NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Based on this article, there are still a number of civilians, former military and politicians who have never given up the search for Saddam's WMD. There actually seems to be some evidence that they may be correct.


For Diehards, Search for Iraq's W.M.D. Isn't Over (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/23believers.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By SCOTT SHANE
Published: June 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, June 22 — The United States government abandoned the search for unconventional weapons in Iraq long ago. But Dave Gaubatz has never given up.

Mr. Gaubatz, an earnest, Arabic-speaking investigator who spent the first months of the war as an Air Force civilian in southern Iraq, has said he has identified four sites where residents said chemical weapons were buried in concrete bunkers.

The sites were never searched, he said, and he is not going to let anyone forget it.

"I just don't want the weapons to fall into the wrong hands," Mr. Gaubatz, of Denton, Tex., said.

For the last year, he has given his account on talk radio programs, in Congressional offices and on his Web site, which he introduced last month with, "A lone American battles politicians to locate W.M.D."

Some politicians are outspoken allies in Mr. Gaubatz's cause. He is just one of a vocal and disparate collection of Americans, mostly on the political right, whose search for Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons continues.

More than a year after the White House, at considerable political cost, accepted the intelligence agencies' verdict that Mr. Hussein destroyed his stockpiles in the 1990's, these Americans have an unshakable faith that the weapons continue to exist.

The proponents include some members of Congress. Two Republicans, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania held a news conference on Wednesday to announce that, as Mr. Santorum put it, "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

American intelligence officials hastily scheduled a background briefing for the news media on Thursday to clarify that. Hoekstra and Mr. Santorum were referring to an Army report that described roughly 500 munitions containing "degraded" mustard or sarin gas, all manufactured before the 1991 gulf war and found scattered through Iraq since 2003.

Such shells had previously been reported and do not change the government conclusion, the officials said.

Such official statements are unlikely to settle the question for the believers, some of whom have impressive credentials. They include a retired Air Force lieutenant general, Thomas G. McInerney, a commentator on the Fox News Channel who has broadcast that weapons are in three places in Syria and one in Lebanon, moved there with Russian help on the eve of the war.

"I firmly believe that, and everything I learn makes my belief firmer," said Mr. McInerney, who retired in 1994. "I'm amazed that the mainstream media hasn't picked this up."

Also among the weapons hunters is Duane R. Clarridge, a long-retired officer of the Central Intelligence Agency who said he thought that the weapons had been moved to Sudan by ship.

"And we think we know which ship," Mr. Clarridge said in a recent interview.

The weapons hunters hold fast to the administration's original justification for the war, as expressed by the president three days before the bombing began in 2003. There was "no doubt," Mr. Bush said in an address to the nation, "that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

The weapons hunters were encouraged in February when tapes of Mr. Hussein's talking with top aides about his arsenal were released at the Intelligence Summit, a private gathering in northern Virginia of 600 former spies, former military officers and hobbyists.

"We reopened the W.M.D. question in a big way," said John Loftus, organizer of the conference.

In March, under Congressional pressure, National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte began posting on the Web thousands of captured Iraqi documents. Some intelligence officials opposed the move, fearing a free-for-all of amateur speculation and intrigue.

But the weapons hunters were heartened and began combing the documents for clues.

Mr. Gaubatz, 47, now chief investigator for the Dallas County medical examiner, said he knew some people might call him a kook.

"I don't care about being embarrassed," he said, spreading snapshots, maps and notebooks documenting his findings across the dining room table in an interview at his house. "I only brought this up when the White House said the hunt for W.M.D. was over."

Last week, Mr. Gaubatz achieved a victory. He presented his case to officers from the Defense Intelligence Agency in Dallas. The meeting was scheduled after the intervention of Mr. Hoekstra and Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, second-ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Weldon spoke with Mr. Gaubatz last month in a lengthy conference call.

Mr. Hoekstra "has said on many occasions that we need to know what happened to Saddam's W.M.D.," his spokesman, Jamal Ware, said. Mr. Hoekstra "is determined to make sure that we get the postwar intelligence right," Mr. Ware added.

[ Read the rest of this two-page article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/23believers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th). ]

:rolleyes:
Oy vey.

Bad enough Rick Santorum (aka Mister Frothy Mix) thinks that 20 year old shells are WMD, but this is truly sad.

silly fools. give up.

silly fools. give up.
I admire them. :p

:rolleyes:

Yeah, cuz maybe if we find some chemical weapons we supplied Iraq with, that will somehow justify invading and occupying the nation. As if!

In other news, the USA is still the world's leading user and creator of WMD. We even invented the acronym!

For Retards, Search for Iraq's W.M.D. Isn't Over (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/23believers.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

Corrected.

The only WMD they're going to find are either a) obsolete, from before the Gulf War, b) planted, or the more likely c) brought into the country by insurgents.

moved there with Russian help on the eve of the war.

So ... we're itching for a war with Russia, are we?

How very, very odd. What a strange, baseless, and completely unprovable allegation against a nation who is actually one of our allies (for the most part).

Someone needs to muzzle that idiot.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, cuz maybe if we find some chemical weapons we supplied Iraq with, that will somehow justify invading and occupying the nation. As if!

In other news, the USA is still the world's leading user and creator of WMD. We even invented the acronym!
World's leading user? We used them only twice.

World's leading user? We used them only twice.

That's twice more than anyone else.

I admire them. :p
despite the fact that they all have conflicting opinions of where these weapons are, who's keeping them and who got them out? and what advantage would it serve for iraq to ship them out? they got invaded anyway, hussein is on trial and will probably never have his freedom again anyway. and also, what purpose does hiding iraqs wmds serve for russia? that smacks of latent cold war paranoia to me. and also, how is a fox news commentator any sort of authority on the location/existence of iraqi wmds? the mind boggles.

no offence or owt. :p

Corrected.

The only WMD they're going to find are either a) obsolete, from before the Gulf War, b) planted, or the more likely c) brought into the country by insurgents.
Indeed.

That's twice more than anyone else.
For nuclear yeah, but other nations have used chemical and even biological weapons on a number of occasions. Chemical and biological are still WMD.

For nuclear yeah, but other nations have used chemical and even biological weapons on a number of occasions.

That's because they weren't thinking big enough. You gotta have zazz if you want to stick around in this buisiness. That oomph ... that extra moxie which sets you apart!

You go girl! :rolleyes:

let em look.

if they find em, great, it will support the claims that the inspectors needed more time to find em...

if they don't, it will support the claim that they never had em...

:rolleyes:
Oy vey.

Bad enough Rick Santorum (aka Mister Frothy Mix) thinks that 20 year old shells are WMD, but this is truly sad.

Guess because they are old they are no longer WMD's and no longer work. That’s a nice thought, but you know old shells and such are MORE dangerous then new ones, as well as being much easier to convert into a suicide bombers wet dream.

let em look.

if they find em, great, it will support the claims that the inspectors needed more time to find em...

if they don't, it will support the claim that they never had em...

No it won't, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Peoples will just claim that the WMDs haven't been found YET. Or that they were moved, by terrorists, for terrorists.

Bush has stated that there really weren't any WMDs. Civilians who now contradict the President are being unpatriotic and are undermining our troops.

Corrected.

The only WMD they're going to find are either a) obsolete, from before the Gulf War, b) planted, or the more likely c) brought into the country by insurgents.

Great another conspiracy theory….:rolleyes:

Bush has stated that there really weren't any WMDs. Civilians who now contradict the President are being unpatriotic and are undermining our troops.
:D

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Great another conspiracy theory….:rolleyes:

Er...whatever makes you happy.

Refute the points or be gone.

War On Idiocy for the win.

Er...whatever makes you happy.

Refute the points or be gone.

You’re the one making the accusation, prove your point or shut up. There are too many conspiracy theories as it is…..:headbang:

You’re the one making the accusation, prove your point or shut up. There are too many conspiracy theories as it is…..:headbang:

Ah, I see.

Can't say anything constructive about a post you find objectionable so dismiss a perfectly valid post, which captures the probable reality of the situation, by calling it a "conspiracy theory".

Gotcha.

This is just like that time when all of the apparent 'material' went missing from that Iraq Government dump and the U.S. said you'll get cancer this stuff is dangerous.

Ah, I see.

Can't say anything constructive about a post you find objectionable so dismiss a perfectly valid post, which captures the probable reality of the situation, by calling it a "conspiracy theory".

Gotcha.

I don’t find the subject objectionable, but no proof they were put there by the US, you made the accusation they were planted. So try to back up your assertion. If not then it is nothing more then a conspiracy theory. If proven they were ”planted” then someone should hang for it, if not them it is a bit of proof that Iraq had them (besides the fact they used them) and did not destroy them as they claimed to have ;)

Also among the weapons hunters is Duane R. Clarridge, a long-retired officer of the Central Intelligence Agency who said he thought that the weapons had been moved to Sudan by ship.

"And we think we know which ship," Mr. Clarridge said in a recent interview.
"Speaking from his nursing home, Mr. Clarridge reiterated his belief that the search for WMDs has fallen victim to a communist conspiracy..." :D

I don’t find the subject objectionable, but no proof they were put there by the US, you made the accusation they were planted. So try to back up your assertion. If not then it is nothing more then a conspiracy theory. If proven they were ”planted” then someone should hang for it, if not them it is a bit of proof that Iraq had them (besides the fact they used them) and did not destroy them as they claimed to have ;)

*goes to find receipts*

While I read this article I couldn't help thinking of the people who are still looking for Noah's Ark on Mount Arafat; I'd say that finding WMD in Iraq is about as likely.

I don’t find the subject objectionable, but no proof they were put there by the US, you made the accusation they were planted. So try to back up your assertion. If not then it is nothing more then a conspiracy theory. If proven they were ”planted” then someone should hang for it, if not them it is a bit of proof that Iraq had them (besides the fact they used them) and did not destroy them as they claimed to have ;)

No, I offered it as an possibility in the unlikely event of WMD being discovered.

You also appear to have failed to note that I offered it as one of 3 possibilities, and not even as the most likely one.

Perhaps you should have read a little closer.

COMMENTARY: Based on this article, there are still a number of civilians, former military and politicians who have never given up the search for Saddam's WMD. There actually seems to be some evidence that they may be correct.


In all honesty, I call total bushshit. Weapons inspectors, following the war, found that the Hussein WMD program would have probably never succeded while the man whas in power. These are people searching for a justification for an unjustifiable war. While I'm aware of the fact that even if they turn out to be totally wrong, the far right will be trumpeting them as "heroes" of democracy. Let's be fair, these people are partisons searching for a justification, and not heroes of some war where we've been wrong about there being no WMD.

In all honesty, I call total bushshit. Weapons inspectors, following the war, found that the Hussein WMD program would have probably never succeded while the man whas in power. These are people searching for a justification for an unjustifiable war. While I'm aware of the fact that even if they turn out to be totally wrong, the far right will be trumpeting them as "heroes" of democracy. Let's be fair, these people are partisons searching for a justification, and not heroes of some war where we've been wrong about there being no WMD.
But maybe they were there. You cant give up hope that bush is the greatest President ever. /scarsm

Chemical weapons are so passé.

But maybe they were there. You cant give up hope that bush is the greatest President ever. /scarsm

It's true. We all know that a group of amatures knows more than the proffessionals who started investigating immediately following the invasion. That's why they're amatures. :p

Well, at least it gets them out of the house.

Ooh forgot to say it ...

In Soviet Russia, WMD look for you!

Well, at least it gets them out of the house.

Did anyone else get a mental image of a bunch of those guys who use metal detectors at the beaches combing the desert for bombs, or am I just not getting enough sleep again?

Bush has stated that there really weren't any WMDs. Civilians who now contradict the President are being unpatriotic and are undermining our troops.

It just goes to show how much of a Cult of Personality Bushevism is. You've even got Busheviks trying to out-Bushevik Bush Himself.

Come on, we all know that Iraq had WMDs, from the US during the Iraq-Iran war in the 80s. That about the only Wmds they have EVER had, unless recently brought in by insurgents.

Ooh forgot to say it ...

In Soviet Russia, WMD look for you!
:D

Yeah, like Americans know what WMD's are. They probably think it means "Welcome to McDonalds".

Yeah, like Americans know what WMD's are. They probably think it means "Welcome to McDonalds".

McDonald's Fries = Weapons of Mass Deliciousness.

McDonald's Fries = Weapons of Mass Deliciousness.

That's about the only good thing there. The rest could be classified as biologic warfare agents.

Yeah, like Americans know what WMD's are. They probably think it means "Welcome to McDonalds".

WMD is already plural. Apostrophes mark contractions or genitives, not plurals.

The rest could be classified as biologic warfare agents.

Truth! But those fries ... better than snorting cocaine off a dead hooker's ass.

WMD is already plural. Apostrophes mark contractions or genitives, not plurals.

More hamburgers.

Guess because they are old they are no longer WMD's and no longer work. That’s a nice thought, but you know old shells and such are MORE dangerous then new ones, as well as being much easier to convert into a suicide bombers wet dream.

Well, chemical agents usually degrade over time. Biological agents as well, I'd expect. So if left in the bunker for too long, "weapons of mass destruction" will just be plain old "weapons of ordinary destruction."

WMD is already plural. Apostrophes mark contractions or genitives, not plurals.

Ah but "WMD" has become a word in itself therefore the plural of the word "WMD" warrants the use of an apostrophe. :p

I'd just like to say that whether or not Saddam had weapons before the war started doesn't make so much of a difference. We know that he was once building them. We know that if he could, he would gladly use them on the U.S. or his own political enemies in Iraq. Should have taken care of his regime back then when it was plain and clear what his crimes were. Attacking him in 2003 out of nowhere was a mistake because it just gives ammunition to the oil-conspiracy theorists.

Ah but "WMD" has become a word in itself therefore the plural of the word "WMD" warrants the use of an apostrophe. :p

1. No, no it hasn't. It's an acronym.

2. Plurals of acronyms do not get the apostrophe, either. You're confusing them with abbreviations that contain internal punctuation. Plurals of words never get the apostrophe - only genitives and contractions do.

COMMENTARY: Based on this article, there are still a number of civilians, former military and politicians who have never given up the search for Saddam's WMD. There actually seems to be some evidence that they may be correct.
Any find wouldn't negate the fact that Bush invaded Iraq while the UN was still looking for the WMD. Lets not forget that most important aspect of this whole controversey. :p

Corrected.

