Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!!
Quote | Reply
Am I the only one who saw the story about Serin in Iraq? Huh...funny that the mass media is not all over this one huh? Maybe it will prove that they have been wrong all along.



BAGHDAD, Iraq - A roadside bomb containing deadly sarin nerve agent exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday. It was believed to be the first confirmed finding of any of the banned weapons upon which the United States based its case for the Iraq (news - web sites) war.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/iraq/082701iraqplane&tmpl=sl&e=1",750,580);"][/url]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/iraq/082701iraqplane&tmpl=sl&e=1",750,580);"]Reuters[/url] http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=events/iraq/082701iraqplane&tmpl=sl&e=1",750,580);"]Slideshow: Iraq[/url]


Two people were treated for "minor exposure," but no serious injuries were reported.



The deadly chemical was inside an artillery shell dating to the Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) era that had been rigged as a bomb in Baghdad, said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq.



U.S. troops have announced the discovery of other chemical weapons before, only to see them disproved by later tests. A dozen chemical shells were also found by U.N. inspectors before the war; they had been tagged for destruction in the 1990s but somehow were not destroyed.



"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Kimmitt said. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy.



"A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of agent," he said.



The incident occurred "a couple of days ago," he said.



The Iraqi Survey Group is a U.S. organization whose task was to search for weapons of mass destruction after Saddam's ouster.



The round was an old `binary-type' shell in which two chemicals held in separate sections are mixed after firing to produce sarin, Kimmitt said.



He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.



"The former regime had declared all such rounds destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites)," Kimmitt said. Two members of a military bomb squad were treated for minor exposure to nerve agent, but none was injured.



It was unclear if the sarin shell was from chemical rounds that the United Nations (news - web sites) had tagged and marked for destruction before the U.S. invasion.



Prior to the war, U.N. inspectors had compiled a short list of proscribed items found during hundreds of surprise inspections: fewer than 20 old, empty chemical warheads for battlefield rockets, and a dozen artillery shells filled with mustard gas. The shells had been tagged by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s but somehow not destroyed by them.



In 1995, Japan's Aum Shinrikyo cult unleashed sarin gas in Tokyo's subways, killing 12 people and sickening thousands. In February of this year, Japanese courts convicted the cult's former leader, Shoko Asahara, and sentence him to be executed.



Developed in the mid-1930s by Nazi scientists, a single drop of sarin can cause quick, agonizing choking death. There are no known instances of the Nazis actually using the gas.



Nerve gases work by inhibiting key enzymes in the nervous system, blocking their transmission. Small exposures can be treated with antidotes, if administered quickly.



Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat.







The Bush administration cited allegations that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction as a main reason for launching the war in Iraq last year, but no evidence of such weapons has been found.

Since the war ended, the U.S.-led coalition has found several caches that tested positive for mustard gas but later turned out to contain missile fuel or other chemicals.

In January, troops discovered 36 mortar rounds believed to hold a blister agent, but later tests showed there was no such chemical inside.


----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We were just talking about that here at work, so a few people went into a conference room(with satellite TV) at noon and couldn't find a single news channel covering it.

------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sounds like a relatively minor occurance and the intel has the feel of polish and manipulation. Hmmm.

Anyway, it was all for regime change anyway and we did that. The WMD's was an ancillary agenda.

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How is the mass media not all over it? It's the lead article on CNN.com

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jasonk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
According to Google, there have been more than 160 references to the story so far, including the major networks and news sources, and since the original announcement was this morning, that seems like major coverage to me.

On the other hand, the story that Secretary Powell said that major parts of his speech to the UN last year were "inaccurate and discredited" doesn't seem to have gotten nearly as much attention.

A couple of points about the newly discovered WMD. Maybe it's true, maybe not. The administration says that they are still assessing the reports. I think we've been down this road before--remember the mobile weapons laboratories? And, if there is Sarin, did it come from the former regime, or was it brought in by an outsider since the end of "major combat." The reports from Iraq didn't say.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Jeff7] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think some people on this forum will be eating crow for dinner tonight.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is actually the SECOND incident. This article http://www.foxnews.com/...,2933,120137,00.html explains that there was mustard gas found too. Thank god none of this stuff has worked the way it was supposed to (yet). It adds an entire new dynamic to soldiers on patrol.

I just hope we can find the stockpile before they do. One former scientist said he thinks they may be smuggling them back from Syria.

To the point of where is the media, I heard a clip from a news conference where they were discussing this and some reporter said in paraphrase, "to switch gears to Abu Graib prison." give me a Fuc!ing break already.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Record10ti,

No you weren't the only one. There won't be any admission that, okay there were WMD's. They will just ignore this and try to keep the focus on something else so as not to embarrass themselves.

Or they will insist that the military is so desperate to find WMD's that they are involved in a conspiracy to smuggle WMD's into Iraq and "discover" them to prove that WMD's have been found.

And don't be surprised if they maintain that this WMD was manufactured after the invasion by the subversives who moved in after the "ceasation" of hostilities and didn't exist before the invasion to support Bush's contention that WMD existed.

Or they will say this WMD was just left over and forgotten after the Gulf War and as such was not a "real" and "viable" WMD. They will insist that Bush still lied to get us involved in Iraq.

Did you know that in WWI the Germans made eight "super cannons" to shell Paris with. These cannons had barrels that were 130 ft long! One of these cannons was actually fired on Paris. A weapon this big would be pretty hard to hide, yet these cannons have never been found. Does that mean they never existed and were never used? We both know better.

I also noticed that you didn't have to go to some obscure right wing, or Socialist, or Communist or any other off the wall website to discover this evidence.



Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.
Last edited by: Wants2rideFast: May 17, 04 10:03
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No one is giong to eat crow. All the arguments about Iraq on this site have been about one thing, George Bush. All these side arguments are about wether or not you hate Gearge Bush. Those who said there where no WMDs will not addmit or change anything. They hate Bush. It's that simple.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
True Tibbs. It'll be turned around and twisted...partisan politics. The WMD's found were planted..etc..

Then it'll go into.."I never said that WMD's weren't in the country...What I mean was...." And then they'll mine the web for some left_wing_liberal_Get_Bush_out_of_office.org article trying to say that it's a conspiracy theory and Elvis was involved...
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK, I'll bite. (maybe we can get more interest in this thread than the PC thread, and kill it in the process????)

Just because a single bomb went off with sarin gas in it, does not necessarily mean that Hussein had anything to do with it, or that these were WMD's that Iraq had stockpiles of. I'm sure that al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations have sources for weapons besides iraq.

If the intelligence that Bush et al were relying on was so great, wouldn't they have found something before now?

BTW, I have it on good authority that some little green men from Area 51 were involved with this. Apparently the press was getting close to finding out the TRUTH, so they needed a diversionary tactic.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jasonk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

Just because a single bomb went off with sarin gas in it, does not necessarily mean that Hussein had anything to do with it, or that these were WMD's that Iraq had stockpiles of. I'm sure that al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations have sources for weapons besides iraq.
If you use this line of thinking then I can make a similar correlation. Just because a few soldiers...20 out of 125,000+...decide to abuse Iraqi prisoners...doesn't mean the Sec of Def or Bush should step down as many people believe they should.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
(It's common courtesy, when copying the whole article from a Web source, to actually give credit to that source, in this case Yahoo!)

No, you are not the only one. I happened to read about it in that liberal rag, the NYTimes.

Do you know for a fact when the sarin was produced, or how old the shell was? Even the article you copied expresses doubt as to the origin of the shell. I'm not impressed.

Nobody is denying the fact that Iraq, in the early 90s, had this stuff. Nobody is denying that some of this stuff may have survived the inspections. What many are saying is that there were no ongoing production activities, no massive stockpiles, and no threat.

Here's a reference to the first "confirmed WMD", way back in April 2003:

http://www.billingsgazette.com/...war/25-chemicals.inc

Oops! Wasn't sarin after all. I remember reading on the crawler on Fox "News" that Scud missiles had been fired at US troops. Oops, they didn't have any Scud missiles! Never mind.

On the other side, I would hope that this puts to rest the conspiracy theory that lots and lots of WMD have been found, only to be supressed by a vast, left-wing conspiracy including the liberal media. They find an old shell with traces of sarin, rigged by some insurgents who didn't even know what it was, and word is spread pretty quickly.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jasonk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"If the intelligence that Bush et al were relying on was so great, wouldn't they have found something before now? "

You mean the same info that Clinton, the UN, Kerry and countless others used to allow the UN to get bribes. Wait wait wait I mean to keep the sanctions on Iraq?

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Did you say oil for food?

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jasonk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bribes/ oil for food. Yeah same thing.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
>funny that the mass media is not all over this one huh?

Which mass media is that?

I just checked latimes.com (Los Angeles), suntimes.com (Chicago), and nytimes.com (New York). This story is on the front page of every one of those sites. Also checked cnn.com and salon.com. Yep, front page for both of those sites, too.

Doesn't seem to me like there's a mass media conspiracy to bury this story. But don't let empirical observations stand in the way of your persecution complex.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]No one is giong to eat crow. All the arguments about Iraq on this site have been about one thing, George Bush. All these side arguments are about wether or not you hate Gearge Bush. Those who said there where no WMDs will not addmit or change anything. They hate Bush. It's that simple.[/reply]



Mr. Tibbs,

You are so wise. Your insight is so deep. Your observations are so perceptive. And you are so correct.



Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jasonk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]OK, I'll bite. (maybe we can get more interest in this thread than the PC thread, and kill it in the process????)

Just because a single bomb went off with sarin gas in it, does not necessarily mean that Hussein had anything to do with it, or that these were WMD's that Iraq had stockpiles of. I'm sure that al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations have sources for weapons besides iraq.

If the intelligence that Bush et al were relying on was so great, wouldn't they have found something before now?

BTW, I have it on good authority that some little green men from Area 51 were involved with this. Apparently the press was getting close to finding out the TRUTH, so they needed a diversionary tactic.[/reply]



Record10ti,

What did I just say in my previous post?

Oh, by the way, they have just found another of these artillary shells with sarin gas. Since these rounds have no distinguishing markings to identify them from other similar rounds that they have found, they believe there may be many more of these chemical weapons that they have just stumbled upon. These shells are constructed such that the components of the sarin gas are separated in the unexploded shell. When the round is fired, the components are mixed as the round spins from the rifling in the cannon. Upon exploding, the gas cloud is then spread over a large area. This is not the type of technology that would be available to a terrorist organization such as al-Qaeda, unless it was supplied to them by a terrorist supportive government, i.e., Iraq.

The reason this exploding shell was not a bigger incident is that the components of the sarin gas were not combined before the explosion. The round was not fired in a cannon as it was engineered to be done. This is also why some terrorist organization did not manufacture this artillary round.

These shells are for a 155 mm cannon. That is a shell that is over 6 inches in diameter. A shell this size requires a rather substantial cannon to fire it. This cannon also requires some substantial vehicle to move it. This is not the sort of weapon that is suited for terrorist purposes. Yes, it has great destructive capablility, but it is too difficult to hide, move, too labor intensive to set up, fire, dismantle and hide again before they are caught by their pursuers

But good try jasonk. I'll grant you points for trying but you'll have to do much better.



Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.
Last edited by: Wants2rideFast: May 17, 04 11:55
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Wants2rideFast] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You got me.

I think France did it.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Wants2rideFast] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Just because a single bomb went off with sarin gas in it, does not necessarily mean that Hussein had anything to do with it, or that these were WMD's that Iraq had stockpiles of. I'm sure that al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations have sources for weapons besides iraq. "

Exactly. Somehow one little shell with sarin traces doesn't sound like the nuclear stock pile that Bush was talking about as justification before invading Iraq.

Let's just wait and see.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If mere possession of WMD were a just cause for attacking a country we should have attacked Israel too (they have even used theirs against other countries unlike Iraq), and the US should be attacked by every other nation in the world.

I couldn't believe the US hadn't planted some WMDs within days after they failed to find any with more legitimate methods. Failing that why not just produce all the receipts since we sold them to Saddam in the first place?

Iraq was never a threat to US security and if Israel wanted something done they should have done it themselves rather than using their intelligence service's vast collection of dirt on our politicians to get our soldiers killed instead of theirs.
Quote Reply
David Kay on today's find [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
http://news.yahoo.com/..._re_mi_ea/iraq_sarin

Kay, who led a U.S. team hunting for weapons, said it appears that the shell was one of tens of thousands produced for the Iran-Iraq war, which Saddam was supposed to destroy or turn over to the United Nations. In many cases, he said, Iraq did comply.

"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."

iambigkahunatony.com
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jasonk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wake me up when something worth going to war over and killing thousands of people is discovered... I don't think they ever will discover it... But if it's there I want them to.

"If you use this line of thinking then I can make a similar correlation. Just because a few soldiers...20 out of 125,000+...decide to abuse Iraqi prisoners...doesn't mean the Sec of Def or Bush should step down as many people believe they should. "

Actually... So far we have how many WMD in our hands that Saddam produced? Last I checked he was forced to resign on limited evidence. (Please understand I think he should have been removed from power)
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mises] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Iraq was never a threat to US security and if Israel wanted something done they should have done it themselves rather than using their intelligence service's vast collection of dirt on our politicians to get our soldiers killed instead of theirs."

I knew it! Those goddamn Jews and thier willing puppets in the US goverment did it! Thanks for having the courage to tell the truth. Those Zionist and all the world money they control caused all this because it is just step one of the plan they have with the greys to take over the world!!!

The black helicopters won't stop following me! All those chem-trails are making me sick! NO HOLE NO HOLOCAUST! NO HOLES NO HOLOCAUST!

You are doing Art Bell proud.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cerveloguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i'm with you as well. the way bush made it sound prior to the war you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a wmd. that hasn't been the case as of yet.

to be perfectly frank, at this point, i hope they find a big stock pile of wmd's. it would restore some of my faith in the leadership. while i disagree with the majority of bush's policies, prior to iraq i felt, at least, that bush, et al were honest. right now, i feel like he, cheney, rumsfeld, etc. might be perpetrating one gigantic lie on the american public. i don't want to be that cynical at such an early age. if some wmd's are found, i could at least go back to just disagreeing with the policies, rather than not trusting/believing bush AND disagreeing at the same time.




f/k/a mclamb6
Last edited by: mclamb6: May 17, 04 11:56
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lol. Swinging a dead cat. I'm having visions of a Monty Python movie.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Tom Demerly] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
the intel has the feel of polish and manipulation


I agree.

If it weren't for your service record, people on this board would probably call you unpatriotic and ignorant (and/or many other adjectives) for not believing what you hear in the news.

"Don't believe the hype" - Public Enemy
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Greg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"If it weren't for your service record.......would probably call you unpatriotic "

Isn't that what they're also trying to say about Kerry.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mises] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
These are signs that not all is corrupt. It would have been easy to plant a load anywhere and say, see looky what we found. This actually encourages me, course maybe your right and every canister they found said--made in Georgia;-) and where quickly sold to Iran--JKiddin.

As a side note, I served in the Cold War and was much more afraid of Russias vast chemical arsenal. Blister and blood agents and nerve agents so potent, they were off the scale. Our equipment and training was so lousey that one could only conclude that nukes were our first weapon of choice. Nukes seem to be posturing device as gas for ages seems to have gone under the radar and can really be more destructive. Can you imagine being in your last chem suit with the enemy waiting the 4 hours for the blood agent to penetrate your suit or a little air molecule of blister agent, accidently landing on some exposed skin that will in the next few weeks cover your body in a big blister that will kill you. I used to piss of the training teams as when they'd yell "gas" I'd run to the fake source and breath deep to get it over with. Have to be there to get the humor, but in the event of an atomic explosion you were to fall on your weapon to protect it. So what's more absurd? Sorry for the ramble.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cerveloguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Isn't that what they're also trying to say about Kerry.


Yeah, poor, poor Kerry. Maybe if he had just enough backbone to actually say something- ANYTHING- of substance, he'd be taken a little more seriously.

Kerry's a caricature of a gutless politician.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cerveloguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The most accurate characteristic of Kerry is opportunistic in my opinion.

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Tom Demerly] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
arent all politicians opportunistic? When was the last one who had a mission, a noble cause? FDR? Wilson?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Tom Demerly] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dean was the best Dem candidate, followed closely by Clark (except Clark wasn't polished enough to win).. I think the outcome would have been different if the primaries / caucuses were all held on the same day, rather than spread out over several weeks. At some point it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that everyone votes for the person already winning the votes.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
arent all politicians opportunistic?

More and more. The thing about Kerry is that it political opportunism seems to be his ONLY trait. He appears totally and completely devoid of any beliefs of his own, except that he wants to be elected.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jw2112] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Wake me up when something worth going to war over and killing thousands of people is discovered... I don't think they ever will discover it... But if it's there I want them to.

Actually... So far we have how many WMD in our hands that Saddam produced? Last I checked he was forced to resign on limited evidence. (Please understand I think he should have been removed from power)


How much Sarin does it take to kill thousands of innocent people? A few cupfuls...How many do you want them to find to "make it worth our while?" How many nukes does it take to kill thousands of innocent people? Only one.

Is the threat not enough to make it worth our while. Was 9/11 not "good enough" to make you realize that we can't just sit back and allow ruthless dictators have their way with the world and thumb their nose at the UN?
Last edited by: Brian286: May 17, 04 12:26
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You guys crack me up. Iraq is a country roughly the size of California. Iraq mass-produced chemical weapons for use durings its war with Iran, 1980-1988. Sarin and mustard gas were the leading chemicals they manufactured. Early Iraqi Sarin had a very short shelf life, maybe only a few weeks. Later, they developed a "binary" weapon which had the ingredients in separate containers such that they would mix and react when the shell was fired. These came about late in the Iran-Iraq war, late 1980's or so.

Now, knowing that Iraq mass-produced chemical weapons, and that Iraq is a fairly large place, don't you think it's likely that a few shells could have gone missing? I do. Are Iraqis known for their immaculate inventory control skills? I fully suspect that there is a long-forgotten ammo dump SOMEWHERE where some of this stuff was forgotten, misplaced, or missed by inspectors. To assume otherwise would be idiotic. The fact that they haven't found it yet amazes me.

Insurgents have been pirating shells out of abandoned weapons dumps and using them to make bombs. Clearly, this shell was in amongst others and was used, possibly without anyone even knowing what it was.

There is no "conspiracy" here. Someone found a chemical shell in a large country that mass produced chemical weapons for the better part of a decade. Big deal. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yup, they found one and I hope we find a hell of a lot more. (The sentiment is a bit disturbing.) The trouble is that we should be suprised if we don't find them, not if we do. We've known all along that Saddam had a history of possessing and using chemical weapons. I certainly hope this this is not the extent of our find and of one of the purported key justifications for going to war.

Tibbs, you are dead on about the haters continuing to hate. When it comes to Bush I'm afraid the lines have been drawn and there are very very few people left on the fence.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"very few people left on the fence."

To be honest, I'm not a huge Kerry fan but do like him one heck of a lot more than Bush.

