Weapons of Mass Destruction Found! - Page 11

SedyAlpha · #**101** (**permalink**) 05-25-2004, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SporkLord";p=&quot

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1137484/posts

and an English professor concurs...
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2939304

...
That one shell is a WMD! (*)(*)(*)(*) it! In fact one drop of Sarin is a WMD!
Wait, it isn't? Oh, well the Iraqi people are better now than under Saddam! We got rid of him right! You disagree? You terrorist!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkH";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus";p=&quot

Marxist H is in denial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-R-O-G";p=&quot

i wish we had a forum where only reasonable people could go... markH wouldn't be alowed...

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMoleman";p=&quot

is on Saddam Hussein. This "Warehouse" of documents you speak of did not properly account for his WMD, so it is funny that you bring it up because it only proves that he was hiding something. It hurts your argument.

Saddam Hussein had plenty of time to hide his WMD's. But we have found some of them. The sarin shells and mustard gas were a part of his arsenal. If you don't think that mustard gas is a WMD, read up on WW1. It is nasty stuff.

The obvious point is that the United States hasn’t found anything. It is obvious that Rumsfeld does not know where the WoMD are. It is obvious that your contention that we FOUND WoMD is not a very good argument due to the silence from the administration. All of those things are obvious. These are all facts, else where are the WoMD? (Fact 1).

They found a SINGLE SHELL which is NOT a WoMD ( FACT 2). Do you still contend that a single shell is a WoMD? Or a single Sarin shell is a WoMD? Or that two shells are a WoMD? I would say if they found a hundred shells or more, then yes, I would start to agree with you. I would disagree with you at, hmmm, let’s say 25 shells – that, to me would not be enough. But I could at least see your point there. If we found a hundred, I would be elated because it would help the United States regain world credibility and be a justification for our invasion. But saying 1 or 2 shells is a WoMD is just plain childish.

Why do you Neocons want to argue against the facts? You can't win, so your tactic is to attack me, attack my credibility, say the same thing over and over and over leaving out the facts and discussing red herrings (HansMoleman says, “If you don't think that mustard gas is a WMD, read up on WW1. It is nasty stuff.” – LOL, so what? They found 1 shell as far as I know. What are they going to do, load it up and shoot it at someone – Muhahahaha!). Then the Neocons complain and wish I wasn't here or that I could be shut up.

If you can't win the argument, you simply get rid of the people who are arguing with you! And then you call me a Marxist and demand censorship. Talk about hypocrites!

Great job guys! You've shown your true colors -- Fascists!

Summed up. PAY NO ATENSTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

SedyAlpha · #**102** (**permalink**) 05-25-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SporkLord";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liberty";p=&quot

I would say that a WMD would include any weaponized chemical or biological agent capable of killing a great number of people. By that definition, the Sarin shell and the Mustard Gas shell would both be considered WMDs. They do not constitute a stockpile of WMDs, or "the" WMDs, but they are WMDs.

I'm curious what your definition of WMD is? Are you saying that there must be many of these to constitute a "weapon of mass destruction"? Or are you arguing that these were once WMDs, but no longer are because the chemical is not as active as it once was?

Many conventional weapons used by the US could be considered WMDs. The term in itself is very ambiguous, but I would not consider this one shell found to proove Saddam's weapons program existed on the scale that Bush claims. (oops..claimed)

The U.S. is not under obligation visa-vie the U.N. and a treaty ending a war they lost to show where they destroyed anything. We are not legally required to account for al that stuff that the U.N. inspectors and even the Germans, French< and Russians said he ad. So what the U.S. has or what ever is 100% irrelevant to the real issue and nothing more than a cheap diversionary deflection attempt by those that keep screaming the same old line that’s been disproved here over and over aging. Repeating it seems to boar a lot of people here.

#**103** (**permalink**) 05-25-2004, 05:09 PM

Listen moron, the United States just freed 25 million people in IRAQ and you want Saddam back. What did Bush say he would do? Overthrow Saddam. Mission accomplished. What else did Bush say he would do? Capture Saddam. Another Mission Accomplished. What else did Bush say he would do? Turn over the Government to the IRAQI people by June 30, 2004 ... mission soon to be accomplished. As Bush said we are on schedule. Need we say more? Now tell me who is the bozo .... You?

Yes, the United States of WMD and we do not use them on our own people duh ... just terrorists. And if freeing people if we kill innocent people then we have comfort in knowing the innnocent people were not our targets. And, finally, the United States has weapons of mass destruction but do not use them on our own people like Saddam did. DUH

DUH UN Resolution 19 and all the documentation as compiled by the UN Inspectors during the Clinton ERA found WMD not the United States. Even Clinton was aware of WMD and there was never any evidence that those WMD as witnessed not only by us but documented by the UN inspectors and the UN have never been found since we documented them. DUH you think they disappeared into thin air? DUH Now I know why your party had so much trouble voting on those HAHAHAHAHAHAAHA confusing ballots! ROTFL

Freedom is always justified. Many times freedom comes with a price ... death of the innocent but freedom is worth death.

Now let me get this straight, duh, if your son took drugs and you said to your son, "Son, not today but on the weekend I am going to search your room for drugs!". Do you think, you would find the drugs in your son's room if you warned your son, you were going to search his room? DUH Now you know what a moron you really are.

Let me highlight for you what is embarrassing. The Liberals, Democrats, Media and terrorist are now America's worst enemy. Liberals, Democrats/Media as a party are the party of homos, abortionists, Hollywood and terrorists and you support all of these beliefs and factions. As a party, you think freeing entire nations is wrong? You target as a party, innocent babies to murder them via abortion. And you call yourselves true Americans?

We the true Americans including most GOP, some Democrats and some liberals target not babies, not women, not children, not innocent people but terrorists with the intention of destroying them and giving a whole nation its freedom. Now let me get this straight, true Americans fight for not only their freedom but the freedom of others and you fight and side with who ... HMMMMMM the terrorists? Germany/Hitler had the same idea about the Jews as you have about freeing the IRAQIs and Afghanistan. Its seems like the liberals and democrats had that same idea about the Blacks that you, liberals/democrats lynched prior to the Civil War and beyond. As a matter of fact, the only member in Congress from the KKK is namely, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. Remember, honey it was the GOP/Republicans/Lincoln who freed the Blacks/slaves. Need we say more?

Now who is going to hell?

Liberty · #**104** (**permalink**) 05-25-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SporkLord";p=&quot

The term in itself is very ambiguous

Mightily so

Liberty · #**105** (**permalink**) 05-25-2004, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkH";p=&quot

This is purely a guess, but for me I think when we hit a stockpile of about 100 usable shells or missiles able to disperse chemical or biological death and the material to fill them, I would be at the point where I would say, "Yup, he shouldn’t a had those puppies, we warned him,” and “You see, World, we had a right to take those out before he could use them.”

Yup, clearly this find doesn't represent a stockpile of weapons, though it would be good to know where it came from. Many high-ranking Pentagon officials were surprised when this was reported in the news, thinking it was going to be classified. If there is indeed a forgotten stash of weapons, the terrorist that found this one now knows he may have others, and may learn how to use them more effectively.

Quote:

I really don't know how dangerous 100 shells are

From what I've read about Sarin, a pin drop amount on your skin can cause death in about 20 minutes or so. A shell of the type found, if used effectively, could wipe out 2000 people in a heavily congested area. Fortunately, there is an antidote, and I'd be willing to bet that US soldiers are now carrying that around with them. Sadly, if one of these things does go off, it will be Iraqi civilians that suffer.

#**106** (**permalink**) 05-25-2004, 06:18 PM

DUH SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, WE, AMERICANS, HAVE FREED A PEOPLE NAMELY THE IRAQIS WHOSE RELATIVES RESIDE IN MASS GRAVES, APPROXIMATELY OVER 1 MILLION THANKS TO SADDAM, AND YOU QUESTION US AS YOU SIDE WITH THE TERRORISTS? HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA DUH
NOW WHO IS THE MORON, TERRORIST AND ANTI-AMERICA ... YOU? DUH

Hansmoleman · #**107** (**permalink**) 05-25-2004, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkH";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMoleman";p=&quot

leave out the mustard gas in this argument. Why? Because there is no refuting that mustard gas clearly is a WMD. It was used in WW1, and had absolutely devastating effects. So much so that it was banned from being used in warfare by the Geneva convention.

Just thank God that it wasn't stored properly and was not used against our troops, unlike the Sarin shell....

Hans: Yes or no question: If the two shells, 1 of Sarin and 1 of Mustard Gas, are all that is found, do you feel that the WoMD have been found?

The mustard gas was found in many large vats, it was NOT one single shell. But luckily it was not stored properly or it could have been used against us.

But yes, what we have found DOES in fact constitute WMD's. In fact, our whole definition of WMD's is changing with the threat of terrorists. During 9-11, a couple razor blades used properly in a plane with a tank full of fuel were in essence a WMD.

What would have happened if the plane was also loaded with Mustard gas? It would have been just horrible.

SenaxFlatulus · #**108** (**permalink**) 05-25-2004, 07:00 PM

The sarin they found in the artillery shell was the two stage kind. Hussein never declared he had that type in his arsenal.

MarkH · #**109** (**permalink**) 05-26-2004, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMoleman";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkH";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansMoleman";p=&quot

leave out the mustard gas in this argument. Why? Because there is no refuting that mustard gas clearly is a WMD. It was used in WW1, and had absolutely devastating effects. So much so that it was banned from being used in warfare by the Geneva convention.

Just thank God that it wasn't stored properly and was not used against our troops, unlike the Sarin shell....

Hans: Yes or no question: If the two shells, 1 of Sarin and 1 of Mustard Gas, are all that is found, do you feel that the WoMD have been found?

The mustard gas was found in many large vats, it was NOT one single shell. But luckily it was not stored properly or it could have been used against us.

But yes, what we have found DOES in fact constitute WMD's. In fact, our whole definition of WMD's is changing with the threat of terrorists. During 9-11, a couple razor blades used properly in a plane with a tank full of fuel were in essence a WMD.

What would have happened if the plane was also loaded with Mustard gas? It would have been just horrible.

I cannot find this information EXCEPT in the Neo-right wing zombie news outlets.

A search in USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...aq-sarin_x.htm

Fox News reported:

Quote:

The inspectors worked for nearly four months but found no evidence of any of the weapons the Bush administration had alleged. Since the war, a nine-month search by a succession of U.S. teams has failed to find any current stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The lack of evidence has led critics to suggest the Bush administration either mishandled or exaggerated its knowledge of Iraq's alleged arsenal.

In October, Dutch marines found several dozen artillery shells dating from the 1991 Gulf War in the southern Iraqi town of Samawah, but the shells contained no biological or chemical agents. Samawah is 100 miles west of the southern region where the Danes discovered shells Saturday.

In April, U.S. troops found a dozen 55-gallon drums in an open field near the northern Iraqi town of Baiji.

Preliminary tests performed at the scene indicated one drum might contain the nerve agent cyclosarin and a blister agent that could be mustard gas. Tests later showed the barrel's contents were not chemical weapons.
-- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108046,00.html

So help me out here -- what are you talking about?

MarkH · #**110** (**permalink**) 05-26-2004, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigLouie";p=&quot

DUH SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, WE, AMERICANS, HAVE FREED A PEOPLE NAMELY THE IRAQIS WHOSE RELATIVES RESIDE IN MASS GRAVES, APPROXIMATELY OVER 1 MILLION THANKS TO SADDAM, AND YOU QUESTION US AS YOU SIDE WITH THE TERRORISTS? HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA DUH
NOW WHO IS THE MORON, TERRORIST AND ANTI-AMERICA ... YOU? DUH

Yes Saddam was bad. So, does this mean we can act illegally based on the fact that Saddam, a creation of the United States, is a bad guy? That’s right, Mr. All-Caps, we helped put those people in those graves because Saddam hated Iran and we did to. So we Supported Saddam – he was our buddy, our friend, our cohort, our champion of the Middle East.

The question for this thread is: Do we have the evidence necessary to claim that our actions were justified? Have WoMD been found?

Oh, I do have one question for you: Do you wear gloves on your hands so your knuckles don't scrape the ground when you walk? Just curious.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode