63% of Republicans STILL Think Iraq Had WMDs

[CMike]

How do you track one post?

It IS clearly a mystery to YOU!

It's a mystery why you have such a hard time making a lucid point.

Some idiot made the claim WMD's were found in Iraq. I said, "where's the proof?" But instead of providing any proof, he made some dumbass statement with the hopes that it might appear witty, then you come in with your little cheerleading outfit, trying make something completely non-sensical, into a valid argument, with 3rd grade innuendo's.

Either provide the proof, or grow a pair. Because having a conversation, seems to scare you.

You mean like this?

Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq | Fox News

 

[JakeStarkey]

The WMDs found in Iraq did not MEET THE GO TO WAR criteria.

 

[CMike]

The WMDs found in Iraq did not MEET THE GO TO WAR criteria.

Please quote the "go to war" criteria? I didn't know such criteria existed.

 

[CMike]

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to
look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”


Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with “unknown contents” inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.

But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”

U.S.: Mobile labs found in Iraq - CNN

 

[GoneBezerk]

Saddam's WMD program was either shipped to Syria with help from Russia because there was nobody monitoring the border...OR Saddam was the greatest modern era con artist fooling intelligence agencies in the US, UK, etc.

I'm going with the first reason....

 

[Liability]

In a rejoinder to the mentally defective OP, Grandpa observed: “100% of morons still think Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction”

In an attempted response to THAT post, the idiot loincloth asked, “Where's the proof?” Do you see it? groinboi asked for proof of the claim that 100% of the morons still think Iraq had no WMDs.

Grandpa honored the request by noting, “Your post is a good starting point”

Promptly misunderstanding what had JUST been asked by him and the answer to THAT question, groinboi then incoherently said, “My post is not proof of WMD's in Iraq.” Maybe not, but that wasn’t the question asked nor was it the answer given.

And even to this moment groinboi cannot fathom how he got lost in that simple and easy to follow conversation!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Either you are woefully ignorant or a very poor liar.

You made the claim that we went to war over WMDs. Show us exactly which WMDs we went to war over. You have to show us exactly.

I will help you since it is your affirmation. Go research Powell's speech to the UN.

The WMDs found in Iraq did not MEET THE GO TO WAR criteria.

Please quote the "go to war" criteria? I didn't know such criteria existed.

 

[Liability]

The WMDs found in Iraq did not MEET THE GO TO WAR criteria.

Fakey is busy making shit up again. Let's check in on reality to undo Fakey's cheese-dick effort:

ONE of the many criteria relied upon by CONGRESS to authorize the going to war against Saddam's Iraq was that the shithead motherfucker, Saddam and his regime, HAD WMDs.

Another of those numerous criteria was that Saddam had previously USED WMDs.

Another of those numerous criteria was that Saddam and his regime had failed to comply with international requirements for verified removal and/or destruction of his WMDs.

ANY evidence of his having WMDs, after the war was fought, thus supports SOME of the criteria for going to war in the first place.

 

[MikeK]

According to WikiLeaks, small amounts of chemical WMDs were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion.

The term, "Weapon of Mass Destruction," is ambiguous. A molotov cocktail tossed into a crowded bar literally and categorically qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction. As does an ordinary fragmentation grenade or a high-capacity machine gun turned against an unarmed and trapped crowd.

As far as a chemical weapon is concerned, it can be considered a weapon of mass destruction if used to optimum effect. But not any moreso than a comparably lethal high-explosive or indendiary device. In keeping with the topic at hand, the chemical weapons found in Iraq, which were purchased from the U.S. as far back as the 1970s and 80s, are long past their shelf-life and are no longer useful.

The bottom line is the widely accepted meaning of a "WMD" is some sort of nuclear device, from a so-called "dirty bomb" to a full-scale thermonuclear bomb or artillery round. So the lingering rumors about chemical weapons being found in Iraq are nothing more than attempts to justify the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq.

WMD's include nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

Where is that formally designated?

"Mass Destruction" is a relative term and there is no biological or chemical weapon which comes close to the destructive capability of a nuclear device. So if you or any public official or member of the Press wishes to arbitrarily include biological and chemical weapons in the WMD category you might as well keep going and include such things as 25 pound satchel charges, napalm bombs, "blockbuster" bombs, Timothy McVeigh's truck bomb, the single torpedo that sank the Lusitania, and on and on.

