OK, so we found WMDs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Many countries have numerous weapons that could bring about damage and destruction, I am just trying to recall correctly how many Iraq launched at us...

How many of these "other countries" have been asked by the UN since over a decade ago about having weapons of teh sort? Saddam clearly lied, there's no way around it.
 
MobBoss said:
Marla, come on. Saddam said all the stuff was destroyed and the UN inspectors parroted that lie. Sure we all know Saddam had gas in 1991...and apparently had it laying around even after he said it was all destroyed.
The purpose of the US wasn't that Saddam destroy unusable mustard gas stocks from the 80's. It was to stop a supposed current WMD program.

As I've said, we still find bombs from ww2 every year in France. And they could explode if they aren't manipulated properly. What does it prove ? That France delibarately threatens its own citizen in letting bombs in their neighbourhood ? How could the government gets rid of outdated weaponries which are recorded nowhere ?

The Iraq war has been the first war I've seen in History where a country was disarming before getting invaded. Indeed, Saddam destroyed some vectors who could reach Israel few days before the US invasion. :rolleyes:

Now, does that mean that Saddam was as nice as Michey Mouse and that invading Iraq was wrong ? Certainly not. It simply means that for the credibility of the United States, another strategy should have been followen to find a convincing official casus belli.
 
Atlas14 said:
How many of these "other countries" have been asked by the UN since over a decade ago about having weapons of teh sort? Saddam clearly lied, there's no way around it.

Well, these weapons are cleary very threatening ones. They're degraded and old, they couldn't be used anyways.
 
Tulkas12 said:
Why didn't he give them up though? Not that I don't generally agree with you.
Next time you watch one of those World's Scariest Police Chases videos, and see some idiot in a sports car barrelling down the 405 at a hundred and twenty miles an hour with the LAPD right on his heels, ask yourself why he doesn't do the sensible thing and pull over.

The answer: because he's not sensible.

Degraded as in no longer deployable. Those gas canisters are probably the same ones we provided them. We went to war because of Bush administration's claim that Saddam has revitalized its WMD program and is projected to threaten the US very soon if we do not attack immediately. Bush still lied.
A bunch of CFC'ers said repeatedly that "Saddam had no WMD's", and when asked for evidence, the inevitable answer was "because we haven't found them!!!". Well, evidently we found them.

There was considerable evidence that Saddam was rebuilding his WMD programs ever since Iraq War #1. It's possible that evidence was wrong, or a lie, or possibly Saddam fed us false intel to scare us into leaving him alone. But if you wish to claim Bush lied, you must prove that one of those is true. There's almost no proof anywhere (either that Bush lied, or that he was telling the truth).
 
Marla_Singer said:
As for the WMD's, Americans would have laughed at Saddam's face if he had declared unusable mustard gas from 1991, something which he had probably done by the way in his "mega-survey" on Iraqi weapons. You remember, the stuff he has sent to the UN.

Ok, folks...here is an illustration in how the left wants to spin this. Please note the word "unusable". Now, for everyone here...where exactly does the story say that these weapons were indeed "unusable".

And Marla, no...Saddam never declared to the UN that he still had WMD laying around...usable or unusable. So you are again incorrect on that.
 
SO WHAT?

this is a war for oil through and through. mayb this is ising on the whole cake, I wouldnt be surprized if this stuff was planted and is fake or something.

in any case this is moot. America attacked another nation illegally and no stockpiles of WMDs will change that. i would have opposed the war even if they found a billion nucler bombs there!!
 
Marla_Singer said:
The purpose of the US wasn't that Saddam destroy unusable mustard gas stocks from the 80's. It was to stop a supposed current WDM program.

Once more Marla, please point out in that story where it says this stuff was unusable and not a hazard? You are purposely misrepresenting the facts here to twist the story.

As I've said, we still find bombs from ww2 every year in France. And they could explode if they aren't manipulated properly. What does it prove ? That France delibarately threatens its own citizen in letting bombs in their neighbourhood ? How could the government gets rid of outdated weaponries which are recorded nowhere ?

I dunno...did we have a horde of WMD inspectors go to France to see if they could find those bombs on the beach?:rolleyes:

The Iraq war has been the first war I've seen in History where a country was disarming before getting invaded. Indeed, Saddam destroyed some vectors who could reach Israel few days before the US invasion. :rolleyes:

So, he decided to comply when it was too late? What about the friggin 14 years or so that he was supposed to be doing this to begin with?????:crazyeye: Oh...my....god.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
WTH does 'unusable' mean? Its poison gas! It's illegal to have, much less use (Geneva convention)! It's still poison gas, how is it unusable. Its not as if it goes bad if you don't refrigerate it:lol:

After mustard gas has been left out for awhile, while it loses its potency as a weapon, it can still be added as a delicious topping to hot dogs and pretzels, or mixed with eggs and mayo to create delicious deviled eggs. And that's a good thing

/corporal Martha Stewart
 
ChrTh said:
After mustard gas has been left out for awhile, while it loses its potency as a weapon, it can still be added as a delicious topping to hot dogs and pretzels, or mixed with eggs and mayo to create delicious deviled eggs. And that's a good thing

/corporal Martha Stewart


It was sarin gas too. Ummm read red storm rising by Tom Clancy if you want an idea what sarin gas was developed for.
 
