Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[Codec]

Latest from David Kay (quoted in the Boston Herald). Kay was as gung-ho as anyone about finding WMD in Iraq, until he actually went there and couldn't find anything:

"Meanwhile, the former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said it's possible the shell was an old one overlooked when Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s. Kay, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a hidden stockpile, although he didn't rule out that possibility.

``It is hard to know if this is one that just was overlooked - and there were always some that were overlooked, we knew that - or if this was one that came from a hidden stockpile,'' Kay said. ``I rather doubt that because it appears the insurgents didn't even know they had a chemical round.''

While Saturday's explosion does demonstrate that Saddam hadn't complied fully with U.N. resolutions, Kay also said, ``It doesn't strike me as a big deal.''

In January, Kay turned in his resignation to CIA Director George Tenet and has since repeatedly said that U.S. intelligence was wrong in claiming that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and advanced nuclear weapons programs. Those programs were the main justification for the Iraq war."

The Herald adds: "At the State Department, deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said ``the jury is still out'' on whether chemical or other weapons of mass destruction remained in Iraq."

There's no way the White House claims discovery of WMD based on this shell, as it would face ridicule throughout the world.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: 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.

You made a $20 bet that it was from outside Iraq or that the US supplied it to him.

Put up and prove it or pay up. I'm taking that bet.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: 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:

 

[tallest1]

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...

HS, I love how you're so selective in your arguments. About a dozen points have come un in this thread and of course you latch to the one that you can best argue against. But assuming that say, the libs are wrong and you're right, without resorting to your scare tactic ways, tell us how the US is safer as a whole.

P.S. - Don't bother with your "Sadaam was a bad bad bad man" or "Iraqi could have 20 bajillion tons of Mustard Gas!!!111" lines. They're getting old.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: 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:

That shell, assuming it does turn out to be Sarin, was quite capable of killing a large number of people. If it had been fired from an artillery piece the chemicals would have properly mixed and the shell would have air burst spraying an area with droplets of Sarin. Each droplet is capable of killing a person.

The people that are saying that it was harmless,if it was sarin, are showing their ignorance of chemical weapons.

 

[Bowfinger]

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...

You're funny. You and the other YABAs/Bush fan-boys are all over this like a pack of starving wolves on a mouse. It won't fill the void in your gut, but it's all you can find.

Your rabid desperation to find anything supporting King George's unilateral invasion of Iraq might even be hilarious, in a pathetic sort of way. Hilarious, that is, if not for the dead bodies of 777 American troops, hundreds of allies, and tens of thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis -- many of them innocent women and children. (You're the man, George. You've proved you can kill more people than your dad! Woot! Woot!) Hilarious, if not for the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, while many of those who did -- and the governments who supported them -- are laughing their asses off at the damage George W. Bush has done to America and Democracy.

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.

Finally, as far as what "mass" is required to qualify as a WMD, I suggest you ask your feckless leader. You see, there was already a term used to refer collectively to weapons of this type: "Nuclear, Biological, Chemical weapons", or "NBC weapons" for short. But that was a problem. Unless you hate the media, "NBC weapons" wasn't nearly scary enough. They needed to make us afraid so we'd fall in behind them in lock step, never questioning where we were going.

King George and his minions coined the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to fuel that fear. It wasn't as precise as NBC weapons, but it was more fearsome. While I can only speculate, I would guess Bush & Co. would define "Mass" as that amount large enough to secure his reelection in November.

 

[heartsurgeon]

i guess the question was to complicated.......

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 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.

You made a $20 bet that it was from outside Iraq or that the US supplied it to him.

Put up and prove it or pay up. I'm taking that bet.

:roll:

BTW, I'm still waiting on your proof that it wasn't. You know my original post was tongue-in-cheek. Although, you probably don't.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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...

You're funny. You and the other YABAs/Bush fan-boys are all over this like a pack of starving wolves on a mouse. It won't fill the void in your gut, but it's all you can find.

Your rabid desperation to find anything supporting King George's unilateral invasion of Iraq might even be hilarious, in a pathetic sort of way. Hilarious, that is, if not for the dead bodies of 777 American troops, hundreds of allies, and tens of thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis -- many of them innocent women and children. (You're the man, George. You've proved you can kill more people than your dad! Woot! Woot!) Hilarious, if not for the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, while many of those who did -- and the governments who supported them -- are laughing their asses off at the damage George W. Bush has done to America and Democracy.

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.

Finally, as far as what "mass" is required to qualify as a WMD, I suggest you ask your feckless leader. You see, there was already a term used to refer collectively to weapons of this type: "Nuclear, Biological, Chemical weapons", or "NBC weapons" for short. But that was a problem. Unless you hate the media, "NBC weapons" wasn't nearly scary enough. They needed to make us afraid so we'd fall in behind them in lock step, never questioning where we were going.

King George and his minions coined the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to fuel that fear. It wasn't as precise as NBC weapons, but it was more fearsome. While I can only speculate, I would guess Bush & Co. would define "Mass" as that amount large enough to secure his reelection in November.

Origin of WMD


"This term for a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon is older than you might think. It actually dates to 1937, before the existence of nuclear or biological weapons. It was first used by the London Times on 28 December of that year, "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" The original reference is to aerial bombing of cities, which had become a reality that year in the Spanish Civil War, chemicals, and other modern weaponry.
...."

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i guess the question was to complicated.......

Oh, the irony.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 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.

You made a $20 bet that it was from outside Iraq or that the US supplied it to him.

Put up and prove it or pay up. I'm taking that bet.

:roll:

BTW, I'm still waiting on your proof that it wasn't. You know my original post was tongue-in-cheek. Although, you probably don't.

You made the bet, it's up to you to prove your side. You made a bet, are you now trying to welch out of it?

That would say something about you.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i guess the question was to complicated.......

yup.

nice rant by bowfinger though. it is always fun to see those

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i guess the question was to complicated.......

Proving once again there are no facts, no counter-arguments, that a devoted Bush fan-boy can't ignore and evade. Let's all raise a glass of Kool Aid for Heartsurgeon!

:roll:



Edit: Shad0hawk, too. Cheers!

 

[conjur]

What's funny is how desperate the Bush-God fanboys are now. They are dredging up the smallest of possibilities to justify Bush's romp thru the Iraqi desert when the administration, just over a year ago, apparently had reams of evidence to justify the war.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
Origin of WMD


"This term for a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon is older than you might think. It actually dates to 1937, before the existence of nuclear or biological weapons. It was first used by the London Times on 28 December of that year, "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" The original reference is to aerial bombing of cities, which had become a reality that year in the Spanish Civil War, chemicals, and other modern weaponry.
...."

Thanks, I stand corrected. They didn't coin the term. They just dusted it off for their purposes.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 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.

You made a $20 bet that it was from outside Iraq or that the US supplied it to him.

Put up and prove it or pay up. I'm taking that bet.

:roll:

BTW, I'm still waiting on your proof that it wasn't. You know my original post was tongue-in-cheek. Although, you probably don't.

You made the bet, it's up to you to prove your side. You made a bet, are you now trying to welch out of it?

That would say something about you.

For you to claim that 20 dollars you need to prove conjor wrong. It wouldn't make sence that the person making the bet has to have proof because if he had proof then it wouldn't be a fair bet. His bet is a change to you to prove that the weapon came from Iraq.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 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.

You made a $20 bet that it was from outside Iraq or that the US supplied it to him.

Put up and prove it or pay up. I'm taking that bet.

:roll:

BTW, I'm still waiting on your proof that it wasn't. You know my original post was tongue-in-cheek. Although, you probably don't.

You made the bet, it's up to you to prove your side. You made a bet, are you now trying to welch out of it?

That would say something about you.

For you to claim that 20 dollars you need to prove conjor wrong. It wouldn't make sence that the person making the bet has to have proof because if he had proof then it wouldn't be a fair bet. His bet is a change to you to prove that the weapon came from Iraq.

Ayup.

C'mon, etech. I will pay you $20...I'll hold true to the bet that everyone else up here knows was tongue-in-cheek if you can PROVE that that shell that exploded today was part of Saddam's WMD cache.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i guess the question was to complicated.......

Proving once again there are no facts, no counter-arguments, that a devoted Bush fan-boy can't ignore and evade. Let's all raise a glass of Kool Aid for Heartsurgeon!

:roll:

:beer:

There's all kinds of hypocrisy going on in this thread. Heartsurgeon pissing and moaning about people not answering his question. (do I need to mention the 'foragainst' thread?)

these two quotes by etech...

Are you willing to actually back up what you post?