The coefficient factor which determines a WMD is where the weapon is used. A chemical weapon discharged in a sparsely populated area is not massively destructive. But, as mentioned in an earlier message, a molotov cocktail tossed into a crowded bar will be massively destructive in the relative sense.

So it is not up to George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or Condoleeza Rice to formally designate what a weapon of mass destruction is or is not.

 

[CMike]

Either you are woefully ignorant or a very poor liar.

You made the claim that we went to war over WMDs. Show us exactly which WMDs we went to war over. You have to show us exactly.

I will help you since it is your affirmation. Go research Powell's speech to the UN.

The WMDs found in Iraq did not MEET THE GO TO WAR criteria.

Please quote the "go to war" criteria? I didn't know such criteria existed.

Please quote me where I said we went to war because of WMD?

WMD was one element.

Other elements were Hussein and:

His support for terrorism

His decade ties with Al Qaida

His attempt to assassinate Pres. Bush

His naked aggression of invading Kuwait

His continuous violations of UN resolutions requiring him to prove that his WMD were destroyed

His unaccounted for WMD

His plans to build more WMD including nukes


And what made him extremely dangerous was the combination of all the above. That he would provide WMD to Al Qaida who would use it as a terrorist attack against the US.

As Condi Rice stated we didn't want the proof to be a mushroom cloud in DC.

 

[CMike]

Reality is that everybody and there mother stated he did have them.

It doesn't freaking matter what anyone _said_. There were no WMDs. Twist and squirm and scream all you want, but there were still no WMDs.

And what's more, "everbody" did not say such things. The liberals -- as opposed to the Democrats -- were universally not fooled, being that we're not morons. We said it was BS. And because of that, our entire national media and every single gullible crank like you screamed about how all the liberals were traitors.

There were no WMDs found. Bush lied. You fell for it. And instead of admitting that error, you're choosing to keep lying.

But, but, but.... Either Bill Clinton and all those dems lied too or Bush was telling the truth. They want to eat their cake and have it, too.

I already told you to stop diverting with idiot stories of what some Democrat did, or what happened in the 1990s. If you were honest -- and you're not -- you wouldn't try to pull such evasions.

No WMDs were found. That's the issue you can't run from. Bush lied, and you are now lying.

No matter how many times this is hashed and rehashed, no matter how hard the R looked and searched and hoped and LIED, there were no WMDs and the R knew it. They knew and yet they kept lying to us because it meant that scum like Cheney could go right on profiting from the damn $600 hammers.

THAT really is the bottom line.

Note to CMike: Really nice dogs but, gee whiz man, get a friggin life already.

Thanks. My dogs are wonderful. They give us a lot of pleasure.

As I have shown there have been WMD found, and the bulk of them were looted or moved to Syria.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The WMDs found in Iraq did not MEET THE GO TO WAR criteria.

The 19 cease fire violations did. .

 

[CausingPAIN]

they did have WMD's

KBR to Provide Ammonia Technology and Services to Revamp North Fertilizer Plant in Iraq

Houston, Texas — December 22, 2011 — KBR (NYSE: KBR) announced today that it has been awarded a contract by First Global Company to revamp the North Fertilizer Plant in Baiji, Iraq.

Under the terms of the contract, KBR will provide a license for its proprietary Ammonia Process and related engineering services to increase the plant capacity to 120 percent of the original design. The original plant, which started up in 1989 was designed to produce 1000 MTPD Ammonia.

“KBR is proud to have the opportunity to work with First Global Company to revamp the North Fertilizer Plant,” said John Derbyshire, President, KBR Technology. “Helping our licensors debottleneck their plants and achieve greater production capacities and process efficiencies is one of our core competencies and will be an area of significant growth worldwide.”

KBR is a global engineering, construction and services company supporting the energy, hydrocarbon, government services, minerals, civil infrastructure, power, industrial, and commercial markets. For more information, visit KBR: A Global Engineering, Construction and Services Company.




KBR to Provide Ammonia Technology and Services to Revamp North Fertilizer Plant in Iraq


Hmmmm....is their a nitrate free kind?

 

[GoneBezerk]

First, the dumbfucks that claim Bush Jr started the war need to figure out Saddam actually started the war....

 

[depotoo]

Preemptive war is always wrong, for all reasons, always. End of story. When the Nazi's did it was wrong. When the Japanese did it was wrong.

If a nation is the aggressor, they are in the wrong. There is no excuse. This nation used to know the difference between right and wrong. We have sunk to rationizing, making excuses for using our power, but there is no excuse. The fact of the matter is, we were never under any threat. Even if a nation has chemical weapons, we have chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber weapons, space weapons, geological weapons, hydrospheric weapons, psychological weapons, and a whole host of weapons many on this board can neither conceive of nor would want to even know about. War was unnecessary to protect Americans. It was necessary however to secure energy resources and to force trade and enforce a finance monopoly in dollar denominated notes.

you see, you are exactly right, it is. Thus Saddam found out just that. You don't shoot at our men flying in the no-fly zone.

 

[MikeK]

they did have WMD's

Then why did they not use them against us when we invaded and virtually destroyed their nation?

They didn't want to offend us?

 

[CausingPAIN]

they did have WMD's

Then why did they not use them against us when we invaded and virtually destroyed their nation?

They didn't want to offend us?

dame right.. someone needs to hit the reply button so they can use them, as they know this outcome

I would say a fully loaded gasoline 18 wheel tanker was the backup...WMD..no?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The "ties to Al Qaida" argument is still floating around out there too.
Even though it's been totally debunked as well.

There are a lot of stupid people out there - how stupid do you have to be to follow them into war?

No one is on the high road here.

 

[Liability]

Preemptive war is always wrong, for all reasons, always. End of story. When the Nazi's did it was wrong. When the Japanese did it was wrong.

If a nation is the aggressor, they are in the wrong. There is no excuse. This nation used to know the difference between right and wrong. We have sunk to rationizing, making excuses for using our power, but there is no excuse. The fact of the matter is, we were never under any threat. Even if a nation has chemical weapons, we have chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber weapons, space weapons, geological weapons, hydrospheric weapons, psychological weapons, and a whole host of weapons many on this board can neither conceive of nor would want to even know about. War was unnecessary to protect Americans. It was necessary however to secure energy resources and to force trade and enforce a finance monopoly in dollar denominated notes.

If Bubba Clinton was here he might say, "it depends on what the definition of 'preemptive' is."

FOR EXAMPLE, if we learn that some shithole nuclear power is about to launch a nuclear missile strike against us, would it qualify as "preemptive" if we knocked the shit out of them BEFORE they could launch?

For that might SOUND all "preemptive" to you, but I would tend to think it wasn't "wrong" at all.

 

[MikeK]

Either you are woefully ignorant or a very poor liar.

You made the claim that we went to war over WMDs. Show us exactly which WMDs we went to war over. You have to show us exactly.

I will help you since it is your affirmation. Go research Powell's speech to the UN.

Please quote the "go to war" criteria? I didn't know such criteria existed.

Please quote me where I said we went to war because of WMD?

WMD was one element.

Other elements were Hussein and:

His support for terrorism

Hussein supported terrorist activity against Iran and Turkey which were active enemies of Iraq. None of our business.

His decade ties with Al Qaida

Hussein was secular. Al Qaeda is fanatical Islamist, a circumstance which posed a serious conflict. Hussein had no ties whatsoever with Al Qaeda.

His attempt to assassinate Pres. Bush

There was no such attempt. Pentagon Report Shows No Iraq Plot To Assassinate Bush Sr.

His naked aggression of invading Kuwait

None of our business. Not worth the life of one American soldier to interfere with.

His continuous violations of UN resolutions requiring him to prove that his WMD were destroyed

That was up to the UN to deal with. We are not the cops of the world.

His unaccounted for WMD

Unfounded theory.

His plans to build more WMD including nukes

Another unfounded theory -- which has cost thousands of American lives, the maiming of thousands more of our troops, and the waste of sufficient treasure to solve all of our financial problems.

And what made him extremely dangerous was the combination of all the above. That he would provide WMD to Al Qaida who would use it as a terrorist attack against the US.

Fabricated nonsense.

As Condi Rice stated we didn't want the proof to be a mushroom cloud in DC.

Condoleeza Rice, a token negro in the Administration, was George W. Bush's personal pickaninny. Her job, like her Uncle Tom counterpart, Colin Powell, was to obediently lie for her master -- which she did repeatedly.