Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're funny. You and the other YABAs/Bush fan-boys are all over this like a pack of starving wolves on a mouse. It won't fill the void in your gut, but it's all you can find.Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i want a straight answer from all you intellectually enlightened liberals
exactly what qualifies as having "weapons of mass destruction" in your world view.
i want an exact answer, such as
"one ton of plutonium"
or
"100 liters of Sarin nerve agent"
or
"1 nuclear weapon"
inexact answers are not helpful, such as "vast", or "hugh", or "alot"
i need to get a handle on how the liberal mind perceives threats.
a second question might be how many civilian casualties would an attack have to involve to qualify in your mind as an atack with a WMD. Please, provide an exact number such as 1,000, or 10,000 or 100,000.
I'm not very hopeful than anyone will actually answer these simple questions, but here it goes anyway...
Your rabid desperation to find anything supporting King George's unilateral invasion of Iraq might even be hilarious, in a pathetic sort of way. Hilarious, that is, if not for the dead bodies of 777 American troops, hundreds of allies, and tens of thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis -- many of them innocent women and children. (You're the man, George. You've proved you can kill more people than your dad! Woot! Woot!) Hilarious, if not for the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, while many of those who did -- and the governments who supported them -- are laughing their asses off at the damage George W. Bush has done to America and Democracy.
As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me as justification for Bush's invasion. As I've said here several times, his attack was wrong even if Iraq had "WMDs". We had a process in place to find and destroy any remaining proscribed materials. By George's own admission, Iraq did NOT pose an imminent threat. Therefore, there was no justification for his rush to invade. We had time.
The better question would be what quantity of "WMDs" would satisfy me that Bush and his minions did not lie? That's easy. Show me Iraq had the "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" and "reconstitued nuclear weapons programs" and UAVs poised to strike the US mainland with chemical or biological agents, and all the other BS they used to sell their war. Show me that Iraq had all of these things in January, 2003, not in 1990 or 1998. Show me that, and I will believe them. Until then, I'll remain convinced they're a pack of scheming liars.
Finally, as far as what "mass" is required to qualify as a WMD, I suggest you ask your feckless leader. You see, there was already a term used to refer collectively to weapons of this type: "Nuclear, Biological, Chemical weapons", or "NBC weapons" for short. But that was a problem. Unless you hate the media, "NBC weapons" wasn't nearly scary enough. They needed to make us afraid so we'd fall in behind them in lock step, never questioning where we were going.
King George and his minions coined the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to fuel that fear. It wasn't as precise as NBC weapons, but it was more fearsome. While I can only speculate, I would guess Bush & Co. would define "Mass" as that amount large enough to secure his reelection in November.
:beer:
Nukes are WMD's. Everything else is fear-mongering.