Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well you said he had know stock piles so just have troops I don't know gaurd the stocks piles?

He had known stockpiles, as in, we knew he has this much of VX, Sarin, and Mustard gas. That doesnt mean we know where they are as shown by the fact we arent finding them in Iraq even a year after the war and are now seeing them used as roadside bombs.

How do you know they have stock piles but not know the location of even one stock pile. Sounds like your pulling the claim that we knew/know Saddam has WMD out of your ass.

I guess the UN was wrong when it said Saddam had these stockpiles and located many of them, yet were kicked out of Iraq before they could safely destroy them. You do know that the UN documented what Saddam had, at least what they could find to begin with after the Gulf War don't you? Or did the UN just "pull that out of it's ass"?

I personally can't stand the UN, but considering that I believe every country agreed with the findings on Saddam's WMDs that the UN reported on, that there is a good chance Saddam actually had what they said he had. It just turns out later, some of the stuff was "unaccounted for". I find it rather convenient that people prefer to ignore that fact.

We didn't recover any WMD from Iraq so it really doesn't matter how many tons of WMD bush claims that Iraq had even if he was right. Sure we might find the WMD some where in Iraq but the chance of that are slim. The WMD either where destoryed/not made before we invaded or Bush allowed them to be transfrered to other states and/or terrorist.

Also I believe the WMD that the UN said Iraw had was based on prediction and evidence made up by the US intelegence agence and not on any WMD they had seen with their own two eyes.

The UN and their original search teams saw the WMDs, they even destroyed some of them. Saddam kicked them out before the job could be completed. The WMDs existed, a lot of them are missing that were known to exist because they were seen with people's own eyes. According to you, there was never a single WMD in Iraq and as everyone here knows, there were WMDs in Iraq. It was know Saddam had at least a certain amount. Some of what was known to exist, cannot be found or accounted for. That does not mean it went *poof* and disappeared never to be seen or used again. It just means it hasn't been found by the US or UN inspectors. That is not a hard point to understand.

 

[biostud]

Who decides which countries can have WMD?

Who judges and sanction the countries that break the rules?

 

[villager]

For once I agree with Heart Surgeon. We know he had the capicity for manufacturing WMD because we gave it to him. Some of you may be saying, yes it is only one weapon. But what if a iraqi spy got that one or two shell and planted it into your home. Then that one shell seems mighty big doesn't it.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well you said he had know stock piles so just have troops I don't know gaurd the stocks piles?

He had known stockpiles, as in, we knew he has this much of VX, Sarin, and Mustard gas. That doesnt mean we know where they are as shown by the fact we arent finding them in Iraq even a year after the war and are now seeing them used as roadside bombs.

How do you know they have stock piles but not know the location of even one stock pile. Sounds like your pulling the claim that we knew/know Saddam has WMD out of your ass.

I guess the UN was wrong when it said Saddam had these stockpiles and located many of them, yet were kicked out of Iraq before they could safely destroy them. You do know that the UN documented what Saddam had, at least what they could find to begin with after the Gulf War don't you? Or did the UN just "pull that out of it's ass"?

I personally can't stand the UN, but considering that I believe every country agreed with the findings on Saddam's WMDs that the UN reported on, that there is a good chance Saddam actually had what they said he had. It just turns out later, some of the stuff was "unaccounted for". I find it rather convenient that people prefer to ignore that fact.

We didn't recover any WMD from Iraq so it really doesn't matter how many tons of WMD bush claims that Iraq had even if he was right. Sure we might find the WMD some where in Iraq but the chance of that are slim. The WMD either where destoryed/not made before we invaded or Bush allowed them to be transfrered to other states and/or terrorist.

Also I believe the WMD that the UN said Iraw had was based on prediction and evidence made up by the US intelegence agence and not on any WMD they had seen with their own two eyes.

The UN and their original search teams saw the WMDs, they even destroyed some of them. Saddam kicked them out before the job could be completed. The WMDs existed, a lot of them are missing that were known to exist because they were seen with people's own eyes. According to you, there was never a single WMD in Iraq and as everyone here knows, there were WMDs in Iraq. It was know Saddam had at least a certain amount. Some of what was known to exist, cannot be found or accounted for. That does not mean it went *poof* and disappeared never to be seen or used again. It just means it hasn't been found by the US or UN inspectors. That is not a hard point to understand.

Lets see a link to a UN report stating that they knew of WMD that where not destroyed.

So bush thought that it would be a good idea to invade a country with an unknow amount of WMD and in unknow locations. Wow and no one told him that is a really stupid idea?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

I guess the UN was wrong when it said Saddam had these stockpiles and located many of them, yet were kicked out of Iraq before they could safely destroy them. You do know that the UN documented what Saddam had, at least what they could find to begin with after the Gulf War don't you? Or did the UN just "pull that out of it's ass"?

