead or deceive people (is that a lie?). his intelligence reports constantly told him that things could not be confirmed, and instead of qualifying this in his speeches, he stated these as if they were already known facts to him.
Bush Lied....
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force ? if necessary ? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
you're obviously the one that is fvcking stupid and self-centered. have you seen any intelligence? you can thank nixon for the fact that no intelligent citizen should believe everything that their president tells them. oh here you go let me spoon feed you some more of these lies into your kiddie mouth. stop and think, definitely need more training.
Steel:
I don't see anyone mentioning (in your posted cites) that we should UNILATERALLY intervene in Iraq. Do you have any evidence that President Clinton, or any of the Democrats you cite supported unilateral preemption? Your quotes have been carefully parsed for anything that might smack of disagreement with Bush, which makes them not only suspect but utterly useless for the purpose intended. Your purpose IS to convince, no?
We all agree, I believe, that SH is a very, very bad person. I'd call him a snake, but I happen to like snakes. I don't even call Bush a snake. He's a MORON.
Anyway, the manner in which Bush pulled off his little war is what is really in contention. Byrd, Graham, Rockefeller and Kerry are suggesting now that they may have been lied to. Byrd was a vociferous opponent of unilateral intervention. Graham is now saying Bush is a traitor, or words to that effect. Many Republicans are mumbling under their breath about the manner is which the war was "sold". Slowly, the Boob Wah Zee are wiping the sleepers out of their eyes after Bush hit them on the head with the rubber mallet of WMD and blew all their fuses. When the man on the street finally realizes what Bush has done-sent Americans to die without good cause-I hope Bush pays the ultimate price, i.e. early retirement in Crawford. Right now Bush is still winning that little battle for the hearts and minds of the American people, but I smell change, if not victory as yet.
-Robert
I don't see anyone mentioning (in your posted cites) that we should UNILATERALLY intervene in Iraq. Do you have any evidence that President Clinton, or any of the Democrats you cite supported unilateral preemption? Your quotes have been carefully parsed for anything that might smack of disagreement with Bush, which makes them not only suspect but utterly useless for the purpose intended. Your purpose IS to convince, no?
We all agree, I believe, that SH is a very, very bad person. I'd call him a snake, but I happen to like snakes.
I don't even call Bush a snake. He's a MORON.Anyway, the manner in which Bush pulled off his little war is what is really in contention. Byrd, Graham, Rockefeller and Kerry are suggesting now that they may have been lied to. Byrd was a vociferous opponent of unilateral intervention. Graham is now saying Bush is a traitor, or words to that effect. Many Republicans are mumbling under their breath about the manner is which the war was "sold". Slowly, the Boob Wah Zee are wiping the sleepers out of their eyes after Bush hit them on the head with the rubber mallet of WMD and blew all their fuses. When the man on the street finally realizes what Bush has done-sent Americans to die without good cause-I hope Bush pays the ultimate price, i.e. early retirement in Crawford. Right now Bush is still winning that little battle for the hearts and minds of the American people, but I smell change, if not victory as yet.
-Robert
chess9
Unilateral:
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : ONE-SIDED c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
Last I checked, there were 60 some countries in favor of the action. Unilateral means one. The UN would have never passed a war resolution because France, Germany, and Russia all had a huge economic stake in keeping Saddam in power. They actively worked to get other nations to take up their stance.
The UN is an organization without a backbone. For years, they passed resolution after resolution following the cease fire agreement from the Gulf War. Iraq spit in their face time and time again. Iraq launched missiles at our planes securing the no fly zone, were producing illegal weapons, etc. The UN is like a parent who constantly tells their kid that if they do something, they will be punished - but then never follows through with the punishment. I don't want the UN dicating policy that has a direct impact on our national security.
