Clock ticks down on a deadly chemical stockpile

[logical4u]

Chemicals are NOT weapons of mass destruction.

Nuclear weapons are, and perhaps biological weapons might be, but chemicals?

No way.

Now I know well that my opinion here is not the mainstream opinion, but seriously...

Chemical weapons are hardly WMDS.

No more so then any large conventional bomb is a WMD.

Chlorine gas, mustard gas, chemical agents, are you saying these are not weapons of mass destruction? Chemicals can be used for many purposes, including weapons.

 

[KittenKoder]

Chemicals are NOT weapons of mass destruction.

Nuclear weapons are, and perhaps biological weapons might be, but chemicals?

No way.

Now I know well that my opinion here is not the mainstream opinion, but seriously...

Chemical weapons are hardly WMDS.

No more so then any large conventional bomb is a WMD.

Chlorine gas, mustard gas, chemical agents, are you saying these are not weapons of mass destruction? Chemicals can be used for many purposes, including weapons.

All of those can be made with household cleaners very easily, and some are used as cleaning chemicals quite frequently. So no, they don't count. Also they are very easy to avoid.

 

[Oldandtired]

wasn't that what Hans Blix and company were doing before "shock and awe"?

We had a treaty with Hussein. We gave him his country back after surrender with only two stipulations...do not invade Kuwait againj and you MUST allow the UN in to inpsect your chemical plants.

He refused in 2002-2003 to allow the inspections.

Hell...we gave him months and he would not conply to the terms of the treaty he signed.

We not onlyt warned him....but we pretty much told him the day and time.

And congress approved.

CON$ are just pathological liars.

Consortiumnews.com
In what’s been called George W. Bush’s first exit interview, the outgoing President continues a lie that he first unveiled several months after launching the Iraq War, justifying the invasion by claiming that Saddam Hussein didn’t let the U.N. inspectors in.

Like previous times when President Bush has used this lie, it went unchallenged by the journalist who heard the false claim, in this case ABC News anchor Charles Gibson.

According to the text of the ABC News interview, which was released Dec. 1, Gibson asked Bush, “If the [U.S.] intelligence had been right [and revealed no Iraq WMD], would there have been an Iraq War?”

Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”

Of course, the historical record is clear: Hussein did let U.N. arms inspectors into Iraq in the fall of 2002 to search any site of their choosing. Their travels around Iraq in white vans were recorded daily by the international news media, as they found no evidence that Iraq had WMD stockpiles, even at sites targeted by U.S. intelligence.

Hussein and his government also declared publicly that they didn’t possess WMD, including providing the United Nations a 12,000-page declaration on Dec. 7, 2002, explaining how Iraq’s stocks of chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed in the 1990s.

However, still set on invading, Bush forced the U.N. inspectors to leave Iraq in March 2003, a departure that was followed within days by his “shock and awe” attack on Iraq, beginning March 19.

You quote consortiumnews.com

You truly are pathetic.

 

[edthecynic]

We had a treaty with Hussein. We gave him his country back after surrender with only two stipulations...do not invade Kuwait againj and you MUST allow the UN in to inpsect your chemical plants.

He refused in 2002-2003 to allow the inspections.

Hell...we gave him months and he would not conply to the terms of the treaty he signed.

We not onlyt warned him....but we pretty much told him the day and time.

And congress approved.

CON$ are just pathological liars.

Consortiumnews.com
In what’s been called George W. Bush’s first exit interview, the outgoing President continues a lie that he first unveiled several months after launching the Iraq War, justifying the invasion by claiming that Saddam Hussein didn’t let the U.N. inspectors in.

Like previous times when President Bush has used this lie, it went unchallenged by the journalist who heard the false claim, in this case ABC News anchor Charles Gibson.

According to the text of the ABC News interview, which was released Dec. 1, Gibson asked Bush, “If the [U.S.] intelligence had been right [and revealed no Iraq WMD], would there have been an Iraq War?”

Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”

Of course, the historical record is clear: Hussein did let U.N. arms inspectors into Iraq in the fall of 2002 to search any site of their choosing. Their travels around Iraq in white vans were recorded daily by the international news media, as they found no evidence that Iraq had WMD stockpiles, even at sites targeted by U.S. intelligence.

Hussein and his government also declared publicly that they didn’t possess WMD, including providing the United Nations a 12,000-page declaration on Dec. 7, 2002, explaining how Iraq’s stocks of chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed in the 1990s.

However, still set on invading, Bush forced the U.N. inspectors to leave Iraq in March 2003, a departure that was followed within days by his “shock and awe” attack on Iraq, beginning March 19.

You quote consortiumnews.com

You truly are pathetic.

You merely PONTIFICATED, quoting no one.

You are worse than pathetic.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Chemicals are NOT weapons of mass destruction.

Nuclear weapons are, and perhaps biological weapons might be, but chemicals?

No way.

Now I know well that my opinion here is not the mainstream opinion, but seriously...

Chemical weapons are hardly WMDS.

No more so then any large conventional bomb is a WMD.

Aren't they area denial weapons, varying time lenghth, kill all the people leave anything else intact types?

 

[KittenKoder]

CON$ are just pathological liars.

You quote consortiumnews.com

You truly are pathetic.

You merely PONTIFICATED, quoting no one.

You are worse than pathetic.

No worse than quoting obviously biased sources like you.

 

[Oldandtired]

You quote consortiumnews.com

You truly are pathetic.

You merely PONTIFICATED, quoting no one.