I personally can't stand the UN, but considering that I believe every country agreed with the findings on Saddam's WMDs that the UN reported on, that there is a good chance Saddam actually had what they said he had. It just turns out later, some of the stuff was "unaccounted for". I find it rather convenient that people prefer to ignore that fact.

Man, this is getting old. Why you people can't understand what Iraq had in the 80's or even right after the first gulf war does not matter. What matters is what Iraq had right before this war started in 2003.

Was UN kicked out of Iraq right before the US invasion? Did UN said Saddam had those stockpile and located them before THIS US invasion? Go read Hans Blix's report if you don't believe me.

Don't you think you are a little off when you are using information as dated as 10+ years to override the current UN weapon inspection team finding, and to justify the killing of thousands Iraqis and the mess we are in right now?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: biostud666
Who decides which countries can have WMD?

Who judges and sanction the countries that break the rules?

Apparently might makes right. The powerful decide who can have WMDs.

 

[josphII]

Now that we've put the country in disorder and now pushed the terrorists into brutally killing our men

So its our fault now????

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: josphII

Now that we've put the country in disorder and now pushed the terrorists into brutally killing our men

So its our fault now????

I think the Iraq situation is bush fault.

 

[arsbanned]

Yes, it's our fault. Remember? Bush went to war over the objections of nearly the entire World and 50% of his own country to rid Iraq of WMDs and so far they have come up WITH ONE FVKING SHELL! 150 billions fvcking dollars and hundreds of lives for ONE FVCKING SHELL! Good job Neocons, I'm sure you must be very proud.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: josphII

Now that we've put the country in disorder and now pushed the terrorists into brutally killing our men

So its our fault now????

Have you already forgotten about the beheading? Do you think Al Queda takes field trips all the way to Iraq to pull stunts like that? They're attacking us because we gave them good reason to. If we'd stuck to Afganistan, they'd be hiding in caves still but now by focusing on Iraq more than our true enemies, we've made Iraqis simpathetic to Al Queda's cause and now they're joining in the action.

Do you think even a fraction of our soldiers would have died if he had not gone in? If you think Sadaam was plotting to "invade" the US with his buried jet fighter we found or near-expired-chemicals, you're fooling yourself. In fact, the more resources we put into Iraq, the better shot Al Queda has at killing another 3,000 of us. The converatives here are already wetting their pants with joy now that we've been attacked by a weak WMD - but don't be surprised if the dangers that really matter are sneaking under the radar right this moment.

Edit: grammar

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: biostud666
Who decides which countries can have WMD?

Who judges and sanction the countries that break the rules?

The ones that lose wars and don't comply with the rules of the cease fire and deceive International inspectors for over a decade don't get to have them? Have a problem with that?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: biostud666
Who decides which countries can have WMD?

Who judges and sanction the countries that break the rules?

The ones that lose wars and don't comply with the rules of the cease fire and deceive International inspectors for over a decade don't get to have them? Have a problem with that?

So we went in and took all that countries WMD. Oh wait no we let terrorist take the weapons.

If this was an attack using WMD isn't bush being weak and not responding in kind like he has promised?

 

[RobCur]

Originally posted by: 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.

has anyone ever questions why saddam never used any wmd if he had any to begin with? china has some, korea has some, israel has some, palestanian has some too so why don't we all go after them as well and start a world war? the point is, he just want to finish what his father didn't during his presidency. its more like a revenge then a liberation of the iraq people.

 

[Codec]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
You do know that the UN documented what Saddam had, at least what they could find to begin with after the Gulf War don't you? Or did the UN just "pull that out of it's ass"?

I personally can't stand the UN, but considering that I believe every country agreed with the findings on Saddam's WMDs that the UN reported on, that there is a good chance Saddam actually had what they said he had. It just turns out later, some of the stuff was "unaccounted for". I find it rather convenient that people prefer to ignore that fact.

Of course they don't know that. If they did, this thread wouldn't exist. Funny how the White House isn't declaring the discovery of WMD -- they know it would be political suicide. It's the idiot fringe that sees absolution in this shell.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 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?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research. (Related story: A look at U.S. shipments of pathogens to Iraq)

The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.

The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.

"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.

"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

May not have given them the actual shell found today but certainly gave them ammunition, chemical agents, biological agents, and intelligence on how to use them.

What was the bet again?

$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.

It was neither brought in from outside of Iraq not was the shell or sarin supplied by the US.

Looks like you didn't check your facts before making that bet.

I read your link, what "chemical agents" (your words) did the US supply to Iraq? Another bet may be in the making here.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: RobCur

Originally posted by: 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.

has anyone ever questions why saddam never used any wmd if he had any to begin with? china has some, korea has some, israel has some, palestanian has some too so why don't we all go after them as well and start a world war? the point is, he just want to finish what his father didn't during his presidency. its more like a revenge then a liberation of the iraq people.

