Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[StageLeft]

Honestly one shell of currently unknown origin hardly validates the claim of vast quantities of WMD.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Um, both can be used by terrorists to kill many many innocent people?

So your trying to say it is pointless to go invade Iraq over WMD because WMD are less leathal then airplanes? and rather then looking for gas in the desert that "exposed" two people we should being the hunt for building and airplanes?

Sure. We should be looking for planes and buildings with terrorists in them. Both planes with terrorists in them (which is what was used on 9/11) and WMD serve no positive purpose and only exist to kill people.

You all seem to have forgotten about the Anthrax that killed several people right after 9/11. That was one envelope. That, to me, was a thousand times scarier than the planes.

So wouldn't it be a better use of resources to go burn all the envelopes in the world then get the one shell in Iraq with old gas in it that didn't kill anyone. Why should we waste money in Iraq?

When is bush going to start "operation envelope freedom"

 

[Infohawk]

Cause and effect are important here. If so-called WMDs are used in Iraq, it is BECAUSE of a year-long+ occupation, not because anyone was planning on using it on the US. In other words, you can't hit someone because you claim they are going to punch you and then complain when they punch you in self-defense.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Codec
David Kay just stated that the shell was likely from the Iran-Iraq War period, circa 1985. Called it the "safest" way to store and disburse the gas. An Iraqi rep was asked if there is any safety concern in Iraq, and he replied that the device does not have any type of high impact.

I doubt this is what the Bush admin had in mind when they began their search for WMDs. If so, however, it does show how desperate things have become politically.

if so then this is a non issue

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Weapons of Mass destruction found.
> reported today by Genral Kimmitt .

Did you fart upwind again HS? You seriously need to lay off the bran muffins and espresso shots.

 

[Codec]

Originally posted by: tallest1
One a sidenote, its sickening to find people in this thread HAPPY that we supposedly got hit by a WMD.

Very true. Such is the world of politics.

 

[alchemize]

Liberals are squirming today.

 

[ViRGE]

Apparantly, whoever had it was a moron. From CNN:

Kimmitt said it appeared that whoever set up the roadside bomb was unaware that it contained the chemicals.

"It was a weapon we believed was stocked from the ex-regime time," Kimmitt said. "It had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell, set up like an IED. When it exploded, it indicated that it had some sarin in it."

 

[kage69]

Another 'event' to take attention off of Rumsfeld and his jackassery. How convienent. The Faux news execs are no doubt pissing themselves with glee.

HS needs to fix the thread title. A single round does not constitute 'Weapons.' This is far, far from the vast stockpiles the neocons promised would be found. If the liberals are squirming, I'm not seeing it.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Apparantly, whoever had it was a moron. From CNN:

Kimmitt said it appeared that whoever set up the roadside bomb was unaware that it contained the chemicals.

"It was a weapon we believed was stocked from the ex-regime time," Kimmitt said. "It had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell, set up like an IED. When it exploded, it indicated that it had some sarin in it."

It isn't surprising that the user didn't know it had sarin in it because if it did come from saddam he wouldn't have stock a WMD sticker on the outside and if he did the shell is so old that it wore off.

 

[SuperTool]

LOL, didn't we go into Iraq to PREVENT chemical weapons from falling into hands of terrorists?

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Liberals are squirming today.

To what address should I mail this "Congratulations" card? I know you've been looking forward to the day someone fires WMDs at us. I must admit, your strategy of having the terrorists find the weapons before us was not only brilliant but cost effective!

Edit: sorry bout all the edits

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: kage69
Another 'event' to take attention off of Rumsfeld and his jackassery. How convienent. The Faux news execs are no doubt pissing themselves with glee.

HS needs to fix the thread title. A single round does not constitute 'Weapons.' This is far, far from the vast stockpiles the neocons promised would be found. If the liberals are squirming, I'm not seeing it.

Of course you can't see it, you are looking through the eyes of one!

 

[kage69]

Of course you can't see it, you are looking through the eyes of one!

You're as sharp as a bowling ball al. Nothing escapes you, you're like a seive. :roll:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let's hear it for "Fair and Balanced" But I guess they never said "accurate."

Technically shouldn't the title say "Chemical Weapon" without the "s". They did find only one right??

I like the red smoke in the background. The caption says without sarin . . . as if Faux News viewers are really that dumb . . . oh nevermind.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Sure. We should be looking for planes and buildings with terrorists in them. Both planes with terrorists in them (which is what was used on 9/11) and WMD serve no positive purpose and only exist to kill people.

You all seem to have forgotten about the Anthrax that killed several people right after 9/11. That was one envelope. That, to me, was a thousand times scarier than the planes.

So wouldn't it be a better use of resources to go burn all the envelopes in the world then get the one shell in Iraq with old gas in it that didn't kill anyone. Why should we waste money in Iraq?

When is bush going to start "operation envelope freedom"

It's quite clear you aren't interested in (capable of?) a rational debate, but I'l humor you again since I already have once.

A plane, like an envelope, is a perfectly useful tool which serves many positive purposes. Put terrorists on that plane, however, and that plane becomes a tool for the murder of innocent people. In the same way, envelopes, as you unfairly placed the blame, are not the problem, it's what, like the planes, is what's inside the envelope. President Bush is going after the source of the problems...the terrorists and the WMD. Without Anthrax, the envlope is a harmless and so is the plane.

If you'd like, I can explain the fallacies of argumentation for you as well.

 

[etech]

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 WILL TAKE THAT BET.


We can wait for more information but so far....

1) It appears to be from Saddam's stockpile.

2) In all of the research I have done I have never found any reference to the US sending chemical artillery shells to Iraq. I don't believe that you have either, but prove me wrong. Provide the source of that "information". We can even make that a side bet. I bet you, Conjur, $20 that you cannot find a reputable source that states the US gave Saddam chemical weapon artillery shells.


Basically I think you are lying and am willing to put my money on the line to prove you wrong. Are you willing to actually back up what you post?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Wow I think Faux News is getting excited . . .

They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year.

Hmm or maybe it came from Syria . . .

One official told Fox News that a conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as "two to five" liters of sarin, which is capable of killing thousands of people under the right conditions in highly populated areas.

Yet this "significant find" only had a little???

"Everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons, the question was, where did they go. Unfortunately, everybody jumped on the offramp and said 'well, because we didn't find them, he didn't have them,'" said Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.

Even his own scientists (the ones we've been interrogating for almost a year) basically say Saddam didn't have any weapons.

"I doubt if it's the tip of the iceberg but it does confirm what we've known ... that he [Saddam Hussein] had weapons of mad destruction that he used on his own people," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News. "This does show that the fear we had is very real. Now whether there is much more of this we don't know, Iraq is the size of the state of California."

What a tool.

But there were more than weapons to the need to depose of Saddam, he added. "We considered Saddam Hussein a threat not just because of weapons of mass destruction," Grassley said.

Hmm and what exactly were the other reasons???

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: teiresias

David Kay just stated that the shell was likely from the Iran-Iraq War period, circa 1985

Which probably means it has "Made in America" stamped on it somewhere.

What's your point?

teiresias, you gotta understand that under the viewpoint of some groups that will be unnamed, its okay for the US to give a chaotic country deadly WMDs (because this country does no wrong, right?), but its not okay if the country doesn't use them all when asked - and has some left over.

It's also okay for certain unnamed people to speak for other unnamed people.

 

[Codec]

Military consultant on MSNBC, who had experience as US military figure in Iraq in the late 80s when supporting Iraq against Iran, just stated that Iraq government then used much larger amounts of sarin in that war, not the binary method employed in the shell just discovered. I'm not sure how this proves anything regarding the discovered shell. Anyway, the White House reportedly does not think this is "the smoking gun," likely the best political move given the information now available.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Let's hear it for "Fair and Balanced" But I guess they never said "accurate."

Technically shouldn't the title say "Chemical Weapon" without the "s". They did find only one right??

I like the red smoke in the background. The caption says without sarin . . . as if Faux News viewers are really that dumb . . . oh nevermind.

Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.

1 Sarin plus 1 mustard gas = 2, plural no? Of course, you would have had to read the 2nd line of the article instead of dismissing it as propaganda to have caught that.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

But there were more than weapons to the need to depose of Saddam, he added. "We considered Saddam Hussein a threat not just because of weapons of mass destruction," Grassley said.

Hmm and what exactly were the other reasons???

To prevent the torture and humilation of Iraqis by brutal police interrogators- oh wait... nevermind.

 

[heartsurgeon]

bleat! bleat! bleat!

as i predicted..

"gee only one??, that doesn't count!!"

some of you have attacked me personally in this post.
for those of you i say Good Day
and recommend you go post in a Bush Hater thread, or better yet in a "feel good" thread about Kerry (a highly decorated Vietnam Veteran)

for the pinheads that hold the opinion that one artillery shell containing sarin doesn't count...
what complete drooling idiot believes that anyone would manufacture one binary nerve gas artillery shell? There most likely manufactured thousands.

the mere fact they have ANY Sarin is terrifying.
hey, but if your a liberal..a little Sarin is nothing....just read all the posts in this thread..

here is a compendium of some of the more stupid statements:

we've enabled the terrorists to get their hands on the few WMD's that hadn't been destroyed

Man! This post deserves an award! It is rich in contradiction. The poster admits there are WMD's..but tries to minimize it by using the word "few" (exactly how many weapons of MASS destruction do you need to produce MASS destruction? HAHAHA. Then to claim that we've "enabled" "terrorists" to get them!! Who exactly do you think has been in control of these WMD's? Kofi Annan?? But, hey using your logic, if there is only a "few" of them, what difference does it make???

it isn't really a weapon of mass destruction if it only wounds two people

HAHAHAHA I guess it's not a nuclear bomb until it goes off!!

if some one dropped a nuke in Alaska and it only killed some one because it fell on their head and didn't go nuecler then I would have a hard time calling it a WMD

Yep..a said it as a joke in the previous sentance, only to find out some idiot actually believes it!!! Life is just to rich

a weapon of mass destruction (notice the singular form)

Once again...exactly how many weapons of MASS destruction do you need to cause MASS destruction (notice the term MASS)

But Hardly a threat to US

WTF They used it against U.S troops. I guess liberals don't think the troops don't matter.

By forcing sand down one's throat, you may cause death to innocent people by asphixiation

You better stay away from your sandbox today. WTF does sand have to do with a nerve gas that can kill or maim thousands in an urban setting.

vast quantities of WMD.

Let me get this straight, one nuke is nothing to worry about, but vast quantities of nukes is different? Exactly how do you reach this ridiculous conclusion. What would your feeling about all this be if the "one" sarin gas attack happened in the Boston metro, or the London Tube, or the New York subway system.....would you call it a WMD then?

If so-called WMDs are used in Iraq, it is BECAUSE of a year-long+ occupation, not because anyone was planning on using it on the US. In other words, you can't hit someone because you claim they are going to punch you and then complain when they punch you in self-defense.

This is an example of liberal self-loathing. We caused the "so-called" WMD to be made, and used. We upset Al Qaeda and made then fly airplanes into the WTC, we.....

Did you fart upwind again HS? You seriously need to lay off the bran muffins and espresso shots

typical liberal ploy, attack the poster, ignore the facts.

bleat bleat bleat

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Liberals are squirming today.

HAHAHAHA are you being sarcastic? Is this like when "liberals squirmed" when those Czech troops found a dozen chemical capable shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war? Because this is the exact same type of stuff. Or were you loosing sleep over the imminent threat of an old chemical-filled mortor shell?

Zephyr

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
bleat! bleat! bleat!

as i predicted..

"gee only one??, that doesn't count!!"

some of you have attacked me personally in this post.
for those of you i say Good Day
and recommend you go post in a Bush Hater thread, or better yet in a "feel good" thread about Kerry (a highly decorated Vietnam Veteran)

for the pinheads that hold the opinion that one artillery shell containing sarin doesn't count...
what complete drooling idiot believes that anyone would manufacture one binary nerve gas artillery shell? There most likely manufactured thousands.

the mere fact they have ANY Sarin is terrifying.
hey, but if your a liberal..a little Sarin is nothing....just read all the posts in this thread..

You have failed to respond to the more cogent responses against your post. Morover it is odd that you criticize people for attacking you personally yet you resort to calling people pinheads.

Could you explain the significance of finding WMDs at this point in time? Does that somehow travel back and justify this war? Does it strike you as ironic that chemical agents are being used only now after there has been a year-long occupation (i.e., because of the war)?

Also, all WMDs are not equal. The point of this war was to get rid of WMDs that were a threat to us. The United States watched Saddam use chemical weapons and did not do anything in the 80s. The idea was that now they were threatening us. Well, the use of an artillery shell does not threaten the US. Last time I checked even a howitzer can't travel across the globe.