MobBoss said:
Ok, folks...here is an illustration in how the left wants to spin this. Please note the word "unusable". Now, for everyone here...where exactly does the story say that these weapons were indeed "unusable".
I am not the left. You're not a computer, real life is not a binary system.

And Marla, no...Saddam never declared to the UN that he still had WMD laying around...usable or unusable. So you are again incorrect on that.
What the United States were looking for was a current WMD program, not old unusable weapons from the 80's. Actually, we're not even sure that the Iraqi government itself was still aware of the location of those stocks which were more than 10 years old.

Saying that US allegations about Iraqi WMD programs were right because we've discovered, old unusable and rusty weapons from the 80's is being insanely hypocritical ! Sorry but there's no other word !
 
tomsnowman123 said:
Well, these weapons are cleary very threatening ones. They're degraded and old, they couldn't be used anyways.

Please show me where it says this. I want proof FROM YOU that you KNOW these weapons were not usable.

Otherwise, you are purposefully giving out misleading information regarding the story and you need to stop. You are entitled to your opinion, however, so if this is simply your opinon please state so as well. But stop giving out such comments as fact when they are totally unsupported.
 
Tulkas12 said:
It was sarin gas too. Ummm read red storm rising by Tom Clancy if you want an idea what sarin gas was developed for.

Sheesh, it's been years since I've read Red Storm Rising. Good book, too bad it'd be so dated at this point.

My guess is that degraded sarin would be a handy substitute for red pepper if the latter is not available.
 
Well, these weapons are cleary very threatening ones. They're degraded and old, they couldn't be used anyways.

Wrong. They could still be used, perhaps not as effectively, but still able to be used. If Saddam lied about these gas weapons, why wouldn't he lie about any other kinds of weapons?
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
WTH does 'unusable' mean? Its poison gas! It's illegal to have, much less use (Geneva convention)! It's still poison gas, how is it unusable. Its not as if it goes bad if you don't refrigerate it:lol:

It's degraded and years old.

ChrTh said:
After mustard gas has been left out for awhile, while it loses its potency as a weapon, it can still be added as a delicious topping to hot dogs and pretzels, or mixed with eggs and mayo to create delicious deviled eggs. And that's a good thing

I was under the impression that mustard gas loses it's potency after a period of time, but, if this is wrong, I could use some clarification.

Edit: and I would still oppose the war, although I think that...

Commie #4522 said:
SO WHAT?

this is a war for oil through and through. mayb this is ising on the whole cake, I wouldnt be surprized if this stuff was planted and is fake or something.

in any case this is moot. America attacked another nation illegally and no stockpiles of WMDs will change that. i would have opposed the war even if they found a billion nucler bombs there!!

...might be taking it a little to the extreme
 
ChrTh said:
Sheesh, it's been years since I've read Red Storm Rising. Good book, too bad it'd be so dated at this point.

My guess is that degraded sarin would be a handy substitute for red pepper if the latter is not available.

Yea, its dated politically, that wasn;t my point, my point was, as he illustrated in the book, stockiles of the stuff stay useful for a long time and require very minimal maintenance.

Your condement analogy is quite silly, these weapons do not degrade very fast. Mustard gas doesn't either, its not like these are organics.
 
Marla_Singer said:
Saying that US allegations about Iraqi WMD programs were right because we've discovered, old unusable and rusty weapons from the 80's is being insanely hypocritical ! Sorry but there's no other word !
If a guy is a murderer, and he buries one if his victims under the floorboards of his house, and he goes to jail for a completely different murder ( the body under the house was not found yet), and years later, after he gets out, the cops do another search for X reason and find that body, he's still as guilty as the day he did killed that man, even if he 'forgot about it."
 
Marla_Singer said:
What the United States were looking for was a current WMD program, not old unusable weapons from the 80's. Actually, we're not even sure that the Iraqi government itself was still aware of the location of those stocks which were more than 10 years old.

Wrong. UN Inspectors went looking for any trace of WMD they could find as Iraq was duly ordered by the UN to destroy any and all stockpiles of such weapons.

Saying that US allegations about Iraqi WMD programs were right because we've discovered, old unusable and rusty weapons from the 80's is being insanely hypocritical ! Sorry but there's no other word !

Proof please that these weapons were unusable. I, being in the military, know full well that old and degraded does not equal unusable in any way, shape or form. In the wrong hands, this gas could indeed be usuable and very deadly. So either support your claim that this stuff was unusable or clarify that in saying so is simply your opinion. It most certainly isnt fact.
 
tomsnowman123 said:
It's degraded and years old.
I was under the impression that mustard gas loses it's potency after a period of time, but, if this is wrong, I could use some clarification.

Edit: and I would still oppose the war, although I think that...
...might be taking it a little to the extreme
I'm going to have to go with MobBoss's call here, I want conclusional proof that these weapons were only capable of hurting someone if they were dropped on somebody's foot

EDIT: MobBoss I tried to send youy a PM but it says you are full: what branch are you in/what do you do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom