Five hundred WMDs found in Iraq

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html

The coalition agreed to the armistice back in 1991 because Saddam said that he would destroy all of his WMDs within 45 days, and he never did. Hopefully, they will find some of the newer weapons that he had scientists working on. That is assuming that he did not destroy all of the evidence prior to the 2003 reinvasion.

A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

The official, who asked not to be identified, said most were 155 millimeter artillery projectiles with mustard gas or sarin of varying degrees of potency.

Mustard gas shells are not WMD's

Try not to only get the news from Fox

BenZilla wrote:



A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

The official, who asked not to be identified, said most were 155 millimeter artillery projectiles with mustard gas or sarin of varying degrees of potency.

Mustard gas shells are not WMD's

Try not to only get the news from Fox

The point is they are part of a cache that was previously unaccounted for. How exactly is one supposed to deduce what state an unknown object is in. There is no Life.Reflection class.

Doesn't matter what kind of weapons are found or even if any more are located, at least not as a validation of the conflict.

UN imposed sanctions, Iraq ignored them.
UN said where are these weapons, Iraq said FU, we aren't telling you.

We had no idea what to expect, so we err'ed on the side of safety.

BenZilla wrote:

...Try not to only get the news from Fox

Why not? I go to my science class in my church on Sunday -- what's the problem here?

H4L0PR1CK wrote:

UN imposed sanctions, Iraq ignored them.
UN said where are these weapons, Iraq said FU, we aren't telling you.

Pr1ck,

Don't bring up the UN when it's convenient. The UN never sanction military actions.

H4L0PR1CK wrote:

We had no idea what to expect, so we err'ed on the side of safety.

On the side of safety? Tell that to the 2,600 military people already dead and 9,000 injured. Tell that to the 40,000 civilians dead.

Iraq stated in 1994 that it had 500 chemical munitions left "that it was not able to locate".
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18714&Cr=iraq&Cr1



http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum

“not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

Can we say administrative f*ck up within the Batthist party - I bet we have some crap around that we have no idea about - just sitting in storage some place.

BenZilla wrote:

A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

The official, who asked not to be identified, said most were 155 millimeter artillery projectiles with mustard gas or sarin of varying degrees of potency.

If you believe that they are no longer lethal, would you volunteer to test that theory? The weapons do not need to be at 100% efficiency to kill mutiple people, and imagine if these had been used in New York City's Subway system:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1205309,00.html

The cyanide gas would probably have been more effective though, considering how Al Qaeda would have been using non-degraded chemicals that they could purchase at Home Depot. Although, it could be debatable considering that the very low (and therefore deadly) LD50 of Sarin Gas would still be very low, even if it was at 10% efficiency.

BenZilla wrote:

Mustard gas shells are not WMD's

They are still significant, and Hussein agreed to destroy them.

BenZilla wrote:

Try not to only get the news from Fox

I try, but it is hard when the media is censoring everything that they do not want you to know:

http://newsbusters.org/node/6046
http://newsbusters.org/node/6044

I also got the story from breitbart.com, which qualifies as being not only from Fox.

Minh wrote:



H4L0PR1CK wrote: UN imposed sanctions, Iraq ignored them. UN said where are these weapons, Iraq said FU, we aren't telling you.

Pr1ck,

Don't bring up the UN when it's convenient. The UN never sanction military actions.

Anyone remember the Korean War?

While I know that you will try to dodge this, I would like to pre-emptively point out that it only takes one example to demonstrate a statement where "never" is used as untrue.

Minh wrote:



H4L0PR1CK wrote: We had no idea what to expect, so we err'ed on the side of safety.

On the side of safety? Tell that to the 2,600 military people already dead and 9,000 injured. Tell that to the 40,000 civilians dead.

Lets just establish this now. Do you or do you not think that the Iraqi people should be still under Saddam Hussein?

BenZilla wrote:

Iraq stated in 1994 that it had 500 chemical munitions left "that it was not able to locate".
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=18714&Cr=iraq&Cr1



http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum

“not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

Can we say administrative f*ck up within the Batthist party - I bet we have some crap around that we have no idea about - just sitting in storage some place.

Yes they are. We went to war with Hussein in 1991 because he made these and we signed an armistice under the condition that he destroy these within 45 days and with the understanding that we would go back in if he failed to do so.

H4L0PR1CK, Minh's plan is very simple. It is to surrender. We could have peace tomorrow if we do that, and of course, we would be subject to increasingly burdensome demands from various terrorist organizations who will threaten us, causing us to give in, but hey, we will be at peace.