All of the quotes above are from people who are privy to the same information that was given to Bush, and they all made the same conclusion about the WMD. Were they all lieing about the existance of WMD? Was Hillary Clinton lieing? Al Gore? If Bush lied about the WMD, then all of the above people also lied about it. If the WMD was never there, it is not the fault of one man, it is the fault of the intelligence gathering of the CIA and their sources. Bush didn't go to Iraq and do the intelligence gathering himself - just like the administration before him, he had to rely on information given to him.... and he came to the same conclusions that everyone else did after seeing the intelligence reports. Calling Bush a liar is like calling yourself a blind partisan.
Iraq is a country the size of California. Saddam could have easily hidden the WMD somewhere where it won't be found for decades. What if his sons had someone drive them and the WMD out in the desert, burry it, then shoot the acomplices. Now, the sons are dead which leaves nobody who knows where the stuff is. Saddam burried jets! I think he could find a way to bury some WMD.
Unilateral:
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : ONE-SIDED c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
Last I checked, there were 60 some countries in favor of the action. Unilateral means one. The UN would have never passed a war resolution because France, Germany, and Russia all had a huge economic stake in keeping Saddam in power. They actively worked to get other nations to take up their stance.
The UN is an organization without a backbone. For years, they passed resolution after resolution following the cease fire agreement from the Gulf War. Iraq spit in their face time and time again. Iraq launched missiles at our planes securing the no fly zone, were producing illegal weapons, etc. The UN is like a parent who constantly tells their kid that if they do something, they will be punished - but then never follows through with the punishment. I don't want the UN dicating policy that has a direct impact on our national security.
All of the quotes above are from people who are privy to the same information that was given to Bush, and they all made the same conclusion about the WMD. Were they all lieing about the existance of WMD? Was Hillary Clinton lieing? Al Gore? If Bush lied about the WMD, then all of the above people also lied about it. If the WMD was never there, it is not the fault of one man, it is the fault of the intelligence gathering of the CIA and their sources. Bush didn't go to Iraq and do the intelligence gathering himself - just like the administration before him, he had to rely on information given to him.... and he came to the same conclusions that everyone else did after seeing the intelligence reports. Calling Bush a liar is like calling yourself a blind partisan.
Iraq is a country the size of California. Saddam could have easily hidden the WMD somewhere where it won't be found for decades. What if his sons had someone drive them and the WMD out in the desert, burry it, then shoot the acomplices. Now, the sons are dead which leaves nobody who knows where the stuff is. Saddam burried jets! I think he could find a way to bury some WMD.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Why on earth would he bury the only thing that he could use to defend himself? If someone was coming to kill you, would you bury your only gun?
BTW, while you are technically correct about the unilateral part, Saddam was technically elected. These 60 countries were asked by Bush and Co. "You support us, RIGHT?" You think these people give a rats behind about Saddam? They are worried about their next meal for the most part, and if saying "Sure!" may help them get some grub, the what's the harm?
Every one of these countries went along with Bush. Not one of these countries had been salavating to attack Iraq. This coalation is a useful political construct, and nothing more.
Bush did not gather intel. Intel is like a deck of cards. It is what it is. Bush looked though that deck and picked the cards he liked. He picked his royal flush, and his supporters are ignoring how he got it.
From a world threat Saddam was a naughty 5 year old. It was as necessary to bludgeon Iraq as much as that child.
If Saddam would have launched the WMD at the US troops, all hope of him staying in power would be lost. I think he was hoping that the UN would talk the US out of it, or that once the US casualties began, that they would pull back. If he lauches WMD, he loses every bit of support he had from countries like France, Germany, and Russia, and essentially proves the US right. He was hoping to one day return to power when the US left. Had he lauched the WMD, no country in the world (well, maybe Syria) would have taken his side.
If Bush looked through the deck of cards, and determined that Saddam had WMD, continued to persue WMD, illegal weapons, etc, then Gore, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, etc must have all picked the same cards. This tells me that the deck was heavily, heavily stacked on the WMD side. If Bush was a no good liar on the WMD issue, so were Gore and both Clintons. Looking at in any other way just shows how much of a blind partisan you are. You might disagree with what was done to stop Saddam's involvement with WMD, but you can't call Bush a liar when everyone before him who had the same information came to the same conclusion. That was the basis of this thread. We have Democrats running around calling Bush a liar when every member of the previous Democratic administration came to the same conclusion on whether Saddam had WMD.
Al Gore obviously didn't have much faith in relying on UN inspections...
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002."
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I have no idea what Clinton did as far as selecting intel, however he didnt start a war. Perhaps he did not because his guess wasnt certain enough to warrant it. He could have done so if he wanted to. All he would have to do is pursue it as Bush did. I didn't like Clinton from before he was elected. I voted for Jr. AND his father. So much for partisian.
I don't care about the Democrats. I care about the President who is in office who started this war, and how he went about justifying it. This one happens to be Republican, and his name Bush. If it were Gore, and he did the same thing, I would have metaphorically placed his head on a stake just as quickly.
phillyTIM
Golden Member
- Jan 12, 2001
- 1,942
- 10
- 81
All I know is that when a country invades another, and uses pictures and satellites to justify it, they sure as hell had better be able to pull that rabbit out of the hat RIGHT AWAY to prove their justification.
A superpower like the United States has no business invading another country with out PHYSICAL "ROCK-SOLID EVIDENCE" of violations.
It's ludicrous that we are still justifying this invasion after almost a year now, and have NOTHING to back it up. And alludes to the point of people saying Bush lied outright, as even I believe with a straight face.
A superpower like the United States has no business invading another country with out PHYSICAL "ROCK-SOLID EVIDENCE" of violations.
It's ludicrous that we are still justifying this invasion after almost a year now, and have NOTHING to back it up. And alludes to the point of people saying Bush lied outright, as even I believe with a straight face.
People who claim that Bush lied about WMD are lying themselves?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every body lies. It is impossible to tell the "truth, the whole truth, & nothing but the truth" at all times.
All lies need to addressed one at a time. Some are more important than others.
Starting a war based on lies, seems important, & is THE ISSUE.
Confusing the issue with other complaints, requres that those complaints be addressed AFTER the original issue.
Bushies who don't want to address the issue, shouldn't stand in the way of others looking for the truth.
Those who stand in the way, are probably the same people who were VERY concerned about where Clinton's penis went.
Politics is not like a foot ball game where haveing your team win is the only thing of importance.
We're talking about peoples lives and freedom here.
Rep V Dem fueding mentality is quite inapproperate in light of the situation.
A world domination plan may be at hand.
Having one group/country/person/etc in control can only result in:
POWER CORRUPTS, & ULTIMATE POWER, ULTIMATELY CORRUPTS.
even if it's the USA in total power, it's a bad thing for "we the people".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every body lies. It is impossible to tell the "truth, the whole truth, & nothing but the truth" at all times.
All lies need to addressed one at a time. Some are more important than others.
Starting a war based on lies, seems important, & is THE ISSUE.
Confusing the issue with other complaints, requres that those complaints be addressed AFTER the original issue.
Bushies who don't want to address the issue, shouldn't stand in the way of others looking for the truth.
Those who stand in the way, are probably the same people who were VERY concerned about where Clinton's penis went.
Politics is not like a foot ball game where haveing your team win is the only thing of importance.
We're talking about peoples lives and freedom here.
Rep V Dem fueding mentality is quite inapproperate in light of the situation.
A world domination plan may be at hand.
Having one group/country/person/etc in control can only result in:
POWER CORRUPTS, & ULTIMATE POWER, ULTIMATELY CORRUPTS.
even if it's the USA in total power, it's a bad thing for "we the people".
You must like to pick and choose the rock solid violations then. The cease fire agreement that stopped the Gulf War had very clear rules that Iraq refused to follow. Violate the terms of a cease fire, and the firing can and should commence. Inspectors were constantly turning up more and more banned weapons. Missiles that violated the range rules, empty banned chemical warheads, firing missiles at US planes enforcing the no fly zone, Iraq time and time again restricted the inspector's access, kicking them out, not accounting for known stockpiles, etc.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter