Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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...

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.

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.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Codec
Latest from David Kay (quoted in the Boston Herald). Kay was as gung-ho as anyone about finding WMD in Iraq, until he actually went there and couldn't find anything:

"Meanwhile, the former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said it's possible the shell was an old one overlooked when Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s. Kay, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a hidden stockpile, although he didn't rule out that possibility.

``It is hard to know if this is one that just was overlooked - and there were always some that were overlooked, we knew that - or if this was one that came from a hidden stockpile,'' Kay said. ``I rather doubt that because it appears the insurgents didn't even know they had a chemical round.''

While Saturday's explosion does demonstrate that Saddam hadn't complied fully with U.N. resolutions, Kay also said, ``It doesn't strike me as a big deal.''

In January, Kay turned in his resignation to CIA Director George Tenet and has since repeatedly said that U.S. intelligence was wrong in claiming that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and advanced nuclear weapons programs. Those programs were the main justification for the Iraq war."

The Herald adds: "At the State Department, deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said ``the jury is still out'' on whether chemical or other weapons of mass destruction remained in Iraq."

There's no way the White House claims discovery of WMD based on this shell, as it would face ridicule throughout the world.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: conjur
What's funny is how desperate the Bush-God fanboys are now. They are dredging up the smallest of possibilities to justify Bush's romp thru the Iraqi desert when the administration, just over a year ago, apparently had reams of evidence to justify the war.

Then: There is no doubt ....

Now: Saddam bad man.






--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech
You are the one that isn't reading well. The US is the country that insisted that all other nations agree to require export licences for a list of CW precursors and yet you were the one joking that the weapon in Iraq would be from the US. An artillery shell even which could have only come from the US government.

After 1984. And, who says only the gov't can provide artillery to other nations/groups? The gov't doesn't make the shells, moron, defense contractors do. Never heard of the military-industrial complex?

Hmm...you seem willing to bet on a tongue-in-cheek joke but not willing to bet that all of the WMDs were destroyed? (Considering after over a year and with hundreds and hundreds of people scouring the land, none have been found. You sure do like taking losing bets.)

Only after I called you on it did you start calling it a tongue-in-cheek joke. There was no smiley or other indication that you were lying your ass off and were later going to call it a joke. No, there was just your stupid attempt to smear the US by saying that it supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and the artillery shells to use them when the situation was that the US was the country that instigated the ban on shipping certain precusors to Iraq.

Noooo...it was tongue-in-cheek from the outset. How many times have people written something like that up here or said to a friend in a discussion. It's a saying...a quip. But, since you want to take it literally, I'll gladly offer up the $20 when you prove the shell came from Saddam's cache of old WMD. I've already shown proof that American companies provided nerve gas components to Iraq.

Ah...so now, to suit your purposes, US means "government"?

I see. Any other rules and/or definitions you have up your ass?

So are you now saying that the US government did not have anything to do with supplying Iraq with chemical weapons. It was only the two companies(one headed by a Iraqi born nationlized citizen) that is all you have on the US supplying Iraq with CW?

That's it?

Again, the gov't does NOT build shells, defense contractors do.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Nukes are WMD's. Everything else is fear-mongering

Gee, since you use the plural nukes i guess that means Saddam had WMD only if he had multiple nuclear weapons...

In one of the earliest threads on this whole topic, months ago, i predicted that no matter what was found..the libs would have a rebuttal...("only one?". "not enough", "planted by the CIA").

This is the liberal postition distilled down to its essence:

As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me..

forget about being rational. forget about answering my question.

in fact, there are definitions of WMD's. the most common one being:

In arms control usage, weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Can be nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, but excludes the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon. Also referred to as WMD

llinky

Capability is a key (yes Sarin is a WMD), yes, a truck full of fertilizer is a WMD, an airplane full of fuel capable of taking down the WTC is a WMD...

it is not a type of weapon ("just nukes"), it is any weapon capable of killing "large" numbers of people. What's large? I'm picking 1000 as a threshold, That's my opinion. Someone else listed 10,000 as a number. That's a reasonable number as well. I'm guessing most people would arbitrarily pick a number in the thousands...my question was aimed at trying to get a sense for what people perceived as a large number of casualties.

only one straight answer so far....

 

[conjur]

Doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is as to what constitutes WMDs. Fact is this one shell with only trace amounts of Sarin (from field tests...which have given off many false positives) is NOT a WMD.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Nukes are WMD's. Everything else is fear-mongering

Gee, since you use the plural nukes i guess that means Saddam had WMD only if he had multiple nuclear weapons...

In one of the earliest threads on this whole topic, months ago, i predicted that no matter what was found..the libs would have a rebuttal...("only one?". "not enough", "planted by the CIA").

This is the liberal postition distilled down to its essence:

As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me..

forget about being rational. forget about answering my question.

in fact, there are definitions of WMD's. the most common one being:

In arms control usage, weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Can be nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, but excludes the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon. Also referred to as WMD

llinky

Capability is a key (yes Sarin is a WMD), yes, a truck full of fertilizer is a WMD, an airplane full of fuel capable of taking down the WTC is a WMD...

it is not a type of weapon ("just nukes"), it is any weapon capable of killing "large" numbers of people. What's large? I'm picking 1000 as a threshold, That's my opinion. Someone else listed 10,000 as a number. That's a reasonable number as well. I'm guessing most people would arbitrarily pick a number in the thousands...my question was aimed at trying to get a sense for what people perceived as a large number of casualties.

only one straight answer so far....

Which part of mass and/or destruction don't you understand? The weapon "found" did neither.

For me to qualify a weapon as a WMD it most do equivalnet amount of damage as a nuke.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is as to what constitutes WMDs.

Exactly because the left is going to twist and change the definition to fit their needs.

Doesn't suprise me in the least.

CkG

 

[Spencer278]

Anyone else remended about the stupid zero tolerence rules that schools have where a anything and everything is called a weapon disipite the fact that a penicel is more danagors then the "weapon." Anyone that isn't a frigging moron knows that the item is not a weapon but they classifie it as such for policial gain.

Just like with the WMD in Iraq it is clear to anyone with a brain knows that it wasn't a WMD that went off in Iraq.

 

[heartsurgeon]

For me to qualify a weapon as a WMD it most do equivalnet amount of damage as a nuke.

Does that mean 100,000's dead? Just trying to get a number here...

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

For me to qualify a weapon as a WMD it most do equivalnet amount of damage as a nuke.

Does that mean 100,000's dead? Just trying to get a number here...

Hi,

I don't particularly subscribe to your notion of who the respondee to your question should be - but anyway. It's a tricky one for sure. I'd say that if the weapon you find can easily be used to wipe out at least as many innocents as have so far died in this conflict - it's a WMD. kind of trying to balance this whole situation out here.

I guess that makes it ~10,000 people+. Most likely an atomic device or a stockpile of weapon ready chemicals and their delivery mechanism.

Cheers,

Andy

Seems realistic to me.

Andy

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: conjur
Doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is as to what constitutes WMDs. Fact is this one shell with only trace amounts of Sarin (from field tests...which have given off many false positives) is NOT a WMD.

trace amounts
not a wmd

WOW!

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Anyone else remended about the stupid zero tolerence rules that schools have where a anything and everything is called a weapon disipite the fact that a penicel is more danagors then the "weapon." Anyone that isn't a frigging moron knows that the item is not a weapon but they classifie it as such for policial gain.

Just like with the WMD in Iraq it is clear to anyone with a brain knows that it wasn't a WMD that went off in Iraq.

you really believe this??

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Anyone else remended about the stupid zero tolerence rules that schools have where a anything and everything is called a weapon disipite the fact that a penicel is more danagors then the "weapon." Anyone that isn't a frigging moron knows that the item is not a weapon but they classifie it as such for policial gain.

Just like with the WMD in Iraq it is clear to anyone with a brain knows that it wasn't a WMD that went off in Iraq.

you really believe this??

Yes, and anyone with a brain would, too.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Anyone else remended about the stupid zero tolerence rules that schools have where a anything and everything is called a weapon disipite the fact that a penicel is more danagors then the "weapon." Anyone that isn't a frigging moron knows that the item is not a weapon but they classifie it as such for policial gain.

Just like with the WMD in Iraq it is clear to anyone with a brain knows that it wasn't a WMD that went off in Iraq.

you really believe this??

Yes, and anyone with a brain would, too.

so a chemical weapon capable of killing thousands of people is not a wmd

you commie-libs really crack me up. first a wmd is a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon, then when we find one in iraq, not only is it not a wmd, its not one of saddam's wmd's!! lol!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Anyone else remended about the stupid zero tolerence rules that schools have where a anything and everything is called a weapon disipite the fact that a penicel is more danagors then the "weapon." Anyone that isn't a frigging moron knows that the item is not a weapon but they classifie it as such for policial gain.

Just like with the WMD in Iraq it is clear to anyone with a brain knows that it wasn't a WMD that went off in Iraq.

you really believe this??

Yes, and anyone with a brain would, too.

so a chemical weapon capable of killing thousands of people is not a wmd

you commie-libs really crack me up. first a wmd is a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon, then when we find one in iraq, not only is it not a wmd, its not one of saddam's wmd's!! lol!

Uhh...what chemical weapon are you talking about?

This thread is about the old shell that detonated yesterday before it could be disarmed. This shell had only "very, very small traces" of Sarin (Gen. Kimmit's own words) and no one was killed. A few people were treated and released already.

What weapon are *you* talking about? Do you have knowledge of some weapon that had the potential of killing thousands that has somehow managed to slip past EVERY SINGLE news organization on the planet?

Do tell!


Oh, btw, I'm a "commie-lib? LOL!!!!

 

[heartsurgeon]

As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me..

you need to understand that this is what liberals really believe...then all their obfuscation about what is or isn't a WMD becomes moot.

they don't care what we find.."no amount will satisfy me..."

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Anyone else remended about the stupid zero tolerence rules that schools have where a anything and everything is called a weapon disipite the fact that a penicel is more danagors then the "weapon." Anyone that isn't a frigging moron knows that the item is not a weapon but they classifie it as such for policial gain.

Just like with the WMD in Iraq it is clear to anyone with a brain knows that it wasn't a WMD that went off in Iraq.

you really believe this??

Yes, and anyone with a brain would, too.

so a chemical weapon capable of killing thousands of people is not a wmd

you commie-libs really crack me up. first a wmd is a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon, then when we find one in iraq, not only is it not a wmd, its not one of saddam's wmd's!! lol!

Uhh...what chemical weapon are you talking about?

This thread is about the old shell that detonated yesterday before it could be disarmed. This shell had only "very, very small traces" of Sarin (Gen. Kimmit's own words) and no one was killed. A few people were treated and released already.

What weapon are *you* talking about? Do you have knowledge of some weapon that had the potential of killing thousands that has somehow managed to slip past EVERY SINGLE news organization on the planet?

Do tell!


Oh, btw, I'm a "commie-lib? LOL!!!!

you dont know what your talking about. sarin is formed by mixing chemicals A + B. simply because the pinheads didnt know how to denonate the weapon properly doesnt mean the artillery shell wasnt a chemical weapon. thats like saying a nuclear weapon that is launched with a faulty trigger mechanism isnt a nuclear weapon. and if you watched ANY of the major news coverage on this finding youd know that a weapon such as this, if denonated in the right situation, can kill thousands of people. but im not surprised that you think this isnt a wmd. heck saddam could tell us exactly what he did with his wmd and you commie-libs would cry conspiracy - and you know it!

 

[leeboy]

:roll:

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Anyone else remended about the stupid zero tolerence rules that schools have where a anything and everything is called a weapon disipite the fact that a penicel is more danagors then the "weapon." Anyone that isn't a frigging moron knows that the item is not a weapon but they classifie it as such for policial gain.

Just like with the WMD in Iraq it is clear to anyone with a brain knows that it wasn't a WMD that went off in Iraq.

you really believe this??

Yes, and anyone with a brain would, too.

so a chemical weapon capable of killing thousands of people is not a wmd

you commie-libs really crack me up. first a wmd is a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon, then when we find one in iraq, not only is it not a wmd, its not one of saddam's wmd's!! lol!

Uhh...what chemical weapon are you talking about?

This thread is about the old shell that detonated yesterday before it could be disarmed. This shell had only "very, very small traces" of Sarin (Gen. Kimmit's own words) and no one was killed. A few people were treated and released already.

What weapon are *you* talking about? Do you have knowledge of some weapon that had the potential of killing thousands that has somehow managed to slip past EVERY SINGLE news organization on the planet?

Do tell!


Oh, btw, I'm a "commie-lib? LOL!!!!

you dont know what your talking about. sarin is formed by mixing chemicals A + B. simply because the pinheads didnt know how to denonate the weapon properly doesnt mean the artillery shell wasnt a chemical weapon. thats like saying a nuclear weapon that is launched with a faulty trigger mechanism isnt a nuclear weapon. and if you watched ANY of the major news coverage on this finding youd know that a weapon such as this, if denonated in the right situation, can kill thousands of people. but im not surprised that you think this isnt a wmd. heck saddam could tell us exactly what he did with his wmd and you commie-libs would cry conspiracy - and you know it!

Yeah and the monitian behind my house is a deadly nucealer weapon that could kill thousands of people if it was "denonated in the right situation."

 

[biostud]

For me it all depends on how the leadership in a country are willing to deploy and use their weapons.
Now let's say that Saddam wanted to create terror, he wouldn't need WMD, he could just use conventionel methods, as we've seen done so many times before. For WMD to be usefull to a person as Saddam, he would need to be able to strike where it really hurts. That would either be in a western city or a place where it hurts economically (Oil Fields). I think that we can assume that his ability to launch attacks in Europe and US was null, so he was a threat to economically stability, which is also very important. So to keep a stable economy we need a stable Middle East, and Saddam was disrupting this by not clearly state that he had no WMD and not letting the inspectors do their work.

So the Bush administration got tired of Saddam and thought the best way to stabilize the Middle East was to get rid of Saddam. He was a threat to the stability of our world, not because he could kill millions of westerners, but because he *might* had the ability strike at the oil.

But one of the problems we have to realize is that we couldn't have stayed status quo and the oil in Iraq would be beneficial for us. But letting Iraq prosper under Saddam again would just be unaccetable and then he might develop WMD that would be a threat to us. We all know that if Saddam attacked anything outside Iraq there would be retaliations, that would lead to his demise. And I'm pretty sure Saddam knew this as well, so if he was ever to use WMD he would be erradicated. But we couldn't take the chance that he might be mad enough to sacrifice himself just to bring total chaos to the world.

That's how I would explain the reason for the war. And therefore it doesn't matter if WMD are found or not found. I think he liked the power it gave him to have the western world by the balls. His power was that we could not attack before we knew 100% he had WMD, and we could never be 100% he had some hidden. Unfortunately for him, he underestimated the power of the Neocons and their willingness to break the rule of the game and cut the gordian knot in two.

Actually I'm quite glad that "no" WMD has been found, because this will hopefully lessen the chance for terrorists to get some.

 

[tallest1]

Once again, the conservatives have ignored dozens of points and latched on to one again. If, say, you're right and the liberals are wrong - that the miniscule amount of chemical equates to a WMD, what does it mean?

Simple question, no?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur


Uhh...what chemical weapon are you talking about?

This thread is about the old shell that detonated yesterday before it could be disarmed. This shell had only "very, very small traces" of Sarin (Gen. Kimmit's own words) and no one was killed. A few people were treated and released already.

What weapon are *you* talking about? Do you have knowledge of some weapon that had the potential of killing thousands that has somehow managed to slip past EVERY SINGLE news organization on the planet?

Do tell!


Oh, btw, I'm a "commie-lib? LOL!!!!

you dont know what your talking about. sarin is formed by mixing chemicals A + B. simply because the pinheads didnt know how to denonate the weapon properly doesnt mean the artillery shell wasnt a chemical weapon. thats like saying a nuclear weapon that is launched with a faulty trigger mechanism isnt a nuclear weapon. and if you watched ANY of the major news coverage on this finding youd know that a weapon such as this, if denonated in the right situation, can kill thousands of people. but im not surprised that you think this isnt a wmd. heck saddam could tell us exactly what he did with his wmd and you commie-libs would cry conspiracy - and you know it!

Answer the question.

The shell found yesterday that exploded showed only (and these are in Gen. Kimmit's OWN WORDS), very, very small traces of sarin. That is NOT a WMD. It appears, as Kay and Blix have proposed, that this was an old shell and the contents had deteriorated to the point they were negligible.

So, again, I ask you for proof that another weapon was found that had the potential to kill thousands.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me..

you need to understand that this is what liberals really believe...then all their obfuscation about what is or isn't a WMD becomes moot.

they don't care what we find.."no amount will satisfy me..."

You have to understand that the reason for this is that even the liberals believed he had WMD of some degree. It's a suprise to all that no WMD has been found. But the problem is that the Neocons said that Saddam had WMD, not that they thought he had, because this would not be enough to start a war.
Let's face it if they find WMD it's pure "luck" they don't have any informations on this. If they had, then they would have found them already. Therefore they have started a war on a lie. I also believe that Saddam was a threat to the Middle East and to the economic stability, not because he had WMD, but because he might have them. It's not "illegal" trying to bluff, unless the UN says it is, which they did not.

The war was maybe the only way to find out for sure, but it's just sad that the price for knowing is what it is. We have to ask ourself has this war made us more safe? is it economically beneficial? We cannot answer these, because even if it seems not to be the case, it might be so in the long run which I sincerely hope, but at the moment the price seems to be to high IMO. And for that I blame those who planned the war, it's their responsibility.

 

[Chadder007]

*CONFIRMED*
Foxnews.com is now confirming that the tests show the chemicals are indeed Sarin.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
Amount was 3-4 Liters