The Palestinians have WMDs? I presume you meant Pakistanis correct?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: biostud666
Who decides which countries can have WMD?

Who judges and sanction the countries that break the rules?

Apparently might makes right. The powerful decide who can have WMDs.

It's always been that way and unless the world manages to embrace a vision like Rodenberry's it'll stay that way for many more centuries or until a asteroid the size of Gabe Newell hits us :laugh:

 

[heartsurgeon]

i want a straight answer from all you intellectually enlightened liberals
exactly what qualifies as having "weapons of mass destruction" in your world view.

i want an exact answer, such as

"one ton of plutonium"
or
"100 liters of Sarin nerve agent"
or
"1 nuclear weapon"

inexact answers are not helpful, such as "vast", or "hugh", or "alot"

i need to get a handle on how the liberal mind perceives threats.

a second question might be how many civilian casualties would an attack have to involve to qualify in your mind as an atack with a WMD. Please, provide an exact number such as 1,000, or 10,000 or 100,000.

I'm not very hopeful than anyone will actually answer these simple questions, but here it goes anyway...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

It was neither brought in from outside of Iraq not was the shell or sarin supplied by the US.

Oh? You know the exact source and manufacture of that particular shell?

Do tell.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: villager
For once I agree with Heart Surgeon. We know he had the capicity for manufacturing WMD because we gave it to him. Some of you may be saying, yes it is only one weapon. But what if a iraqi spy got that one or two shell and planted it into your home. Then that one shell seems mighty big doesn't it.

Correction: we knew Iraq ]i]used to have[/i] the capacity for manufacturing "WMDs" because we contributed to it. We also know with fair certainty, based both on UN inspectors and David Kay's group, Iraq no longer had those capabilities. Re. the power of that one shell, its killing potential is dwarfed by some of the car bombs they've been using. All in all, if I had to pick, I'd rather have that ancient shell.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i want a straight answer from all you intellectually enlightened liberals
exactly what qualifies as having "weapons of mass destruction" in your world view.

i want an exact answer, such as

"one ton of plutonium"
or
"100 liters of Sarin nerve agent"
or
"1 nuclear weapon"

inexact answers are not helpful, such as "vast", or "hugh", or "alot"

i need to get a handle on how the liberal mind perceives threats.

a second question might be how many civilian casualties would an attack have to involve to qualify in your mind as an atack with a WMD. Please, provide an exact number such as 1,000, or 10,000 or 100,000.

I'm not very hopeful than anyone will actually answer these simple questions, but here it goes anyway...

I would say that it needs to do more damage then a unconvential weapon.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: villager
For once I agree with Heart Surgeon. We know he had the capicity for manufacturing WMD because we gave it to him. Some of you may be saying, yes it is only one weapon. But what if a iraqi spy got that one or two shell and planted it into your home. Then that one shell seems mighty big doesn't it.

You have forgotten that the inspectors that were in Iraq throughout the 90s helped to dismantle his weapons programs.

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

I don't particularly subscribe to your notion of who the respondee to your question should be - but anyway. It's a tricky one for sure. I'd say that if the weapon you find can easily be used to wipe out at least as many innocents as have so far died in this conflict - it's a WMD. kind of trying to balance this whole situation out here.

I guess that makes it ~10,000 people+. Most likely an atomic device or a stockpile of weapon ready chemicals and their delivery mechanism.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i want a straight answer from all you intellectually enlightened liberals
exactly what qualifies as having "weapons of mass destruction" in your world view.

i want an exact answer, such as

"one ton of plutonium"
or
"100 liters of Sarin nerve agent"
or
"1 nuclear weapon"

inexact answers are not helpful, such as "vast", or "hugh", or "alot"

i need to get a handle on how the liberal mind perceives threats.

a second question might be how many civilian casualties would an attack have to involve to qualify in your mind as an atack with a WMD. Please, provide an exact number such as 1,000, or 10,000 or 100,000.

I'm not very hopeful than anyone will actually answer these simple questions, but here it goes anyway...

How about something that is capable of at least killing someone, unlike the shell that exploded today.

:roll:

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i want a straight answer from all you intellectually enlightened liberals
exactly what qualifies as having "weapons of mass destruction" in your world view.

i want an exact answer, such as

"one ton of plutonium"
or
"100 liters of Sarin nerve agent"
or
"1 nuclear weapon"

inexact answers are not helpful, such as "vast", or "hugh", or "alot"

i need to get a handle on how the liberal mind perceives threats.

a second question might be how many civilian casualties would an attack have to involve to qualify in your mind as an atack with a WMD. Please, provide an exact number such as 1,000, or 10,000 or 100,000.

I'm not very hopeful than anyone will actually answer these simple questions, but here it goes anyway...

I'd say more than 1 artillery shell is a good start.