Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: josphII

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

ive never heard this. in fact ive heard the exact opposite. the reports that i have read stated that he has either barried them or moved them to syria, but never that he never had any to begin with.

I heard a report that he moved his WMD to Israel.

Zephyr

funny?

My claim has as much credibility as a Newsmax claim about WMD transfer to Syria. But I forgot, we mustn't joke about Dear Israel.

Zephyr

you were being serious?

your claims are pulled out of thin air. the claims that wmd's have been transfered to syria or burried have come from leaders of various counties and scientist that formerly worked from sadam. whom to beieve....?

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: chrisms
There isn't any proof that this was produced in Iraq by Saddam Hussein.

LOL!

 

[Genx87]

There isn't any proof that this was produced in Iraq by Saddam Hussein.

What other countries in the region use artilery shells that were made by Iraq in the late 80s? And then on top of that put Sarin gas in it and start giving them to insurgents?

 

[heartsurgeon]

There isn't any proof that this was produced in Iraq by Saddam Hussein.

Let me get this straight...

if it wasn't produced in Iraq, it doesn't count.
If wasn't produced by Saddam, it doesn't count.
If it doesn't kill lots of people (i assume this means millons to a liberal), it doesn't count.
If you only find them one at a time, it doesn't count.
if they were made more than a few years ago (like when Clinton was in office), they don't count.

o.k., i get it now, there has to be vast amounts of weapons that have been demonstrated to have killed hugh numbers of people, they must be stamped "made in Iraq by Saddam" and they have to have been made in the past 2 years.

i get it now!

 

[chrisms]

The goal of this war, at least what the American people were told was the goal of this war, was to protect us and our allies from weapons of mass destruction which were allegedly being produced by Saddam Hussein.

One sarin bomb being used by insurgents in Iraq proves nothing. Out of all the countries suspected of making WMDs (Syria for example), I wouldn't be surprised if one (if not more) supported the insurgents with weapons or cash.

Of course it is also possible that Saddam's Iraq produced this bomb. But it is only one bomb, so Hussein's claims of destroying the weapons is still somewhat true because you can't expect them to know where every last bomb is in that kind of country, where they hide them underground and such.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

There isn't any proof that this was produced in Iraq by Saddam Hussein.

Let me get this straight...

if it wasn't produced in Iraq, it doesn't count.
If wasn't produced by Saddam, it doesn't count.
If it doesn't kill lots of people (i assume this means millons to a liberal), it doesn't count.
If you only find them one at a time, it doesn't count.
if they were made more than a few years ago (like when Clinton was in office), they don't count.

o.k., i get it now, there has to be vast amounts of weapons that have been demonstrated to have killed hugh numbers of people, they must be stamped "made in Iraq by Saddam" and they have to have been made in the past 2 years.

i get it now!

hey look like a fun game...

let me get this straight...

we spend billions of dollars while our economy is recovering from a recession
we lose hundreds of lives of our sons and daughters' lives
countless Iraqi civilians are slain
the country of Iraq is again littered with depleted uranium dust which biodegrades in a billion years or so
we torture Iraqi prisoners, 70-90% of which are found to be arrested wrongly

and now we find an old anonymous artillery shell which caused 2 guys to make a quick hospital visit so now all the costs are justified and we're all safe now

i get it now!

 

[lozina]

unfortunately we haven't found Saddam's swords yet, he could surely kill many innocent civilians using a sword. Imagine the mayhem if Saddam was in a new york subway with such a sword? It would be a massacre!

 

[heartsurgeon]

you can't expect them to know where every last bomb is in that kind of country

Are you a Saddam apologist for heaven's sake? Next, I suppose your going to claim he would have destroyed them if we had just given him more time to get the job done! Yep, it's Bush's fault he has'em!!

One sarin bomb being used by insurgents in Iraq proves nothing

It proves that Sarin bomb(s) are in Iraq, and they have been used against U.S. troops, that's what it proves.

it is also possible that Saddam's Iraq produced this bomb

How can that be!! He is such a peaceloving, misunderstood, benevalent dictator according to liberals.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Alas, there is nothing funny about Israel having WMDs. They are a theocracy armed with nuclear weapons. The US should be doing something about it instead of giving Israel more money.

Rubbish. Israel is a parliamentary democracy not a theocracy. That's just anti-Israel propaganda you are spewing. Now, why would we want to attack Israel? They pose no threat to us, they wouldn't cut themselves off from their primary benefactor and face total destruction.

 

[tallest1]

To the liberals - Quit the "this ain't enough proof" line. It makes us as a group sound fickle and immature. Now that we've put the country in disorder and now pushed the terrorists into brutally killing our men and using a WMD, this time is the worst time for us to pull out. Yes we know the US has spent millions of dollars, and lost hundreds of men but unfortunately, theres no point crying tears over semantics now.

To the conservatives - Quit dancing in the streets over this news. This news has only been an indicator of our failure to find WMDs before the terrorists do. To the few who realize this, take your fear-mongering elsewhere. Your fear tactics are almost making these Iraqis sound more lethal than Al Queda and NK combined. Every other day, you change our primary reason for being in Iraq. Please stop that, you're confusing me.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

There isn't any proof that this was produced in Iraq by Saddam Hussein.

Let me get this straight...

if it wasn't produced in Iraq, it doesn't count.
If wasn't produced by Saddam, it doesn't count.
If it doesn't kill lots of people (i assume this means millons to a liberal), it doesn't count.
If you only find them one at a time, it doesn't count.
if they were made more than a few years ago (like when Clinton was in office), they don't count.

o.k., i get it now, there has to be vast amounts of weapons that have been demonstrated to have killed hugh numbers of people, they must be stamped "made in Iraq by Saddam" and they have to have been made in the past 2 years.

i get it now!

hey look like a fun game...

let me get this straight...

we spend billions of dollars while our economy is recovering from a recession
we lose hundreds of lives of our sons and daughters' lives
countless Iraqi civilians are slain
the country of Iraq is again littered with depleted uranium dust which biodegrades in a billion years or so
we torture Iraqi prisoners, 70-90% of which are found to be arrested wrongly

and now we find an old anonymous artillery shell which caused 2 guys to make a quick hospital visit so now all the costs are justified and we're all safe now

i get it now!

would less Iraqi civilians had been slain if saddam was still in power? :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Of course it is also possible that Saddam's Iraq produced this bomb. But it is only one bomb, so Hussein's claims of destroying the weapons is still somewhat true because you can't expect them to know where every last bomb is in that kind of country, where they hide them underground and such.

Well then please tell at how many shells does it count for you? So far we have two shells exploding. These are shells which BTW are not supposed to exist. Even a single ounce of WMD was enough to goto war with Saddam. Just not allowing the UN inspection teams in is enough.

let me get this straight...

we spend billions of dollars while our economy is recovering from a recession
we lose hundreds of lives of our sons and daughters' lives
countless Iraqi civilians are slain
the country of Iraq is again littered with depleted uranium dust which biodegrades in a billion years or so
we torture Iraqi prisoners, 70-90% of which are found to be arrested wrongly

and now we find an old anonymous artillery shell which caused 2 guys to make a quick hospital visit so now all the costs are justified and we're all safe now

Ahh yes the "if it isnt here yet then I can stick me head in the sand approach". Worked wonders through the 90s with two attacks on the WTC.

BTW Depleted uranium has been proven by the UN to cause no biological harm unless injested, which can only happen as the shell explodes. I have a feeling if you are around exploding DU shells, the last thing on your mind is if you have breathed in the dust and if it will kill you in 30 years.

 

[IndieSnob]

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[/quote]

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

you can't expect them to know where every last bomb is in that kind of country

Are you a Saddam apologist for heaven's sake? Next, I suppose your going to claim he would have destroyed them if we had just given him more time to get the job done! Yep, it's Bush's fault he has'em!!

One sarin bomb being used by insurgents in Iraq proves nothing

It proves that Sarin bomb(s) are in Iraq, and they have been used against U.S. troops, that's what it proves.

it is also possible that Saddam's Iraq produced this bomb

How can that be!! He is such a peaceloving, misunderstood, benevalent dictator according to liberals.

I know you like to put words in my mouth, but if you'd respond with a decent rebuttal maybe we could have a nice discussion here.

Yes, I know it proves that a sarin bomb was in Iraq. It's quite obvious, seeing as how that is the whole topic for this discussion.

I really don't understand you're last response. I suppose it's some sort of an exaggeration intended to make a point. Which point I'm not sure.

Genx87, you can say every ounce of WMD is enough. But in reality, it isn't. You can't invade a country, tell your citizens that you're doing it because they pose a serious threat, and tell the world the same thing, if all they have is a couple sarin gas bombs.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

you can't expect them to know where every last bomb is in that kind of country

Are you a Saddam apologist for heaven's sake? Next, I suppose your going to claim he would have destroyed them if we had just given him more time to get the job done! Yep, it's Bush's fault he has'em!!