You are worse than pathetic.

No worse than quoting obviously biased sources like you.

Something that came right out of your butt and based on nothing concrete.

 

[KittenKoder]

You merely PONTIFICATED, quoting no one.

You are worse than pathetic.

No worse than quoting obviously biased sources like you.

Something that came right out of your butt and based on nothing concrete.

I pray you were not responding to my defending you ...

But that does describe Ed's "sources" well at this point.

 

[Oldandtired]

CON$ are just pathological liars.

You quote consortiumnews.com

You truly are pathetic.

You merely PONTIFICATED, quoting no one.

You are worse than pathetic.

You werrew probably sitting around playing with your toys when it happened.

I was in A-stan.

My sources were pretty solid....including a news reporter embedded with us.

And yours is consortiumnews.com

Yep...you truly are pathetic.

 

[Oldandtired]

No worse than quoting obviously biased sources like you.

Something that came right out of your butt and based on nothing concrete.

I pray you were not responding to my defending you ...

But that does describe Ed's "sources" well at this point.

No...it was directed to ed

 

[KittenKoder]

One fact that a lot of people are missing here:

The war was started because they claimed Saddam had WMDs, at least that's what we were told, honestly I don't care why as long as they tell the truth (which they didn't). It's been years since then, so finding them now is moot, it proves nothing. At most it shows that after he was killed some other wannabe dictator started gathering resources capable of sticking a thorn in the side of the US troops. We have been prepared for most chemicals for quite some time, so the worst case would be that some soldiers would be stuck with the medic for a bit.

 

[edthecynic]

You quote consortiumnews.com

You truly are pathetic.

You merely PONTIFICATED, quoting no one.

You are worse than pathetic.

No worse than quoting obviously biased sources like you.

To CON$, any source that tells the truth is BIASED against CON$ervative lies.
What the CON$ count on is people not remembering history as recent as 2003.

USATODAY.com - U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
Posted 3/17/2003 5:40 AM Updated 3/17/2003 1:16 PM

U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq

VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.

"Late last night ... I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad," ElBaradei told the IAEA's board of governors. He said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council were informed and that the council would take up the issue later Monday.

U.N. officials have said the inspectors and support staff still in Iraq could be evacuated in as little as 48 hours.

No one has yet given the order for the inspectors to begin pulling out, and they were working on Monday. Most of the teams' helicopters have left Iraq because their insurance was canceled, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said, and the personnel level was low because of a scheduled rotation home.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the nuclear agency would wait for Security Council guidance later Monday before deciding whether to pull out its inspectors.

The teams, which returned to Iraq on Nov. 27 after a nearly four-year absence, drew up contingency plans to evacuate even before their redeployment.

 

[edthecynic]

You quote consortiumnews.com

You truly are pathetic.

You merely PONTIFICATED, quoting no one.

You are worse than pathetic.

You werrew probably sitting around playing with your toys when it happened.

I was in A-stan.

My sources were pretty solid....including a news reporter embedded with us.

And yours is consortiumnews.com

Yep...you truly are pathetic.

So now you supplement your PONTIFICATION with HEARSAY from an imaginary playmate, but STILL no REAL source.

Yep...you truly are worse than pathetic.

 

[Oldandtired]

You merely PONTIFICATED, quoting no one.

You are worse than pathetic.

You werrew probably sitting around playing with your toys when it happened.

I was in A-stan.

My sources were pretty solid....including a news reporter embedded with us.

And yours is consortiumnews.com

Yep...you truly are pathetic.

So now you supplement your PONTIFICATION with HEARSAY from an imaginary playmate, but STILL no REAL source.

Yep...you truly are worse than pathetic.

Imaginary huh.

Ok. If that works for you, go for it.

And what is worse than pathetic? Never mind....I really have lost interest in you.

 

[L.K.Eder]

last time i cleaned my bathroom with this home made chemical stuff, i was a little clumsy and some fumes escaped out of the window forming the typical mushroom cloud known to be formed by chemicals.

i almost got kicked out of the apartment again for frightening the neighbors.

 

[edthecynic]

You werrew probably sitting around playing with your toys when it happened.

I was in A-stan.

My sources were pretty solid....including a news reporter embedded with us.

And yours is consortiumnews.com

Yep...you truly are pathetic.

So now you supplement your PONTIFICATION with HEARSAY from an imaginary playmate, but STILL no REAL source.

Yep...you truly are worse than pathetic.

Imaginary huh.

Ok. If that works for you, go for it.

And what is worse than pathetic? Never mind....I really have lost interest in you.

Well, CON$ are known for their habit of PROJECTION, so when you posted the condescending "playing with your toys" I pictured you in your sandbox with your imaginary friends.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

All right here is the thing......Chemical weapons have a short shelf life. After a number of years they are no more dangerous than what Chem Lawn sprays all over your lawn. The FACT is we have NOT found any viable chem weapons in Iraq.

 

[KittenKoder]

All right here is the thing......Chemical weapons have a short shelf life. After a number of years they are no more dangerous than what Chem Lawn sprays all over your lawn. The FACT is we have NOT found any viable chem weapons in Iraq.

Yep ... and also don't forget that Saddam has been gone a long time, chaos has been rule over there since ... so it's all moot.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Yeah the sad thing is that the ONLY way Iraq will remain stable is if the MINORITY rule over the majority. Mark my words whether it is 1 year or 20 years the day we leave the minority will be BRUTALIZED by the majority.