Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions, he was in violation of the agreements signed to end the first Gulf War (which Saddam started for those of you who seem to have forgotten this). He had over a decade to comply with these obligations, but didn't.

The UNMOVIC was irrelevant. they neither proved nor caused Saddam to comply with anything.

Weapons of mass destruction have been found since the overthrow of Saddam. The Sarin nerve agent and the missile motors qualify in my opinion, and i have absolutely no doubt that many more banned weapons will be found.

Liberals will never be satisfied. That is irrelevant.

The Iraqi goverment has requested the U.S. to stay in iraq. The Iraqi goverment will ask NATO to participate. Every single "talking point" that the liberal use (we're not wanted in Iraq, we don't have international support, we haven't found weapons of mass destruction, we can't possibly win, it's just like Vietnam)...willl/has gradually be rendered irrelevant. You know i'm right..it's happening as we speak..

no jobs? Kerry isn't claiming that anymore.

no international support for our efforts in Iraq...can't claim that anymore

no weapons of mass destruction...you maydeny it, but i'll guarantee you Kerry won'y be talking about it anymore.

heck, kerry has even backpedaled on pulling troops out of iraq.

gas prices, Bush not doing enough to lower them..guess what, they're coming down and will continue to drop.

and the real campaign hasn't even started yet!!

LOL. I am planning ahead to November. What flavor of Koolaid do you want with your crow?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

The UN inspectors found those Al Samoud II missiles

You apparently didn't read the article.

You apparently have forgotten history. I'm referring to the Al Samound II missiles found before the Iraq invasion by the UN inspectors. The missiles that were being destroyed before Bush pulled the inspectors out of Iraq.

Even then, these missles barely exceeded the permissible range, and only when not weighed down with "frills" like a guidance system and a payload. They presented some danger to Iraq's immediate neighbors. They presented no threat to the United States.

 

[Czar]

Weapons of mass destruction have been found since the overthrow of Saddam. The Sarin nerve agent and the missile motors qualify in my opinion, and i have absolutely no doubt that many more banned weapons will be found.

ok.... reality check
one shell from the Iraq Iran war, they are still finding leftovers from ww1, that does not count
the missiles, the ones that UN inspectors discovered were designed for 200km range but were in production slowed down to a 155km range or something alike which was slightly over the missile range limit that Iraq had, the process then want forward to destroy the missiles... that process was still ongoing when the US attacked!!

is that the proof you consider enough to attack Iraq?
what if Bush had made this the case for war

"Iraq has at least one, maybe more leftover shells somewhere in the country since their war with Iran, those shells countain some amounts of sarin gas! also they are not destroying the missiles quick enough!!!"

....

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 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.

That's what I thought. Drop your little trolls, then slither back under your rock when challenged about your dishonesty. So be it. You cannot defend Bush and his minions so you divert and distort and dissemble. You lose.

As long as HS is still beating this dead horse, I'm still waiting for an apology. I'm also waiting for an explanation of how the Bushies reconcile Bush&Co's pre-war claims with the reality of that single dusty shell.

 

[heartsurgeon]

no amount will satisfy me as justification for Bush's invasion.

like i said, and repeated, As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy liberals.

now just in case we start finding WMD's, some "new" criteria have to be met:

the WMD has to be manufactured "recently" ("old" WMD's don't count, even if they can still kill lots of folks)

WMD's that are "slightly over the ...limit" don't really count

"some amounts of sarin gas" (at least 4 liters) doesn't count (the meaning of "some" will of course remain undefined, so it can be increased as needed)

WMD's that present "some danger to Iraq's immediate neighbors" don't count, completely discounting the potential for these weapons to be transported to the U.S.

lets just reduce the quote to it's essence:....liberals will "never be satisfied with anything GWB does".

and finally

Bush&Co's pre-war claims

Same claims made by Clinton and Co., Kerry, the Democrat Leadership, and the Brits, and even the U.N.

 

[Czar]

HS,
The US gov said "stockpiles", "active wmd programs" and "we know where they are", was one 20 year old shell that could have been found in the desert fit the criteria of the wmd's the US talked about?

 

[SuperTool]

Yes, HS will call 1 20 year old shell a stockpile. He just doesn't get it.
Saddam either had no WMD capability or no intent to use it in 2003, because he didn't even use it when faced with elimination. He didn't even use it as a last resort.
Now we are finding what HS calls WMD in Jordan and Netherlands. So assuming we go with HS' definition of WMD, we now have Saddam's "WMD's" dispersed all over the world as far away as Netherlands. Now if they can get into netherlands, they can get into the wrong hands in the US. So by going into Iraq, we have enabled the very scenario we wanted to avoid, which is terrorists getting their hands on Saddam's "WMD's"
Why HS is bragging about that is beyond me.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Czar
HS,
The US gov said "stockpiles", "active wmd programs" and "we know where they are", was one 20 year old shell that could have been found in the desert fit the criteria of the wmd's the US talked about?

A razor hidden in the desert would be enough for him, or nothing at all, that would be enough for him too. His belief is that Bush is right and everyone else in the entire world is wrong, he's the kind of guy who sticks his fingers in his ears and goes lalalala when someone disagrees with him, he doesn't want to hear it, and if you try to tell him he will simply respond with something like "you are wrong" without any explanation.

I don't know if you are accustomed to usenet, we have a name for posters like him there, we call them kooks, it's one step below the regular trolls.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: teiresias
But I thought all the insurgent terrorists had all come from outside countries and weren't Iraqis anyway, and they were being supported by countries like Iran with weapons and money? At least that's what the government has been trying to tell me. Therefore, the gas would have to come from one of these supporting countries not Iraq right? If the administration is going to tell me one thing they'd better stick with it.

No, that is not what the government has been telling you.

Some are from outside the country, some are old Saddam followers and some are members of groups trying to increase power for themselves at the expense of other Iraqis. That is what has been in the reports.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Czar
HS,
The US gov said "stockpiles", "active wmd programs" and "we know where they are", was one 20 year old shell that could have been found in the desert fit the criteria of the wmd's the US talked about?

A razor hidden in the desert would be enough for him, or nothing at all, that would be enough for him too..

Maybe, but sometimes I get the feeling that if 500 died in iraq to a sarin shell then people would say it wasnt enough, there need to be at least 1000 for it to be considered a wmd.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Czar
HS,
The US gov said "stockpiles", "active wmd programs" and "we know where they are", was one 20 year old shell that could have been found in the desert fit the criteria of the wmd's the US talked about?

A razor hidden in the desert would be enough for him, or nothing at all, that would be enough for him too..

Maybe, but sometimes I get the feeling that if 500 died in iraq to a sarin shell then people would say it wasnt enough, there need to be at least 1000 for it to be considered a wmd.

if it was a recent shell since after 1991 then it would definetly count

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

no amount will satisfy me as justification for Bush's invasion.

like i said, and repeated, As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy liberals.

now just in case we start finding WMD's, some "new" criteria have to be met:

the WMD has to be manufactured "recently" ("old" WMD's don't count, even if they can still kill lots of folks)

WMD's that are "slightly over the ...limit" don't really count

"some amounts of sarin gas" (at least 4 liters) doesn't count (the meaning of "some" will of course remain undefined, so it can be increased as needed)

WMD's that present "some danger to Iraq's immediate neighbors" don't count, completely discounting the potential for these weapons to be transported to the U.S.

lets just reduce the quote to it's essence:....liberals will "never be satisfied with anything GWB does".

and finally

Bush&Co's pre-war claims

Same claims made by Clinton and Co., Kerry, the Democrat Leadership, and the Brits, and even the U.N.

I'm sorry, 20 rocket engines and 1 old shell don't count, especially ONE YEAR after we invaded the country. For crying out loud, we don't control the borders to the north, and anything could have gotten in during that period. ONE shell is hardly evidence of mass stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction which Bush and his cabinet claimed was in place after Iraq failed to provide documentation on paper stating they had destroyed them. There's no set 'amount' of WMDs which will satisfy me - but I fail to see two separate discoveries, made over one year after invasion and over mine months of careful picking and searching by over a quarter million military and civilian personnel as evidence of 'stockpiles' of WMDs. Face it or not, Bush was WRONG, and frankly, this mission has taken on the humanitarian slant which it should have begun with. So we move on, and hope that the US properly wipes its behind this time after handing over power to the Iraqis, as opposed to supporting them against Iran and then ignoring them completely (incidentally, helping Saddam with the material means FOR these alleged WMDs).

 

[conjur]

Uh oh...heartsurgeon is going to implode when he reads this "news":

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

:laugh:



Interesting article about the "World Tribune"

http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?030908ta_talk_mcgrath

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Czar
HS,
The US gov said "stockpiles", "active wmd programs" and "we know where they are", was one 20 year old shell that could have been found in the desert fit the criteria of the wmd's the US talked about?

A razor hidden in the desert would be enough for him, or nothing at all, that would be enough for him too..

Maybe, but sometimes I get the feeling that if 500 died in iraq to a sarin shell then people would say it wasnt enough, there need to be at least 1000 for it to be considered a wmd.

Would it equal one WMD? Yes, would it equal +10 000 liters of nerve gas that the US admin claimed? I don't think i need to tell you that it doesn't.

You can say whatever you want about that, but czars and my posts, vast stockpiles, +10000 liters, active wmd programs and they knew exactly where they were.

You can spin until your head spins off if you like, but it is still a bunch of lies.

 

[heartsurgeon]

There's no set 'amount' of WMDs which will satisfy me

See, no i have two libs who have admitted it...

i don't believe anyone "lied"

lying is purposefully misleading statements (like what Clinton said about "that woman")
Clinton, Blair, Kerry, all the leading Dems in congress said the exact same things that Bush said, because they all had the same information.

thoughful people did the best they could with the "intelligence" they were provided.
i do not believe anyone "lied"

i do not know if all that was said was accurate...but given the circumstances, i believe the correct decisions were made.

i fully expect that more WMD's will be found.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

There's no set 'amount' of WMDs which will satisfy me

See, no i have two libs who have admitted it...

i don't believe anyone "lied"

lying is purposefully misleading statements (like what Clinton said about "that woman")
Clinton, Blair, Kerry, all the leading Dems in congress said the exact same things that Bush said, because they all had the same information.

thoughful people did the best they could with the "intelligence" they were provided.
i do not believe anyone "lied"

i do not know if all that was said was accurate...but given the circumstances, i believe the correct decisions were made.

i fully expect that more WMD's will be found.

So they knew about +10000 liters of nerve gas, they knew where it was, they KNEW about the mobile labs (which has been PROVEN false, how can anyone know a falsehood without it being a lie?) they didn't only know that it was there, they knew where it was to, now that every site has been checked out and cleared without even so much as a trace you still claim they didn't lie?

It's like saying the sky is green and they absolutely know it, but you look up and see that it is blue, still they did not lie.

Did they lie, of course, even if vast stockpiles WERE found now, they still lied when they said that they KNEW what the mobile vans were for, if they lied or not isn't the question anymore, they did, get that into your thick skull Mr Kook.

 

[heartsurgeon]

now that every site has been checked out and cleared without even so much as a trace you still claim they didn't lie

Who has stated or claimed (other than you) that "every site has been checked out" Please provide a source for that claim. I would like to read it for my self.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

now that every site has been checked out and cleared without even so much as a trace you still claim they didn't lie

Who has stated or claimed (other than you) that "every site has been checked out" Please provide a source for that claim. I would like to read it for my self.

The US own investigator, David Kay, links to his report have been posted here by conjur more than 10 times i believe.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

i fully expect that more WMD's will be found.

Me too just not the vast quanity that Dub used as his reason for his excellent adventure in Iraq.

 

[heartsurgeon]

The US own investigator, David Kay, links to his report have been posted here by conjur more than 10 times i believe.

A non-answer answer.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

The US own investigator, David Kay, links to his report have been posted here by conjur more than 10 times i believe.

A non-answer answer.

You are search engine disabled? Or just stupid enough not to get it the first ten times it was posted?

My guess would be both mr kook.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

i fully expect that more WMD's will be found.

Me too just not the vast quanity that Dub used as his reason for his excellent adventure in Iraq.

That the admin lied is already proven by the fact that they KNEW what the facilities and mobile "labs" were for, so that much is clear already, the lied.

I sincirely doubt that anything else will be found, the 120 sites have been checked without results, and if they had access to them, don't you think the insurgents would use them?

 

[heartsurgeon]

every site has been checked out

still waiting for a link to back this statement up.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

every site has been checked out

still waiting for a link to back this statement up.

Obviously you ARE search engine disabled, so i will provide a simple search for you.

10,001,000 links for your amusement

Here's a random link if you want a direct one, if you want more links, you got ten millions in the link above.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

every site has been checked out

still waiting for a link to back this statement up.

Obviously you ARE search engine disabled, so i will provide a simple search for you.

10,001,000 links for your amusement

Here's a random link if you want a direct one, if you want more links, you got ten millions in the link above.

:roll::roll::roll:

Obviously, you are slow or limited in intellectual, or academic process. HS asked for a link
to back up your claim that every site has been checked out.

Now, do you have one or not?