That would say something about you.

(I guess technically those quotes wouldn't be hypocrytical, but they would be ironic.)


etech, you are definately right about me being ignorant when it comes to chemical weapons. I never claimed to know much about them. I merely found what conjur said comical.

If these Sarin shell(s) are capable of killing, IMO, they are WMD.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Origin of WMD


"This term for a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon is older than you might think. It actually dates to 1937, before the existence of nuclear or biological weapons. It was first used by the London Times on 28 December of that year, "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" The original reference is to aerial bombing of cities, which had become a reality that year in the Spanish Civil War, chemicals, and other modern weaponry.
...."

Thanks, I stand corrected. They didn't coin the term. They just dusted it off for their purposes.

Are you saying that Iraq never had any WMD.


I actually am amazed at the people that believe that the sole reason to remove Saddam was WMD. Oh well, ignorance abounds.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Origin of WMD


"This term for a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon is older than you might think. It actually dates to 1937, before the existence of nuclear or biological weapons. It was first used by the London Times on 28 December of that year, "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" The original reference is to aerial bombing of cities, which had become a reality that year in the Spanish Civil War, chemicals, and other modern weaponry.
...."

Thanks, I stand corrected. They didn't coin the term. They just dusted it off for their purposes.

Are you saying that Iraq never had any WMD.


I actually am amazed at the people that believe that the sole reason to remove Saddam was WMD. Oh well, ignorance abounds.

We all know that WMD was not even a reason to remove Saddam because didn't have any. The real reason is for the Oil:disgust:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Origin of WMD


"This term for a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon is older than you might think. It actually dates to 1937, before the existence of nuclear or biological weapons. It was first used by the London Times on 28 December of that year, "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" The original reference is to aerial bombing of cities, which had become a reality that year in the Spanish Civil War, chemicals, and other modern weaponry.
...."

Thanks, I stand corrected. They didn't coin the term. They just dusted it off for their purposes.

Are you saying that Iraq never had any WMD.


I actually am amazed at the people that believe that the sole reason to remove Saddam was WMD. Oh well, ignorance abounds.

Nice way to read WAY more into his post than exists.

 

[conjur]

Let's not forget this part of the news:

Two former weapons inspectors ? Hans Blix and David Kay ? said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 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.

You made a $20 bet that it was from outside Iraq or that the US supplied it to him.

Put up and prove it or pay up. I'm taking that bet.

:roll:

BTW, I'm still waiting on your proof that it wasn't. You know my original post was tongue-in-cheek. Although, you probably don't.

You made the bet, it's up to you to prove your side. You made a bet, are you now trying to welch out of it?

That would say something about you.

For you to claim that 20 dollars you need to prove conjor wrong. It wouldn't make sence that the person making the bet has to have proof because if he had proof then it wouldn't be a fair bet. His bet is a change to you to prove that the weapon came from Iraq.

Ayup.

C'mon, etech. I will pay you $20...I'll hold true to the bet that everyone else up here knows was tongue-in-cheek if you can PROVE that that shell that exploded today was part of Saddam's WMD cache.

You made the bet that it wasn't Conjur. Can't back up what you say?

It kinda makes you wonder how many of your other posts would be "tongue in cheek" if someone challenged you on them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Origin of WMD


"This term for a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon is older than you might think. It actually dates to 1937, before the existence of nuclear or biological weapons. It was first used by the London Times on 28 December of that year, "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" The original reference is to aerial bombing of cities, which had become a reality that year in the Spanish Civil War, chemicals, and other modern weaponry.
...."

Thanks, I stand corrected. They didn't coin the term. They just dusted it off for their purposes.

Are you saying that Iraq never had any WMD.

With all due respect, how in the hell do you get that out of anything I said?

I actually am amazed at the people that believe that the sole reason to remove Saddam was WMD. Oh well, ignorance abounds.

WMD was never the reason Bush invaded Iraq. It was merely the excuse George used to sell the invasion to a spooked public. The real reasons may never be known, but I think it's some combination of PNAC, a psychological compulsion to one-up his Dad, irritation at Hussein's defiance, oil, and delusions of grandeur and/or being on a mission from God.

IMO, of course.

 

[Gaard]

I actually am amazed at the people that believe that the sole reason to remove Saddam was WMD. Oh well, ignorance abounds.

Would you agree with 'primary' reason?