The only WMD they're going to find are either a) obsolete, from before the Gulf War, b) planted, or the more likely c) brought into the country by insurgents.
I agree. One must keep in mind that US election battles will soon heat up and by planting seeds of doubt amongst the voters, about WMD, it just might save some Republican seats?

What does Blix say about WMD?

Blix Attacks 'Spin and Hype' of Iraq Weapon Claims (http://http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-02.htm)

What does David Kay say about WMD?

Nearly all WMD claims wrong: Kay (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/26/1075087961163.html)

What did Charles Duelfer say about WMD?

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html)

What does Colin Powell have to say about WMD?

Powell regrets UN speech on Iraq WMDs (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm)

So yeah, I think that any finds now would/should be treated as totally suspicious in nature. The propaganda machine sputters forward.

COMMENTARY: There actually seems to be some evidence that they may be correct. ]

No...otherwise the American Government would be involved.

More than a year after the White House, at considerable political cost, accepted the intelligence agencies' verdict that Mr. Hussein destroyed his stockpiles in the 1990's, these Americans have an unshakable faith that the weapons continue to exist.

The sad state of people who can't accept that they were lied to by their own Government and swallowed down and asked for more.

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania held a news conference on Wednesday to announce that, as Mr. Santorum put it, "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

But they haven't. Mind you, if it keeps Senator Rick busy and stops him harrassing Gay people, I say give him a spade and let him go a digging.

American intelligence officials hastily scheduled a background briefing for the news media on Thursday to clarify that. Hoekstra and Mr. Santorum were referring to an Army report that described roughly 500 munitions containing "degraded" mustard or sarin gas, all manufactured before the 1991 gulf war and found scattered through Iraq since 2003.

Such shells had previously been reported and do not change the government conclusion, the officials said.

I underlined that, just to further underline the idiocy of Eut.s opening statement where he says "There actually seems to be some evidence that they may be correct."

that weapons are in three places in Syria and one in Lebanon, moved there with Russian help on the eve of the war.

There is no evidence for this whatsoever. At all. Or I suppose they're so good they got it past the Israelis...over two borders....

]Also among the weapons hunters is Duane R. Clarridge, a long-retired officer of the Central Intelligence Agency who said he thought that the weapons had been moved to Sudan by ship.

"And we think we know which ship," Mr. Clarridge said in a recent interview.

The one with the evil man with the beard at the tiller, who he sees in his dreams, no doubt.


Mr. Gaubatz, 47, now chief investigator for the Dallas County medical examiner, said he knew some people might call him a kook.

"Nut" would be my choice....

"I don't care about being embarrassed," he said,

Which is good...considering.

Delusional belief in the intrinsic wisdom behind state power when even the rulers have admitted their "error" is not at all admirable.

I admire them. :p
The existence of WMDs is an article of faith among pro-Iraq war folks, impervious to logic, evidence and reason.

The existence of WMDs is an article of faith among pro-Iraq war folks, impervious to logic, evidence and reason.
Don't forget proportion.

They find a few rusty shells that predate the invasion of Kuwait, the sole custodians of which probably died in the 1991 war if not the Iran-Iraq war, and suddenly the world is saved after all.

What?

Don't forget proportion.

They find a few rusty shells that predate the invasion of Kuwait, the sole custodians of which probably died in the 1991 war if not the Iran-Iraq war, and suddenly the world is saved after all.

This is the same administration that bombed the shit out of an incompetent Al Qaeda-wannabe fanboy Al Zarqawi and proclaimed "a major blow against the Iraqi insurgency."

These are the same people who'd cap Dr. Evil then say "Go home Mr. Bond, we just took out SPECTRE."

The existence of WMDs is an article of faith among pro-Iraq war folks, impervious to logic, evidence and reason.

Sort of like those monkeys worshipping the bomb in Planet of the Apes.

Sort of like those monkeys worshipping the bomb in Planet of the Apes.

Wasn't it the mutated humans who were praying to the bomb? I think the monkeys were anti-bomb - And they weren't monkeys, they were Apes - Or maybe I'm just picking nits out of monkey fur.

See, if you really can't find something then just stop looking and it'll show up. Now that America isn't looking for WMDs, they're gonna start turning up all over Iraq.

Wasn't it the mutated humans who were praying to the bomb? I think the monkeys were anti-bomb - And they weren't monkeys, they were Apes - Or maybe I'm just picking nits out of monkey fur.

You're probably right.
Mutants...Monkeys...Apes... The comparison still stands :)

You're probably right.
Mutants...Monkeys...Apes... The comparison still stands :)
Gartref is right!

And so are you!

Oh goodie! Yet another moronic fringe group that claims that WMDs exist much like one would claim that Oghma, Zeus or Mystra exist. :rolleyes:

Listen up.

Even Bush, at, read again, CONSIDERABLE POLITICAL COST, admitted there weren't WMDs. After having pros not only from the UN (which, in your delusional mind, hates you) but also from the Pentagon and the government itself search for them. For months. And being pressed to come up with anything, at ALL, to corroborate the WMD claims. So you're saying now that your government is incompetent enough to be beaten to the WMDs by a group of amateurs? In that case, would keeping such an incompetent government be any good?

There are two options here: Either these hicks are wrong, which means the war is unjustified and these morons have way too much free time on their hands, or the Bush government is completely incompetent, even for tasks that can be undertaken by civilians, which would also mean that the inspectors should have been given more time, and, thus, the war is still unjustified.

So, Eutrusca, what will it be? If you call for option 3, which is "I was spat on after my Government-sponsored killing spree, so you should shut up, you meanie librul murka-hater", I'll ALSO call you on it.

THAT is why the pawns always go first.

That's because they weren't thinking big enough. You gotta have zazz if you want to stick around in this buisiness. That oomph ... that extra moxie which sets you apart!

Holy shit, you used "zazz", "oomph" and "moxie" in the same post! You must have a lot of kvetch!

Hey. Heikoku, lighten up. Sure Zeus exists. Don't denigrate people like my spouse, now.

Hey. Heikoku, lighten up. Sure Zeus exists. Don't denigrate people like my spouse, now.

Oh, sorry, I meant MAXIMILIAN Zeus, a minor Batman villain. Not your husband, ma'am Hera. :D

Why don't these people get real jobs?

Why don't these people get real jobs?

Because monkeys can't cash paychecks.

Because monkeys can't cash paychecks.

What's with all the monkey-bashing all of a sudden?





I'll have the duck with mango salsa.

I work at a nurse's staffing agency, doing data entry.

Oh goodie! Yet another moronic fringe group that claims that WMDs exist much like one would claim that Oghma, Zeus or Mystra exist. :rolleyes:

Listen up.

Even Bush, at, read again, CONSIDERABLE POLITICAL COST, admitted there weren't WMDs. After having pros not only from the UN (which, in your delusional mind, hates you) but also from the Pentagon and the government itself search for them. For months. And being pressed to come up with anything, at ALL, to corroborate the WMD claims. So you're saying now that your government is incompetent enough to be beaten to the WMDs by a group of amateurs? In that case, would keeping such an incompetent government be any good?

There are two options here: Either these hicks are wrong, which means the war is unjustified and these morons have way too much free time on their hands, or the Bush government is completely incompetent, even for tasks that can be undertaken by civilians, which would also mean that the inspectors should have been given more time, and, thus, the war is still unjustified.

So, Eutrusca, what will it be? If you call for option 3, which is "I was spat on after my Government-sponsored killing spree, so you should shut up, you meanie librul murka-hater", I'll ALSO call you on it.

THAT is why the pawns always go first.

Assuming Forrest bothers to reply, he'll just go for his tired old routine of inviting you to do something anatomically impossible to yourself. Despite what he keeps insisting, his trend very much suggests he's a Bushevik at heart.

What's with all the monkey-bashing all of a sudden?

Well, I'm just sour that one had the US invade Iraq, that's all.

Assuming Forrest bothers to reply, he'll just go for his tired old routine of inviting you to do something anatomically impossible to yourself. Despite what he keeps insisting, his trend very much suggests he's a Bushevik at heart.

Oh, he had me on Ignore, but thanks for quoting me, he'll get to see. :D

On another note, yeah, he'll hurl insults, but that would be mainly because I just checkmated him.

So, Eutrusca, what will it be? If you call for option 3, which is "I was spat on after my Government-sponsored killing spree, so you should shut up, you meanie librul murka-hater", I'll ALSO call you on it.
How about Option #4: STFU and then go perform an impossible act upon your own body? I kinda like that one. :D

Assuming Forrest bothers to reply, he'll just go for his tired old routine of inviting you to do something anatomically impossible to yourself. Despite what he keeps insisting, his trend very much suggests he's a Bushevik at heart.
Dream on, evil one.

However, in an effort to not disappoint, read the above post of mine. :D

Assuming Forrest bothers to reply, he'll just go for his tired old routine of inviting you to do something anatomically impossible to yourself. Despite what he keeps insisting, his trend very much suggests he's a Bushevik at heart.
A fact not lost on those who can still remember when our profligate sexagenarian first washed ashore. It's also not lost that he's been claiming of late to simply not care what anyone (who does not share his outlook) has to say regarding his increasingly immovable and extreme point-of-view. It begs the question, 'then why bother posting at all?'

*edit:Right on time to illustrate my point for me. Thank-you, Forrest.

Oh, he had me on Ignore, but thanks for quoting me, he'll get to see. :D

On another note, yeah, he'll hurl insults, but that would be mainly because I just checkmated him.
You? "Checkmate" ME? Aahahahahahahahahahahahaha! AS IF! :D

How about Option #4: STFU and then go perform an impossible act upon your own body? I kinda like that one. :D

[Ben Stein]Woooooooow...[/Ben Stein]

Nobody saw that cutting-edge dis coming Forrest! You sure have this obcession with autoeroticism.

:rolleyes:

A fact not lost on those who can still remember when our profligate sexagenarian first washed ashore. It's also not lost that he's been claiming of late to simply not care what anyone (who does not share his outlook) has to say regarding his increasingly immovable and extreme point-of-view. It begs the question, 'then why bother posting at all?'
So why do you? :D

63 going on 14. Second childhood, eh?

How about Option #4: STFU and then go perform an impossible act upon your own body? I kinda like that one. :D

Awww... Poor Forresty just responded to me by telling me to shuttie mouthie and fuckie-wuckie myself, as opposed to answering my points...

They are so CUTE at this age, aren't they?

You? "Checkmate" ME? Aahahahahahahahahahahahaha! AS IF! :D

Yes, Forrest. I. Checkmate. You. Do kindly notice that you STILL fail to answer my points, ace.

:rolleyes:
Oy vey.

Bad enough Rick Santorum (aka Mister Frothy Mix) thinks that 20 year old shells are WMD, but this is truly sad.


So go add some to your coffee if it's so un-wmdish.

IIRC, mustard gas is good for 70 years plus. frenchmen still get burned by mustard gas everynow and then in areas where gas was used in WW1.

Eut is gonna switch "lost causes". He is selling all of his Civil War re-enacting equipment to buy an Indiana Jones outfit. Then he's going to start searching Iraq for the Legend of the WMD. He'll get into dangerous adventures and near-miss discoveries. He'll acquire a monkey sidekick. Although he'll never discover anything, people will admire his tenacity and laud his dream of frakkin insanity.

Yes, Forrest. I. Checkmate. You. Do kindly notice that you STILL fail to answer my points, ace.

He's just a bitter old codger who thinks every day is the 70s and that Hippies are everywhere building up a nice load of loogie especially for him. Instead of bringing up points all he does is ignore you or invite you to fuck yourself without having the balls to say "Go Fuck Yourself" outright. Then again maybe the Agent Orange wilted it off.

Not to mention he's a Vietnam Vet who endorses and supports positions in favor of an incompetent draft-dodging spoiled rich-kid fratboy. And he calls Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan traitors.

He's just a bitter old codger who thinks every day is the 70s and that Hippies are everywhere building up a nice load of loogie especially for him. Instead of bringing up points all he does is ignore you or invite you to fuck yourself without having the balls to say "Go Fuck Yourself" outright. Then again maybe the Agent Orange wilted it off.

Not to mention he's a Vietnam Vet who endorses and supports positions in favor of an incompetent draft-dodging spoiled rich-kid fratboy. And he calls Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan traitors.

Oh, I know, but let's not explore all the OTHER contradictions Eutrusca has... :D

So go add some to your coffee if it's so un-wmdish.

The same can be said of sewage, and sewage isn't a WMD.

IIRC, mustard gas is good for 70 years plus. frenchmen still get burned by mustard gas everynow and then in areas where gas was used in WW1.

It burns, maybe, but not only it lost the power to kill (as per the findings of CIA itself), it's pretty hard to use it en masse.

They found over 500 examples of WMD's since 2003, nuff said. They'd still been there even though Saddam supossedly disarmed.

They found over 500 examples of WMD's since 2003, nuff said. They'd still been there even though Saddam supossedly disarmed.

Yeah, right, which is probably why Bush HIMSELF admitted that there weren't WMDs.

Listen, Lame, let me repeat: Empty shells and vintage gas that can no longer be effectively used are not WMDs.

So ... we're itching for a war with Russia, are we?

How very, very odd. What a strange, baseless, and completely unprovable allegation against a nation who is actually one of our allies (for the most part).

Someone needs to muzzle that idiot.
Hey, happened with France. Anyone remember oil for food? :p

Hey, happened with France. Anyone remember oil for food? :p

Right, because sending food and getting oil for it is the moral equivalent of helping a dictator move WMDs... :rolleyes:

Hey, happened with France. Anyone remember oil for food? :p

You mean the same Oil For Food that was submitted to the UN Security Council- which includes the United States- and passed without so much a scrutiny?

Maybe they can enlist the help of some professionals (http://www.ghostweb.com/) for the search?

You mean the same Oil For Food that was submitted to the UN Security Council- which includes the United States- and passed without so much a scrutiny?
*nod* The very same. The US is inept, the UN even more so.

Well, chemical agents usually degrade over time. Biological agents as well, I'd expect. So if left in the bunker for too long, "weapons of mass destruction" will just be plain old "weapons of ordinary destruction."

It is true that these weapons do degrade over time, as long as they are keep in the shell case that they are dangerous, these weapons can last for a very long time and remain deadly (60/70) years. The only way to make them harmless is to incinerate them. Blood agents can stay viable if weaponized form for as long as 60 years, same goes for nerve agents.

I know quite a bit about these kind of things. One of my “job” descriptions in the military was CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) defense/diction/counter measures.
Mustard gas/liquid had been known to still burn people 60 years after the shell was used and the residue seep into the ground under rocks and so on. Lewisite gas (a form of mustard gas) can eat through the skin 80 years after it was manufactured.
There are three categories of chemical weapons, blood, blister and nerve agents, there is no effective medical treatment for any of the agents, you will either live or die if exposed, and that depends on how much you were exposed to.
A blood agent works by preventing oxygen from attaching to the red blood cell thus the body dies from lack of oxygen and the tissues die.
A blister agent work by burn, if it contacts the skin it forms blisters, these blisters if broken will spread the agent even more, it is considered a incapacitating agent if it is just on the skin, but if it gets inhaled the blisters form in the lungs and the victim dies by drowning.
A nerve agent works by interrupting the signals from the brain to the body, it shuts down the bodies systems, heart, lungs and mussel control, nerve agents are the most deadly because they can kill in as little as 7 seconds.

It is true that these weapons do degrade over time, as long as they are keep in the shell case that they are dangerous, these weapons can last for a very long time and remain deadly (60/70) years. The only way to make them harmless is to incinerate them. Blood agents can stay viable if weaponized form for as long as 60 years, same goes for nerve agents.

I know quite a bit about these kind of things. One of my “job” descriptions in the military was CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) defense/diction/counter measures.
Mustard gas/liquid had been known to still burn people 60 years after the shell was used and the residue seep into the ground under rocks and so on. Lewisite gas (a form of mustard gas) can eat through the skin 80 years after it was manufactured.
There are three categories of chemical weapons, blood, blister and nerve agents, there is no effective medical treatment for any of the agents, you will either live or die if exposed, and that depends on how much you were exposed to.
A blood agent works by preventing oxygen from attaching to the red blood cell thus the body dies from lack of oxygen and the tissues die.
A blister agent work by burn, if it contacts the skin it forms blisters, these blisters if broken will spread the agent even more, it is considered a incapacitating agent if it is just on the skin, but if it gets inhaled the blisters form in the lungs and the victim dies by drowning.
A nerve agent works by interrupting the signals from the brain to the body, it shuts down the bodies systems, heart, lungs and mussel control, nerve agents are the most deadly because they can kill in as little as 7 seconds.

If that's the case, why did an administration that would stand to gain LOTS if they found WMDs acknowledge that there weren't any?

Lets face facts. The US invaded Iraq before the UN inspections could be completed. The US made a huge mistake.

The UN Security Council wanted inspections to continue.

The world wanted inspections to continue.

Even most Americans wanted the inspections to continue.

Even the US Congress Joint proposal granting Bush the ability to invade Iraq was based on working in conjunction with the UN Security Council.

The bottom line is that Bush wanted to invaded Iraq and he did. The rest is history.

IMHO, the resurgence of this issue is a political ploy by some Republicans to save their jobs when the elections roll around in November. Hopefully, Americans will see right through them and turf them from office soundly.

IMHO, the resurgence of this issue is a political ploy by some Republicans to save their jobs when the elections roll around in November. Hopefully, Americans will see right through them and turf them from office soundly.And for evidence of this, just look who's at the forefront of this nonsense--Mr. Frothy-Mixture (http://spreadingsantorum.com)-down-by 18-points Santorum himself. Man, I hope he winds up losing by Alan Keyes-ish proportions in November.

Lets face facts. The US invaded Iraq before the UN inspections could be completed. The US made a huge mistake.

The UN Security Council wanted inspections to continue.

The world wanted inspections to continue.

Even most Americans wanted the inspections to continue.

Even the US Congress Joint proposal granting Bush the ability to invade Iraq was based on working in conjunction with the UN Security Council.

The bottom line is that Bush wanted to invaded Iraq and he did. The rest is history.

IMHO, the resurgence of this issue is a political ploy by some Republicans to save their jobs when the elections roll around in November. Hopefully, Americans will see right through them and turf them from office soundly.

Shhh. Don't say that, lest Eutrusca applies his need to equalize dissent with terrorism and decides to claim you're an US-hater or that you hocked a loogie at him after he came back home from the Hanoi Murderfest he so gladly joined.

If that's the case, why did an administration that would stand to gain LOTS if they found WMDs acknowledge that there weren't any?

Who knows? They thought they were there, as well as the intelligence agencies of Russia, France, Italy England, Spain and many others. Iraq lead the world to believe they had them. If in fact Iraq did destroy these weapons fine, but they made it look like they still had them. Also the weapons could have been moved to another nation in the area, or they could be buried in the desert some place. I don’t know no one does for sure. But once again they had them they did not attempt to prove they destroyed them account for them and they used them.

Who knows? They thought they were there, as well as the intelligence agencies of Russia, France, Italy England, Spain and many others. Iraq lead the world to believe they had them. If in fact Iraq did destroy these weapons fine, but they made it look like they still had them. Also the weapons could have been moved to another nation in the area, or they could be buried in the desert some place. I don’t know no one does for sure. But once again they had them they did not attempt to prove they destroyed them account for them and they used them.

Actually, they were in the process of trying, under worldwide supervision, to prove they didn't have the WMDs when Bush invaded them.

How about Option #4: STFU and then go perform an impossible act upon your own body? I kinda like that one. :D

More incisive debating points, from our resident Hippy victim.

They found over 500 examples of WMD's since 2003, nuff said. They'd still been there even though Saddam supossedly disarmed.

No, they didn't, if you bothered to read the article....

Who knows? They thought they were there, as well as the intelligence agencies of Russia, France, Italy England, Spain and many others..

Thats certainly not the case with the english intelligence, which is publicly available via the Butler report. And again, the minutes of at least one downing street meetiung show that the British were convinced that he posed neither a local nor global threat.

I don't see what was so important in Vietnam. Why were their pets and livestock so important. I mean introducing the draft so that there would be enough Vietnam vets. Also just because Koreans eat the odd dog was that any reason to have so many Korean vets? I don't understand why they loved pets so much in the olden days.

How has America swung so far from the DipTet dispensing Vietnam vet, to the "Armalite in one hand and Ballot box in the other" hostage taking, torture force of today. Bombing american democracy into every arabs heart is all very well but won't somebody please think of the kittens?

I don't see what was so important in Vietnam. Why were their pets and livestock so important. I mean introducing the draft so that there would be enough Vietnam vets. Also just because Koreans eat the odd dog was that any reason to have so many Korean vets? I don't understand why they loved pets so much in the olden days.

How has America swung so far from the DipTet dispensing Vietnam vet, to the "Armalite in one hand and Ballot box in the other" hostage taking, torture force of today. Bombing american democracy into every arabs heart is all very well but won't somebody please think of the kittens?

o_O

A chaotic style, this one.

Shhh. Don't say that, lest Eutrusca applies his need to equalize dissent with terrorism and decides to claim you're an US-hater or that you hocked a loogie at him after he came back home from the Hanoi Murderfest he so gladly joined.
Oh, I am really not too concerned, because it is too late. :D

Eut labelled me "anti-American" shortly upon his arrival at NS General. The only problem with that is that his thinking is extremely flawed. Just because I am against the Iraq war and I don't like the Bushlicans doesn't mean that I don't like the US.

I have vacationed in the US on numerous occaisions and I have always enjoyed my time there. However, I am truly saddened that BushCo has led too many Americans down the treacherous garden path.

o_O

A chaotic style, this one.
I should've had "I Wish I Was a Punk Rocker (With Flowers in My Hair)" as the background music.

They found over 500 examples of WMD's since 2003, nuff said. They'd still been there even though Saddam supossedly disarmed.
*gives bums the look*

if ANY of these supposed 500 examples of WMD were in any way significant, they administration would be shouting it from the rooftops.

they arent

they admitted they made a mistake

do you think you know more about this than the department of defense?

Heh. That's about it, it is time for this battle to end. You know, I decided to introduce you guys to my newest trick...

JOKER!

Let me prepare for you a nice and detailed overview of what these guys are doing, shall I?

Why, yes, I shall.

Four suits, then the Joker.

Ace of clubs: Only morons believe that they can find WMDs that actual specialists didn't.
Two of clubs: These morons hold a belief in the WMDs akin to the worshipping of the bomb in Planet of the Apes.
Three of clubs: That, or they are just seeking agenda-based justification for an injustifiable war.
Four of clubs: That they decided to come up with their allegations right in an election year shows something about their intentions.
Five of clubs: Yet, assuming these guys ever actually found something besides inane allegations, it also goes to show that the Administration failed where a bunch of rednecks succeeded.
Six of clubs: Which would mean that, likely, these guys are incompetent morons that are interested in reelecting Bush.
Seven of clubs: The other possible answer is that the Pentagon under this administration is very, very incompetent.
Eight of clubs: Which would not be a surprise considering the present incompetence of the CIA itself, that so boldly claimed there were WMDs.
Nine of clubs: Or that was stronghanded by the Bush administration to say that there were any, making this a corrupt government, in addition to its incompetence.
Ten of clubs: It would not be of any surprise that the Republicans are clinging to these guys that want to know more than specialists like a necrophile grabs at his videotape of Auschwitz.
Jack of clubs: Especially since these guys are avowedly with this Administration.
Queen of clubs: As such, it's all the more likely that these guys are doing what the CIA was strong-armed to do.
King of clubs: Namely, forcibly lie to justify the unjustifiable.

Ace of spades: If there were WMDs, the inspectors would have found them more effectively than both the Pentagon in the chaos and amateurs.
Two of spades: Therefore, a government truly interested in WMDs would wait for the inspections - with which the Iraqi government of the time was cooperating - to end.
Three of spades: If there weren't WMDs, though, it would mean that the war was unjustified, since that was the casus belli.
Four of spades: Which was, then, shifted to human rights, even though Saudi Arabia has many more human rights troubles, and that's to name one example.
Five of spades: However, since the human rights claim didn't hold against increasing evidence of human rights violations perpetrated by the US soldiers themselves, the administration needed something else to fall back on.
Six of spades: Thus the WMD claim was revived over, once again, flimsy pseudo-evidence that was supposedly found by amateurs.
Seven of spades: Meanwhile, Halliburton gets all the bids in the reconstruction.
Eight of spades: Which makes sense, since Dick Cheney has ties to that company.
Nine of spades: The administration that's behind all this needed to renew justification in order to keep their seats in the next election.
Ten of spades: It waited from 2003 till now to try this "evidence" as an antidote for the loss of many congressional seats.
Jack of spades: Said evidence couldn't withstand expert analysis, which is why they sent their amateurs there to build a non-case.
Queen of spades: Said amateurs go to such lenghts as claiming "a ship" transported WMDs without naming it or showing evidence of it.
King of spades: Namely, as an attempt to boost illogical evidence for the war on thin air.

Ace of hearts: It is no coincidence that those that backed this administration stand to gain the most of the war.
Two of hearts: Halliburton gets no-bid contratcs, the oil companies get oil, Bush gets a rallying cry of war that granted him a reelection.
Three of hearts: Yet, the public grew more and more concerned with the gory, sometimes sexual images of human rights violations that Saddam wouldn't do on his most creative days.
Four of hearts: Thus, to try and get the public feeling well about the war once again, the Bush administration and its friends tried to revive the "threat" thesis.
Five of hearts: The WMD thesis was an appeal to fear, the kind of appeal most likely to be followed.
Six of hearts: Thus, the Republicans are betting, once again, on the appeal to fear to boost their lagging approval ratings.
Seven of hearts: That is a disloyal way to try to gather up votes.
Eight of hearts: Using fear - again - to try to gather support is plain wrong.
Nine of hearts: However, this time the evidence is just too plain weak, and amateurs won't be able to do anything to raise support.
Ten of hearts: Meanwhile, the "humanitarian" war thesis is falling down as well.
Jack of hearts: The public is making the correlation between Iraq and Vietnam more and more.
Queen of hearts: The WMDs weren't found, Iraq has turned into a humanitarian crisis, and Bush has shown no ability to mitigate the problem he created.
King of hearts: Thus, Bush is trying, and failing, to get support for the war with the so-called help of die-hard nutcases by fearmongering.

Ace of diamonds: The war was unethical, and so is using these guys to get support for it by lying once again.
Two of diamonds: It's dishonest to try and pretend that these vintage weapons are the same "WMDs" Bush was looking for.
Three of diamonds: Even because the administration itself gave up on the WMD dream.
Four of diamonds: Thus, we can tell this is an attempt to backtrack and use these amateurs like the "Swift Boat" people were used.
Five of diamons: This is lying, and lying is wrong.
Six of diamonds: However, we can see that this administration is used to lying, deceiving and hiding.
Seven of diamonds: Much like lying is wrong, so was outing Valerie Plame as a vendetta.
Eight of diamonds: Yet these die-hards are more than willing to defend the administration that did that against someone that ACTUALLY served the country.
Nine of diamonds: Bush has shown disregard for ethics when starting the war, when conducting it and when referring to it.
Ten of diamonds: So is his party, now, by using these amateurs to promote the war.
Jack of diamonds: So, the administration has shown a penchant for hiding what should be shown, and for showing what should be hidden.
Queen of diamonds: Attempts to libel those opposed to the war as anti-American didn't stop even after those opposed to the war were proven right.
King of diamonds: So, we're talking about an administration that has no qualms against doing unethical things.

Joker: So, what do you call a war that's being conducted for corporate interests, based on lies, lack of ethics, lack of logic and fearmongering?

That answer, my friends, lies within each and every person's consciousness. But, if you will, share it with me, and let me know on which side you stand.

That answer, my friends, lies within each and every person's consciousness. But, if you will, share it with me, and let me know on which side you stand.[/B]
I'm the card with the rules of poker on it. :D

I'm the card with the rules of poker on it. :D

Chuckles.

Regardless, I try my best to bring everyone in here the best in style...

I admire them. :p

You admire tinfoil hat people?

This thread is...............interesting.

That's twice more than anyone else.


Hint: Germany [WWI], Britain [WWI], Finland [1939], Japan [various]

frenchmen still get burned by mustard gas everynow and then in areas where gas was used in WW1.

So when are we going to invade France to get their WMD? Wait, they have real nukes. We'd better not attack anyone who might have the ability to fight back. Let's stick to easy, humanitarian targets, like Iraq and Somalia.