Personally, I'd love to see Nader get elected. Unfortunately it just won't happen and a vote for Ralph is a vote for GWB.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cerveloguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I'm not a huge Kerry fan but do like him one heck of a lot more than Bush. "

That is why Bush will win. The only thing Kerry is saying is "Hey I'm not Bush!" Kerry is the Democrat's choice not because the Democrats like him it's because Dean got excited and yelled so they all paniced and went with Kerry. The Democrat even Democrats don't like.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kerry also doesn't understand the difference between offshoring jobs and corporate inversions, or that the US is the only country in the world that wants to tax corporations on ther worldwide income, (absent a treaty)

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Peter826] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dude, I'm not sure if you're lib or conservative....maybe it does not matter. However, I would like to compliment you on your well thought out and written 'liberal' sounding damage control.

The libs are going to need a lot of damage control real soon. Like I have said in many of my posts; there are WMD's, and they will be found at the most innoportune time.

There is a goldmine of stories, opinions etc etc about how "there are no WMD's" Well, there are WMD and this is just the beginning.

Time to pay attention to how many shit talking liberal politicians start touting there own 'support for the war'

If you can show me when or where anyone who opposed the war said that finding WMD is "bound to happen" I would love to see it.


**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do we really need to label people?

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
One left over shell from the Iraq/Iran war does not an arsenal make. There's probably a few more of them out there but I'll believe the stockpile theory when we see it.

The irony is that people who fired it likely did't realize what it was until the news reported it.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jasonk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"How much Sarin does it take to kill thousands of innocent people? A few cupfuls...How many do you want them to find to "make it worth our while?" How many nukes does it take to kill thousands of innocent people? Only one.

Is the threat not enough to make it worth our while. Was 9/11 not "good enough" to make you realize that we can't just sit back and allow ruthless dictators have their way with the world and thumb their nose at the UN? "

1. The administration made it sound pre-war like there was alot of the stuff waiting around to be used on Americans and other people.

2. If the one artillery shell is enough to cause that much concern then why are we spending so much time and resources in Iraq to deal with it? The stuff probably exists in several more countries if not many more countries in that quantity. More likely it exists in the hands of terriost organizations that don't need to make a pit stop in Iraq before bringing it to our homes.

3. 9/11 was good enough to do alot of things. I'm not sure where ruthless dictators came into it atleast not for me... We've had those since the beginning of civilaztion I don't know if we've had organizations like Al Qaeda as long and that's where my concern is.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jasonk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes


**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

If you can show me when or where anyone who opposed the war said that finding WMD is "bound to happen" I would love to see it.


I said it, and I'll say it again: in a country the size of Iraq, which mass produced chemical weapons for at least 10 years (1980-1990), there is an almost 100% probability that at least a few shells, rockets, or other WMD's have gone un-accounted for over the last 15 years, and that eventually, those shells will turn up.

Hell, they're still finding un-exploded ordinance in Europe 60 years after WWII ended.

Now, whether you think that is a reason to go to war over or not is your perogative.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mojo, I have to say that I really don't understand your need to label people- I would think you'd be able to hold up your end of the debate on its own merits.

However, if you insist on applying labels, you might want to come up with more than the two you seem limited to- "liberal" and "conservative." And you might want to be a little more careful in the application of those labels. You have a tendency to label anyone who disagrees with you "liberal," as if that effectively negates their argument. It doesn't, and it's intellectually lazy.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cerveloguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You are right. However, when you consider how emboldened the left has become over this issue because "there are no WMD" It's a pretty excellent find.

If one shell could have been left over and not declared, maybe another shell could have made it into the hands of some rather unsavory characters, right?

I'm no expert on Chem/Bio weapons, but I have heard that even very small amounts of that stuff is some pretty nasty shit.

It might not take an arsenal.


**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i'll say this right now, but if wmd's are found "at the most inopportune time"(i assume you are implying just prior to elections), then something will stink to high heavens. especially if bushy's approval ratings are continuing to flag as they have been. would i be glad to know that a large number of wmd's are out of commission? yes. but if they are found in say september or october, methinks there would be something rotten in fallujah...




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So when is the most "opportune" time to find chemical weapons?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So, if the presence of WMD is enough to justify an invasion, who's next? Possible candidates are N. Korea, Syria, some of the former Soviet Republics. Certainly some of these are at least as threatening to the US as Iraq was when we went in there.

Too bad Cuba isn't more of a problem. The administration seems to do a much better job at cracking down on them than some of the countries that might actually be threats.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for the advice. Seriously, I appreciate it. However, even though the Good Lord has blessed me with an abundence of tolerance and good cheer towards those who disagree with me, I still find it difficult to bite my tongue from time to time.

In my experience, those who disagree with me on political issues are mostly liberals. And, I think liberals are on the wrong side of most issues.


**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Phew - it's nice to see people finally concentrating on the matters at hand.

Thanks to all the planning and ground work that was done beforehand (sarcasm) Iraq is enough of a clusterfuck all on its own, and pretty soon the coalition of the willing will be in control of the most brilliantly well engineered civil war a neo-con could hope for.

What about all these noises the Whitehouse is making now? Are you saying they're wrong too - that there ARE WMD and not just the preprations for reconstituting them? Or are you just part of another obsessed faction with your head up your arse.

When will you finally take ownership of what is really happening NOW instead of trying to blame people for not believeing transparencies as if that is the important thing now and somehow it's the non believers that are responsible for things going so badly? You got what you wanted - we are at war. How about addressing how things are going in the country itself?

Nick
Last edited by: goobie: May 17, 04 14:12
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mojo was the one using the phrase "inopportune" not me. the implication, as i saw it, was that it would be inopportune vis-a-vis the dems and the election. i'd be a bit skeptical after all the time that inspectors have spent searching for them to suddenly stumble upon a large cache of weapons just in time for elections. i am not saying that someone would plant the weapons, but i would surely be suspicious that they had found weapons previously and had been sitting on them waiting for the most politically opportune time to release the info--i.e. just prior to elections....




f/k/a mclamb6
Last edited by: mclamb6: May 17, 04 14:09
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jasonk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
>If the intelligence that Bush et al were relying on was so great, wouldn't they have found something before now?

Bush? How about rephrasing that more accurately such as:

The U.N., France, Germany, The Democrats in congress, etc, etc, etc. ALL believed the intelligence on WMD's. Maybe not everyone agreed on going to war over it (ie, France and Germany - the Democrats supported the war, by the way) but all believed the intelligence.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [TxDude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The U.N., France, Germany, The Democrats in congress, etc, etc, etc. ALL believed the intelligence on WMD's.

There's a bit of revisionism for ya.

In fact, the "intelligence" the Bush administration claimed to be relying on was never credible. Tenet was trying to distance the CIA from it even before the war started. Some of the claims made by the administration were proven to be flatly false almost as soon as they were made. ( For example, claiming that the IAEA had said Iraq was using those aluminum rods to develop a nuclear capability. The head of the IAEA himself put that lie to rest. )








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mises] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
If mere possession of WMD were a just cause for attacking a country we should have attacked Israel too (they have even used theirs against other countries unlike Iraq), and the US should be attacked by every other nation in the world.


1. Although Israel is widely known to have nuclear weapons, it has not used WMD against another country.

2. Iraq has used chemical weapons against Iran as well as it's own population.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
1. Although Israel is widely known to have nuclear weapons, it has not used WMD against another country.

We have, though. Would an invasion of the US by, say, China, be justified on those grounds?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Give me a break. Just about every country fighting in WWI used chemical weapons.

The war was never about simple possession of WMD. We sure weren't about to invade India or France (although I think Rummy might have wanted to do the latter a few times)

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Give me a break. Just about every country fighting in WWI used chemical weapons. That's right. Though we're still the only country to have used atomic weapons.

The war was never about simple possession of WMD. Now give me a break. You're the one who just made the argument that we went to war because Iraq not only had WMDs, but had actually used them in the past. Now the war was never about "simple possession of WMD."

What, exactly and specifically, is the war in Iraq about?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We have been through this before, but for sake of conversation the WMD or use was not the reason, it was a combination of factors that in sum created the threat. Just like chemical compounds that on their own are harmeless but when mixed together become volatile and explosive. Saddam was volatile and explosive.

As for the US use of WMD, we used them to end a conflict that would have gone on and on and it ulitmatley saved lives. Was it horrible? Yes, but like Iraq it was avoidable had the leaders of Japan just surrendered. Iraq could have been avoided if Saddam would have been awakened from his dilusional nap or someone would have just been able to kill him.

"I am Saddam, president and leader of Iraq!" "Sure you are Saddam, now just open your mouth a bit wider so we can look in there and we will have someone come in and read you a bedtime story"
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
clever use of 9/11 to justify something thats not related. Next youll be telling me about the tyranny of Eurasia and Eastasia (prize to the first one who gets the allusion). You know who has the most chemical/nuclear weapons? Us! and who has started the most wars recently? Us. Now, youre telling me that its the rest of the world that needs to disarm? Im not saying WMDs should be easily accesible to rouge forces, but just that your logic is very arrogant. What would you have us do to make the world safe? Which country is next? You can make chlorine gas, cyanide gas, and even mustard gas with household chemicals and maybe one trip to a chemical store. Does that mean we should invade every country with these materials, should we invade every corner store.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
1984? am i winner? i never win.




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [5280] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We have been through this before, but for sake of conversation the WMD or use was not the reason, it was a combination of factors that in sum created the threat.

5280, we have been through this before, and I still can't seem to get a straightforward answer from anyone. In theend, it just comes down to arguing that there was a "combination" of factors that made invading Iraq imperative.

The problem I have with this is that if we can't clearly enunciate the reasons we have invaded another country, there is no reason for anyone to think that we really have valid reasons.

First the administration argues that we're going to invade because Hussein has WMD, except that claim turns out to be shaky, to say the least.

Then we say we're going to war in Iraq to fight terrorism, except that even the administration cedes that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

Then we claim that we invaded to oust an evil tyrant and liberate the Iraqi people, except there are lots of evil tyrants and oppressed peoples out there, and we're pretty cozy with some of the tyrants.

Ultimately, we don't appear to have any guidelines set in place by which we decide to go to war- we just take this kind of thing on a "case by case" basis. It's arbitrary. And in addition to the fact that the rest of the world will eventually come to see such arbitrary behavior as intolerable bullying, it's wrong in and of itself.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There most certainly is a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq is/was know to harbor and aid al-quaeda. Iraq is a terrorist nation who went against UN sanctions and decrees that ordered it to destroy all WMD. WE didn't order them to disarm...The UN did...Up to 80 tons of Sarin, Mustard, and VX toxins are unaccounted for...Scattered throughout the country the size of California. I for one don't wait anymore...The rest of the UN minus Britain may want to..but we didn't.
Quote Reply
Re: David Kay on today's find [wmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Regarding the article link you posted:

"Kay, who led a U.S. team hunting for weapons, said it appears that the shell was one of tens of thousands produced for the Iran-Iraq war"

Veeerrry speculative. Far from a rock-hard case that Saddam had an active and effective WMD program that posed an imminent thrteat to the US.

From the same article:

"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."

A few relics from the Iran Iraq war hardly constitute an active, vibrant and effective WMD program that posed an imminent threat to the security of the U.S. There are farmers and miners in the US who probably have a bigger stockpile of materials that would make for quite effective WMDs.

Why did we choose Iraq over the other rogue nations? Seems North Korea poses a greater threat and Saudi Arabia is arguably a more repressive regime, especially for women.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
There most certainly is a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq is/was know to harbor and aid al-quaeda. Iraq is a terrorist nation who went against UN sanctions and decrees that ordered it to destroy all WMD. WE didn't order them to disarm...The UN did...Up to 80 tons of Sarin, Mustard, and VX toxins are unaccounted for...Scattered throughout the country the size of California. I for one don't wait anymore...The rest of the UN minus Britain may want to..but we didn't.


I've asked you this before.....and you failed to provide any support for your allegations....but where is the PROOF of the alleged links between Iraq and 9/11?

Please tell us all......the Bush administration would especially like to know, as I'm sure they want to tell the voters in the U.S., as well as the rest of the world, why they were not wrong in invading Iraq.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
There most certainly is a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Iraq is/was know to harbor and aid al-quaeda. Iraq is a terrorist nation who went against UN sanctions and decrees that ordered it to destroy all WMD. WE didn't order them to disarm...The UN did...Up to 80 tons of Sarin, Mustard, and VX toxins are unaccounted for...Scattered throughout the country the size of California. I for one don't wait anymore...The rest of the UN minus Britain may want to..but we didn't.


Can you back up your statement that there is a link between Iraq and 9/11? If you can, you could be an instant millionaire because thus far, no one is able to.

Can you name any Iraqi terrorists involved in 9/11? Can you name any Iraqi terrorist involved in the attacks to the Kenyan and Tanzanian US embassies? Can you back up your assertion that the Iraqi government is linked to terrorism?

So far, no WMD have been found, so it looks like Iraq did destroy whatever they had. Certainly you don't intend to say that the little firecraker with traces of sarin qualifies as a WMD, or do you?

Up to 80 tons??? Who says it is/was 80 tons??? Who confirms this number??? If it is the US government, I would be a little worried because thus far they can't say the truth even when they try.

Did Iraq attack the USA or did the USA attack Iraq?

What freedom are our soldiers fighting when we live in a country that expects 18 year olds to die for a false pretense, however the same 18 year old is not considered mature enough to drink a freakin' beer.

The US should be concerned about rebuilding their own nation, which is host to over 33 million people living below the poverty level. That is about 9 million more than the entire population of Iraq.

Why not invade Cuba? I mean, it is ruled by a dictator and surely Bush can make the claim there are WMDs there even though it is not true.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"First the administration argues that we're going to invade because Hussein has WMD."

Found

"Then we say we're going to war in Iraq to fight terrorism, except that even the administration cedes that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11."

That's now changed...

Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official..


Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
While we're on the subject of WMD's... Seems it's a lot like any in a long line of knee-jerk scares we receive through the media (like child abductions, SARS, second-hand smoke, antibiotic-resistant bacteria) that while horrific if they happen, are highly, highly unlikely:

Nerve agents are difficult to effectively deploy, which is the major reason they haven't been widely used to date.

al Qaeda allegedly experimented with the use of chemical weapons, but found them too difficult to use safely. Intelligence gathered during the invasion of Afghanistan revealed that the terrorist network had experiemented with nerve agents on animals in training camps.

Anecdotal stories about attempts to train terrorist hopefuls in their use indicated that, as often as not, the operatives managed to poison themselves. One story described a failed experiment which ended with the mercy killing of a young operative who accidentally exposed himself to the toxin, incurring gruesome results.

Nerve agents mostly come in gas or liquid forms. They can be released through the use of pressurized containers or sprayers, or attached to bombs (a more complicated process). Because they tend to be highly volatile compounds, they quickly disperse in open air, which can result in only minimal dosages to the intended victims.

They can also be deployed on rockets for long-distance and battlefield uses, but again, the effectiveness of this technique is somewhat debatable. There is a theory that this sort of attack was used on U.S. troops during the first Gulf War, which has been proposed as a possible explanation for the mysterious illness suffered by veterans of the conflict, known as Gulf War Syndrome.

Because of these limitations, nerve agents are generally more lethal when used in closed spaces. The most effective use of a nerve agent for terrorism was the Tokyo Subway attack of 1995. Containers of sarin gas were placed on trains running through the subway system, all of which passed through a central station, resulting in exposures both on the trains and on the platforms. Nearly 6,000 people were exposed to the gas. Even with the relatively enclosed spaces, only 12 people died, and a few hundred hospitalized.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
"First the administration argues that we're going to invade because Hussein has WMD."

Found WHERE? YOUR GARAGE, TOILET OR YOUR IMAGINATION? PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US

"Then we say we're going to war in Iraq to fight terrorism, except that even the administration cedes that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11."

That's now changed...

Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official.. Can you back this up with some type of proof, reference other than the lies coming from the "spender 'n' thief"?

Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It could be any day really, but I think a day like today when "Fahrenheit 911" opens at Cannes is kind of slick.

It's also neat to see the "media" working the mass gay marriage thing, the school anniversary of school desegregation.......a significant day of news events, perfect for gauging how the "media" would treat another event that is just as important as the other two, but gets much less play.


**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Fasttwitch] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Found them today. Turn on your TV or look at any news website. It should be staring you right in your face.

Here's the link to the other article.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/...Article.asp?ID=13323
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Found them today. Turn on your TV or look at any news website. It should be staring you right in your face.

Here's the link to the other article.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/...Article.asp?ID=13323


You state: "Found them today". What are you talking about? One remnant of ordinance with Sarin gas, that didn't hurt anybody? How, specifically, does that prove that Iraq possessed WMDs that were a threat to us here in the US?

You are delusional. Laurie Mylroie is a crackpot with little credibility. Don't agree with me? Well, apparently the Bush administration doesn't feel comfortable enought to go public with support for her and her theories.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/...003/0312.bergen.html
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Found them today. Turn on your TV or look at any news website. It should be staring you right in your face.

Here's the link to the other article.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/...Article.asp?ID=13323


No access to TV right now, but neither Google, CNN.com or CBSNews.com report any finding of WMDs at all. I've also checked the Herald Tribune, El Mundo and Bild, all European established newspapers which are not reporting any findings of WMDs today at all either. What I am reading is that a bomb containing sarin gas exploded today and that two people were treated for minor injuries.

In case you do not understand or know what WMD stands for I'll spell it for you: Weapons of Mass Destruction. Where was the mass destruction today???

As to your republican supported link... I will not belive much of what it says, the same way I would not believe much of what the left wing newspapers may say. Provide a trustworthy link.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can't understand why you people won't open your eyes and really see what the world is about. The UN itself said Iraq possessed WMD and were in violation of demands that it disarm. The USA simply took charge of the situation and enforced the UN demands. We cannot and will not stand for atrocities like 9/11 to happen again. You can sit back and critisize all you want, but that still doesn't hide the fact that we are at war for good reason and will continue to fight those who jeopordize our freedom and safety.

To this I say...



"Now, git yer fat, liberal, film-makin' ass outta here or I'm callin' Con-doe-leeza!"
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I can't understand why you people won't open your eyes and really see what the world is about. The UN itself said Iraq possessed WMD and were in violation of demands that it disarm. The USA simply took charge of the situation and enforced the UN demands. We cannot and will not stand for atrocities like 9/11 to happen again. You can sit back and critisize all you want, but that still doesn't hide the fact that we are at war for good reason and will continue to fight those who jeopordize our freedom and safety.

To this I say...

"Now, git yer fat, liberal, film-makin' ass outta here or I'm callin' Con-doe-leeza!"


Actually, the UN said that it could not verify the existance of WMDs in Iraq.

The UN Security Council did not approve the invasion of Iraq by the US, UK and Spain. They voted against it.

So, the moral of the story is... if any country suffers a terrorist attack similar to 9/11, then, it should randomly pick a sovereign country, bomb the crap out of it, invade it and take it down the path of civil war.

So, what country do you suggest that Spain bomb the crap out of and invade after 3/11??? Enlighten us once again... please.

Dude, if I was you, I would get the facts right about UN resolutions and the Security Council, you are aiming way right and not hitting a single note.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official.."



Here is another fact, Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein in 1983!! Maybe he was behind 9/11, perhaps we should band together and invade Washington to protect "freedom." I beleive 16 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian not to mention Osama Bin Laden himself so how about you draw some connections to Saudi Arabia before you draw them to Iraq.

As for the "WMDs" found today I don't think one canister of Sarin counts as the massive stockpile the conservatives (sorry I'm labeling) have been touting for over a year. Sarin can be made by any well funded terrorist group as evidenced by the 1995 Aum Shirikyo Subway attack in Japan. Why should we assume Al Qaida (isn't that who this war on terrorism is supposed to be against?) needs to go to Saddam Hussein, who allegedly did not like Bin Laden, to get their hands on the stuff? When we see a stockpile that is more then remnants from a 15 year old war then maybe I'll eat some crow.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Fasttwitch] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Believe what you want but the facts speak for themselves. We're at war and you should support it....to do otherwise is treason.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank you for proving my point. You are a liar. You spout things that you want to believe are true, but you cannot provide any reasonable sort of proof, or respond to questions. If the discredited source you cited was believeable at all, surely even the rabid right-wing would be heralding them, too? Surely, this administration, starved for anything to validate the war in Iraq, would be screaming from the top of every rooftop "HERE, HERE IS THE PROOF!!!! SADDAM IS REPSONSIBLE FOR 9/11!!!! IRAQ IS A HAVEN FOR AL-QUAEDA!!!!!" But.........they're not doing that. Why do you think that is?

Can't you answer any of my questions head-on without resorting to meaningless bravado about how right the war is, blah, blah, blah? Your failure to do so only further weakens your "argument," if it could be any weaker!
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mojozenmaster] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
It could be any day really, but I think a day like today when "Fahrenheit 911" opens at Cannes is kind of slick.

It's also neat to see the "media" working the mass gay marriage thing, the school anniversary of school desegregation.......a significant day of news events, perfect for gauging how the "media" would treat another event that is just as important as the other two, but gets much less play.


Dearest Mojozenmaster,

Well, since you opened this can of warms.. I feel obligated to bring balance to your viewpoints. First of all, it sounds like you're suggesting the media is "sugar coating" the issue at hand (i.e. the discovery of what might be small traces of sarin gas). Well, lets role back the calender a few weeks shall we? Let me ask you this... What do you think we would call it if we stumbled upon some digital images of our "enemies" torturing our soldiers??? Stuck? allow me to enlighten you... We would call it "TORTURE" not this "Prisoner Abuse Scandal" label that seems to be the buzzword of the past few weeks.


Secondly, I think you might learn something from watching "Fahrenheit 911" (wait a second, if we get to see it! We live in a free society but the moral authority Disney is deciding what is suitable for our eyes) I'll be the first to say that Moore goes way too far to the left for my taste... However, from what i've heard. It shows the way war rips apart families on BOTH sides of the ocean. Furthermore, apparently we don't see him as much as in his previous work.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[Believe what you want but the facts speak for themselves. We're at war and you should support it....to do otherwise is treason. ]

That was a really popular way of thinking in 1940's Berlin

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” — Theodore Roosevelt

It is our responsibility to speak out at what we feel is morally

unconscionable. Using the mantra "support the war or you're unamerican" is maybe the WORST thing a citizen could do. I support the troops, I hope they get out safely and are able to resume their normal lives. But we should never support a war because the administration, you and the Right Wing media say it is treasonous not to.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!
Last edited by: 3Sport: May 17, 04 16:14
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We are not at war and according to the consitutional definition the United States has not been in one since World War II, that said it is not treasonous to disagree with a war. Treason is defined as a crime against one's country such as waging war against it or by consciously aiding its enemies. Also for your information if people never disagreed with the government we would still be going to "separate but equal" schools and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do you remember the Iran/ Iraq war? It was fought because Saddam believe that religious fundamentalists were dangerous to his rule. Anyone suspected of religious fundamentalism was put to death, usually after some torture. It was the polar oppisate of Iran. The only time Iraq has had large numbers of religious radicals (al-quaeda), was after we invaded. There is no proof to the contrary, just speculation, passed off as truth by our government. As for the 80 tons of chemical weapons, most of them were probably destroyed. Two UN inspection groups came to the same conclusion, even after the united states tried to force the inspectors to say the weapons were there. So, Saddam was in compliance with UN resolutions (i.e. he allowed inspectors to inspect to their satisfaction, even after we snuck a CIA agent into the inspection teams, violating the UN protocols). This atmosphere of fear is dangerous, it can force people to go along with anything,

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Hitler's designated successor, before being sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials. I do not care about the actions of today, but am scared on where this mentality of fear and violence will lead us.


welcome my son, welcome to the machine...
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You and a few of the previous posters, myself included, are going WAY too far with respect to Brian286. We're attacking with logic, reason, and factual support.

That might be considered a cruel tactic to use against an unarmed man.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That is a fantastic quote, sums it all up.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why wasn't the UN shown where the weapons where destroyed?

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My God, i was not aware robotic technologies have progressed so far, but apparently youve been programmed beautifully, never question, never investigate, just swallow everything youre fed. I like how you labeled michael moore a moron. Have you ever even seen his work? Ever heard him talk? Yes he's very liberal, but he uses evidence, something i wish this administration would use. "Ignore liberal bullshit" man, you even refuse to listen to opposing arguements, that is the most dangerous part of democracy, people who follow without question. IMO Thats un-American
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official."

Even IF a terrorist meets a third person, it doesn't automatically make that third person a terrorist.

I met Bill Clinton, but I've never cheated on my girlfriend (and I never got a blow job from Monica Lewinsky).
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [WebSwim] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sounds like everyone who thought the WMD didn't exist really aren't up to eating crow even though the evidence is right before your eyes.

Want ketchup with that crow?

Sarin AND mustard gas has been found.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
where/when did they find mustard gas? nevermind. go team. everything is splendid. go team.




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What about the administration's handling of the war would make any free-thinking person trust their word about finding a WMD? I'll chow down to a big ole plate of crow the minute I see a detailed plan from the Bath Party regime outlining their intentions to attack us.

Brian. Show us some compelling evidence that these 25-year-old artifacts are part of a comprehensive and (up until last year) coordinated effort to produce WMDs and delivery systems capable of attacking the US. I can tell you I'm the Duke of Kent, but unless I have documentation to back it up, I'm just spouting lies on a message board.

By the way, do our 15,000 pound daisy cutters count as WMDs? How about carpet bombs? Artillery barrages? Or is the WMD moniker just reserved for the weapons WE DON'T use?



From the Associated Press:

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.

No one was injured in the initial detonation Saturday, although U.S. soldiers who later removed the round experienced symptoms consistent with low-level nerve agent exposure, said a U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity.

In this case, it appears two components in the shell, which are designed to combine and create deadly sarin, did not properly mix upon detonation, the official said.

It was unclear whether those responsible for the attack knew it was a conventional or chemical round, the official said. The 155-mm shell did not have markings to indicate it contained a chemical agent, the official added.

U.S. officials believe, based on evidence, that the shell was an experimental munition produced before the 1991 Gulf War, called a "binary type," the official said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!
Last edited by: 3Sport: May 17, 04 17:32
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow. A single shell that potentially contains Sarin Gas qualifies as the existence of WMDs? With that logic one could argue that a single idiotic statement makes someone an idiot. Pick your *someone*.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [eastcoasttri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dearest ECT,

Are you suggesting that I have been less than objective in my posts? Did you know it shows extremely bad manners to disagree with me on a political issue.....especially when you have no idea of WTF you are talking about?

(note to self; ((think)) "It's cool, I forgive you......")

Anyway, since we are keeping score in the area of mans inhumanity towards his fellow man, Can treat me to of a photo of an American Soldier sawing the head off of his Iraqi captive?

I would love to see it.

MZM


**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [3Sport] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your post reminds me the last words of many a terrorist;

"Ohhh, SHITTT!!....it's a DAiSY CUtt........!!"

Anyway, Y'all prepare for this type of shit;

"it's no big deal"

"It might have been overlooked"

"It came from a 20 year old shell"

Allow me to say;

"I told you so"


**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [3Sport] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We have 30 yr old nuclear weapons in our inventory...does that make them less dangerous? The age of a weapon has no bearing on whether it's useful or not. Whether it's 1 yr old or a 100 yrs old was still under his control and still able to kill people. What comprehensive plan needs to be proven? The weapons and delivery systems were long in place and had been used before so there's no need to "prove" a plan...He was ordered to get rid of the weapons..and had not done so...the UN had even said it cannot confirm the removal of WMD by Hussein.

In addition..from Fox...

Iraqi Scientist: You Will Find More

Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam's regime, told Fox News he believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.

George said the finding likely will be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons.

"Saddam is the type who will not store those materials in a military warehouse. He's gonna store them either underground, or, as I said, lots of them have gone west to Syria and are being brought back with the insurgencies," George told Fox News. "It is difficult to look in areas that are not obvious to the military's eyes.

"I'm sure they're going to find more once time passes," he continued, saying one year is not enough for the survey group or the military to find the weapons.

*************************************************

Plus...this isn't some little firecracker they found...again from Fox...

"Artillery shells of the 155-mm size are as big as it gets when it comes to the ordnance lobbed by infantry-based artillery units. The 155 howitzer can launch high capacity shells over several miles; current models used by the United States can fire shells as far as 14 miles. 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."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh, you're so right, Tibbs. I was an avowed Bush hater, but now that WMDs have been definitively uncovered I am proud to admit I'm a Bush lover. He's so in control of his administration. He's just an honest guy doing an honest job. He acts with such conviction. He has done such great things with the budget surplus he inherited. He's done wonders for the environment. And he's made so many new friends around the world.

I want to hug him.



Aeromon (Aerobic Monster) - Pokomon's evil endurance junkie twin
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
former weapons inspector david albright just said tonite on hannity and colmes this evening that he has seen no evidence of any transport of weapons to syria. he did say that he was surprised that more weapons had not been found(he had similar commentary as david kay with respect to having some left over shells), but that he did not see evidence nor believe that there were stockpiles of the extent that bush's administration was making out to exist.

but he's probably just committing seditious libel and treason.

and you are right, the age of the weapon has no bearing on its efficacy. it does, however, have a huge bearing on the statements made by bush and his assertions that iraq was continuing to develop wmd's....




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]arent all politicians opportunistic? When was the last one who had a mission, a noble cause? FDR? Wilson?[/reply]



apolack1,

Sorry, I was on a club ride and missed the last 75 posts.

You're right. There once was a "great" liberal Democratic President who "authored" a "great" book titled: Profiles in Courage. These were short biographical segments of politicians who had stood up against the prevailing tide and did what was right even though it was unpopular and in some instances cost these politicians their elected office. This was the kind of courage that John F. Kennedy was talking about in this book that he authored.

I guess one couldn't say Bush has/had a mission, a noble cause because you and many others disagree with him.

Isn't it amusing, that now we have a President who is insisting on doing what he thinks is right and needs to be done for the safety and security of this nation and the rest of the free world in spite of the fact that this is unpopular for a lot of people and yet he is branded a liar and a coward and almost every other name under the sun instead of courageous. He has also claimed that he is willing to risk his Presidency by not backing down, but seeing this through. Some would say he is courageous for this. I wonder what John F. Kennedy would call him?.



Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]i'll say this right now, but if wmd's are found "at the most inopportune time"(i assume you are implying just prior to elections), then something will stink to high heavens. especially if bushy's approval ratings are continuing to flag as they have been. would i be glad to know that a large number of wmd's are out of commission? yes. but if they are found in say september or october, methinks there would be something rotten in fallujah...[/reply]




mclamp6,

But why are Kerry's approval ratings flagging as well?



Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
because the weapons were "destroyed" on a bunch of kurds in the north of Iraq. Other "destruction" sites were villages that harbored rebels. Also, the US army detroyed a bunch of weapons in the last few days of the last gulf war, did so very hastily, so hastily in fact that some believe it is the cause of the so-called "Gulf War Syndrome". My other guess as to where the weapons went is that they were destroyed between the 2 periods of inspections, so after when they said they had destroyed them all, but well before the second round of inspections, possibly right after 9/11, seeing the writing on the wall, but i dont believe that there was ever any evidence that on the eve of Gulf War II Iraq had WMDs. In all of these situations, the Iraqi government wouldnt be willing to inform the world about the "destruction" of the weapons, but they were in fact destroyed.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Wants2rideFast] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
club ride? sure you weren't still writing jokes for those sitcoms? can't get enough of mclamp....

kerry = lesser of two evils.

shrub's actions in iraq have very little bearing on my vote. it's his rape of the environment and being corporate america's wet dream that concern me more....




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Wants2rideFast] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Isn't it amusing, that now we have a President who is insisting on doing what he thinks is right and needs to be done for the safety and security of this nation and the rest of the free world in spite of the fact that this is unpopular for a lot of people and yet he is branded a liar and a coward and almost every other name under the sun instead of courageous. He has also claimed that he is willing to risk his Presidency by not backing down, but seeing this through. Some would say he is courageous for this. I wonder what John F. Kennedy would call him?."

I hear people say things like this over and over, but remember, just because someone stands up for something doesnt make it a good thing, doesnt make it noble. the KKK is a very unpopular group in america, yet they go out and make their beliefs known, they dont back down, and they will risk everything for their cause. Does this make them couragous? Standing up for what you believe in doesnt make you a hero, it makes you stubborn, the nobility of your cause is what determines your hero status. Everyone loves to cheer for the underdog, but sometimes the underdog is wrong. Sometimes people are called a liar because they lie. Sometimes opinions and courses of actions are ridiculed because they are dangerous and ill advised. People many times just follow the crowds, but there is also a group of people who do things and believe in things merely because they crowd does not. To do either is to waste your gift of free will.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Fasttwitch] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply][reply]
Found them today. Turn on your TV or look at any news website. It should be staring you right in your face.

Here's the link to the other article.

[url "http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13323"]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13323[/url] [/reply]


No access to TV right now, but neither Google, CNN.com or CBSNews.com report any finding of WMDs at all. I've also checked the Herald Tribune, El Mundo and Bild, all European established newspapers which are not reporting any findings of WMDs today at all either. What I am reading is that a bomb containing sarin gas exploded today and that two people were treated for minor injuries.

In case you do not understand or know what WMD stands for I'll spell it for you: Weapons of Mass Destruction. Where was the mass destruction today???

As to your republican supported link... I will not belive much of what it says, the same way I would not believe much of what the left wing newspapers may say. Provide a trustworthy link.[/reply]




Fasttwitch,

The shell was not used as it was intended. It was used to make a bomb, not fired in a cannon. This fact would not make it any less of a WMD. The fact that the subversives who tried to use it as a bomb lacked the intelligence and understanding to realize that the sarin gas would not be effective in this use beause the components would not be mixed before detonation does not diminish the threat of the weapon. It only is an example of misuse of a WMD that is potentially much more dangerous if used as intended.


From an earlier post (#19) on this thread:

Oh, by the way, they have just found another of these artillary shells with sarin gas. Since these rounds have no distinguishing markings to identify them from other similar rounds that they have found, they believe there may be many more of these chemical weapons that they have just stumbled upon. These shells are constructed such that the components of the sarin gas are separated in the unexploded shell. When the round is fired, the components are mixed as the round spins from the rifling in the cannon. Upon exploding, the gas cloud is then spread over a large area. This is not the type of technology that would be available to a terrorist organization such as al-Qaeda, unless it was supplied to them by a terrorist supportive government, i.e., Iraq.

The reason this exploding shell was not a bigger incident is that the components of the sarin gas were not combined before the explosion. The round was not fired in a cannon as it was engineered to be done. This is also why some terrorist organization did not manufacture this artillary round.

These shells are for a 155 mm cannon. That is a shell that is over 6 inches in diameter. A shell this size requires a rather substantial cannon to fire it. This cannon also requires some substantial vehicle to move it. This is not the sort of weapon that is suited for terrorist purposes. Yes, it has great destructive capablility, but it is too difficult to hide, move, too labor intensive to set up, fire, dismantle and hide again before they are caught by their pursuers

Do more homework.



Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
apolack1,

Clearly you missed the point of Profiles In Courage, if you even read it. The causes these "courageous" politicians took up were unpopular because people failed to see the nobility of the causes at the time!



Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.
Last edited by: Wants2rideFast: May 17, 04 20:59
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [eastcoasttri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply][reply]
It could be any day really, but I think a day like today when "Fahrenheit 911" opens at Cannes is kind of slick.

It's also neat to see the "media" working the mass gay marriage thing, the school anniversary of school desegregation.......a significant day of news events, perfect for gauging how the "media" would treat another event that is just as important as the other two, but gets much less play. [/reply]


Dearest Mojozenmaster,

Well, since you opened this can of warms.. I feel obligated to bring balance to your viewpoints. First of all, it sounds like you're suggesting the media is "sugar coating" the issue at hand (i.e. the discovery of what might be small traces of sarin gas). Well, lets role back the calender a few weeks shall we? Let me ask you this... What do you think we would call it if we stumbled upon some digital images of our "enemies" torturing our soldiers??? Stuck? allow me to enlighten you... We would call it "TORTURE" not this "Prisoner Abuse Scandal" label that seems to be the buzzword of the past few weeks.


Secondly, I think you might learn something from watching "Fahrenheit 911" (wait a second, if we get to see it! We live in a free society but the moral authority Disney is deciding what is suitable for our eyes) I'll be the first to say that Moore goes way too far to the left for my taste... However, from what i've heard. It shows the way war rips apart families on BOTH sides of the ocean. Furthermore, apparently we don't see him as much as in his previous work.[/reply]


eastcoasttri,

I still think Zell Miller (D) had it right when he asked why his colleagues in the Senate and members of the HWA (Hand Wringers of America) were more outraged about a detainee photographed with a pair of underwear on his head than they were outraged by the brutality of an American's head rolling around without its body as well as the brutality against the 4 American civilians in Fahlujah.

I guess I just don't have my priorities straight yet.



Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Wants2rideFast] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
it's called expectations. i don't feel bad for the iraqi prisoners themselves. and i feel horrible and outraged by what happened to mr. berg and the 4 independent contractors. what happened to them was much much worse than what happened to the iraqi detainees. however, i expect terrorists to act like savages and animals and to commit the most horrible atrocities known to man. i do not expect americans to treat people inhumanely--neither does the rest of the world apparently. i'd like to believe that americans are better than savages and wouldn't resort to torture and cruelty in the handling of prisoners. i'd like to believe that america would follow the rule of law(i.e. the geneva conventions). obviously, this belief is somewhat fictitious and i am being quite naive--but i still want to believe that americans will take the moral high ground and not resort to inhumane treatment of anyone.

i'm not upset on behalf of the iraqis. i am upset because those people made americans look bad/worse and made it less safe for me.




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Aeromon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I hate Bush too. I just think that the pure venom dripping from a lot of people on this Iraq thing goes deeper then going against the war.

If it helps I am not voting for Bush.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Interesting Poll [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Appears that our cause continues to be worthwhile and noble.

Poll: Most Iraqis believe Saddam guilty of murder, torture,

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Four in five Iraqis believe Saddam Hussein was guilty of murdering and torturing civilians in their country, according to a recent nationwide poll in Iraq.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Wants2rideFast] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Of course i didnt read it, i was just going off your post. All i was saying is that you shouldnt hold something up as couragous just because people dont like it. Apparently the only reason issues are unpopular is because people fail to see the nobility in the cause? Im just saying that sometimes something is unpopular because its a bad idea. Politicians supported the Vietnam war even though it was unpopular with many people. And here we are, thirty years later, and no one thinks the Vietnam war was noble (note: i am not saying the actions of some of the soldiers werent noble, but that the war itself wasnt). Is anyone calling the presidents that escalated the war courageous?
Quote Reply
Re: Interesting Poll [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There is a lot of misinformation on this thread. Let's try and clear some of this up with FACTS. Someone mentioned that Iraqi chemical/biological weapons have a long shelf life. That is FALSE. The U.S. Defense Department's "Militarily Critical Technologies List" (MCTL) is "a detailed compendium of technologies" that the department advocates as "critical to maintaining superior US military capabilities. It applies to all mission areas, especially counter-proliferation." Written in 1998, it was recently re-published with updates for 2002.

So what is the MCTL's opinion of Iraq's chemical weapons program? In making its chemical nerve agents, "The Iraqis . . . produce[d] a . . . mixture which was inherently unstable," says the report. "When the Iraqis produced chemical munitions they appeared to adhere to a 'make and use' regimen. Judging by the information Iraq gave the United Nations, later verified by on-site inspections, Iraq had poor product quality for their nerve agents. This low quality was likely due to a lack of purification. They had to get the agent to the front promptly or have it degrade in the munition."

Furthermore, says this Defense Department report, "The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the [first] Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion were visibly leaking." The shelf life of these poorly made agents were said to be a few weeks at best - hardly the stuff of vast chemical weapons stores.


There was some talk shortly before the first Gulf War that the Iraqis had been creating binary chemical weapons, in which the relatively non-toxic ingredients of the agent remain unmixed until just before the weapon is used; this allows the user to bypass any worry about shelf life or toxicity. But according to the MCTL, "The Iraqis had a small number of bastardized binary munitions in which some unfortunate individual was to pour one ingredient into the other from a Jerry can prior to use" - an action few soldiers were willing to perform.

Brian mentioned that Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence official:

Newsweek: Czech Officials Say Story That Sept. 11 Hijacker Atta Met with Iraqi Agent in is Wrong; 'Nothing has Matched Up,' Says U.S. Official. Czechoslovakian government officials have quietly acknowledged that they may have been mistaken about a supposed meeting at the Iraqi Embassy last April in Prague between suspected Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta ... U.S. intelligence officials now believe that Atta, the hijackers' ringleader, wasn't even in Prague at the time the Czechs claimed. "We looked at this real hard because, obviously, if it were true, it would be huge," one senior U.S. law-enforcement official tells Newsweek. "But nothing has matched up." Although Atta had indeed flown from Prague to the U.S. in June 2000, the Czechs had placed the alleged meeting in April 2001. The FBI could find no visa or airline records showing he had left or re-entered the United States that month. "Neither we nor the Czechs nor anybody else has any information he was coming or going [to Prague] at that time," says one U.S. official.


So let's talk about what we DO KNOW. We know an unmarked 155 mm shell possibly containing traces of Sarin was used by insurgents to fashion a bomb, just as they have used other 155mm shells. We also know that way back at the beginning of the war, we found a few chemical rockets with empty warheads.

Let me ask you a question. If GWB went on national TV and said "we think there may be a few weapons left over that the inspectors missed...we know of a 155 mm shell which though unmarked, may contain traces of Sarin...", would you have gone to war? What if Powell went to the UN and said "we are aware of some chemical rockets....with empty warheads...that were not properly destroyed by the inspectors..." would you have gone to war? Because those are the FACTS, as we have them. The facts are NOT that there are nuclear weapons, vast stores of VX, anthrax, mobile labs, drones which can spray toxins, etc, etc, etc, which is what Bush/Powell/Cheney/Rumsfeld told us.

So please don't tell me that finding a few shells (because there will be a few more) proves what Bush/Powell/Cheney/Rumsfeld said. It does not.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The KKK risks everything for their cause? So, why then, do they hide behind robes? I would say they don't risk very much of anything. Seems more like they have been playing it safe since their inception.



On another note:

I have heard many on this forum saying that instead of invading Iraq, we should be invading North Korea. Would there be the same outrage if we really did that? I have a feeling that if we did do that, the same people denouncing this president and this war would be standing up and doing the same with North Korea. Be careful what you wish for. If we do go into North Korea, I'd like not to hear complaints from the very people calling for it now.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [haennp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]I have heard many on this forum saying that instead of invading Iraq, we should be invading North Korea.[/reply]

ummm, I think you'll find that you have heard many questioning the rationale of invading Iraq, and then extrapolating from that to say that things should go futher just to be consistent. I don't think there are many who have said that North Korea is a viable/desirable target (apart possibly from the "might makes right" section of the peanut gallery). Quite different things.

Nick

Another irrational Bush hater with no experience of war:
http://truthout.org/docs_04/051804A.shtml
Last edited by: goobie: May 18, 04 7:18
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [haennp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
haennp,

Excellent points and observations!



Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [3Sport] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]
Brian. Show us some compelling evidence that these 25-year-old artifacts are part of a comprehensive and (up until last year) coordinated effort to produce WMDs and delivery systems capable of attacking the US. I can tell you I'm the Duke of Kent, but unless I have documentation to back it up, I'm just spouting lies on a message board.
[/reply]

Ordinarily I would not reply, but this is just getting too ridiculous. Not ONE of you actually read what Kay said in his report, you only watched what CNN told you he said. Did you also know that he said in an NPR interview, "I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat." He added that "I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially, than in fact we thought it was even before the war." Read the Wall Street Journal article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110004612
Also in the Kay report are these tidbits that we discovered:
1) Chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval.
2) Reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist).
3) Nearly-finished plans for a nuclear weapon buried in a 50 gallon drum in the backyard of a former nuclear scientist.
4) New research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin.
5) A prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans.
6) Long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs.
7) Documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea.
8) Facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles.

Only an idiot or someone with an agenda could read the full Kay report and not conclude that Iraq had a pattern of development of delivery systems and WMDs to go with them. Just because the stockpiles have not yet been found does not mean there was no active program waiting for sanctions to end/loosen. I have to therefore conclude that those people arguing that Iraq had no WMD projects either 1) have not read the Kay report, or 2) have read it and are idiots/propogandists. And this is my first and final comment on this subject.


Mad
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
former weapons inspector david albright just said tonite on hannity and colmes this evening that he has seen no evidence of any transport of weapons to syria


I wonder why people are so confused by this? Our friend David Kay, who is as confused as the every intelligent Hans Blix, said in a interview 1/25/04 the following:

(Bold is my edit)

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," [David Kay] said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

It would be helpful if someone could make a consistent stand. David Kay can't even be consistent. I am just getting tired of people playing both sides of the issue. If there is a possibility of weapons in Syria then we should go to Syria and find them. I know that many people have discredited this theory but it seems to show up in too many places to be entirely false.

I think we may know that some (how much?) are moved to Syria but will not do anything about it because of troop issues, Geopolitical issues and the overall unwiliingness to go to war there for obvious reasons. If I am GW it may be a better choice to leave them there under watch and risk they will stay put rather than go in to Syria with force.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [haennp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
there is only one reason why we haven't gone after n. korea in the same fashion as iraq and that is because it actually is an imminent threat to the u.s. and a great number of others in the region.....




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
NK is a real threat that is much scarier than SH. That situation is really scay because not only could he nuke a US city on his own but he sells arms to OBL and probably other terrorist and he does business with Iran. There is a theory that Iran wants to move their program to NK so Isreal can't strike it and take it out.

NK is truly a place we need world support to neutralize that threat. We need to really start building that coalition now and get China et al on board.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"but they were in fact destroyed."

If you destroy a WMD then you can prove it. They haven't proven it.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [5280] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
NK is a real threat that is much scarier than SH. That situation is really scay because not only could he nuke a US city on his own but he sells arms to OBL and probably other terrorist and he does business with Iran. There is a theory that Iran wants to move their program to NK so Isreal can't strike it and take it out.

NK is truly a place we need world support to neutralize that threat. We need to really start building that coalition now and get China et al on board.
I agree 100% about North Korea. The only problem is that this administration has squandered the massive goodwill the world community felt towards us after 9/11, and has severely damaged our ability to build such a coalition.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
True, but the threat may outweigh their dislike for our policy in Iraq and other places. NK could (I hope not) turn out to be the threat you see in Sci Fi movies that is so great that everyone has to work together because the consequence is so horrible. If I am China, Japan, SK or a number of other countries I would be looking for anyone to be on my side. I think the real issue will be deciding among the countries not if, but rather how, we should deal with the threat.
Quote Reply
Re: Interesting Poll [Peter826] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would like to welcome Peter826 to the small club of free-thinking people who do their research.

You are a great asset, and we are glad to have you.

Keep posting!
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Only an idiot or someone with an agenda could read the full Kay report and not conclude that Iraq had a pattern of development of delivery systems and WMDs to go with them. Just because the stockpiles have not yet been found does not mean there was no active program waiting for sanctions to end/loosen. I have to therefore conclude that those people arguing that Iraq had no WMD projects either 1) have not read the Kay report, or 2) have read it and are idiots/propogandists. And this is my first and final comment on this subject.


Only an idiot or someone with an agenda thinks that the war in Iraq was about WMD-program-related activities, rather than the actual existence of WMD stockpiles that Rummy, Powell, Bush, & Cheney all stated Saddam had, that they knew the exact locations of such, and that they could be used against us in 45 minutes. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda fails to make the critical distinction between a dictator's aspirations and the actual threat he poses.

Only an idiot or someone with an agenda could read the Wall Street Journal Opinion page and take it as an unbiased factual source. Here is another article written at the same time, with a different take:

------------------------------------------------------



The Art of Camouflage
David Kay comes clean, almost.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Jan. 26, 2004, at 2:41 PM PT



David Kay's remarks over the weekend—that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction before the war and that U.S. intelligence agencies missed the signs that would have told them as much—held few surprises for anyone who'd closely read his official report on the matter last October. (Click here for one such close reading.)

Kay was the CIA's chief weapons inspector until he resigned last week. The difference between his report of last fall and his statements of recent days is that he was still on the Bush administration's payroll when he wrote the former and a free agent when he made the latter. It's the difference between obfuscation and clarity—political allegiance and public candor.

The discrepancy is not so much a comment on David Kay or George W. Bush as a general caution on how to read official reports.

For example, in an interview conducted late Saturday and published in today's New York Times, Kay says, "I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on."

Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.) Kay adds that Saddam tried to resuscitate some of these programs, but—due to sanctions, fear of inspections, and lack of resources—he was not able to do so.

Kay made these same points in his report last October, but it was easy to overlook them—in fact, the reader was meant to. Kay didn't exactly lie in the report; the points were there if you looked carefully; but he did his best to camouflage them.

There are tried and true methods to this art of camouflage. The idea is to deploy vague rhetoric and unchallengeable facts that seem menacing at first glance but on close inspection have no significance. The hope is that, if you play this game well enough, nobody will inspect them closely enough to notice.

For instance, Kay began his report by noting that Saddam Hussein's WMD program "spanned more than two decades" and "involved thousands of people and billions of dollars."

You had to read the next several pages to realize that these thousands of people and billions of dollars also "spanned more than two decades"—that, at least since 1991, nowhere near that much money or manpower was involved at any one time. You also have to read on to realize that, whatever the level of endeavor, its results were nil. In short, Kay wasn't lying. But he was setting a diversionary tone, at the top of the report, to please his bosses and give them ammo for sound bites.

Another example: Kay wrote, in a breathless style, that Saddam had set up "a clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service." Buried in the paragraphs to follow was Kay's conclusion that these labs and safehouses didn't produce anything of note. Similarly, the report warned that Saddam "may have engaged" in "research on a possible VX-stabilizer" (italics added), but said nothing about whether he actually developed any such thing or even possessed VX.

My favorite example of Kay's attempt to trump substance with style: Saddam's scientists "began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives … that could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term." This description is so vague, it would accurately describe the act of reading a textbook on nuclear physics.

Kay did his job well. His report did not tell lies. But it puffed up enough smoke to let President Bush proclaim it as a justification for the war. Bush cited, with particular enthusiasm, the bit about Saddam's "clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses"—a phrase containing four words designed to raise the hair of anyone who's ever glanced at a spy novel.

Now that Kay has quit, he can tell the same story—but without the smokescreen.

In the Times interview, Kay does add one dimension to his tale—and it is the newest, most intriguing aspect of them all. In the late 1990s, it seems, Saddam took personal control of Iraq's WMD program. As a result, Iraqi scientists started going to him directly with proposals of fanciful weapons systems, for which Saddam paid them heaps of money. As Kay puts it, the WMD program turned into a "vortex of corruption." Saddam was deluded with fantasies; the scientists pocketed the money and filed phony progress reports on fake weapons systems.

Kay says the CIA's biggest failure lay in missing this internal deception. Though the Times piece doesn't say so, it's quite likely that the CIA itself was deceived, intercepting some of these phony reports and treating them as credulously as Saddam did. In any case, in the Times interview, Kay calls for an overhaul in the way the agency processes intelligence.

It is significant that Kay wrote nothing about the Iraqi scientists' deception campaign—and issued no such call for radical reform of the U.S. intelligence community—in his report last October. The omissions are the ultimate indicators that the report's main goal was to please and protect his employer.

Even now, Kay falls short of making a full break with the Bush administration. He continues to state that Iraq was a danger to the world, worth going to war against, even if not for the same reasons that Bush claimed. He tells the Times, "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq. And now we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities. I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country—and no central control."

This is a puzzling sequence of non sequiturs. Terrorists may have been passing through, but Kay—who bases his other conclusions on interviews with many Iraqi scientists and examination of many documents—found nothing that suggests any contact between terrorists and scientists. The disarray of Saddam's rule may have meant there was "little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities," but, as Kay says elsewhere, there was also little in the way of Iraqi weapons. Having "the technology" is not the same thing as having the weapons; "the ability to produce" is not the same thing as producing.

It will be interesting to watch where David Kay goes next. On one level, he's come clean, but on another, he's still playing his old games.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094415/
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Realize that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons but currently does not have them on launchers or silos ready or pointed at any target. North Korea's leader also has a long history of posturing and bluffing. While this does not diminish the threat it needs to be taken into account while comparing N. Korea to Iraq. Hussein was a known dictator and terrorist supporter who used chemical weapons in the past and had them in his arsenal. He was more of a threat then anyone in recent history. A mad man with a known hatred towards the USA and the ability to support and launch terrorist activities against the USA and other countries of the world.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I agree 100% about North Korea. The only problem is that this administration has squandered the massive goodwill the world community felt towards us after 9/11, and has severely damaged our ability to build such a coalition.
The only problem is that NK artillery could level Seoul if we attacked, not to mention what they could do with the handful of nuclear weapons we think they have. That country is ripe for regime change but we're not going to invade it.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Realize that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons but currently does not have them on launchers or silos ready or pointed at any target. North Korea's leader also has a long history of posturing and bluffing. While this does not diminish the threat it needs to be taken into account while comparing N. Korea to Iraq. Hussein was a known dictator and terrorist supporter who used chemical weapons in the past and had them in his arsenal. YES, He used them in 1988, with the support of Reagan/Bush/Rummy. Once again, you LIE about him having them in his arsenal (one leftover does not an arsenal make). He was more of a threat then anyone in recent history. A mad man with a known hatred towards the USA and the ability to support and launch terrorist activities against the USA and other countries of the world. YOU LIE AGAIN! What terrorist activity did Saddam launch against the USA? Be specific.
Last edited by: cholla: May 18, 04 9:14
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh, one last comment:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005096
"Survey Group head Charles Duelfer has testified to Congress that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the raw materials that would have allowed him to produce such [chemical] weapons on a moment's notice once the international pressure was off. Insight magazine also reported this month that, in Karbala in central Iraq, U.S. forces found 55-gallon drums of pesticide, some of which were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex." The alleged agricultural site just happened to be located alongside a military ammunition dump."
Registration is easy, free and worth it. They have excellent geopolitical news. Also Geostrategy-Direct.com (pay site) among others. What NBC/CBS/ABC report is hardly complete and sometimes innaccurate. I personally know the editor of CNN's evening edition of Headline News and he told me point-blank that he "struggles every day to force them to keep some semblance of objectivity" in their reporting. Don't trust what you see or read, from me or from others....look and learn for yourselves.


Mad
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
I agree 100% about North Korea. The only problem is that this administration has squandered the massive goodwill the world community felt towards us after 9/11, and has severely damaged our ability to build such a coalition.
The only problem is that NK artillery could level Seoul if we attacked, not to mention what they could do with the handful of nuclear weapons we think they have. That country is ripe for regime change but we're not going to invade it.
Agreed. That's why diplomacy is used, to the point of there being absolutely no possibility of the problem being worked out, against nations that pose real threats. War should always be a last resort.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
    

Quote:
Realize that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons


NK already has nukes and is working on more. According to the CIA and the government of Japan, they have missles that can deliver a "small" payload to the Western US. KJI is every bit as dangerous as SH since he has what we feared SH would get. He is every bit as wacked as SH and he has no respect for the life of his people. I understand his history of threats which come almost daily but I wouldn't discount him 100%. There is a theory that you don't have to know how to fight, just act crazy and talk tough and many people will back away from the bluster. It is a dangerous game when you are talking nukes.

In addition, he has does do business with terrorists and has sold arms to OBL and is working with Iran on it's nuclear program. Whether he uses his own or not is just one problem. The other, equally terrifying threat is that he can help proliferate and sell these weapons to other countries or terrorist.






Last edited by: 5280: May 18, 04 9:29
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Realize that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons but currently does not have them on launchers or silos ready or pointed at any target. North Korea's leader also has a long history of posturing and bluffing. While this does not diminish the threat it needs to be taken into account while comparing N. Korea to Iraq. Hussein was a known dictator and terrorist supporter who used chemical weapons in the past and had them in his arsenal. He was more of a threat then anyone in recent history. A mad man with a known hatred towards the USA and the ability to support and launch terrorist activities against the USA and other countries of the world.


Please tell me that you are *ucking drunk, high on extasy and smoking a joint when you write these posts... otherwise I can only think that you are the clear result of Brainwash State University.


Notwithstanding, everyone in this forum should be allowed to express their views and thoughts, so why don't you enlighten us with another post.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"YOU LIE AGAIN!"

That is pretty funny. I can picture you with you finger all up in Brian's grill. A bitter hiss in you voice.

"YOU LIE AGAIN!"

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
  [/reply]
[b]Agreed. That's why diplomacy is used, to the point of there being absolutely no possibility of the problem being worked out, against nations that pose real threats. War should always be a last resort.[/b] [/reply]
Something that was tried again and again with Hussein but didn't work. He didn't heed our warnings and disarm, so he along with his sons and ruthless following were taken out of office. You can't say that he wasn't warned and you can't say we didn't try to work with and through the UN on this issue.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It is kind of funny. Reminds me of a scene in "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." Charlie and his grandpa go to Mr. Wonka to collect the lifelong supply of chocolate and Wonka goes nuts.

Ends it with "THEREFORE, YOU GET NOTHING...GOOD DAY SIR!"

Unfortunately, cholla is just full of hot air and nothing else..-
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [5280] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
North Korea will be another country the world, lead most likely by the USA, will have to deal with...Theirs is a dictator with a tremendous track record of ruthless tortures and disregard for innocent human life.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for the info and website, Triguy..

Hopefully others on this forum will heed your advice and come to realize that Iraq under Hussein was truly a dictator who had the ability to terrorize the world. Thankfully we have leaders able to stand up against such people.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
[/reply]
[b]Agreed. That's why diplomacy is used, to the point of there being absolutely no possibility of the problem being worked out, against nations that pose real threats. War should always be a last resort.[/b] [/reply]
Something that was tried again and again with Hussein but didn't work. He didn't heed our warnings and disarm, so he along with his sons and ruthless following were taken out of office. You can't say that he wasn't warned and you can't say we didn't try to work with and through the UN on this issue.


It didn't work? At the time that Bush declared that Saddam had 48 hours to leave Iraq (essentially a declaration of war), the inspectors were in Iraq, examining the same nothing that we have been examining since we invaded. The inspectors left because of Bush's declaration. http://www.cbsnews.com/...raq/main544280.shtml

All the evidence seems to indicate that the containment program was working.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
It is kind of funny. Reminds me of a scene in "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." Charlie and his grandpa go to Mr. Wonka to collect the lifelong supply of chocolate and Wonka goes nuts.

Ends it with "THEREFORE, YOU GET NOTHING...GOOD DAY SIR!"

Unfortunately, cholla is just full of hot air and nothing else..-
Funny. You're the wuss who can't support any of his ridiculous claims.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
albright was making similar points on hannity and colmes--that he didn't understand why there was a need for such a quick entry into iraq when the weapons inspections were still on going and still making progress.




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]
Only an idiot or someone with an agenda thinks that the war in Iraq was about WMD-program-related activities, rather than the actual existence of WMD stockpiles that Rummy, Powell, Bush, & Cheney all stated Saddam had, that they knew the exact locations of such, and that they could be used against us in 45 minutes. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda fails to make the critical distinction between a dictator's aspirations and the actual threat he poses.
[/reply]

Funny that you reply with an opinion article from Kaplan of all people (did I forget to mention agenda?). Also funny that you neglect to realize that EVERYONE believed the intelligence. Even more hilarious is that you assign an opinion to me that I never stated, and in fact assert that I am an idiot based on your faulty reading of my post. Setting up strawmen to bravely knock them down does not constitute an argument. The war was about WMD programs, and I said as much if you had read it. The article you posted essentially supports my point. But regardless, the funniest bit is that you obviously have not read Kay's report, or the ISG reports, or UN reports. Sorry for not linking them, as I cannot do that. I linked that WSJ column because it is essentially accurate from the intelligence that I have received. And now I exit this conversation, as it is nearly impossible to argue facts with someone who obviously can't read and interpret my statements correctly.


Mad
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply] The war was about WMD programs, and I said as much if you had read it.[/reply]

Interesting...

28 May 2003 Paul Wolfowitz declares: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue -- weapons of mass destruction -- because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

23 Jan 2004 In an interview with Reuters, former weapons inspector David Kay is asked about the WMDs. He opines: "I don't think they existed. I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and those were a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them. I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production, and that's what we're really talking about, is large stockpiles, not the small. Large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the period after '95."

Have to say where I got these quotes

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam/

Have good read - can you honestly say it sits comfortably with the honourables and doing what had to be dones and intelligence and "everyone believed it"s flying around??
Last edited by: goobie: May 18, 04 11:01
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tibbs, I have to say I actually laughed out loud when I read your post. I don't do that very often on this forum. That was very funny.

Cholla, maybe you need to settle yourself a little.
Quote Reply
NK train explosion highlights NK/Syria threat [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, it appears that our ongoing discussion of the threat posed by NK and Syria comes to the front with the recent revelation that on board the train that exploded in NK were missle components bound for Syria. http://www.worldtribune.com/...bune/breaking_2.html

"U.S. officials confirmed a report in a Japanese daily newspaper that a train explosion on April 22 killed about a dozen Syrian technicians near the Ryongchon province in North Korea. The officials said the technicians were accompanying a train car full of missile components and other equipment from a facility near the Chinese border to a North Korea port"

Talk about an axis of evil.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Believe what you want but the facts speak for themselves. We're at war and you should support it....to do otherwise is treason.

Brian, I'm going to ask you politely to apologize for this statement.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Funny that you reply with an opinion article from Kaplan of all people (did I forget to mention agenda?). Also funny that you neglect to realize that EVERYONE believed the intelligence. Even more hilarious is that you assign an opinion to me that I never stated, and in fact assert that I am an idiot based on your faulty reading of my post. Setting up strawmen to bravely knock them down does not constitute an argument. The war was about WMD programs, and I said as much if you had read it. The article you posted essentially supports my point. But regardless, the funniest bit is that you obviously have not read Kay's report, or the ISG reports, or UN reports. Sorry for not linking them, as I cannot do that. I linked that WSJ column because it is essentially accurate from the intelligence that I have received. And now I exit this conversation, as it is nearly impossible to argue facts with someone who obviously can't read and interpret my statements correctly.


OK, you can post and run, but here are some FACTS for you:

1. You made the statement "Only an idiot or someone with an agenda...." I repeated your statement to show its absurdity.

2. The War in Iraq was about EXISTING WMDs, NOT "programs" or "program-activities". The latter are after-the-fact justifications for a failed war. The war was about an impending threat of the use of WMDs against the US. There has been no support for that threat. And yes, I have read the Kay report - and there is no support there, either. Some of the points you listed aren't in it, and otherwise it provides no evidence of any real, significant threats. If I'm wrong, why do I not hear the Bush administration speaking daily of the WMDs that justified war, per the Kay report? Answer: Because the support isn't there.

3. You might try reading the article I posted again (I made it easy for you, didn't I?). The article does not support your points - rather, it indicates that a careful reading of the Kay report yields little support for Bush's case for war and the existence of WMDs.

4. You state: "Sorry for not linking them, as I cannot do that. I linked that WSJ column because it is essentially accurate from the intelligence that I have received. And now I exit this conversation, as it is nearly impossible to argue facts with someone who obviously can't read and interpret my statements correctly." Fine. Your intellectual laziness, along with your blind acceptance of whatever the WSJ opinion editors tell you, is noted for the record.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I just think that the pure venom dripping from a lot of people on this Iraq thing goes deeper then going against the war.

So you don't think it's possible that someone might actually be against the war because they're simply opposed to the war? They just have to be Bush haters, is that it?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [haennp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Tibbs, I have to say I actually laughed out loud when I read your post. I don't do that very often on this forum. That was very funny.

Cholla, maybe you need to settle yourself a little.
yeah, I laughed too. Obviously, I enjoy posting in the politics threads - but I have no respect for people who cannot support their views, particularly when those views are blatantly contrary to almost all of the evidence. Perhaps I'll try to stay away from those trolls in the future.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [goobie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply][.reply] The war was about WMD programs, and I said as much if you had read it.[./reply]

The Whitehouse seems to have moved on - why can't you? Anyone would think you had an agenda.[/reply]

I have moved on, to discussions with people who can at the very least read what I said rather than set up more strawmen and then lamely attempt to knock them down. Large stockpiles honestly was never the danger for most items because of degradation and various other reasons, it was the technical capacity to easily produce more. This has always been the central issue, and always will be. The White House knew that they could not discover the clandestine labs without control of the country, so pre-existing stockpiles were the only viable, verifyable target. It just so happens that they have found a lot more precursors than SH would ever need for honest uses. Skeptics and partisans will say it is irrelevant, but just how many tens of thousands of gallons of a particularly interesting pesticide do you need in a country that does not do a tremendous amount of farming? 30+ years worth?
Oh, and have you noticed that the railway explosion in NK on April 22nd was a military shipment of SCUD C and D missiles on the way to Syria? This is really, really old news, but is *finally* being outed in the Sankei Shimbun paper. Sigh...if only the media really knew everything they claim to be experts on.


Mad
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You are right. Bush made everything up! How blind I've been!!!

Thank you sooooo much.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]The White House knew that they could not discover the clandestine labs without control of the country, so pre-existing stockpiles were the only viable, verifyable target.[/reply]

Which viable verifiable targets were these then?
And remind me how the discovery of the labs making this stickpile is going again?
Last edited by: goobie: May 18, 04 11:37
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hopefully others on this forum will heed your advice and come to realize that Iraq under Hussein was truly a dictator who had the ability to terrorize the world.

Except the world really hadn't heard from Hussein since the inept attempt on George HW Bush's life. I say again, Iraq was as contained as any country will ever be. Noone outside the borders of Iraq was living in terror of Hussein.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fair enough.

But try not to let someone from the internet that you don't know ruin your day. Glad you took his comments in stride.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [TxDude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You are right. Bush made everything up! How blind I've been!!!

Thank you sooooo much.



You're more than welcome, but in the future, it would be better if you were able to think critically all by yourself.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: NK train explosion highlights NK/Syria threat [5280] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interesting article. Thanks for posting the link. I hadn't heard that yet. Just a couple things regarding North Korea and Syria. Yes I believe these are two very naughty countries. I personally believe NK's behavior more actively threatens the US and US interests than did Iraq's, but that doesn't really matter now. SCUD C and D missiles (referenced in the article) don't scare me too much if they're based in Syria or NK. Now if they are in a barge off the West Coast, then that is a whole other issue. Not to mention that the logistics of pulling off a successful launch from such a location is infinitely more complicated to do. Anyway, that kind of hardware does not pose an iminent threat to the US, and covertly positioning it such that it does is not something that I consider to be reasonable.

To say that we are doing nothing about the NK threat is false. (I'm just saying this generally, not to any particular poster.) We are currently investing Billions of dollars in a missile defense capability. Say what you want about the feasibility or potential wastefullness of such a program, but one must realize that the substantial investment is precisely because of threats such as NK. We don't really have the "luxury" of invading NK like we did Iraq. As previous posters mentioned, there would be serious repercussions for doing so. Also, NK has a very real and strong army. Rummy's pet idea of 10 men doing the job of 1000 would fail miserably there. So we have to take a different approach there; defense and diplomacy.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
>Iraq was as contained as any country will ever be

So vitus, do you think we should have continued with sanctions indefinitely, with Iraqi children starving as Saddam funnelled money illegaly to build palaces?

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So vitus, do you think we should have continued with sanctions indefinitely, with Iraqi children starving as Saddam funnelled money illegaly to build palaces?

Oh, that's right, I forgot- we did it all for the children, the poor Iraqi children.

Personally, no, I was not in favor of the sanctions. But are you really arguing that we went to war as a mission of mercy so that we could lift the sanctions? To improve the lives of the Iraqis? That's a dubious proposition.

If we're that worried about starving children, I would suggest that there are lots of them in places other than Iraq that we could help with a lot less bloodshed.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply] Fine. Your intellectual laziness, along with your blind acceptance of whatever the WSJ opinion editors tell you, is noted for the record.[/reply]
It is not intellectual laziness, it is not permissable. To do that to an obvious troll who cannot even read what I said without putting words in my mouth would be the height of stupidity.
Kaplan is a partisan of the most obvious sort. To take anything he says as fact is shocking. I stated clearly that the WSJ article agreed with the intelligence, and I hope you have the sense to read through the lines here....
BTW, "fact" number two is not supported by the statements of the international community or the UN Resolutions. Read them before posting such unsupportable nonsense. You say "2. The War in Iraq was about EXISTING WMDs, NOT "programs" or "program-activities"." Well, the resolution says, "Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,"
End of discussion. Your "facts" are clearly without merit, and you are obviously a troll with nothing of use to say.


Mad
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ok, i would agree that technical ability to produce more chemical/biological weapons would be a major issue and elevate someone(group or country) as a threat. but i have a couple responses to that:

first, as stated in another thread, the components for making something like sarin gas are readily obtainable, and thus it seems to me that there are tons and tons of 'threats' existing out the world. if technical ability to produce the chemical agents alone is sufficient, then iraq is just the tip of the iceberg(i will cede that ability to deliver those agents in some manner--i.e. missile delivery--limits the number of threats, but not by a whole lot).

second, and more importantly, i don't recall bush, rumsfeld, cheney, et. al. emphasizing technical ability to produce the weapons as a reason to go into iraq. the statements made related(at least in my view) to large amounts of then-existing weapons/components/agents---not things that could be made in the future. these statements were unequivocal--iraq had the weapons and we knew where they were. so which is it? ability to produce them or actual existence? it would be wrong for the administration to have equated the two because this is a difference in kind, not degree....




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There are more people starving in the USA than there are people in all of Iraq (even counting the coalition troops).

12% of the US population lives under the poverty line, I would suggest that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush... take care of their own people before wasting lives of US soldiers under fals pretenses, with poor excuses and trying to use the excuse of "starving children".

Do you want a list of countries with starving children that actually have developing WMDs and are ruled by dictators? Let me tell you, Iraq is NOT one of them.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If President Bush and everyone else know that there were no weapons of mass destruction, why use them as a justification for invading Iraq? If they were lying, then they would have known that they would not find them after the invasion. Even if you still believe that President Bush is dumb, don't you think that the neocons are some sort of evil masterminds that would have thought this through enough to plant WMD if they knew that Saddam did not have any?

Besides, if Saddam did not have WMD or any sort of program, etc, why was he acting like he had them?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"...the statements made related (at least in my view) to large amounts of then-existing weapons/components/agents---not things that could be made in the future... "

Guys, in fairness, didn't the administration also cite Iraq's potential future nuclear (er, "nuculer") as another reason to go in? I agree that they played up the chem/bio stockpiles way too much. I think that is without question. (An opinion that I'm sure qualifies me as a traitor in some of our more eloquent poster's eyes.) But it wasn't the only argument, and future capabilities were often cited. I'm saying this from memory, so if you're going to jump on me for not citing specifics, I can try to dig it up if you like.




Edited to add:

I'm not saying that Iraq actually had a viable nuclear program or was anywhere near aquireing nukes, I'm just saying that future capabilities were part of the justification.
Last edited by: Pooks: May 18, 04 11:59
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
[reply] Fine. Your intellectual laziness, along with your blind acceptance of whatever the WSJ opinion editors tell you, is noted for the record.[/reply]
It is not intellectual laziness, it is not permissable. To do that to an obvious troll who cannot even read what I said without putting words in my mouth would be the height of stupidity.
Kaplan is a partisan of the most obvious sort. To take anything he says as fact is shocking. I stated clearly that the WSJ article agreed with the intelligence, and I hope you have the sense to read through the lines here....
BTW, "fact" number two is not supported by the statements of the international community or the UN Resolutions. Read them before posting such unsupportable nonsense. You say "2. The War in Iraq was about EXISTING WMDs, NOT "programs" or "program-activities"." Well, the resolution says, "Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,"
End of discussion. Your "facts" are clearly without merit, and you are obviously a troll with nothing of use to say.


It would be helpful if some semblance of sentence structure, grammar, and paragraphs were utilized in your responses.

To me and others, you repeat nonsense about "putting words in [your] mouth", but I have done nothing of the sort. You earlier claimed I utilize "strawman arguments", again with no indication to what you refer. Perhaps a primer on logic would help you: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php

Thank you for your selective post of the UN Resolution. Another pertinent part states:

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

You can find the whole resolution HERE: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

You conveniently ignore that part and parcel of Resolution 1441 was the reintroduction of weapons inspectors to Iraq. As I referenced earlier in this thread, the inspectors were working in Iraq, finding nothing of significance just like our troops today. They left only because of Bush's 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam to leave and the imminence of war. If you are going to rely on UN Resolutions to support your statements, you can't pick and choose only those parts of the Resolution and its enforcement mechanism that suit you.

"End of Discussion"? OK. Class dismissed.
Last edited by: cholla: May 18, 04 12:08
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [CTL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
If President Bush and everyone else know that there were no weapons of mass destruction, why use them as a justification for invading Iraq? If they were lying, then they would have known that they would not find them after the invasion. Even if you still believe that President Bush is dumb, don't you think that the neocons are some sort of evil masterminds that would have thought this through enough to plant WMD if they knew that Saddam did not have any?

Besides, if Saddam did not have WMD or any sort of program, etc, why was he acting like he had them?


Why did Bush41 say "read my lips, no more taxes"? Why did Clinton say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"? Why does Bush43 pretend to be an honest man?

There is a common theme among presidents, regardless of political party or country and that theme is: corruption, lies and deception. No one has been able to proof this wrong yet.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i recall the mention of re-constituting a nuclear program or starting one or something of the like. however, it also seems to me that that aspect of the administration's justification(the burgeoning nuclear program) was quickly shot down by a variety of sources(for instance, the niger-yellow cake incident). i believe that kay was pretty adamant that iraq's nuclear program was dead in the water at best.




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [CTL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If President Bush and everyone else know that there were no weapons of mass destruction, why use them as a justification for invading Iraq? If they were lying, then they would have known that they would not find them after the invasion. Even if you still believe that President Bush is dumb, don't you think that the neocons are some sort of evil masterminds that would have thought this through enough to plant WMD if they knew that Saddam did not have any?

I can think of several possibilities. Possibly, the administration believed that Iraq still had WMDs, and the evidence would be discovered after the invasion. This is not the same thing as already having evidence in hand, as was claimed by the administration, though, and doesn't come close to providing a justification for war.

It's also possible that the administration never cared whether or not Iraq had WMDs, and only used that as a means to whip up support for invasion. They might not be terribly concerned about actually finding evidence of WMDs because it's unnecessary to their aims- enough people are going to support the war no matter what.

Besides, if Saddam did not have WMD or any sort of program, etc, why was he acting like he had them?

I would guess that he was acting like he had them in order to save face.

Let me ask you this: Why should we care whether Iraq had WMDs or not? Has he ever used them on us? Nope. He didn't even have the capability to do so. Arguing that the use of WMDs against a third party more than a decade ago justifies invasion now is questionable reasoning.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We should care whether countries like Iraq have WMDs because 9/11 showed us that waiting around for proof positive can lead to thousands of dead Americans. A smoking gun, after all, usually means that someone has been shot.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fortunately, the State Department puts a lot of Secretary Powell's speeches on line, including his speech to the UN in early 2003 (http://www.state.gov/...ry/rm/2003/17300.htm). If you compare the "evidence" that Powell talks about then to what has actually been found and what is now the justification for the war, there is a pretty big gap.

Maybe that is why Powell has backed off on some of the key points he made then.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [CTL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A smoking gun, after all, usually means that someone has been shot.

And again, I have to ask where this stops. Why, then, is it not imperative that we overthrow the leaders of every country that dislikes us and has the ability to kill Americans- before they get the chance?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [CTL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Its during times like these I like to take a step back and be selfish....has Bush's determination to "get the terrorists" by invading Iraq done us any good? And don't go at the point that any of what we are doing is for the Iraqi people cuz that is bulldung. Everyone here is smart enough to know we didn't go in there to liberate those people....

Are we really safer from terrorist attacks that we were before we went into Iraq? No one can prove that we are, and more likely as everyone points out, we've created a bigger group of people that will risk their lives to retaliate against us.

Maybe we should stop doing things to make ourselves targets?

Was going into Iraq like hitting a beehive with a baseball bat? I think so...

I want someone who supports this cause and who love everything that Bush uneloquently says or does, to articulate how this whole cause is beneficial to us? And how is it going to end? Since the president himself cannot articulate this, please do me a favor and humor me, enlighten me, whatever....I really want to hear from you.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"All the evidence seems to indicate that the containment program was working. "

It wasn't working and fortunately we saw that the threat could not endanger the free world.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"All the evidence seems to indicate that the containment program was working. "

It wasn't working and fortunately we saw that the threat could not endanger the free world.



What?? So now we should go to war over threats that cannot endanger us?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Too funny.
A "strawman argument" is a common method used by people with no ability to respond to the actual arguments being stated. In practice, it is used by inserting statements or meanings where none existed, and then shooting them down. You did this by stating "Only an idiot or someone with an agenda thinks that the war in Iraq was about WMD-program-related activities, rather than the actual existence of WMD stockpiles that Rummy, Powell, Bush, & Cheney all stated Saddam had..." I had never made the assertion that it was all about the programs and not also about the stockpiles...therefore it was a strawman argument.

You then attacked me for not spending time editing for perfect grammar, noted as "Style Over Substance" in your helpful but not-to-complete link.

You did not respond to the fact that Kaplan is a severely partisan writer who cannot be trusted to maintain any journalistic objectivity. Sorry, but there isn't a section in your link for ignoring the whole argument.

Your quoting of additional 1441 text is interesting, but ultimately you are proven wrong in your assertion that "weapons programs" were not a main target. Your quote brings up yet another strawman argument by implying that I even mentioned the reintroduction of inspectors.

Not to mention your non sequitor regarding the existence of weapons. The WMDs exist and we should have found them, but we have not yet found stockpiles, therefore they never existed. This I believe is roughly called "Denying the Antecedent."

And NOW...class in logic is over my friend.


Mad
Last edited by: triguy42: May 18, 04 12:45
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [CTL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Very good point CTL. I'm not willing to sit around to find out whether or not that 155mm shell will work or not...It's a WMD and is capable of alot of damage to innocent people. Thankfully our leaders saw fit to take care of the problem and rid the world of the threat.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Triguy...get used to that from Cholla...it's how he "argues."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Where it stops depends upon the country and the threat it poses. North Korea presents a special set of risks because its artillery can destroy much of Seoul and because President Carter's deal allowed them to develop nuclear weapons. The horrific nature of such a war changes the decision making process. On the other hand, the French leadership may not like us very much because we have cut off its deals to sell weapons to Saddam and its share of the oil for food profits. But, it can hardly harm us, so the risk that invading it poses to the vineyards offsets the benefits from an invasion. Iraq presented a threat, and we could do something about it.

Distinguishing among such situations is what you must do in the real world where barbarians are willing to saw off the head of Nick Berg or use airplanes as cruise missiles to kill thousands.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK, Brian, I guess you're not going to apologize for calling me a traitor. Maybe we can take that issue up at some future date.

For now, why don't you provide us with a list of all the other countries we need to invade to save American lives?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]Triguy...get used to that from Cholla...it's how he "argues."[/reply]

I know, I just replied because it was too funny to use his logical fallacies link to shoot down every argument he's made. Maybe he'll see his mistakes and actually attempt to argue an issue based on the merits?


Mad
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [TTTorso] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[/quote][/quote]
I am curious, leaving Iraq out of the discussion for a moment, what "things" have we done to make ourselves targets?

You (we) are targets regardless of Iraq. Period. We can debate the Iraq issue all day long, and frankly, it doesn't matter much anymore. What terrifies the hell out of me is that there are people who believe we do things to be targets, that the US provokes this behavior or does something to deserve their hatred. Let me make this clear for you, they hate you! They hate you, they want you dead, they want your family dead, they want this country to destroy itself, they want to destroy Israel, they want to obliterate the Jews, they want the world to be Muslim, believe as they do, and anyone who doesn't is a fair target. The will kill all who oppose them and their beliefs.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [5280] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]They hate you, they want you dead, they want your family dead, they want this country to destroy itself, they want to destroy Israel, they want to obliterate the Jews, they want the world to be Muslim, believe as they do, and anyone who doesn't is a fair target. The will kill all who oppose them and their beliefs.[/reply]

Now, just so we're clear - this would be the country called Iraq that we are trying to liberate and democratise, would it? At least you're thinking about the whole issue with an open mind and not condeming a whole country with a nice big brush stroke...
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [CTL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Where it stops depends upon the country and the threat it poses. OK, that much I agree with. Now, here's the important part, so pay attention: What are the criteria by which we judge how big a threat a country presents? And how much of a threat justifies war?

North Korea presents a special set of risks because its artillery can destroy much of Seoul and because President Carter's deal allowed them to develop nuclear weapons. The horrific nature of such a war changes the decision making process. On the other hand, the French leadership may not like us very much because we have cut off its deals to sell weapons to Saddam and its share of the oil for food profits. But, it can hardly harm us, so the risk that invading it poses to the vineyards offsets the benefits from an invasion. Iraq presented a threat, and we could do something about it. More precisely, France could harm us, but we don't think that they will. What threat did Iraq pose to us? The threat posed by Iraq was purely suppostional.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]Not to mention your non sequitor regarding the existence of weapons. The WMDs exist and we should have found them, but we have not yet found stockpiles, therefore they never existed. This I believe is roughly called "Denying the Antecedent."[/reply]

About the bit where you say "they exist" - seems to me that is something of an assumption rather than a proven fact. So where does that leave the rest of your thread of logic?
Quote Reply
WMDs found! [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Someone set off some mustard gas in my bathroom! Man I hope it clears up before my wife gets home.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [5280] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I am curious, leaving Iraq out of the discussion for a moment, what "things" have we done to make ourselves targets?


1. Invade Iraq under false pretenses and against the UN and its Security Council. Iraq had not threatened the USA and was not linked to 9/11.

2. The USA pumps mega bucks into Israel, which in turn spends the money to buy US made military equipment. Then, Israel uses those weapons against Palestinians, who have rocks, slingshots, some small firearms and explosives used by suicide-bombers. In other words, the Arab world sees it as the US supporting a country that uses missiles, bombs and the air force to attach a contained group of citizens with no comparable defense system.

3. The USA supports the Israeli so called plan to improve relations with Palestinians, building "the wall", etc.

4. The USA is a two-sided society. First, Osama Bin Laden was the USA's best friend, thus the USA provided weapons for his cause. Now, Osama Bin Laden is no longer the friend of the USA.

5. Iraq was the USA's good friend when the war against Iran, but now it is no longer the case.

Those are a few reasons why the US is a target. I'm too young to remember any more, but those might be enough. I'm more interested in taking care of those who live within the US than rebuilding Iraq. There are plenty of problems within our borders. Rebuilding Afghanistan is a just cause but Bush is so focused on Iraq that he doesn't give a rats ass about Afghanistan.

Bush tells other countries to keep their borders closed, however the borders in the USA are the basic definition of "open borders, come in anytime you like, no passport necessary".
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
[reply]Triguy...get used to that from Cholla...it's how he "argues."[/reply]

I know, I just replied because it was too funny to use his logical fallacies link to shoot down every argument he's made. Maybe he'll see his mistakes and actually attempt to argue an issue based on the merits?


Now THIS is funny. Two myopic simpletons congratulating each other, when neither can respond to simple questions or support his points. Classic! Or, should I say, "Dittoes!!!!"

Triguy42, suffice to say, you originally asserted that "Only an idiot or someone with an agenda could read the full Kay report and not conclude that Iraq had a pattern of development of delivery systems and WMDs to go with them. Just because the stockpiles have not yet been found does not mean there was no active program waiting for sanctions to end/loosen." I responded that the war was about WMDs that posed a significant and immediate threat to us, not Saddam's fantasy arsenal. That you attack me, and then twist what each of has stated rather than respond to my contentions, speaks volumes about the strength of your argument.

Brian, you still respond to fairly uncontroverted facts with naked statements of your own manufacture. I post here in hopes of honest debate with people who disagree with me, but can respectfully argue and support their positions. I can't force you to support anything you say, so I won't bother with you any more.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Cholla, in past debates on this very subject I have presented facts to support my view. I'm not going to go through the archives to support this claim. You for whatever reason don't want to believe what credible evidence supports. I stopped bothering with you some time ago due to the fact that you aren't able to read what is sitting in front of you.

Good Day Sir.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [goobie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
this would be the country called Iraq that we are trying to liberate and democratise, would it?


No, maybe I jumped the gun a bit but I took the comment made in the earlier post about doing things to provoke the issue and my comment was not directed at Iraq or people of per se but the people who have come there (al queda and others) to fight. I was directing it at Muslim extremists and terror groups in and outside of Iraq including al queda and it's offshoots, hezbollah etc.

Sorry I didn't make it as clear as I should have.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trea·son: A betrayal of trust or confidence.

I think your comments against our current administration and war fit this definition. Therefore, an apology isn't warranted.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So now disagreeing with someone you believe is wrong is a betrayal of trust and confidence?

You might want to look a little deeper in that dictionary.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trea·son: A betrayal of trust or confidence.

I think your comments against our current administration and war fit this definition. Therefore, an apology isn't warranted.


OK, I am trying real hard to remain civil here. Please tell me whose trust or what confidence I've betrayed. Do you think I have some obligation, as an American citizen, to support whatever policies the US government adopts? You think dissent itself is treasonous? You think that if I believe we've embarked on an unjustified, unprovoked, unwise, and costly war, it's my patriotic duty to remain silent about it, and if I don't, I'm a traitor? Is that what you're saying?

If you really believe I'm a traitor, you should alert the FBI. I'm not kidding. If you don't really think I'm a traitor, I'm going to have to insist on that apology.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Fasttwitch] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
First I said I was leaving Iraq out of the conversation. I said that because there is no concensus about the war or it's value. Had we found the things there that were said to be there then I wouldn't really care what the Muslim world (or France, Russia Germany) thought. It would have been worth the effort, but since we already debating the Iraq dibacle I will stipulate that it has angered the Muslim world. My point is they were pissed anyway.

2. The USA pumps mega bucks into Israel, which in turn spends the money to buy US made military equipment. Then, Israel uses those weapons against Palestinians, who have rocks, slingshots, some small firearms and explosives used by suicide-bombers. In other words, the Arab world sees it as the US supporting a country that uses missiles, bombs and the air force to attach a contained group of citizens with no comparable defense system.

Israel uses those weapons the same we do, to defend and to retaliate against terrorists and an Arab population who hate them and want them dead and the state destroyed. We support Israel the same way we support other allies. We haven't done anything to Arabs or Muslims, it is just that they hate the fact we support Israel. You can't leave an allie because your enemy hates your allie and therefore you. German, France and the UK all support Israel and sell them weapons... they don't get the same level of hate.

3. The USA supports the Israeli so called plan to improve relations with Palestinians, building "the wall", etc.

The only thing the Palestinians will be happy with is if the US says "you are right, Israel should be destroyed and all the land should go to the Palestinians. Doesn't leave much to work with and puts us in a no win.

4. The USA is a two-sided society. First, Osama Bin Laden was the USA's best friend, thus the USA provided weapons for his cause. Now, Osama Bin Laden is no longer the friend of the USA.

5. Iraq was the USA's good friend when the war against Iran, but now it is no longer the case.

That is how the world works.

The reverse of that is true for Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy. OBL, SH were the enemy of an enemy and so we utilized them for that reason. Besides, I don't really think OBL has hurt feelings over this. We may have given him the running start to power but we didn't have anything to do with his belief system. As for SH, at the time it was believed that doing business with him was worth the opportunity to defeat Iran. SH did himself in with his grand plan to rule the mid east and attack Kuwait. If Germany attacked Poland again I doubt we would still be allies.

Now, eventhough I differ with you above, I agree that the border issue is a joke. If you want to talk about a "wall" I would say build one around the US and I mean a combination of a physical barrier and theoretical.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]You might want to look a little deeper in that dictionary.[/reply]

dictionary.com only gave him two definitions - he chose the second.

Pony up, Brian286. There are other words you could have chosen to use - you picked treason.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [goobie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply][.reply]Not to mention your non sequitor regarding the existence of weapons. The WMDs exist and we should have found them, but we have not yet found stockpiles, therefore they never existed. This I believe is roughly called "Denying the Antecedent."[./reply]

About the bit where you say "they exist" - seems to me that is something of an assumption rather than a proven fact. So where does that leave the rest of your thread of logic?[/reply]

The format of the non sequitor does not really matter whether A or B is an assumption, in fact usually A is an assumption because it has not been proven 100% true or false. My comment, stated a slightly different way: "The WMDs exist (assumption) and we should have found them (opinion), but we have not yet found stockpiles (fact), therefore they never existed (assumption)." The fallacy of logic is concluding that they never existed based on the fact that we have not yet found them.
A good analogy might be the people who hypothesized that there was nothing smaller than an electron because we had never seen such a thing. The people who believed in subatomic particles said: "The particles exist (assumption) and we should be able to see them." The detractors said, "we have not seen them so therefore they do not exist." The detractors were of course proven wrong when the supercolliders were built.


Mad
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Based on that definition, wouldn't the Bush administration be guilty of treason for betraying the trust and confidence of the American people and placing its citizens in harms way for an unwarranted, unprovoked war where the reasons were vague at best and out and out lies at worst?

If I have your attention, Brian. Please enlighten me with an answer to these questions:

Why did Iraq pose a greater threat to our national security than North Korea?

Why don't we force regime change in Saudi Arabia, arguably as brutal and repressive a regime as Hussein's?

Why exactly did we go to war in Iraq?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!
Last edited by: 3Sport: May 18, 04 13:57
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
don't worry, vitus979, you're in good company...i've twice been accused of "treason" by brian286 for opposing the war and its methods

it would be a badge of honor, if i didn't believe brian286 is probably a 12-14 year old with nothing better to do

freedom is untidy
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Actually, I doubt that France could harm us. Its only aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, has trouble crossing the Mediterranean. What an insult to such a great man.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You realize that your argument is that we went to war because we didn't have proof that WMDs didn't exist, right? Do you recognize that it's a fundamentally different argument than saying that we went to war because Iraq had WMDs?

Don't you think that there should be a pretty high burden of proof required before a nation invades another nation? Do you think we met that burden?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [CTL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Actually, I doubt that France could harm us. Its only aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, has trouble crossing the Mediterranean. Yeah, compared to Iraq's mighty navy, the French are weaklings.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your ignorance in accusing about half the country of treachery helps to illustrate how well thought out your positions and arguments are.

Not that it matters in the least, but please help me, how specifically has anyone here betrayed any "trust or confidence" as relates to this war or administration?

Although I doubt that you're interested in reality, I thought I'd let you know that Constitutional treason is defined as:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]
Now THIS is funny. Two myopic simpletons congratulating each other, when neither can respond to simple questions or support his points. Classic! Or, should I say, "Dittoes!!!!"

Triguy42, suffice to say, you originally asserted that "Only an idiot or someone with an agenda could read the full Kay report and not conclude that Iraq had a pattern of development of delivery systems and WMDs to go with them. Just because the stockpiles have not yet been found does not mean there was no active program waiting for sanctions to end/loosen." I responded that the war was about WMDs that posed a significant and immediate threat to us, not Saddam's fantasy arsenal. That you attack me, and then twist what each of has stated rather than respond to my contentions, speaks volumes about the strength of your argument.
[/reply]

You still don't see the strawman apparently. Sorry, but I am not going to waste the time attempting yet again to explain it.

But your response is absolutely priceless. I still can't find a list on the logical fallacies page for failing to respond to any of the arguments, but I will bring to your attention the fallacy named "Attacking the Person," which you are very good at. Considering I thoroughly disproved your only actual argument (item 2), and the others were also logical fallacies, I don't see where I should have replied differently.

And then the whole Rush Limbaugh implication with "Dittoes"...hilarious ad hominem attack. And please don't make the assumption that because I know what a "DittoHead" is, that I am one...that would be called "Begging the Question."

Then you quoted an article by Kaplan (a person with a clear agenda) as proof that I was wrong. You thereby proved my original point. Your argument is therefore called an "Irrelevant Conclusion." (This is essentially your #1 and #3 combined).

Your response is very typical of someone who has no facts or actual responses to back up anything. When all facts and logic leave, resort to ad hominem and other attacks. I am very disappointed.


Mad
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You STILL don't respond directly, so I'll repost:

Triguy42, suffice to say, you originally asserted that "Only an idiot or someone with an agenda could read the full Kay report and not conclude that Iraq had a pattern of development of delivery systems and WMDs to go with them. Just because the stockpiles have not yet been found does not mean there was no active program waiting for sanctions to end/loosen." I responded that the war was about WMDs that posed a significant and immediate threat to us, not Saddam's fantasy arsenal.

What is your response? What was the war about? WMDs? or the possibility of WMDs?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nowhere did I use the word "traitor." Totally different word, totally different meaning. Don't make it out more than it is.

You have betrayed the trust and confindence in our current leadership by your current views and writings. In doing so, you are being...by definition of the word...treasonous.

You're not breaking the law by doing so....in fact....many brave men and women have died for your right to do so. As an American..which I assume you are...or as a member of the free world...you can do that.

In fact, if you were a citizen of Cold War Russia, or the regime under Hussein, your very words in this forum would make you to be a traitor...punishable by penalty of prison or death.

Understand the difference?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Personally, no, I was not in favor of the sanctions. But are you really arguing that we went to war as a mission of mercy so that we could lift the sanctions? To improve the lives of the Iraqis? That's a dubious proposition.


No, I was not arguing that we went to war for the children, and please don't put words in my mouth (after all this talk about strawmen ;). Just asking a simple question. If you didn't like the sanctions, what would you have prefered? Saddam wasn't fulfiling his obligations to give UN inspectors full access to weapons sites and to verifiably dismantle his WMD programs.

I ask this because although I can understand a lot of points made by the anti-war camp, the assertion that the status quo befor the war was just fine bugs me.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [goobie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Pony up, Brian286. There are other words you could have chosen to use - you picked treason."

Yes...probably...but I chose treason. Which by definition is correct. Is it not?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [tri_larry] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
By definition, labeled correctly.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
By definition, the word was used correctly.

The constitutional definitional was not cited or used.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nowhere did I use the word "traitor." Totally different word, totally different meaning. Don't make it out more than it is. Someone who commits treason is a traitor. They aren't totally different words. Don't make it out more than it is? You think accusing someone of treason is trivial? I do not. I most emphatically do not.

You have betrayed the trust and confindence in our current leadership by your current views and writings. In doing so, you are being...by definition of the word...treasonous. How have I betrayed the trust and confidence of our current leadership? Do they have some right or expectation to my blind allegiance?

You're not breaking the law by doing so....in fact....many brave men and women have died for your right to do so. As an American..which I assume you are...or as a member of the free world...you can do that. I am an American. Treason is, in fact, against the law.

In fact, if you were a citizen of Cold War Russia, or the regime under Hussein, your very words in this forum would make you to be a traitor...punishable by penalty of prison or death.

Understand the difference?
What I'm starting to understand is that you are incredibly ignorant, and that your grasp of the English language is tenuous, at best.

The next time you have the urge to accuse someone of something as serious as treason, find a responsible adult and ask for their supervision.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [CTL] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
but see, in my mind the fact that n. korea presents "a special set of risks" that requires a coalition and/or a more delicate approach whereas we could simply enter iraq unilaterally and run roughshod over their forces is indicative that n. korea is a legitimate and imminent threat while iraq was not. if iraq was such a threat, shouldn't it have needed similar treatment as n. korea? if not, why not?

and as a follow up, somewhat off topic question--after the u.s. disregarded many countries' objections with respect to invading iraq, isn't it somewhat hypocritical if the u.s. then asks those same countries to join them in forming a coalition to assess/diffuse the n. korea issues?




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Reread the definition in dictionary.com and get back to me. You're overthinking this....I know you can do it...
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, I was not arguing that we went to war for the children, and please don't put words in my mouth (after all this talk about strawmen ;). Just asking a simple question. If you didn't like the sanctions, what would you have prefered? Saddam wasn't fulfiling his obligations to give UN inspectors full access to weapons sites and to verifiably dismantle his WMD programs.

I ask this because although I can understand a lot of points made by the anti-war camp, the assertion that the status quo befor the war was just fine bugs me.

I didn't put any words in your mouth- you're the one who brought up "starving Iraqi children."

With regards to the sanctions, I think that once Iraq was beaten back behind its own borders, we should have simply come home and gone about our business. I could give a rat's ass about the UN and its desires.

And while the status quo was not just fine before the invasion, waging war to alleviate conditions created by the sanctions which we enforced in the first place seems a bit unreasonable, doesn't it?











"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
no brian, we are not overthinking this. you made a very serious and ridiculous accusation/assertion. now you are trying to hide behind the dictionary.com definition of the word when you know damn well that you were implying a lot more than simply "a betrayal of trust". treason has several negative connotations that go well beyond a "betrayal of trust".




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"By definition, the word was used correctly.

The constitutional definitional was not cited or used. "




Well, no it wasn't. The definition you gave was "A betrayal of trust or confidence." And in response I asked "how specifically has anyone here betrayed any 'trust or confidence' as relates to this war or administration?" You chose to ignore my question and respond with the above drivel which you've effectively demonstrated you can regurgitate repeatedly.

The reason I asked was that in order for you to answer it, you would need to identify any trust or confidence given to members of this forum which they then betrayed. If you can't show this, then you can't show that you used the word treason correctly.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is the dictionary.com definition wrong?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
no, but try this one from webster's 10th edition:

'the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the gov't of the state to which the offender owes allegiance...'

but i am sure that's not what you meant at all....




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, I meant the dictionary.com definition. I've always relied on their service and found their definitions reputable.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm certain I used it correctly.

Thanks for trying to read my mind though.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CONFIRMED!!! The USA has WMDs, tons and tons of them.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK, for kicks I'll ask another question which you won't answer: how was I trying to read your mind?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
With regards to the sanctions, I think that once Iraq was beaten back behind its own borders, we should have simply come home and gone about our business. I could give a rat's ass about the UN and its desires.


If that had happened, Iraq would be a nuclear power today. When dealing with maniacs who are determined to acquire WMDs (Iraq and NK) the "leave well enough alone" approach just doesn't cut it.

I really don't want to get into this - I only posted on the topic to correct a blatantly incorrect post about Israel using WMDs. But since I did, here's my opinion:

Saddam was a brutal dictator hell bent on acquiring WMDs, and had shown he was willing to use them. During the decade since Gulf War I his WMD program took a huge hit, but he never fully cooperated with inspectors nor showed any willingness to abandon WMD programs. Even with US troops on his border, he still didn't fully cooperate with inspectors. Saddam posed a real, if not imminent" threat to the world and for that reason I support the regime change. I will say that a lot of the arguments for the war by the Bush admin were BS. I don't think there's any good evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, certainly not to 9/11. And I don't think we've found any WMD smoking guns. But I do think in the long run, a new Iraqi government will be in everyone's best interested.

(Before the war I didn't know whether he had WMDs. Turns out he probably didn't have much of anything, but if sanctions were lifted, he sure as hell would have restarted his programs.)

By the same logic, I think taking out Kim Chong Il would be justified as well. It's just not practical for a lot of obvious reasons.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Treason, in the definition you claim to have used, is a non-specific noun that can be used in any manner "you commited treason against me by sleeping with my wife."

But, Brian, by specifically linking treason with "country" you either intentionally or unintentionally used a more specific definition of the word:

"the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family "

As you may or may not know, the English language has many words that can mean several things. For example if I said my friend was a rabbit in a mile race, I don't mean he's a fuzzy-tailed, long-eared rodent. A dictionary can be a dangerous thing in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it and/or is trying to backpedal out of an argument.

By "backpedal" I don't mean rotating your legs in the reverse direction as your bike's drive train.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Is the dictionary.com definition wrong?


No, your usage was.

The "treason" accusation was complete bullshit and you know it.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If that had happened, Iraq would be a nuclear power today. What, like Iran? And let me know where you got your crystal ball, I wouldn't mind having one myself.


But I do think in the long run, a new Iraqi government will be in everyone's best interested.

By the same logic, I think taking out Kim Chong Il would be justified as well. It's just not practical for a lot of obvious reasons.
This is where we disagree. I don't think it is within our authority to judge the suitability of another nations type of government. Is Iraq going to be better off in the long run now that we've overthrown Hussein? It remains to be seen, doesn't it? And it isn't our call to make. Would North Korea be better off without Kim Jong Il? It would depend, really, on what the replacement is, but again, it isn't our decision who should lead another nation.

If we're going to go around deposing governments that we deem unacceptable, we're looking at a long list of countries that need invasion, aren't we? Even if we narrow it down to objectionable governments that are also weak. By what right do we make that decision?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [3Sport] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thank you for the English lesson. I'm aware of how the word is used and by definition I used it correctly.

I honestly don't see a reason to "backpedal" out of an argument. What argument do you have if the word is used according to it's stated definition?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks but I don't agree.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"And I don't think we've found any WMD smoking guns. "

We find detailed plans, chemical suits, facilities and equipment, and an artillery shell but you still think he doesn't have WMD's?

Talk about "bullshit."

Did you not learn how to connect the dots when you were young?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"And in response I asked "how specifically has anyone here betrayed any 'trust or confidence' as relates to this war or administration?"

Examples below. No need to put names.

"First of all, I don't particularly care about beating GW in November. I think he's doing a lousy job as president, but I don't think Kerry's any better."

"Why are we at war? Regime Change? WMDs? Oil? All are ridiculous excuses for endangering the lives of Americans. There is not one shred of evidence that Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror. Whatever the Bush administration's motives are (oil, regime change, hastening the arrival of "The Rapture," stimulating the economy with juicy rebuilding contracts) you can not give one rational arguement that it was because they posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States."

"however our leaders don't deserve on ounce of my respect.."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What, like Iran? And let me know where you got your crystal ball, I wouldn't mind having one myself.
It's well known that Iraq was very close to having a nuke when Gulf War I started. Without the subsequent inspections and dismantlement program, it's not very difficult to imagine they would have had nuclear capabilities by now. Would North Korea be better off without Kim Jong Il? I think the only person who doesn't think so is Kim himself.... I don't think it is within our authority to judge the suitability of another nations type of government. And that's the crux of our disagreement. I feel that a tyrannical despot who is trying to acquire WMDs (or already has them) can be justifiably taken out. What gives me the authority to say so? I don't know, but my conscience is OK with it. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I realize this is like arguing with a 2 year old, but , not supporting or respecting a politician is not "betraying a trust". I don't think vitus promised GW Bush to support the war in Iraq and then later betrayed that promise.

You have to first pledge allegience to a cause in order to betray it. If you never supported it, it's not a betrayal. Again, what cause or trust has anyone betrayed?

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
No credibility [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It doesn't matter if they find a bomb with sarin or not - NOBODY and I mean NOBODY except those persons who blindly support GWB at all costs will believe the story. Certainly not the Arab world or any person living in any other country on this planet. We have all moved way beyond trying to rationalize the reasons why we went into Iraq and I think we all pretty much agree that it was one big lie. There simply is no credibility in the what the administration says anymore. I don't care what Rush, Fox news, or any TV preacher says.

Plus according to Colin Powell, Rumsfeld and GWB, Iraq had so many weapons of mass destruction that Iraq could fill several football fields worth....

The administration should focus on an exit strategy, which they don't have.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [3Sport] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
good lord 3sport!

a rabbit is a lagomorph, not a rodent! precision and accuracy are absolutely critical in these political threads! as brian286 can attest.

:)

toad

http://www.kenyawilds.com/faculty.html
Last edited by: toadpalmer: May 18, 04 18:46
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jhc:

"betraying a trust" is not what was written. Betraying "trust or confidence" is what was written.

Close in words and structure...but very different in meaning.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So what "confidence" was betrayed? That makes even less sense.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
what im saying is that they were not destroyed by UN protocols, they were "destroyed" or used on his own people in acts of genocide. This would constitute a war crime punishable by death for everyone involved. For them to prove that these weapons no longer exist would be to incriminate themselves of crimes against humanity, hence they would rather risk war than risk trials at the Hague. This is why im saying they havent proved it, its not because they still have the weapons.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It makes sense. Allow me to explain in simpler terms.

Treason...by definition...was used to describe this behavior of "betraying trust or confidence."

It was stated by some that there was no confidence, trust, or belief in why Bush or his admistration invaded Iraq. I have no qualm with that viewpoint...I don't agree with it but nonetheless they are entitled to that opinion. However, it would be correct to describe this behavior as "treason." Not in the sense that they are traitors...but that they lack of "trust or confidence" in the leader who made the decision.

No reason to get your shorts in a wad...just consider it an English lesson.
Last edited by: Brian286: May 18, 04 19:42
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
>just consider it an English lesson



You've got to be kidding me.

If you can't comprehend the difference between "betraying a confidence" and having no confidence in something, this conversation is pointless. Of course I should have known that all along.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding the concepts. I don't think I could put it any simpler. I guess you'll have to sit this one out then...better luck next time.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
it's a waste of time. he's going to continue to defend his absolutely ridiculous point of view. we all know what he meant when he said it. and you've even managed to poke several holes in his flimsy defense of his statement. to paraphrase a bumper sticker i once saw: you can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jhc, Fastwitch, Cholla, etc. may I remind you all of two things

1. you are wasting your time

2. the bushido says that you should you neither your physical strength nor your intelligence to harm someone not at your level.

pregunta por cholla...cholla, that's a feminine word isn't it? I think it means something like "girl in a gang"...so would you be a chick?
Quote Reply
Re: NK train explosion highlights NK/Syria threat [5280] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, it appears that our ongoing discussion of the threat posed by NK and Syria comes to the front with the recent revelation that on board the train that exploded in NK were missle components bound for Syria. http://www.worldtribune.com/...bune/breaking_2.html

"U.S. officials confirmed a report in a Japanese daily newspaper that a train explosion on April 22 killed about a dozen Syrian technicians near the Ryongchon province in North Korea. The officials said the technicians were accompanying a train car full of missile components and other equipment from a facility near the Chinese border to a North Korea port"




Interesting. There is nothing on BBC, Guardian, Stuff or CNN either. Doing a Google search only brings up references that are getting their information from The World Tribune.

The World Tribune article (dated 18 May) says the Sankei Shimbun reported this on 4th May. You would think that if this was true then the news would have circulated a bit more. Unfortunately my japanese is not good enough to read the Sankei Shimbun directly.

I live in Japan where North Korean news is fairly topical and I can find no mention of this in the newspapers that I read.

So although it fits the facts (very big train explosion, Aid initially rejected), it's not necessarily true. I think I will wait for some additional confirmation. The fact that no one else is reporting it suggest that it is not something to rely on.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Main Entry: chol·la
Pronunciation: 'choi-y&
Function: noun
Etymology: Mexican Spanish, from Spanish, head
: any of numerous shrubby opuntias chiefly of the southwestern U.S. and Mexico that have needlelike spines partly enclosed in a papery sheath and cylindrical joints



Francois,

It is a type of cactus. No, I am not a chick. I am male.

You are right about these conversations. As I have said to others, I do like honest debate - but that is not happening here, so I am backing off.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
First of all Brian, let me say thanks for finally attempting to address a question I asked.

Unfortunately, I'm confused. What you have cited are a couple of instances of posters expressing distain for policies of the President or distain for the President himself. I don't see where any trust or confidence was betrayed. Were these posters ever entrusted by the Administration to support it at all cost? Did the administration ever take this poster into their confidence which the poster then betrayed? It seems we're all missing something here. I don't have any access to these peoples personal lives, nor do I know what their relationship is with the President. Apparently there is some bond of trust or confidence between them that you are referring to. Care to share? Where is the trust or confidence that was broken? Surely you don't believe that a simple difference of opinion, disapproval of job performance, or dislike of an individual necessarily constitutes betrayal of trust or confidence? Do you?
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Francois] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Jhc, Fastwitch, Cholla, etc. may I remind you all of two things

1. you are wasting your time

2. the bushido says that you should you neither your physical strength nor your intelligence to harm someone not at your level.

pregunta por cholla...cholla, that's a feminine word isn't it? I think it means something like "girl in a gang"...so would you be a chick?


Looks like a group of people are a little miffed because a word was used in a creative way that they can't seem to understand or want to understand.

No worries guys. It's human nature to be upset when you've been proven wrong. Don't let it get you down. Life goes on....
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm sorry but I don't think I could lay it out any simpler for you. I stand by my use of the word and don't feel that I have to defend its use when it was used correctly.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is that the cactus Mexicans grill and stuff with all kinds of wonderful stuff or is that a diffrent one? I have went south of the border quite a few times and love all them cactus dishes. Viva Mexico!

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]
You are right about these conversations. As I have said to others, I do like honest debate - but that is not happening here, so I am backing off.[/reply]

Yes, no intelligent debate here. I stated quite clearly in my original post that I believe it was about weapons programs (which have been found) as well as the actual stockpiles (which have yet to be found). This position is quite clearly supported by the UN Resolutions themselves and the statements of various world leaders.
I am then personally attacked for having a lack of logic (despite having not committed the 8 or so logical fallacies which you have done); been personally attacked for occasionally committing the sin of bad grammar; then my concise and accurate counterarguments are totally ignored while I was personally attacked twice more and accused of being a "Ditto"; then asked the same question three times which I have answered now three times. Cholla until you can learn to argue a point without resorting to various ad hominem and other personal attacks you have a comfy spot on my tiny ignore list. Honest debate does not include your tactics.

But in reality this is a triathlon/running/biathlon/etc board and is not a forum for political discussions. I regret wasting my time and bandwidth here on something other than talking about kicking my brother's butt at the GCT 2 weeks ago.


Mad
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [triguy42] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I second your sentiments Triguy42.

Well said and done in a respectful manner.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Is that the cactus Mexicans grill and stuff with all kinds of wonderful stuff or is that a diffrent one? I have went south of the border quite a few times and love all them cactus dishes. Viva Mexico!




I am not from Mexico, but I think it is the "prickly pear" that is grilled (flat and paddle-shaped). The above photo (if it shows up, I've never tried to post one before) is a cholla. I once got some cholla needles caught in my calf. OUCH!
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh ok. Well grill that cactus up and I'll eat it. Anyting is good when grilled.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK Brian. It's seems you are going with the "I believe I am right, therefore I am" approach. That's fine, more power to you. It seems that is the way of things today, to make outrageous statements or actions and feel no need to back them up with lucid, logical arguments.

Power to the sheep!!
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My argument was based on solid facts and reason. Whether you are intentionally on unintentionally trying to comprehend what has been laid before you is your choice.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]Looks like a group of people are a little miffed because a word was used in a creative way that they can't seem to understand or want to understand.[/reply]

What?!?! You used an online DICTIONARY to DEFINE a word - where's the creativity in that? Again, there are certain words that shouldn't be used lightly. It's like calling consensual sex "rape" - isn't that just using the word creatively? Or is that ok too?

Here's what dictionary.com says

trea·son    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (trzn)
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

First off you are hiding behind the definition - I think a better way to say it would be "A betrayal of A trust or A confidence."

Secondly, you chose definition 2, but you are ignoring, or at best not acknowledging, definition 1. You have to accept that in doing so it implies that you are embracing the first definition within your use of the word.

All you have to say is that you are NOT stating that you think Vitus is acting treasonably within the confines of the first definition, but you repeatedly decline to do that. Which I think is pretty weak. You can agree to disagree, but you shouldn't make accusations using a serious word and then blow off the consequences.

Nick
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [goobie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"First off you are hiding behind the definition - I think a better way to say it would be "A betrayal of A trust or A confidence."

Take that up with the folks who write the dictionary. That's not the stated definition. Similar in structure, but way apart in meaning. Don't twist the words.

I acknowledged the definition stated in "1." See post #206.

"You can agree to disagree....."

I agree to disagree.
Last edited by: Brian286: May 19, 04 9:06
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
If that had happened, Iraq would be a nuclear power today. When dealing with maniacs who are determined to acquire WMDs (Iraq and NK) the "leave well enough alone" approach just doesn't cut it.
Uh, bullshit. Why do people think that any old country can become a nuclear power, just given the room to do so? Iran and Libya have (or in Libya's case, had) tried for decades, and they are not nuclear powers.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i am beginning to think that "treason" was on his word of the day toilet paper and he felt compelled to use it in everyday conversation. wonder what today's will be?




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
In Reply To:
If that had happened, Iraq would be a nuclear power today. When dealing with maniacs who are determined to acquire WMDs (Iraq and NK) the "leave well enough alone" approach just doesn't cut it.
Uh, bullshit. Why do people think that any old country can become a nuclear power, just given the room to do so? Iran and Libya have (or in Libya's case, had) tried for decades, and they are not nuclear powers.

Ken Lehner
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [5280] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:


Thanks for clarifying.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"...wonder what today's will be?"

obtuse:

ob·tuse:
  1. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
  2. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
  3. Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain


  1. Not sharp, pointed, or acute in form; blunt.
  2. Having an obtuse angle: an obtuse triangle.
  3. Botany. Having a blunt or rounded tip: an obtuse leaf.


Examples:

"some people posting on this thread are either normally stupid or being deliberately obtuse"; "worked with the slow students"
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
that's a real zinger.

i disagree that people posting on this thread are stupid or deliberately obtuse. guess i just committed a treasonous act towards brian...




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Excellent use of your new words. Congrats!
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ken, I'm not talking about "any old country". After the first Gulf War it was discovered thgat Iraq's nuclear program was much farther advanced than previously thought. It was widely claimed that Iraq was 6 months to 2 years away from obatining a nuclear weapon on the eve of the first Gulf War.

Are you seriously suggesting that absent UNSCOM's verification and dismantlement programs after Gulf War I Iraq would likely not have nuclear weapons today?

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Iraq and nuclear weapons [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
   

In Reply To:
It was widely claimed that Iraq was 6 months to 2 years away from obatining a nuclear weapon on the eve of the first Gulf War.
And it was widely claimed that Iraq had vast stockpiles of WMDs, which could be used within 45 minutes. I'm willing to bet cash dollars that the claims of the imminence of Iraq's nuclear capability were based on "intelligence" gleaned from the same sources that hoodwinked the administration into believing all the other claims that have either been falsified or not yet proven (can you say Iraqi National Congress?), and are just as erroneous. I don't believe it.

