Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: josphII
then again you commie-libs probably think myself and every other can-think-for-themselves man is the debil

Since I'm in a foul mood at the moment, let me let you in on a little secret. Every time you call someone a "commie-lib", it makes you look retarded.

Just thought you needed to know this. Carry on.

why do commie-libs always result in name calling?? any psychologists out there?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

It is lying slime like you that drive independents like me away from the Republican Party.

Since i'm in a GREAT mood - I'll just say...Buahahahahahaha.....hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

CkG

Ignorance is bliss, Cad. It is a true statement, and you know it from earlier comments. Then again, honesty isn't always your strong suit either -- better than Heartsurgeon's perhaps, but you've shown great promise in twisting, diverting, and denying the truth.

Heartsurgeon's comment was a vile lie. By appearing to support it, you sully yourself.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: josphII
then again you commie-libs probably think myself and every other can-think-for-themselves man is the debil

Since I'm in a foul mood at the moment, let me let you in on a little secret. Every time you call someone a "commie-lib", it makes you look retarded.

Just thought you needed to know this. Carry on.

why do commie-libs always result in name calling?? any psychologists out there?

Suit yourself.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: conjur
Interesting...FOX News is STILL the only news site reporting the claim of "confirmed tests".

because if it doesnt advance their liberal agenda they tend not to report it

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

i heard 4 litters of sarin. you? you hear what you want to hear

That news had not yet been released.

And, it wasn't 4 liters of sarin. It was 3-4 liters of chemicals that, when mixed, form sarin.

i guess im a really good guesser or my tv is special

The news of 3-4 liters of chemicals had NOT been released when I made my post.

See, the timestamp on my post is: 05/18/2004 12:04 PM

chadder007 made his post about the "confirmed" tests at 05/18/2004 12:27 PM

Now, don't you have some spelling words to study or something?

this was reported yesterday, 5/17/2004

Oh? The 3-4 liters was reported yesterday, eh?

Prove it. Otherwise, you are a liar.

lol nice logic there. despite what you might think, i dont have fnc recording 24/7

 

[FelixDeCat]

Three cheers for George Bush & Dick Cheney!!!


WMD - check

Free Iraq - check

Handover Power June 2004 - (to be checked)

 

[heartsurgeon]

It is lying slime like you that drive independents like me away from the Republican Party.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...tears streaming down face...can't catch my breath...side hurts from laughing.....almost as funny as calling NPR "moderate", or Kerry (a highly decorated Vietnam Veteran) "mainstream".

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

I'm not sure how it's possible to take that "out of context."

Heads up..here are the liberal talking points..

WMD'S?

"one doesn't count"
"doesn't count unless it kills tens of thousands"
"the CIA/Bush/Rumsfeld planted it"
"WE gave then to Saddam"
"the Israelis have em? so what if Saddam does to"


at this point even if we found a dozen Nukes the libs would still make it Bush's fault..
It just doesn't matter to the libs...they are Bush Haters........

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

It is lying slime like you that drive independents like me away from the Republican Party.

Since i'm in a GREAT mood - I'll just say...Buahahahahahaha.....hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

CkG

Ignorance is bliss, Cad. It is a true statement, and you know it from earlier comments. Then again, honesty isn't always your strong suit either -- better than Heartsurgeon's perhaps, but you've shown great promise in twisting, diverting, and denying the truth.

Heartsurgeon's comment was a vile lie. By appearing to support it, you sully yourself.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I was only commenting on the part I quoted. I was laughing so hard after reading that I not only spilled my Pepsi all over, I couldn't finish reading your post. Maybe I'll get to it later tonight when I get home. Work is getting busy, and despite sudheer anne's tauntings, I may not get to everything like I used to be able to do. But the great thing is - things slow down after labor day for us(usually) so I'll have ALL fall to be here destroying the arguments of the left
Back to work...
..."independents like me".... hehe hahaha...

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: josphII
then again you commie-libs probably think myself and every other can-think-for-themselves man is the debil

Since I'm in a foul mood at the moment, let me let you in on a little secret. Every time you call someone a "commie-lib", it makes you look retarded.

Just thought you needed to know this. Carry on.

why do commie-libs always result in name calling?? any psychologists out there?

Irony abounds!

 

[DealMonkey]

Did this one origin-unknown artillery shell that was used in an improvised explosive device justify going to war with Iraq? Is this the find that backs up all of the pre-war statements by the administration? Did this small amount of WMD material threaten us with mass casualties? Do we even know where it came from yet?

I know the mustard gas components were completely inert due to the length they've been stored.

Testing done by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) ? a U.S.-organized group of weapons inspectors who have been searching for weapons of mass destruction (search) since the ouster of Saddam Hussein ? concluded that the mustard gas was "stored improperly" and was thus "ineffective."

As for the sarin, while a little over a gallon could fit inside an artillary shell that size, it's unknown how much was really in there. From FoxNews.com:

Intelligence officials stressed that the compounds did not mix effectively on Saturday. Due to the detonation, burn-off and resulting spillage, it was not clear exactly how much harmful material was inside the shell.

So again I ask, is this the "big find" of WMDs the administration has been looking for?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
..."independents like me".... hehe hahaha...

CkG

More spinning, but the fact remains, you know full well I made a truthful statement. As I've pointed out many times before, the issue is that you Bush fan-boys are so blindly partisan, your little heads simply cannot comprehend that anyone disapproves of Bush-lite on his merits. Your whole, tenuous grip on reality (such as it is) is based on the belief that only thems durn tree-hugging, baby-killing, commie-libs could possibly not worship Bush as much as you.

You are completely wrong, of course, and that is one of your greatest weaknesses. You have no ability to be objective about Bush, or even to acknowledge your bias. It has become your religion. Bush is God. God is great. Only the heathens, i.e., liberals, believe otherwise.

Different strokes ... Bleat on.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

It is lying slime like you that drive independents like me away from the Republican Party.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...tears streaming down face...can't catch my breath...side hurts from laughing.....

Perhaps you're having a heart attack. You should see a doctor. A real doctor.

As I pointed out to Cad, my statement in true. The fact you can't accept it is your problem.

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

I'm not sure how it's possible to take that "out of context."

Pity, I've explained it twice. Perhaps your reading skills are as poor as your feckless leader's. More likely, it's your honesty skills which are lacking.

Bleat on. You have no remaining credibility to lose anyway.

 

[Gaard]

Isn't context a very important thing to consider when quoting someone? CAD, would you mind explaining the importance of context to heartsurgeon?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
..."independents like me".... hehe hahaha...
CkG

Well Cad, the entire world is a tree-hugging liberal socialist on welfare compared to you. I guess you're just not a very good comparison when measuring such things. Hell, I've voted independent in 2 of the last 3 presidential elections. I don't know if that makes me "independent" or not, but perhaps Bow thinks he is? Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

 

[arsbanned]

Since I'm in a foul mood at the moment, let me let you in on a little secret. Every time you call someone a "commie-lib", it makes you look retarded.

Agreed.

Also, I'm an Independent too.
Of course I doubt that fits in with wacko Cad's B&W view of the World. :roll:


Edit: Registered Independent, that is.

 

[tallest1]

geez, I come back to this thread a couple hours later and the conservatives are still cheering over the injuries of American solders. If you're hunting for a stockpile of guns and you get shot by one, that does not mean you found them. I'm not going to bother joining into your crazy arguments over what a 'WMD' is because 1) I'll let our soldiers do their work and uncover all there is to be uncovered before I judge and 2) my straightforward posts will probably get ignored once again. :|

Edit: If anyone of conservative standing could stop going bonkers over this infantile 'What makes a WMD' crap and address the questions I've placed in this thread, I'd be most appreciative.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur
The news of 3-4 liters of chemicals had NOT been released when I made my post.

See, the timestamp on my post is: 05/18/2004 12:04 PM

chadder007 made his post about the "confirmed" tests at 05/18/2004 12:27 PM

Now, don't you have some spelling words to study or something?

this was reported yesterday, 5/17/2004

Oh? The 3-4 liters was reported yesterday, eh?

Prove it. Otherwise, you are a liar.

lol nice logic there. despite what you might think, i dont have fnc recording 24/7

LOL!

Now you're running away with your tail tucked between your legs.

Certainly there will be a news article dated 5/17/2004. Go ahead and post one of them.

Go ahead.

I'm waiting.

And I'm not holding my breath.

 

[heartsurgeon]

"It's not out of the ordinary or unusual that you would find something [like these weapons] in a haphazard fashion" in Iraq, Edward Turzanski, a political and national security analyst, told Fox News on Tuesday.
But "you have to be very careful not to be entirely dismissive of it," he added. "It remains to be seen whether they have more shells like this."

Iraq: A 'Bazaar of Weapons'

New weapons caches are being found every day, experts said, including "hundreds of thousands" of rocket-propelled grenades and portable anti-aircraft weapons.

"Clearly, if we're gonna find one or two of these every so often ? used as an IED or some other way ? the threat is not all that high, but it does confirm suspicion that he [Saddam] did have this stuff," said Ret. U.S. Army Col. Robert Maginnis.

"What we don't know is if there are other shells, which there certainly could be," said Dennis Ross, a former ambassador and special Middle East coordinator and a Fox News foreign affairs analyst. "We also don't know whether or not these kind of shells could be used as explosives, which could have a more devastating effect on our troops."

linky

FYI Dennis Ross served in the Clinton White House.
at a minimum, these findings prove that Saddam retained at least some of the WMD's he was obligated to destroy at the behest of the U.N. The magnitude what he retained is yet unknown.

reminds me of that old joke about being "a lttle bit" pregnant.

liberals are not obligate to post in this thread if it causes them dyspepsia or irritability....

 

[conjur]

suspicion??? Suspicion?

Whatever happened to the incontrovertible evidence, heartsurgeon?

Whatever happened to Rumsfeld's claims that he knew where they were?

Whatever happened to Powell's chart with the arrows pointing to the chemical weapons??

 

[Infohawk]

heartsurgeon,

"at a minimum, these findings prove that Saddam retained at least some of the WMD's he was obligated to destroy at the behest of the U.N."

Incorrect. We do not know where the shells are from. They could be from other countries. They could have left Iraq a long time ago and returned. Who knows. I suggest you don't jump to conclusions.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Edit: If anyone of conservative standing could stop going bonkers over this infantile 'What makes a WMD' crap and address the questions I've placed in this thread, I'd be most appreciative.

The reason behind asking the "what makes a WMD" is an effort to determine what exactly what will satisfythe libs that "they" have been found.

in fact, if you read the liberal posts, "no amount" of WMD's will suffice to convince them that Bush has made the only decisions a thoughtful man could make, in the defense of his country.

the closest you get to an amount or a description of a WMD that is a serious problem for the U.S., is multiple nukes.....possibly an ocean full of Sarin might suffice.

gee, you know they are weapons of MASs destruction..you just don't need that many.

 

[Infohawk]

heartsurgeon, to justify Bush's terrible decisions you would also need to show that the WMDs were a threat to the US and explain why we don't attack all the other countries that have WMDs. Also, you would want to explain why the US didn't invade Iraq in the 80s after they used WMDs on its people.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur
The news of 3-4 liters of chemicals had NOT been released when I made my post.

See, the timestamp on my post is: 05/18/2004 12:04 PM

chadder007 made his post about the "confirmed" tests at 05/18/2004 12:27 PM

Now, don't you have some spelling words to study or something?

this was reported yesterday, 5/17/2004

Oh? The 3-4 liters was reported yesterday, eh?

Prove it. Otherwise, you are a liar.

lol nice logic there. despite what you might think, i dont have fnc recording 24/7

LOL!

Now you're running away with your tail tucked between your legs.

Certainly there will be a news article dated 5/17/2004. Go ahead and post one of them.

Go ahead.

I'm waiting.

And I'm not holding my breath.

ok here ya go

"One official told Fox News that a conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as "two to five" liters of sarin"

even though its obvious ill go ahead and say it...

OWNED!

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur
The news of 3-4 liters of chemicals had NOT been released when I made my post.

See, the timestamp on my post is: 05/18/2004 12:04 PM

chadder007 made his post about the "confirmed" tests at 05/18/2004 12:27 PM

Now, don't you have some spelling words to study or something?

this was reported yesterday, 5/17/2004

Oh? The 3-4 liters was reported yesterday, eh?

Prove it. Otherwise, you are a liar.

lol nice logic there. despite what you might think, i dont have fnc recording 24/7

LOL!

Now you're running away with your tail tucked between your legs.

Certainly there will be a news article dated 5/17/2004. Go ahead and post one of them.

Go ahead.

I'm waiting.

And I'm not holding my breath.

ok here ya go

"One official told Fox News that a conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as "two to five" liters of sarin"

even though its obvious ill go ahead and say it...

OWNED!

I think it's widely recognized in the civilized world that Fox news is not a reputable news source. We might as well refer to a fiction binladen news network if we are going to refer to Fox news.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
heartsurgeon, to justify Bush's terrible decisions you would also need to show that the WMDs were a threat to the US and explain why we don't attack all the other countries that have WMDs. Also, you would want to explain why the US didn't invade Iraq in the 80s after they used WMDs on its people.

because these other counties dont have a history of using them