Hint: Germany [WWI], Britain [WWI], Finland [1939], Japan [various]

Bah ... small timers. We evaporated entire cities. Now *that's* showmanship.

So when are we going to invade France to get their WMD? Wait, they have real nukes. We'd better not attack anyone who might have the ability to fight back. Let's stick to easy, humanitarian targets, like Iraq and Somalia.


I said this before elsewhere - next up = Fiji. It has hardwood trees that could be made into sticks and clubs of mass bruising. They must be liberated now.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

I found this part interesting:

"
The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions."- FOX NEWS

What a strange, baseless, and completely unprovable allegation against a nation who is actually one of our allies (for the most part).

ROFLMAO

I feel that the search is necessary and must be carried out. The war on terror is just getting started and we need to let the world know just what might happen if they decide to carry out the orders of extreemist. search and destroy!:sniper:

I feel that the search is necessary and must be carried out. The war on terror is just getting started and we need to let the world know just what might happen if they decide to carry out the orders of extreemist. search and destroy!:sniper:

http://protos.dk/public/pictures/forumgfx/go_away_noob.jpg

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

I found this part interesting:

"
The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions."- FOX NEWS

A) Fox news isn't a source

B) Why did Bush&co say that there weren't any?

While I read this article I couldn't help thinking of the people who are still looking for Noah's Ark on Mount Arafat; I'd say that finding WMD in Iraq is about as likely.Mount Ararat.

Arafat, yimach shmo, never had a mountain named after him.

Mount Ararat.

Arafat, yimach shmo, never had a mountain named after him.

Actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Arafat :p

Actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Arafat :p
Arafat was named after the mountain... :rolleyes:

Actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Arafat :p
S/he still got the reference wrong. I win!

B) Why did Bush&co say that there weren't any?
Read the article.

S/he still got the reference wrong. I win!

Yes s/he did. Just thought the mountain thing was interesting.

Read the article.

Again, fox news isn't a source.

Again, fox news isn't a source.
Again, you are not funny.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html

Again, you are not funny.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html

Something more credible please. CNS doesn't exactly have the kind of clout that in terms of reliability other news networks carry.

Again, you are not funny.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html

Fox and Cns? Both are uberbiased Americrap and about as credible as the Tellytubbies.

I looked for it on BBC...Guess what: Nothing.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

I found this part interesting:

"The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions."- FOX NEWS
Further down the same article, please read and understand:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

This is NOT earth shattering new news. This is old news. Old news about old weapons that were not useable.

Edit: Where are these WMD, you know the ones that were an "imminent threat" to the US, and that could be deployed in 45 minutes? Where are the nuclear weapons and long range rockets? Where are the facilities that would constitute an ongoing, viable WMD industry? Where are the large stockpiles of newly created chemical and biological agents? Well? Where are they?

Did anyone else get a mental image of a bunch of those guys who use metal detectors at the beaches combing the desert for bombs, or am I just not getting enough sleep again?

Spaceballs. Literally with huge combs.

Further down the same article, please read and understand:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

This is NOT earth shattering new news. This is old news. Old news about old weapons that were not useable.

Edit: Where are these WMD, you know the ones that were an "imminent threat" to the US, and that could be deployed in 45 minutes? Where are the nuclear weapons and long range rockets? Where are the facilities that would constitute an ongoing, viable WMD industry? Where are the large stockpiles of newly created chemical and biological agents? Well? Where are they?

Does not matter if they were unusable. They were not supposed to be there period. All those years between the wars when Saddam claimed to not have them, they were there. So he lied. Lied to the UN and the rest of the world. Violated sanctions. Jeapordised his own people by not coming clean and kicking out UN workers time and time again. I don't think the invasion should have been tied to 9/11 but I also dont think it was totally wrong. Saddam lied, pure and simple.

You people honestly think that Iraq did not have good WMD around? They just kept the old ones for decorations? Maybe they were decoys? He was up to something. There have been satellite images of bases being dismantled before the invasion and things moved. What where they? Where did they go? If you have time to move one thing, do you move the old crappy weapons or the newer ones?

Fox and Cns? Both are uberbiased Americrap and about as credible as the Tellytubbies.

I looked for it on BBC...Guess what: Nothing.

Quit watching the tellytubbies.

For nuclear yeah, but other nations have used chemical and even biological weapons on a number of occasions. Chemical and biological are still WMD.
Does Vietnam and indeed Iraq not count as using chemical weaponry?

Does not matter if they were unusable. They were not supposed to be there period. All those years between the wars when Saddam claimed to not have them, they were there. So he lied. Lied to the UN and the rest of the world. Violated sanctions. Jeapordised his own people by not coming clean and kicking out UN workers time and time again. I don't think the invasion should have been tied to 9/11 but I also dont think it was totally wrong. Saddam lied, pure and simple.

You people honestly think that Iraq did not have good WMD around? They just kept the old ones for decorations? Maybe they were decoys? He was up to something. There have been satellite images of bases being dismantled before the invasion and things moved. What where they? Where did they go? If you have time to move one thing, do you move the old crappy weapons or the newer ones?

We didn't go to war over weapons he might have had 20 years ago. We went to war because there was a real and imminent threat. A real and imminent threat that doesn't, and didn't exist. Considering the problems the USSR had of keeping tabs on its real and actual WMDs, I doubt Saddam's ability or desire to keep an eye on old shells of outdated crap.

Oh yeah, two other pople who lied to the rest of the world and put their nations in jepoardy, are Bush and Blair.

Saddam lied, pure and simple.

If lying and UN violations is all the justification it takes for a war, you would find that just about more than 75% of the world is ripe for being declared war on. Including Uncle Sam. The bill of rhetoric that was used to sell the war was a current and imminent threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons being ready for launch towards any Western target within 45 minutes. This is a claim that was never substantiated.

Lets take this example. If I sell you a car claiming that it can go 5000 kilometers on a litre of petrol and you buy it because of that, can you sue me if it turns out it can't even get 5 km?

The law says you can, but by your reasoning, you can't. You can't have your cake and eat it.


You people honestly think that Iraq did not have good WMD around? They just kept the old ones for decorations? Maybe they were decoys? He was up to something.

I'm thinking that it would have taken resources that Saddam just simply didn't have. As for decoys and all that rot, you'd have to prove it. You can't simply take the ID'ers approach of "I believe" and leave it at that. Since it's WMDs, and not God that's being disputed here, you can, and need, concrete proof of any allegations.


There have been satellite images of bases being dismantled before the invasion and things moved.

Proof please. We don't take words like this on the strength of an anonymous poster (me included) alone.


What where they? Where did they go? If you have time to move one thing, do you move the old crappy weapons or the newer ones?

Of course, this assumes that they had new stuff to begin with. You know, all that crap about weapons labs, long range missiles, nuclear warheads. Stuff that the administration was all so "We know where it is" about.

So much for knowing where it was.

If lying and UN violations is all the justification it takes for a war, you would find that just about more than 75% of the world is ripe for being declared war on. Including Uncle Sam. The bill of rhetoric that was used to sell the war was a current and imminent threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons being ready for launch towards any Western target within 45 minutes. This is a claim that was never substantiated.

Lets take this example. If I sell you a car claiming that it can go 5000 kilometers on a litre of petrol and you buy it because of that, can you sue me if it turns out it can't even get 5 km?

The law says you can, but by your reasoning, you can't. You can't have your cake and eat it.



I'm thinking that it would have taken resources that Saddam just simply didn't have. As for decoys and all that rot, you'd have to prove it. You can't simply take the ID'ers approach of "I believe" and leave it at that. Since it's WMDs, and not God that's being disputed here, you can, and need, concrete proof of any allegations.



Proof please. We don't take words like this on the strength of an anonymous poster (me included) alone.



Of course, this assumes that they had new stuff to begin with. You know, all that crap about weapons labs, long range missiles, nuclear warheads. Stuff that the administration was all so "We know where it is" about.

So much for knowing where it was.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf

http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq-WMD.htm I admit not a reputable site, but many quotes in the article were made by reputable sites.

Also, in other news, crack addicts refuse to give up search for the feeling they got from their very first hit.

Does not matter if they were unusable. They were not supposed to be there period. All those years between the wars when Saddam claimed to not have them, they were there. So he lied. Lied to the UN and the rest of the world. Violated sanctions. Jeapordised his own people by not coming clean and kicking out UN workers time and time again. I don't think the invasion should have been tied to 9/11 but I also dont think it was totally wrong. Saddam lied, pure and simple.
George Bush has lied constantly during his tenure as America's Dicta- erm, 'President'. Guess that means it's fair ball to invade you then. After all, George lied - pure and simple. Right?

You people honestly think that Iraq did not have good WMD around? They just kept the old ones for decorations? Maybe they were decoys? He was up to something. There have been satellite images of bases being dismantled before the invasion and things moved. What where they? Where did they go? If you have time to move one thing, do you move the old crappy weapons or the newer ones?

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW06-14-06.jpg

Taker, don't forget to take your meds - otherwise your rose-tinted glasses might lose some of their efficacy.

I wonder if these kooks are the "dead enders" that dick cheney was talking about when he was ostenably babbling about the iraqi resistance years ago?

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/WMD-1.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/WMD-1.jpg

Nice one! :D

But no one addressed my 53 points. And I had made them with such care... Ah well. Not addressing a point equals conceding it...

Nice one! :D

But no one addressed my 53 points. And I had made them with such care... Ah well. Not addressing a point equals conceding it...

Busheviks are psychologically incapable of admitting mistakes. Even when Dear Leader does.

Does Vietnam and indeed Iraq not count as using chemical weaponry?

Napalm is not considered WMD

Napalm is not considered WMD

I believe Agent Orange, however, may well be.

Further down the same article, please read and understand:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

This is NOT earth shattering new news. This is old news. Old news about old weapons that were not useable.

Edit: Where are these WMD, you know the ones that were an "imminent threat" to the US, and that could be deployed in 45 minutes? Where are the nuclear weapons and long range rockets? Where are the facilities that would constitute an ongoing, viable WMD industry? Where are the large stockpiles of newly created chemical and biological agents? Well? Where are they?
nice selective reading you do.

Does not matter if they were unusable. They were not supposed to be there period. All those years between the wars when Saddam claimed to not have them, they were there.
The Duelfer report addenda, from march 2005:
Residual Pre-1991 CBW Stocks
in Iraq
ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will continue to discover small numbers of degraded chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. ISG believes the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned, forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward deployed along frequently and rapidly shifting battlefronts.
• All but two of the chemical weapons discovered since OIF were found in southern Iraq where the majority of CW munitions were used against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.
• As the Coalition destroys the thousands of conventional munitions at depots around the country the possibility exists that pre-1991 vintage chemical rounds could be found mixed in with conventional munitions at these locations.
—ISG identified 43 bunkers and depots where the Coalition is in the process of destroying conventional munitions and that were suspected of being associated with the pre-1991 WMD programs. However, ISG believes that any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat to Coalition Forces because the agent and
munitions are degraded and there are not enough extant weapons to cause mass casualties. However, if placed in the hands of insurgents, the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives.
• Since May 2004, ISG has recovered 41 Sakr-18 CW rockets and eight Buraq CW rockets. Coalition military explosive experts doubted the rockets could be effectively launched because the physical state of the munitions was degraded from years of improper storage.
• Since 2003, insurgents have attacked Coalition Forces with two CW rounds (not including attacks with riot control agents) that ISG judges were produced by Iraq prior to 1991. Neither attack caused casualties and ISG believes the perpetrators did not know the rounds contained CW agent because the rounds were not marked to indicate they contained CW agent and they were used no differently than
insurgents had employed conventional munition Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
• The mustard round used by insurgents as an IED near Abu Ghurayb Barracks on 2 May 2004 contained agent degraded to such an extent to be ineffective.
• There continues to be reporting that indicates terrorists
and insurgents possess chemical or biological weapons, although there is no evidence indicating that they have obtained “functional” CBW weapons or agents from the former Regime’s programs. An insurgent captured in Fallujah stated, “If we had chemical weapons, we would have used them.”
Iraqis seeking rewards have added toxic chemicals to unfilled pre-1991 chemical munitions to fool Coalition Forces into believing that they had found CW munitions.
• Polish Forces recovered 41 Sakr-18 rockets in June and July 2004. Of the rockets tested one contained residual sarin, five contained petroleum and a pesticide, and the remainders were empty. ISG believes that the Iraqis who provided the rockets added the pesticide because we have no previous reporting indicating that Iraq weaponized pesticides.
ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents. However, even if biological agents from the former program do remain they probably have significantly decreased pathogenicity because Iraq never successfully formulated its biological agents for long-term storage.
• According to a former Iraqi BW researcher, Iraq was not able to acquire drying technology because of sanctions.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf

And remember that it was after this report that President Bush said the following:
When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.

So he lied. Lied to the UN and the rest of the world. Violated sanctions. Jeapordised his own people by not coming clean and kicking out UN workers time and time again. I don't think the invasion should have been tied to 9/11 but I also dont think it was totally wrong. Saddam lied, pure and simple.
:rolleyes:


You people honestly think that Iraq did not have good WMD around? They just kept the old ones for decorations? Maybe they were decoys? He was up to something. There have been satellite images of bases being dismantled before the invasion and things moved. What where they? Where did they go? If you have time to move one thing, do you move the old crappy weapons or the newer ones?
Why would he move them? Why would he not use them against the invaders? What is the point of Weapons of Mass Destruction again?

nice selective reading you do.
Lets see now, we both quoted the same article (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11233571&postcount=131), but mine supports a different view of the facts than yours, and yet you accuse me of selective reading. Perhaps you shouldn't quote articles that don't fully support your argument?

I re-iterate, this is old news and not new news.

nice selective reading you do.

Well, at least he reads non-fiction now and then. You should try it.

For nuclear yeah, but other nations have used chemical and even biological weapons on a number of occasions. Chemical and biological are still WMD.
Strictly speaking, no they aren't. The term WMD was not applied to chemical and biological weaponry before around 2002 or so, when the call to war against Iraq began.

Even so, the U.S. has used both on several occasions, chemical more than biological. Agent Orange is a chemical weapon. The U.S. has used nerve gas and mustard gas. Napalm could be considered a chemical weapon, and it's now banned, which hasn't stopped the U.S. from using a similar compound with the same effects but with a slightly different chemical formula.

Biological weaponry, thankfully, hasn't been used in decades. I can't think of a single instance in the past century that any country has used it.