Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[alzan]

It greatly relieves me to know that after all the deaths and casualties in this search for WMD's that they've finally found one. Must give them a wonderful sense of accomplishment.

alzan

 

[Gaard]

Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

It's logic like this that put us in this war to begin with.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
You do realize that everything you posted there validates and strengthens my argument don't you? It does not say that it no longer exists, it does say it's unaccounted for. Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

I must thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Wow. You prove yourself to be more ignorant with each new post! Amazing!

How in *the* hell does unaccounted for equate to existing? Hmmm?? Care to define the [ill]logic behind that thought process?

Guess you're having to burn that last brain cell trying to come up with another lame excuse.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hi Bowfinger.

CkG

Nice comeback. Doesn't address anything I said, of course, but at least it isn't as diversionary as your usual responses.

We'll just leave it at the indisputable fact: Bush and his minions lied about Iraq's WMDs, and the discovery of one artillery shell is neither surprising nor significant.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hi Bowfinger.

CkG

Nice comeback. Doesn't address anything I said, of course, but at least it isn't as diversionary as your usual responses.

We'll just leave it at the indisputable fact: Bush and his minions lied about Iraq's WMDs, and the discovery of one artillery shell is neither surprising nor significant.

Buahahahaha!!!! If you want to resume the pissing match - I'm game, and you know I won't hold back. I figured I'd be nice and end the spat there - however if you wish to resume it -be my guest.

The mustard gas and Sarin ARE serious - despite the attempts of some to shove it off in a corner. Our troops are over there dealing with IEDs everyday. The fact that we found one that contained chemical weapons is VERY serious to those who may be exposed to them. I

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
You do realize that everything you posted there validates and strengthens my argument don't you? It does not say that it no longer exists, it does say it's unaccounted for. Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

I must thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Wow. You prove yourself to be more ignorant with each new post! Amazing!

How in *the* hell does unaccounted for equate to existing? Hmmm?? Care to define the [ill]logic behind that thought process?

Oh Looky, Bush is posting here now? Bush is that you?

Smokrngs

Appropriate name - Smokerings in the Dark, that's what Bush will be doing come November. :thumbsup:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The mustard gas and Sarin ARE serious - despite the attempts of some to shove it off in a corner. Our troops are over there dealing with IEDs everyday. The fact that we found one that contained chemical weapons is VERY serious to those who may be exposed to them. I
CkG

Ummmm, not really.

First off the mustard gas is not serious as it was completely inert based on reports on FoxNews.com yesterday. Secondly the Sarin is serious, however they really have no idea how much was in that artillery shell. The shell could hold 3-5 liters, but only a small trace was released when it was detonated. I believe earlier today, FoxNews.com was reporting the artillery shell was unmarked and very old. Who knows what the origin of the Sarin was.

I have a really hard time believing you and/or any of the pro-war fanatics around here would point to this very small find and say the pre-war claims of massive stockpiles of WMDs, etc. were justified. But maybe you and your kind are grasping at straws more than I would imagine. I'm sure you'll prove that to be the case, so please, go right ahead . . .

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
You do realize that everything you posted there validates and strengthens my argument don't you? It does not say that it no longer exists, it does say it's unaccounted for. Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

I must thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Wow. You prove yourself to be more ignorant with each new post! Amazing!

How in *the* hell does unaccounted for equate to existing? Hmmm?? Care to define the [ill]logic behind that thought process?

Unaccounted for may not directly equal "existing", but it's demise/location was not appropriately recorded. Does "unaccounted for" equal "destroyed" in your opinion?

CkG

 

[arsbanned]

The mustard gas and Sarin ARE serious - despite the attempts of some to shove it off in a corner. Our troops are over there dealing with IEDs everyday. The fact that we found one that contained chemical weapons is VERY serious to those who may be exposed to them

Link to report regarding soldiers affected by it? According to any news I've seen on the subject, everyone involved (the military in Iraq) totally downplayed it. Are they lying? That wouldn't surprise me.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The mustard gas and Sarin ARE serious - despite the attempts of some to shove it off in a corner. Our troops are over there dealing with IEDs everyday. The fact that we found one that contained chemical weapons is VERY serious to those who may be exposed to them. I
CkG

Ummmm, not really.

First off the mustard gas is not serious as it was completely inert based on reports on FoxNews.com yesterday. Secondly the Sarin is serious, however they really have no idea how much was in that artillery shell. The shell could hold 3-5 liters, but only a small trace was released when it was detonated. I believe earlier today, FoxNews.com was reporting the artillery shell was unmarked and very old. Who knows what the origin of the Sarin was.

I have a really hard time believing you and/or any of the pro-war fanatics around here would point to this very small find and say the pre-war claims of massive stockpiles of WMDs, etc. were justified. But maybe you and your kind are grasping at straws more than I would imagine. I'm sure you'll prove that to be the case, so please, go right ahead . . .

Yes, "trace amounts" were found - do you have an idea of why only trace amounts of "Sarin" would show up? The shell was binary right? Two chemicals mix to make Sarin from what I've read. Did the chemicals get a chance to mix during the explosion? That seems to be a valid question from what I have read. The chemicals burned up/dispersed without mixing much may be a plausible explaination IMO.

I understand that these may be "small" to some people but I know that finding even one of these sorts of shells is serious because it means a greater potential danger(chemical agents in IEDs) for not only the Coalition troops but to the Iraqi people. It is serious no matter how small you wish to make it.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

The mustard gas and Sarin ARE serious - despite the attempts of some to shove it off in a corner. Our troops are over there dealing with IEDs everyday. The fact that we found one that contained chemical weapons is VERY serious to those who may be exposed to them

Link to report regarding soldiers affected by it? According to any news I've seen on the subject, everyone involved (the military in Iraq) totally downplayed it. Are they lying? That wouldn't surprise me.

? Do you have a clue? I was talking about IEDs since you didn't seem to notice that. Coalition soldiers are exposed to these IEDs on a daily basis and having one that contained chemical agents is quite serious.

CkG

 

[ectx]

whatever

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
You do realize that everything you posted there validates and strengthens my argument don't you? It does not say that it no longer exists, it does say it's unaccounted for. Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

I must thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Wow. You prove yourself to be more ignorant with each new post! Amazing!

How in *the* hell does unaccounted for equate to existing? Hmmm?? Care to define the [ill]logic behind that thought process?

Unaccounted for may not directly equal "existing", but it's demise/location was not appropriately recorded. Does "unaccounted for" equal "destroyed" in your opinion?

CkG

No, it doesn't. Never said it did.

However, that unknown is certainly not enough justification to invade another country!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
You do realize that everything you posted there validates and strengthens my argument don't you? It does not say that it no longer exists, it does say it's unaccounted for. Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

I must thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Wow. You prove yourself to be more ignorant with each new post! Amazing!

How in *the* hell does unaccounted for equate to existing? Hmmm?? Care to define the [ill]logic behind that thought process?

Unaccounted for may not directly equal "existing", but it's demise/location was not appropriately recorded. Does "unaccounted for" equal "destroyed" in your opinion?

CkG

No, it doesn't. Never said it did.

However, that unknown is certainly not enough justification to invade another country!

It most definitely is when they agreed to account for all the weapons and then failed to do so. Not to mention the other parts of the cease-fire agreement(and subsequent UN resolutions) they never followed through with. You do understand what a "cease-fire" is - right?

CkG

 

[katka]

an binary artillery shell containing Sarin Nerve gas was detonated today in Iraq in a terrorist attack on U.S. troops. Two G.I.'s were exposed and treated.


gee....i thought all you liberals claimed they didn't exist..

i already know what you're going to claim..

"they only found one?...that doesn't count.."

well, does any rational person believe they produced only one Sarin Gas artillery shell?


no WMD?

Ha.

Who REALLY put it there? HA! HA! HA! The US has had months, massive amounts opportunity, and motive to plant evidence. You think that they wouldn't do that? Yeah Right!

I didn't read all of the post yet so if someone has made this point I am making it again. It is most likely when you have been tracking these WMD"S with pictures but it takes you this long to produce them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hi Bowfinger.

CkG

Nice comeback. Doesn't address anything I said, of course, but at least it isn't as diversionary as your usual responses.