One sarin bomb being used by insurgents in Iraq proves nothing

It proves that Sarin bomb(s) are in Iraq, and they have been used against U.S. troops, that's what it proves.

it is also possible that Saddam's Iraq produced this bomb

How can that be!! He is such a peaceloving, misunderstood, benevalent dictator according to liberals.

I know you like to put words in my mouth, but if you'd respond with a decent rebuttal maybe we could have a nice discussion here.

Yes, I know it proves that a sarin bomb was in Iraq. It's quite obvious, seeing as how that is the whole topic for this discussion.

I really don't understand you're last response. I suppose it's some sort of an exaggeration intended to make a point. Which point I'm not sure.

Genx87, you can say every ounce of WMD is enough. But in reality, it isn't. You can't invade a country, tell your citizens that you're doing it because they pose a serious threat, and tell the world the same thing, if all they have is a couple sarin gas bombs.

Chrism, the spin is strong with Heartsurgeon!

 

[Genx87]

Genx87, you can say every ounce of WMD is enough. But in reality, it isn't. You can't invade a country, tell your citizens that you're doing it because they pose a serious threat, and tell the world the same thing, if all they have is a couple sarin gas bombs.

The thing is they didnt have just a couple of sarin bombs. For starters he had 80 tons of Mustard gas unaccounted for. Secondly that put him in violation of 687 which is the ceasefire between Kuwait and Iraq which required Saddam to provide full disclosure of WMD. He failed to do this on several ocassions and through the 90s he had to redeclare over a dozen times as another scientist escaped from Iraq.
Third since he has WMD which are banned in his country post Gulf War I this puts him in violation of UN resolution 678 which includes keeping the region secure. With a madman having that much WMD unaccounted for he was clearly a security issue in the region.

Now at what point do you consider WMD a threat? How much VX,Sarin, and Mustard gas satisfies your requirements for being justified?

I dont think many people really understand the ramifications of just a single arty shell going off in a crowded US city. We have been very lucky nothing like this outside of WTC has happened. If we didnt take Saddam out. Could you sit back and feel good about yourself if you turn the TV on one morning in the future and see thousands dead because a VX bomb was set off in a NY subway? And then we find out it came from Iraq and we could have taken him back in 2003, even by UN standards, but we didnt because we felt it was better to just do nothing?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Genx87, you can say every ounce of WMD is enough. But in reality, it isn't. You can't invade a country, tell your citizens that you're doing it because they pose a serious threat, and tell the world the same thing, if all they have is a couple sarin gas bombs.

The thing is they didnt have just a couple of sarin bombs. For starters he had 80 tons of Mustard gas unaccounted for. Secondly that put him in violation of 687 which is the ceasefire between Kuwait and Iraq which required Saddam to provide full disclosure of WMD. He failed to do this on several ocassions and through the 90s he had to redeclare over a dozen times as another scientist escaped from Iraq.
Third since he has WMD which are banned in his country post Gulf War I this puts him in violation of UN resolution 678 which includes keeping the region secure. With a madman having that much WMD unaccounted for he was clearly a security issue in the region.

Now at what point do you consider WMD a threat? How much VX,Sarin, and Mustard gas satisfies your requirements for being justified?

I dont think many people really understand the ramifications of just a single arty shell going off in a crowded US city. We have been very lucky nothing like this outside of WTC has happened. If we didnt take Saddam out. Could you sit back and feel good about yourself if you turn the TV on one morning in the future and see thousands dead because a VX bomb was set off in a NY subway? And then we find out it came from Iraq and we could have taken him back in 2003, even by UN standards, but we didnt because we felt it was better to just do nothing?

The most likely source of a VX Bomb set off in a NY Subway would be from the defunct Soviet Union.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Genx87
BTW Depleted uranium has been proven by the UN to cause no biological harm unless injested, which can only happen as the shell explodes. I have a feeling if you are around exploding DU shells, the last thing on your mind is if you have breathed in the dust and if it will kill you in 30 years.

I don't think you'd have a mind to have anything on if DUs are being used at/by you

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I dont think many people really understand the ramifications of just a single arty shell going off in a crowded US city. We have been very lucky nothing like this outside of WTC has happened. If we didnt take Saddam out. Could you sit back and feel good about yourself if you turn the TV on one morning in the future and see thousands dead because a VX bomb was set off in a NY subway? And then we find out it came from Iraq and we could have taken him back in 2003, even by UN standards, but we didnt because we felt it was better to just do nothing?

This kind of hypothetical rhetoric for war is the biggest threat to the world right now. Saddam didn't threaten us and his WMDs were at best "unaccounted for" for 12 years. He claimed he destroyed them, he has the support of numerous UN Weapons Investigation which could not find them. Base don our legal standards, he should be innocen until proven guilty. Then we have North Korea who actually threaten us and claim to have nuclear weapons, yet we don't care. Could you sit back and feel good about yourself if you turn on the TV to see a mushroom cloud over the city of Los Angeles?

 

[JellyBaby]

Iraq surrendered to the U.N. The U.S., under Bush, took it upon itself to act as Enforcer and invade the country without adequate proof or the authority to do so.

This indicent does not in any way change these facts. I'm just glad it amounted to only a few minor injuries to our troops.

 

[syf3r]

Originally posted by: 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.

That thread, in conjunction with:

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
bleat! bleat! bleat!
typical liberal ploy, attack the poster, ignore the facts.
bleat bleat bleat

is kinda funny. I guess heartsurgeon thinks heroofpellinor is a liberal, or maybe it's just that blanket statements make people look kind of dumb.

/syf3r

 

[Genx87]

This kind of hypothetical rhetoric for war is the biggest threat to the world right now. Saddam didn't threaten us and his WMDs were at best "unaccounted for" for 12 years. He claimed he destroyed them, he has the support of numerous UN Weapons Investigation which could not find them.

Not finding them and not accounting for them are two different things. He had known stockpiles but he could or would not tell the UN where they were. If he was such a non-threat then why didnt the UN lift their sanctions on him?

Base don our legal standards, he should be innocen until proven guilty. Then we have North Korea who actually threaten us and claim to have nuclear weapons, yet we don't care. Could you sit back and feel good about yourself if you turn on the TV to see a mushroom cloud over the city of Los Angeles?

He has already been proven guilty it was just time to convict him.

Can i feel good if we knew the Nuke was from North Korea? Nope, not in the least. And the fact the North has already stated they have a Nuke makes the situation all the more volatile. With Iraq we could have waited around until they had a Nuke but then it would have been too late.

If anything North Korea is a great example of what happens when you dont care to validate whether or not a madman dictator is keeping his word. Now we have one in North Korea who has the almighty in weapons and short of starting a small nuclear conflict we cant do much about it except hope to isolate + starve him and his people out.

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
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.

:roll:

You are a more sad and pathetic with every post HS.

 

[conjur]

Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war (search). Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to that time.

"It was a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED and basically from the detection of that and when it exploded, it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," Kimmitt said.

This was an OLD shell.


The mustard?

Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) ? a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction ? and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."

This just appears to be another non-issue.

It's not even big news on the FOX website.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Not finding them and not accounting for them are two different things. He had known stockpiles but he could or would not tell the UN where they were. If he was such a non-threat then why didnt the UN lift their sanctions on him?

I think the UN saction bit is irrelevent, as we would just veto any attempt to lift the sanctions anyway.

He has already been proven guilty it was just time to convict him.

he was proven guilty recently of what? he was a menace in the past, no doubt. The things he did in Kuwait and to the Kurds he paid for with the 1991 Gulf War. We had almost the whole world on our side, it was a just cause, so the UN had no problem backing us. If our current invasion into Iraq was so just, why didn;t we get UN approval?

Can i feel good if we knew the Nuke was from North Korea? Nope, not in the least. And the fact the North has already stated they have a Nuke makes the situation all the more volatile. With Iraq we could have waited around until they had a Nuke but then it would have been too late.

If anything North Korea is a great example of what happens when you dont care to validate whether or not a madman dictator is keeping his word. Now we have one in North Korea who has the almighty in weapons and short of starting a small nuclear conflict we cant do much about it except hope to isolate + starve him and his people out.

But that is a bit of a double standard, don't you think? And there is a little discreptancy here in that you say it's too late to do anything to North Korea because we know they have WMDs, yet we went into Iraq not necessarily to prevent him building WMDs, but on the grounds that he already has them and is ready to use them on us (in 45 minutes ) If you read Powell's speech to the UN, he implies Iraq has WMDs and is ready to use them.