Minh wrote:



H4L0PR1CK wrote: UN imposed sanctions, Iraq ignored them. UN said where are these weapons, Iraq said FU, we aren't telling you.

Pr1ck,

Don't bring up the UN when it's convenient. The UN never sanction military actions.

Evidence was discovered via UN channels that Iraq may pose a threat to American civilians and interests.  It is not the UN's authority to mandate nor authorize force which we deem necessary for our own safety. I don't argue over convenience.

We obviously do not see eye to eye on this matter and continuing to debate the issue seems pretty pointless.

Minh wrote:



H4L0PR1CK wrote: We had no idea what to expect, so we err'ed on the side of safety.

On the side of safety? Tell that to the 2,600 military people already dead and 9,000 injured. Tell that to the 40,000 civilians dead.

Again, we didn't really know what they had, they could have had loads of components for dirty bombs,  or worse , we had no way to tell.

1 dirty bomb and possibly 100k+ dead.

War is ugly, no one denies that fact. Let's hear  Minh's plan for ending terrorism in the soonest possible manner.

Shining Arcanine wrote:

H4L0PR1CK, Minh's plan is very simple. It is to surrender. We could have peace tomorrow if we do that, and of course, we would be subject to increasingly burdensome demands from various terrorist organizations who will threaten us, causing us to give in, but hey, we will be at peace.

At no point did Minh say we should 'surrender'.  Especially since we invaded.  We have no business in Iraq.  None.  We never did.  Further, we've passed up the option to take care of real problems in places like darfur and somalia, but that would only have been popular amongst the 'liberal elite'.  You know, the ones that actually spent time looking at the problem without the hazy filter of hate and stupidity.

Further, your imagined 'terrorists' are about as vaporous as the 'commies' of the 50's.  I'm interested to see who it is we get to demonize in 2050.  

You have no legitimacy.

Here's the declassified report :
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/iraqwmd.pdf

ScanIAm wrote:



Further, your imagined 'terrorists' are about as vaporous as the 'commies' of the 50's.  I'm interested to see who it is we get to demonize in 2050.  

You have no legitimacy.

Let's hope you never have to see how wrong you are.

maniac78 wrote:

Here's the declassified report :
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/iraqwmd.pdf

Yeah, we all saw that last night.  Turns out it's a complete crock.

No facts to be found, but a bunch of bullet points.  Further, you won't find a credible member of the intelligence community who will back up that this is anything more than "we found a bunch of old weapons buried in the desert from 1988".

Thank you, come again.

ScanIAm wrote:



Shining Arcanine wrote:H4L0PR1CK, Minh's plan is very simple. It is to surrender. We could have peace tomorrow if we do that, and of course, we would be subject to increasingly burdensome demands from various terrorist organizations who will threaten us, causing us to give in, but hey, we will be at peace.

At no point did Minh say we should 'surrender'.  Especially since we invaded.  We have no business in Iraq.  None.  We never did.  Further, we've passed up the option to take care of real problems in places like darfur and somalia, but that would only have been popular amongst the 'liberal elite'.  You know, the ones that actually spent time looking at the problem without the hazy filter of hate and stupidity.

There is no other possible way to get peace this very instant. Thus it is only logical that any plan to get out of Iraq in the time frame many liberals want would be to surrender.

ScanIAm wrote:

Further, your imagined 'terrorists' are about as vaporous as the 'commies' of the 50's.  I'm interested to see who it is we get to demonize in 2050.

Did I imagine the 9/11 WTC attack, 1993 WTC attack, Madrid railway bombings and London bombings as well?

ScanIAm wrote:

You have no legitimacy.

You subconsciously realize that you have no credibility but your subconscious cannot accept this and thus you release the anxious knowledge subconsciously causes you by attributing this to me. In other words, you are projecting. This is a cycle and the only way that you will stop projecting is by consciously acknowledging your lack of credibility and dealing with it, thereby breaking your continous cycle of anxiety build-up and release. You are the only person that can do this, and until you decide to do this, there is nothing I nor anyone else can do to help you.

By the way, it would be much more accurate to use the term "credibility" as "legitimacy" means something else, namely whether or not your parents were married when you were conceived.

Shining Arcanine wrote:

Anyone remember the Korean War?

While I know that you will try to dodge this, I would like to pre-emptively point out that it only takes one example to demonstrate a statement where "never" is used as untrue.

Take your victory where you can, right? If you read it right, it should say the UN never sanctioned the 2nd Iraqui war. BTW, besides the Korean war, the UN sanctioned the 1st one, too.

Shining Arcanine wrote:

Lets just establish this now. Do you or do you not think that the Iraqi people should be still under Saddam Hussein?

Let's establish this now. The Iraq war is a private war between Bush & Sadam. If you use your measurement of why we should start a war in Iraq (terrorism, tyrany, WMD) -- there are helluva lot more countries we should be invading: N Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran. Why just Iraq?

Shining Arcanine wrote:

Yes they are. We went to war with Hussein in 1991 because he made these and we signed an armistice under the condition that he destroy these within 45 days and with the understanding that we would go back in if he failed to do so.

No we went to war in 1991 because Iraq was invading Kuwait, a vital oil power. We should've finished the war. Sr. didn't. Jr. tried.

Minh wrote:



Shining Arcanine wrote: Anyone remember the Korean War? While I know that you will try to dodge this, I would like to pre-emptively point out that it only takes one example to demonstrate a statement where "never" is used as untrue.

Take your victory where you can, right? If you read it right, it should say the UN never sanctioned the 2nd Iraqui war. BTW, besides the Korean war, the UN sanctioned the 1st one, too.

Do you acknowledge that I am correct in my reference to the Korean War and therefore your statement of "never" is incorrect?

Minh wrote:



Shining Arcanine wrote: Lets just establish this now. Do you or do you not think that the Iraqi people should be still under Saddam Hussein?

Let's establish this now. The Iraq war is a private war between Bush & Sadam. If you use your measurement of why we should start a war in Iraq (terrorism, tyrany, WMD) -- there are helluva lot more countries we should be invading: N Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran. Why just Iraq?

Do you or do you not think that the Iraqi people should be still under Saddam Hussein?

It is a simple question and unless you have some ignoble motive for what you say, you should have no problem answering it.

Minh wrote:



Shining Arcanine wrote: Yes they are. We went to war with Hussein in 1991 because he made these and we signed an armistice under the condition that he destroy these within 45 days and with the understanding that we would go back in if he failed to do so.

No we went to war in 1991 because Iraq was invading Kuwait, a vital oil power. We should've finished the war. Sr. didn't. Jr. tried.

We did finish the Persian Gulf War. We did so in May 2003. That does not, however, complete, end or finish the War on Terrorism, which continues in Iraq and Afghanistan.

H4L0PR1CK wrote:

Evidence was discovered via UN channels that Iraq may pose a threat to American civilians and interests.  It is not the UN's authority to mandate nor authorize force which we deem necessary for our own safety. I don't argue over convenience.

Then don't bring up the UN as if they sanctioned the war.

H4L0PR1CK wrote:

We obviously do not see eye to eye on this matter and continuing to debate the issue seems pretty pointless.

You gonna cut & run?

H4L0PR1CK wrote:

Again, we didn't really know what they had, they could have had loads of components for dirty bombs,  or worse , we had no way to tell.

1 dirty bomb and possibly 100k+ dead.

How do you sleep at night? Do you know that dirty bomb technologies are possessed by more than just possibly Iraq? Could you have used the $200 Billion already spent on better ways to fight dirty bomb technologies?

H4L0PR1CK wrote:

War is ugly, no one denies that fact. Let's hear  Minh's plan for ending terrorism in the soonest possible manner.

Yes, war IS ugly. We shouldn't let an idiot in charge of starting our wars. But here's my plan (not really mine BTW):

• We take the 135,000 troops in Iraq & send them to Afghanistan and CAPTURE Bin Laden.
• On 9-11-2002, we announce a mandatory program from all automobile manufacturers to have 50% of their cars by hybrids in 5 years. Why are only Japanese cars practical hybrids? Free from dependency on Middle-east oil, we won't have to get into the sh!t that goes on there.
• We take the $200 Billion wasted on a bogus wars and shore up our horrible education system. So that in 10 yrs, we won't have sweatshops in the US creating iPods to be sold in China & India.
• We demand any countries that does business w/ us to put for a genuine effort to combat terrorism -- as of now, nobody wants to side with those ugly Americans.
• We take some of that $200 B & build 4 buildings twice as high as the WTC
• We go into Dafur & Somalia an end REAL human atrocities -- and gain good faith credits in the process

Of course there are WMDs in Iraq. There are American soldiers in there now...