We'll just leave it at the indisputable fact: Bush and his minions lied about Iraq's WMDs, and the discovery of one artillery shell is neither surprising nor significant.

Buahahahaha!!!! If you want to resume the pissing match - I'm game, and you know I won't hold back. I figured I'd be nice and end the spat there - however if you wish to resume it -be my guest.

The mustard gas and Sarin ARE serious - despite the attempts of some to shove it off in a corner. Our troops are over there dealing with IEDs everyday. The fact that we found one that contained chemical weapons is VERY serious to those who may be exposed to them. I

CkG

Nonsense. You have nothing you can say. We all know Iraq had WMDs in the past. The discovery of an old artillery shell is therefore not surprising. It is also NOT significant with respect to Bush administration grandiose claims. The simple, obvious, indisputable fact remains that Bush and his minions lied about Iraq's WMDs.


There's also nothing you can say re. your inability to accept that there is a difference between "not-Bush" and liberal. That's the fatal weakness of the YABAs. They cannot be objective about King George or their opponents.

 

[arsbanned]

? Do you have a clue? I was talking about IEDs since you didn't seem to notice that. Coalition soldiers are exposed to these IEDs on a daily basis and having one that contained chemical agents is quite serious.

Huh. Well, they can thank Pres. Bush and the "Coalition of the Willing" for that.
Anyway , I didn't realize the thread title was "IEDs found." ??????????

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[Nonsense. You have nothing you can say. We all know Iraq had WMDs in the past. The discovery of an old artillery shell is therefore not surprising. It is also NOT significant with respect to Bush administration grandiose claims. The simple, obvious, indisputable fact remains that Bush and his minions lied about Iraq's WMDs.


There's also nothing you can say re. your inability to accept that there is a difference between "not-Bush" and liberal. That's the fatal weakness of the YABAs. They cannot be objective about King George or their opponents.

Hogwash I said this was serious -and it is - especially to those that deal with IEDs(which is what contained the chemical agents) on a daily basis.
Sure, this may not 100% mitigate the world wide intel failures regarding Saddams WMDs and such, but it can't be brushed of an "nothing" either.

Well, considering you and others toss around "neo-con", "minions", and "bushies" I don't see where you can take issue with someone calling you on your attempt at trying to portray yourself as just a voter who doesn't have partisanship. Your supposed objectivity has long been compromised, as hatred for Bush and what he stands for has blinded you. Your constant partisan bleatings have more than proven that you aren't as "independent" as you try to claim. Atleast I am comfortable with my ideology and can proudly say I am a Conservative Republican, but it's sad to see those on the left struggle to come to grips with their ideology and party. "Liberal" and/or "democrat" aren't "dirty" words last time I checked -why is it that some wish to shy away from them then?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[Nonsense. You have nothing you can say. We all know Iraq had WMDs in the past. The discovery of an old artillery shell is therefore not surprising. It is also NOT significant with respect to Bush administration grandiose claims. The simple, obvious, indisputable fact remains that Bush and his minions lied about Iraq's WMDs.


There's also nothing you can say re. your inability to accept that there is a difference between "not-Bush" and liberal. That's the fatal weakness of the YABAs. They cannot be objective about King George or their opponents.

Hogwash I said this was serious -and it is - especially to those that deal with IEDs(which is what contained the chemical agents) on a daily basis.
Sure, this may not 100% mitigate the world wide intel failures regarding Saddams WMDs and such, but it can't be brushed of an "nothing" either.

Well, considering you and others toss around "neo-con", "minions", and "bushies" I don't see where you can take issue with someone calling you on your attempt at trying to portray yourself as just a voter who doesn't have partisanship. Your supposed objectivity has long been compromised, as hatred for Bush and what he stands for has blinded you. Your constant partisan bleatings have more than proven that you aren't as "independent" as you try to claim. Atleast I am comfortable with my ideology and can proudly say I am a Conservative Republican, but it's sad to see those on the left struggle to come to grips with their ideology and party. "Liberal" and/or "democrat" aren't "dirty" words last time I checked -why is it that some wish to shy away from them then?

CkG

Quintessential Cad. Dodge, divert, distort. Glad to see you haven't lost your touch. It's always easier to debate someone when you put words in my mouth and invent your own definitions for terms. Let me know if you ever decide to address the points I actually raised.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[Nonsense. You have nothing you can say. We all know Iraq had WMDs in the past. The discovery of an old artillery shell is therefore not surprising. It is also NOT significant with respect to Bush administration grandiose claims. The simple, obvious, indisputable fact remains that Bush and his minions lied about Iraq's WMDs.


There's also nothing you can say re. your inability to accept that there is a difference between "not-Bush" and liberal. That's the fatal weakness of the YABAs. They cannot be objective about King George or their opponents.

Hogwash I said this was serious -and it is - especially to those that deal with IEDs(which is what contained the chemical agents) on a daily basis.
Sure, this may not 100% mitigate the world wide intel failures regarding Saddams WMDs and such, but it can't be brushed of an "nothing" either.

Well, considering you and others toss around "neo-con", "minions", and "bushies" I don't see where you can take issue with someone calling you on your attempt at trying to portray yourself as just a voter who doesn't have partisanship. Your supposed objectivity has long been compromised, as hatred for Bush and what he stands for has blinded you. Your constant partisan bleatings have more than proven that you aren't as "independent" as you try to claim. Atleast I am comfortable with my ideology and can proudly say I am a Conservative Republican, but it's sad to see those on the left struggle to come to grips with their ideology and party. "Liberal" and/or "democrat" aren't "dirty" words last time I checked -why is it that some wish to shy away from them then?

CkG

Quintessential Cad. Dodge, divert, distort. Glad to see you haven't lost your touch. It's always easier to debate someone when you put words in my mouth and invent your own definitions for terms. Let me know if you ever decide to address the points I actually raised.

Get in line. He still has to fess up to being a bigot.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Quintessential Cad. Dodge, divert, distort. Glad to see you haven't lost your touch. It's always easier to debate someone when you put words in my mouth and invent your own definitions for terms. Let me know if you ever decide to address the points I actually raised.

Well, you decided to resume the pissing match -so don't whine when I respond. I tried to disengage from attacking each other - but you saw fit to continue. We've been over your supposed "points" before - and they aren't any more "true" then when we went over them before. I have no doubt YOU believe what you say but others don't.

CkG

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Let me know if you ever decide to address the points I actually raised.

You raised some points?

You had it exactly right CkG. There was only trace amounts of Sarin detected because the precursors never mixed properly. Had they have had the chance to do so the Liblets would then be pissing and screaming because of the death toll, and blaming Bush for it of course. From what I've seen of the Liblets lately I'm convinced that were a nuke to explode in Baghdad their first reponse would be, "well it was only one city, and besides that its our fault anyway."

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Let me know if you ever decide to address the points I actually raised.

You raised some points?

You had it exactly right CkG. There was only trace amounts of Sarin detected because the precursors never mixed properly. Had they have had the chance to do so the Liblets would then be pissing and screaming because of the death toll, and blaming Bush for it of course. From what I've seen of the Liblets lately I'm convinced that were a nuke to explode in Baghdad their first reponse would be, "well it was only one city, and besides that its our fault anyway."

thats because saddam is the commie-libs hero. FREE SADDAM!!!

Since you insist on trolling enjoy a week away from the forums

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: josphII
thats because saddam is the commie-libs hero. FREE SADDAM!!!

*cookie* for persistent troll.

Are you looking for a long vacation? You tried to post this yesterday. The mods deleted it

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Format C:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Let me know if you ever decide to address the points I actually raised.

You raised some points?

You had it exactly right CkG. There was only trace amounts of Sarin detected because the precursors never mixed properly. Had they have had the chance to do so the Liblets would then be pissing and screaming because of the death toll, and blaming Bush for it of course. From what I've seen of the Liblets lately I'm convinced that were a nuke to explode in Baghdad their first reponse would be, "well it was only one city, and besides that its our fault anyway."

thats because saddam is the commie-libs hero. FREE SADDAM!!!

Since you insist on trolling enjoy a week away from the forums

:beer: