Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[Infohawk]

josphII, how was that a threat to us and why didn't we just invade Iraq when they used them in the 80s?

 

[heartsurgeon]

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

see what i mean? even if saddam had thousands of nukes...liberals won't be satisfied. They can never be satisifed. It's not about the WMD's, it's not about Saddam, it;'s not really even about Iraq...it's just about hating Bush.

come on infohawk..admit it, you hate Bush.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
josphII, how was that a threat to us and why didn't we just invade Iraq when they used them in the 80s?

i didnt follow politics in the 80's (on account of being such a young kid) so i cant really comment on that. how was he a threat to us? well i think he was a threat to the whole world. he had wmd's and he made it quite clear that he hated us to no end. he fired on our planes for example. theres no doubt that he could have smuggled a weapon into the US and possibly caused mass causualties. if al quaeda can do it then certainly saddam could do it too. but make no mistake, saddam brought this up on himself. he ignored the terms of his unconditional surrender following the gulf war, ignored numerous un sanctions, continued to commit attrocities to his people, and fired on our planes. and to think, all he had to do was allow the un inspectors to do their jobs and he'd still be in power.

 

[Infohawk]

heartsurgeon, your statement does not follow from my quote. If Saddam had thousands of nukes and had methods of attacking AND we had the same attitude towards other nuclear powers, I would have supported the war. Your are building a strawman and attacking it. I would have been satisfied if Iraq posed a real threat to us. It never did. And that's, in part, why I didn't support the war.

Heartsurgeon, I recommend you google for logical fallacies.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur
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!

You must be kidding me, right? You seriously are not this ignorant are you?

<sigh> I weep for our nation.

Let's look at two portions of that article (including the snippet you posted, yourself):

The round detonated before it would be rendered inoperable, Kimmitt said, which caused a "very small dispersal of agent."

So, all we knew for sure on 5/17/2004 was that a small amount was dispersed.

The other portion:

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

Notice that was an "official" piping in as, apparently, an expert witness and stating the shell could have held as much as "two to five liters of sarin". Notice how this "official" did not state he/she was at the scene or had any exact knowledge as to the actual amount of sarin.


"OWNED"? Me? Oh, no...not in the least!

 

[par]

comparing nukes to an outdated sarin shell *sigh*

tunnel vision is an epidemic

Heartsurgeon, I recommend you google for logical fallacies.

I would recommend that to all religious/political fascists; very good suggestion infohawk

 

[josphII]

conjour, your attempt to get your foot out of your mouth has failed. but you never answered my question i posed a few posts back. now that you know the amount was far greater than the mere 'trace amount' you said there was, does this weapon constitute a wmd?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII
conjour, your attempt to get your foot out of your mouth has failed. but you never answered my question i posed a few posts back. now that you know the amount was far greater than the mere 'trace amount' you said there was, does this weapon constitute a wmd?

LOL! You tuck-tail and run again after having your ass handed to you! LOL!!

And, as far as that question, yes, I answered previously. Go look.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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..."

It is lying slime like you that drive independents like me away from the Republican Party. Though you've demonstrated again and again you don't give a tinker's damn about accuracy or honesty or context, this is an egregious example even by your so-called standards.

How about we look at what I actually said:

• 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.

Got that? The quantity of "WMDs" found does matter ... to King George's integrity. The quantity matters in establishing just how baldly Bush and his minions lied to sell their unholy crusade. It matters to the families of 777 dead American soldiers who died for a lie. It matters to 25+ million Iraqis who wonder if this American-style democracy is truly any better than the despot we unseated. It matters to anyone who loves America and believes in her ideals.

Tragically, it does NOT matter to you, nor to the millions of bleating Bush fan-boys like you. You eagerly swallow whatever spews from the Bush administration. Truth be damned, you don't need no steenk'n facts, right and wrong are irrelevant. George talks to God, so it's all good in your blind eyes. The loss of your personal integrity -- not to mention thousands of innocent people -- is a small price to pay.



You asked for a quantity. I'm not surprised you ignored my answer. Let me give it to you again, just to drive home the fact your feckless leader is a lying slime. No wonder you worship him so:

• 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.

Get back to me when you can show me these things are true. Until then, take your single, lame artillery shell diversion and stick it.

How about it heartsurgeon? I called you on your vile lies about my position. I reposted what I really said above, for all to see -- in context. You've evaded addressing it so far. What's the problem? Here's your chance to show a little integrity. Will you support Bush by addressing my points, or will you continue to bleat your disinformation and diversions?

• 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.

We're waiting.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: 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.

You obviously didn't read a single post of mine then. I never said I agree with the liberals in this thread so please don't drag me into the prevalent argument. Now please answer my questions.

 

[addragyn]

Originally posted by: JTech007

Originally posted by: lozina
You do realize you're making a mockery of yourself by trying to justify a war in Iraq killing hudreds of our own men and women and thousands of Iraqis for one (1) artillery shell containing Sarin Nerve gas which was allegedly found, right?

Funny it only took four (4) planes to kill 3000+ people. But thats another topic.

Yes it is.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII
conjour, your attempt to get your foot out of your mouth has failed. but you never answered my question i posed a few posts back. now that you know the amount was far greater than the mere 'trace amount' you said there was, does this weapon constitute a wmd?

LOL! You tuck-tail and run again after having your ass handed to you! LOL!!

And, as far as that question, yes, I answered previously. Go look.

i looked and you never answered. scared of getting your foot stuck in your mouth again or what?

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur
$20 we'll find this to have been brought in from outside of Iraq or to be some leftover shell that the U.S. supplied Saddam with 20 years ago.

I thought most of these chemicals breakdown over a period of time

A lot of them breakdown after a few years. I'm not sure about the shelf-life of Sarin though.

The shell did not contained sarin gas. It contained only the ingredients to create sarin gas. The ingredients might be extremely stable in time, regardless of the stability of sarin gas

Calin

 

[Format C:]

These types of munitions are designed so that the precursors aren't mixed until after the shell is fired thereby providing a longer shelf life and less hazard to those handling them. The delivery method as designed is for the shell to be fired from an artillery piece, the precursors mix after firing forming Sarin, then the shell explodes midair over the intended target releasing its payload providing a wide area of dispersal. The amount of Sarin that would fit on the head of a pin is sufficient to kill someone.

It defies all logic to assume that a munition of this type would have been manufactured with only "trace amounts" of precursors inside of it. The logical assumption is that it contained a full payload of precursors whether it was 2 or 5 liters or somewhere in between. The shell exploded in a manner other than the way it was designed to thereby destroying/dispersing most of the precursor chemicals but some small amounts were still able to mix, survive the explosion, and form a minute amount of Sarin, and that is what was detected and the soldiers nearby were exposed to. Had the shell been fired from an artillery piece and functioned as designed, or properly triggered and fired where located, the precursors would have mixed and there would most likely be hundreds if not thousands of people dead now.

Those of you brushing this off as if it was nothing either havn't taken the time to explore the issue fully or simply don't care about the potential amount of death this "one shell" could have caused.

 

[dejacky]

Sarin Nerve gas is ancient shite. It's not a weapon of MASS destruction. nuclear weapons classify in "mass destruction" not sarin gas genius.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Sarin Nerve gas is ancient shite. It's not a weapon of MASS destruction. nuclear weapons classify in "mass destruction" not sarin gas genius

WMD's are defined by their capability of causing mass deaths. Chemical and biological weapons are clearly included in this definition. Nuclear weapons are not the "only" WMD. Genius.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: 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. (JP1-02)

linky

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Sarin Nerve gas is ancient shite. It's not a weapon of MASS destruction. nuclear weapons classify in "mass destruction" not sarin gas genius

WMD's are defined by their capability of causing mass deaths. Chemical and biological weapons are clearly included in this definition. Nuclear weapons are not the "only" WMD. Genius.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: 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. (JP1-02)

linky

Whne the Dub stated that they had proof positive that Sadam had vast quantities of WMDs these are the types of weapons I thought he was talking about. Of course one or even a handful do not qualify as mass quantities.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: dejacky
Sarin Nerve gas is ancient shite. It's not a weapon of MASS destruction. nuclear weapons classify in "mass destruction" not sarin gas genius.

A rock would be even older. Were a rather large one to drop on your head would you not still be dead?

So the conclusion is that the only weapons of mass destruction are nukes, right? Are you all in agreement with that now? I want to be sure I get it straight so that in the not too distant future when a dirty bomb, gas, anthrax, ebola or the like is employed in an attack I'll know not to worry about it very much. I only have to worry about a nuclear bomb, so now I can sleep much better. Thanks for straightening me out on this.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: dejacky
Sarin Nerve gas is ancient shite. It's not a weapon of MASS destruction. nuclear weapons classify in "mass destruction" not sarin gas genius.

A rock would be even older. Were a rather large one to drop on your head would you not still be dead?

So the conclusion is that the only weapons of mass destruction are nukes, right? Are you all in agreement with that now? I want to be sure I get it straight so that in the not too distant future when a dirty bomb, gas, anthrax, ebola or the like is employed in an attack I'll know not to worry about it very much. I only have to worry about a nuclear bomb, so now I can sleep much better. Thanks for straightening me out on this.

So rocks are WMD's now? Typical Bush fan boy.


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

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: 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

The US gave the weapons for use against Iran, where a innocent civilians died from them. After that Saddam used them against the Iraqi civilian population, and a whole lot more died. All that time the US government didn't care. And now Bush wants to use the _1_ grenade left over from that period as proof that Saddam had WMDs? Also convenient that it has been destroyed, so no tests can be performed to determine the age.

 

[heartsurgeon]

So the conclusion is that the only weapons of mass destruction are nukes, right? Are you all in agreement with that now? I want to be sure I get it straight so that in the not too distant future when a dirty bomb, gas, anthrax, ebola or the like is employed in an attack I'll know not to worry about it very much. I only have to worry about a nuclear bomb, so now I can sleep much better. Thanks for straightening me out on this.

Yep...that's what the libs believe...in fact..that's how they have acted in the past, and will act so in the future..
remember, any attack short of a nuke is dealt with as a "police" and "law enforcement" problem.
Clinton did this..heck, they blew a hole i the side of a warship (USS Cole)..that wasn't an act of war...nope, kiling soldiers and trying to sink a Destroyer are just "criminal acts"...This is Kerry's explicit position on Al Qaeda...i can quote his staement where he three or four times stated that law enforcement, not military intervention was the way to stop terrorism.

one final observation..libs want to take away you right to own a firearm.....
but one artillery round with 4 liters of Sarin gas is nothing much to worry about....
yep, it all makes sense now..

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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..."

It is lying slime like you that drive independents like me away from the Republican Party. Though you've demonstrated again and again you don't give a tinker's damn about accuracy or honesty or context, this is an egregious example even by your so-called standards.

How about we look at what I actually said:

• 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.

Got that? The quantity of "WMDs" found does matter ... to King George's integrity. The quantity matters in establishing just how baldly Bush and his minions lied to sell their unholy crusade. It matters to the families of 777 dead American soldiers who died for a lie. It matters to 25+ million Iraqis who wonder if this American-style democracy is truly any better than the despot we unseated. It matters to anyone who loves America and believes in her ideals.

Tragically, it does NOT matter to you, nor to the millions of bleating Bush fan-boys like you. You eagerly swallow whatever spews from the Bush administration. Truth be damned, you don't need no steenk'n facts, right and wrong are irrelevant. George talks to God, so it's all good in your blind eyes. The loss of your personal integrity -- not to mention thousands of innocent people -- is a small price to pay.



You asked for a quantity. I'm not surprised you ignored my answer. Let me give it to you again, just to drive home the fact your feckless leader is a lying slime. No wonder you worship him so:

• 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.

Get back to me when you can show me these things are true. Until then, take your single, lame artillery shell diversion and stick it.

How about it heartsurgeon? I called you on your vile lies about my position. I reposted what I really said above, for all to see -- in context. You've evaded addressing it so far. What's the problem? Here's your chance to show a little integrity. Will you support Bush by addressing my points, or will you continue to bleat your disinformation and diversions?

• 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.

We're waiting.

Crickets? Heartsurgeon?

 

[dejacky]

Sorry for being vague,
a few amounts of sarin doesn't classify as MASS DESTRUCTION.. MASS WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION HAVE NEVER BEEN FOUND. yes, chemical and biological agents are bad and heinous, but not enough was found to be considered "mass." Would you enter war with a country that had enough chemical weapons to kill ONE HUNDRED of their own people? I'm not talking about fighting them, i'm talking about DECLARING WAR.

THEY HAVE FOUND NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ. BUSH LIED AGAIN.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: dejacky
Sorry for being vague,
a few amounts of sarin doesn't classify as MASS DESTRUCTION.. MASS WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION HAVE NEVER BEEN FOUND. yes, chemical and biological agents are bad and heinous, but not enough was found to be considered "mass." Would you enter war with a country that had enough chemical weapons to kill ONE HUNDRED of their own people? I'm not talking about fighting them, i'm talking about DECLARING WAR.

THEY HAVE FOUND NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ. BUSH LIED AGAIN.

LMAO! Wish I didn't have to go. Looks like its almost gettin' good enough for popcorn. Too bad we can't start a carnival sideshow with a gaggle of little Liblets as the main attraction. It'd be sellout.

 

[josphII]

due to the serious nature of this find in iraq i think this topic should get a sticky