In Reply To:
Are you seriously suggesting that absent UNSCOM's verification and dismantlement programs after Gulf War I Iraq would likely not have nuclear weapons today?
Yes, that is what I am seriously suggesting. Why doesn't Iran have nuclear weapons, despite the lack of bombing and other interventions? Why didn't Libya succeed? How long, and at what cost, did it take for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons? Why do you think Iraq would have been successful?

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Quote
In Reply To:
If that had happened, Iraq would be a nuclear power today. When dealing with maniacs who are determined to acquire WMDs (Iraq and NK) the "leave well enough alone" approach just doesn't cut it.
Uh, bullshit. Why do people think that any old country can become a nuclear power, just given the room to do so? Iran and Libya have (or in Libya's case, had) tried for decades, and they are not nuclear powers.

Ken Lehner


Yeah, lets try this the third time. It will not take my edits. Maybe it is a sign to log off. My question was, are you saying that if "any old country" is developing or consistently working on a program we should not be concerned or consider it a threat? I understand the development is not easy but it is becoming easier for countries like Iran (which I don't consider "any old country") to buy components and technology from countries like NK or Pakistan, or just to pay a scientist from any number of countries with functioning programs.

At what point do we get alarmed? Once the roll one of the production line? It just seems like you are stating "they will never figure it out so don't worry about them"

Sorry for the technical malfunction.
Last edited by: 5280: May 19, 04 10:11
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [5280] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Am I missing something here, or are you so enamored of my posts that you want them to appear multiple times?

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Iraq and nuclear weapons [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And it was widely claimed that Iraq had vast stockpiles of WMDs, which could be used within 45 minutes. I'm willing to bet cash dollars that the claims of the imminence of Iraq's nuclear capability were based on "intelligence" gleaned from the same sources that hoodwinked the administration into believing all the other claims that have either been falsified or not yet proven (can you say Iraqi National Congress?), and are just as erroneous. I don't believe it.

Apples and oranges. I'm not talking about recent (and shoddy) intelligence about Iraq's capabilities is 2003. I'm talking about UNSCOM's assessment of Iraq in 1991 based on post-war inspections.

For example:

FIRST REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN UNSCOM

S/23165
25 October 1991

9. In the nuclear field, the IAEA-led inspections have disclosed three clandestine uranium enrichment programmes or activities: chemical, centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation as well as laboratory-scale plutonium separation. The sixth nuclear inspection finally obtained conclusive evidence of a nuclear weapons development programme, aimed at an implosion-type nuclear weapon linked to a surface-to-surface missile project. Given the information obtained about the advanced nature of Iraqi efforts to develop an implosion system, it appears that it is the availability of adequate amounts of fissile material that would have been the major factor in determining how soon Iraq could have produced a nuclear device. For example, if Iraq would have started with natural uranium using its electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) technology, that time could have been as little as 12 to 18 months. Further information will be found in appendix III to the present report.



Yes, that is what I am seriously suggesting. Why doesn't Iran have nuclear weapons, despite the lack of bombing and other interventions? Why didn't Libya succeed? How long, and at what cost, did it take for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons? Why do you think Iraq would have been successful?


Because the inspectors on the ground in Iraq documented an extensive and advanced nuclear program in place in 1991. Yes, I'm sure much of it was damaged during the actual war, but much was also subsequently dismantled by UNSCOM.

I'm actually quite suprised at your argument here, so much that I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Even the most adrent oppononents of the most recent Iraq war that I know agree that the original WMD inspections/dismantlement program in Iraq in the early 90's was pretty darn important to keep Saddam from acquiring WMD's. Certainly the UN thought so. Are you saying you don't?

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Iraq and nuclear weapons [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Unlike some (one) in this thread, I'm willing to back off when shown the error in my thinking. I listened to a very persuasive interview (of whom, and where, I lamely can't place) of someone who said how unlikely it was that Iraq would be able to develop nuclear weapons, because of how hard it really is. I'm certainly not a nuclear weapons program expert, so I won't dispute that Iraq may have been able to do it without the GWI intervention (it still would have been difficult, and they may not have succeeded). My mistake in conflating your source of information and the Chalabi bullshit, not to mention the time frames. Heat of the moment stuff, you know.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Iraq and nuclear weapons [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TREASON!!! you just betrayed the confidence you placed in yourself. fie and for shame!




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Iraq and nuclear weapons [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
TREASON!!! you just betrayed the confidence you placed in yourself. fie and for shame!


Name the punishment, and I'll self-administer. I hope it has something to do with chocolate...

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Iraq and nuclear weapons [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
didn't they used to execute people for treason? very well, death by chocolate....




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [goobie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Actually, in certain circumstances, such as age, "consensual" sex is still rape.

It appears the words consensual sex and rape are two that should not be used so lightly.
Last edited by: jaj: May 19, 04 10:51
Quote Reply
Re: Iraq and nuclear weapons [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No worries. Maybe the interview was referring to Iraq post-UNSCOM/sanctions/etc...?

I'm feeling pretty treasonous about it all now. I know that doesnt make any sense, but I like the word and I'll use it any way I see fit ;)

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jaj] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
neither should treason.




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jaj] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]It appears the words consensual sex and rape are two that should not be used so lightly.[/reply]

Which TWO words are we discussing? I'm obviously being obtuse, but I don't understand your point. Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? My point is that you shouldn't use words interchangably unless you take on board all of their meanings and connotations.

Nick
Last edited by: goobie: May 19, 04 11:06
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply]"And in response I asked "how specifically has anyone here betrayed any 'trust or confidence' as relates to this war or administration?"

Examples below. No need to put names.

[b]"First of all, I don't particularly care about beating GW in November. I think he's doing a lousy job as president, but I don't think Kerry's any better."[/b]

[b]"Why are we at war? Regime Change? WMDs? Oil? All are ridiculous excuses for endangering the lives of Americans. There is not one shred of evidence that Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror. Whatever the Bush administration's motives are (oil, regime change, hastening the arrival of "The Rapture," stimulating the economy with juicy rebuilding contracts) you can not give one rational arguement that it was because they posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States." [/b]

[b]"however our leaders don't deserve on ounce of my respect.."[/b][/reply]

Dictionary.com define betrayal as:

1. a. To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one's country.
b. To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance: betrayed Christ to the Romans.
2. To be false or disloyal to: betrayed their cause; betray one's better nature.
3. To divulge in a breach of confidence: betray a secret.
4. To make known unintentionally: Her hollow laugh betrayed her contempt for the idea.
5. To reveal against one's desire or will.
6. To lead astray; deceive. See Synonyms at deceive.

Again - where is the betrayal you are accusing people of?

Nick
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [goobie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's not worth it. I should have known better myself.

_______________________________________________
Last edited by: jhc: May 19, 04 11:39
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's kinda fun though.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Pooks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I totally agree.

Who says learning isn't fun? I know I enjoyed teaching you all something.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Brian286] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
what are you teaching again? remember, i am obtuse...




f/k/a mclamb6
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They have special education classes for people like yourself.
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [Record10ti] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Here's a link to the UNSCOM Report on Iraq's NBC program status as of January 1999:

http://www.fas.org/.../s/990125/index.html

Some interesting discoveries:

1. Iraq never declared ANY 155 shells filled with Sarin, although some have now apparently been found.

Iraq's Declarations

Accounting Status

Munition Type ( fill)* Quantity

1. Munitions declared by Iraq as remaining

After the 1991 Gulf war

250 gauge aerial bombs (mustard) 1,243 1,233 aerial bombs were accounted for by UNSCOM. They were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision during 1992 and 1993. 250 gauge aerial bombs



(Unfilled)
8,122 1) 7,627 aerial bombs were accounted for by UNSCOM. They were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision during 1991 and 1993.



2) About 500 aerial bombs have not been found. According to Iraq, 500 aerial bombs were delivered damaged by a foreign supplier.
500 gauge aerial bombs (mustard) 1,426 1) 980 aerial bombs were accounted for by UNSCOM. They were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision in 1992-1993.



2) Remnants of several hundred destroyed aerial bombs from 438 bombs declared by Iraq as destroyed in a fire accident in 1988, were seen by UNSCOM.
500 gauge aerial bombs (unfilled) 422 1) 331 aerial bombs were accounted for by UNSCOM and destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision.



2) Some 100 aerial bombs have not been found. According to Iraq, 100 aerial bombs were delivered damaged by a supplier.
R-400 aerial bombs



(binary components of sarin)
337 1) 337 aerial bombs were accounted for by UNSCOM. 336 bombs were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision in 1992.



2) One bomb was removed for analysis outside Iraq by UNSCOM.

3) Evidence of a few R-400 bombs produced by Iraq for BW purposes has been found among 337 CW bombs declared by Iraq.
R-400 aerial bombs (unfilled) 58 58 aerial bombs were accounted for by UNSCOM and destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision. DB-2 aerial bombs (unfilled) 1,203 1,203 aerial bombs were accounted for by UNSCOM. They were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision during 1992 and 1993. 122-mm rockets



(sarin)
6,610 6,454 rockets were accounted for by UNSCOM. They were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision during 1992 and 1993. 122-mm rockets



(unfilled)
6,880 7,305 rockets were accounted for by UNSCOM and destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision. 155-mm artillery shells (mustard) 13,000 12,792 shells were accounted for by UNSCOM. They were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision in the period 1992-1994. 155-mm artillery shells (unfilled) 16,950 1) 1,700 shells were accounted for by UNSCOM and destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision.



2) In 1998, Iraq presented documents on the conversion of 15,616 shells to conventional munitions. Of these, 1,779 converted shells were accounted for by UNSCOM.
Special missile warheads (sarin/binary components of sarin) 30 1) All 30 warheads were accounted for by UNSCOM.



2) Of those, 29 warheads were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision during 1992 and 1993, and

3) One warhead was removed for analysis outside Iraq by UNSCOM.
Sub total of munitions remaining after the 1991 Gulf war 56,281

2. Munitions declared by Iraq as

destroyed during the 1991 Gulf war

500 gauge aerial bombs



(CS)
116 1) No remnants of destroyed bombs have been found.



2) In 1995, documentary evidence was provided by Iraq that 116 bombs filled with CS had been stored at a facility destroyed during the Gulf war.
R-400 aerial bombs



(binary components of sarin)
160 1) In 1992, remnants of bombs consistent with the declared quantity of bombs were seen by UNSCOM.



2) The circumstances of destruction have not been fully clarified.
DB-2 aerial bomb



(sarin)
12 1) In 1991, remnants of up to 50 bombs were seen by UNSCOM.



2) In 1996, documentary evidence was found by UNSCOM that DB-2 bombs had also been filled with mustard (which was not declared). In 1997, Iraq stated that only a few bombs were filled with mustard for trials.
122-mm rockets



(sarin)
4,660 1) In 1991, two locations were seen by UNSCOM where rockets had been destroyed. Evidence of many destroyed rockets was found.



2) In the period 1991-1998, remnants of about 4,000 rockets were recovered and accounted for by UNSCOM.
122-mm rockets



(unfilled)
36,500 1) Completely destroyed hangers where rockets had been destroyed were seen by UNSCOM. Evidence of many destroyed rockets was found. Accounting for the remnants was not possible due to the extent of the destruction.



2) In 1995, documentary evidence was provided by Iraq that 36,500 rockets had been stored at a facility destroyed during the Gulf war.
155-mm artillery shells (mustard) 550 1) No evidence has been found of 550 shells declared by Iraq as having been lost shortly after the Gulf war.



2) In July 1998, Iraq provided a progress report on its ongoing internal investigation.
Sub total of munitions destroyed during the 1991 Gulf war 1 41,998

3. Munitions declared by Iraq as

destroyed unilaterally

250 gauge aerial bombs



(CS)
125 Remnants of bombs consistent with the declared quantity were seen by UNSCOM. 250 gauge aerial bombs (unfilled) 2,000 1) Remnants of 1,400 destroyed bombs were accounted for by UNSCOM.



2) UNSCOM was presented with ingots declared to be from the melting of 600 bombs. The material presented could not be assessed as adequate for proper verification.
R-400 aerial bombs



(binary components of sarin)
527 1) Remnants of bombs consistent with the declared quantity were seen by UNSCOM.



2) Iraq presented supporting documents on the destruction of 527 bombs .
R-400 aerial bombs (biological warfare agents) 157 1) In the period 1992-1998, remnants of up to 60 bombs were accounted for by UNSCOM.



2) Supporting documents on the destruction were presented by Iraq (without reference to the type of agents filled into them).
R-400 aerial bombs (unfilled) 308 1) No evidence was presented of 117 bombs declared by Iraq as having been melted.



2) No evidence was presented of 191 melted bombs declared as defective.
122-mm rockets



(unfilled)
26,500 1) Remnants of 11,500 rockets destroyed through demolition were seen by UNSCOM. Accounting was not possible due to the state of destruction.



2) UNSCOM was presented with ingots declared to be from the melting of 15,000 rockets. The material presented could not be assessed as adequate for proper verification.
Special missile warheads (binary components of sarin / biological warfare agents) 45 1) In the period from 1992 to 1998, remnants of 43-45 special warheads were recovered and accounted for by UNSCOM.



2) In the period from 1997 to 1998, remnants of 3 additional warheads declared as special training warheads were recovered.

3) In 1998, degradation products of CW agent VX were found on some of the remnants of special warheads.

4) Supporting documents were provided by Iraq on the overall accounting for special warheads and on the unilateral destruction of 45 warheads.
Sub total of munitions destroyed unilaterally 29,662



1 - 20,000 motor bombs filled with the riot control agent CS, which were destroyed during the Gulf war at one of the storage facilities, are not included in the table.

2 - Components of special munitions, including boosters and fuzes, are not included in the table.

The majority of these components were not presented by Iraq for verification. According to

Iraq, single-use components were destroyed unilaterally and dual-use components were used

for conventional purposes. UNSCOM was able to verify their disposition partially.

* - The following unfilled munitions were produced indigenously by Iraq:

250 and 500 gauge aerial bombs, R-400 aerial bombs, DB-2 aerial bombs, warheads for 122-mm rockets, missile warheads.

The following empty munitions were procured by Iraq:

250 and 500 gauge aerial bombs, 155-mm shells and 122-mm rockets.




2. The UNSCOM noted, but wrote off as "minor counting discrepancies" several hundreds of CW that were unaccounted for.

"The numerical discrepancy of several hundred munitions in the overall accounting can be attributed to minor deviations in the physical counting of large piles of weapons."

3. The UNSCOM acknowledged that Iraqi claims that large quantities of CW were destroyed during the '91 war, were unverifiable.

"b) 41,998 munitions [5,498 filled munitions and 36,500 unfilled munitions] declared by Iraq as having been destroyed during the 1991 Gulf war:
  • The Commission has accepted the destruction of about 34,000 munitions on the basis of multiple sources, including physical evidence, documents provided by Iraq etc. However, it has not been possible to achieve a numerical accounting of destroyed munitions due to heavy bomb damage of the CW storage facilities, where these munitions had been stored during the Gulf war,
  • the destruction of about 2,000 unfilled munitions remain uncertain,
  • 550 filled munitions remain unaccounted for.


c) 29,662 munitions [854 filled munitions and 28,808 unfilled munitions] declared by Iraq as having been destroyed unilaterally:
  • the destruction of about 13,660 munitions, both filled and unfilled, has been accepted by the Commission on the basis of multiple sources, including physical evidence, documents provided by Iraq etc. However, it has not been possible to make a numerical accounting of these munitions due to destruction method used by Iraq (demolition),
  • the accounting for 15,900 unfilled munitions which, according to Iraq, had been melted, has not been possible,
  • about 100 munitions filled, according to Iraq, with BW agents remain unaccounted for. "


4. The UNSCOM acknowledged that they had little faith in many of Iraq's assertions that their weapons were destroyed "unilaterally."

"46. It should be recalled, that a significant number of chemical weapons, their components, related equipment and materials were identified and destroyed under the Commission's supervision in the period from 1991 to 1997. This included over 38,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, 690 tonnes of chemical warfare agents (including 411 tonnes of bulk agents), more than 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals and about 600 pieces of production equipment.



47. In its accounting for various weapons-related elements of Iraq's CW programme, the Commission has achieved various levels of confidence, depending on the availability of evidence found in the course of the Commission's inspection activities, provided by Iraq or by its former suppliers.

48. The Commission has a high degree of confidence in its accounting for proscribed items which were physically presented by Iraq for verification and disposal. This includes the accounting for: 56,000 special munitions, 411 tonnes of bulk agents, 2,810 tonnes of key precursor and 553 pieces of production equipment.

49. The Commission has a certain degree of confidence in the accounting for proscribed items declared by Iraq as having been destroyed during the 1991 Gulf war. The Commission has accepted through its verification the destruction of 34,000 special munitions and 823 tonnes of key precursors. Outstanding issues remain. These include the accounting for 2,000 unfilled and 550 filled special munitions.

50. The Commission has a lesser degree of confidence in accounting for proscribed items declared by Iraq as having been destroyed unilaterally. These include 15,900 unfilled and 100 filled special munitions, the CW agent VX and 50 tonnes of a precursor for the production of VX. Nevertheless, the Commission has accepted through its verification the destruction of 13,660 special munitions and about 200 tonnes of key precursors. However, residual questions remain with respect to proscribed items destroyed unilaterally. The presentation by foreign suppliers of information on the delivery of munitions and precursors requested by UNSCOM could be helpful in the verification of this area."

5. Th UNSCOM detailed numerous examples of Iraqi interference with their inspection efforts including confiscation of documents that appeared to provide evidence of ongoing nuclear and CW programs AFTER the '91 war.

2. Immediately following the Gulf war, the Iraqi Presidency collected reports on weapons remaining with Iraq's Armed Forces after the war, including its weapons prohibited by recently adopted resolution 687(1991). Such documents were provided to the Presidency in the spring of 1991. A decision was taken by a high-level committee (one of whose members was Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Tariq Aziz) to provide to the Commission only a portion of its proscribed weapons, their components and production capabilities and stocks. The policy, as deduced from a range of evidence available to the Commission including the initial false Iraq's declarations, was based on the following Iraqi actions:

-- provide a portion of their extant weapon stocks, with an emphasis on those, which were least modern.

-- retain production capability and the "know-how" documentation necessary to revive programmes when possible

-- conceal the full extent of chemical weapons programmes, including its VX project, and retain production equipment and raw materials

-- conceal the number and type of BW and CW warheads for proscribed missiles

-- conceal indigenous long-range missile production, and retain production capabilities, specifically with respect to guidance systems and missile engines

-- conceal the very existence of its offensive biological weapons programme and retain all production capabilities"

and

"The Commission has concluded that a segregation of documents must have taken place prior to delivery to the Commission. It has sought from Iraq further explanations of what happened to the documents and where they are located. This has never been provided."
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [tri_bri2] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A naive question:

What is the range of 155mm shells?

Nick
Quote Reply
Re: Oh Oh!!! WMD - CONFIRMED!!!! [goobie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
216 miles is the range of the US variant. Don't know for sure, but would assume whatever type 155 mm howitzers they had would be somewhere near that. Surely enough to be a regional threat depending on where in Iraq they were deployed.
Quote Reply