For all those MORONS who doubted Saddam had WMD's

[CockySOB]

Why do you guys continue to make new threads about this issue after someone points out its all a bunch of hyped bullshit? This is like the third or fourth one I've seen.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=446347&postcount=30

Thanks for the kind gesture, but I think i'll go with David Kay on this one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201475.html

Just let it go guys...

The shells contained mustard gas (of the distilled variety) and not sarin. David Kay is most likely correct that any sarin-based weapons are likely to have severely reduced capacity after years have passed, but the issue is not one of sarin-based weapons, but of mustard gas-based weapons.

So if I let it go, you'd remain the ignorant. Here you go trying to compare mustard gas to sarin, and that's wrong on so many fronts it's embarrassing for you. Hopefully you'll look into your misunderstanding and erroneous assuptions and find some enlightenment.

 

[Redhots]

The shells contained mustard gas (of the distilled variety) and not sarin. David Kay is most likely correct that any sarin-based weapons are likely to have severely reduced capacity after years have passed, but the issue is not one of sarin-based weapons, but of mustard gas-based weapons.

So if I let it go, you'd remain the ignorant. Here you go trying to compare mustard gas to sarin, and that's wrong on so many fronts it's embarrassing for you. Hopefully you'll look into your misunderstanding and erroneous assuptions and find some enlightenment.

He addressed both.

And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.

And thats only addressing the potency of chemicals... then you throw in the fact that many of these couldn't even be fired or detenated properly on account of their age and how or where they were stored.

You guys ever wonder why you're the only ones clinging to this?

USDD says no.

The White House says no.

Hell, even Fox News says no.

 

[Redhots]

Let what go? Would you be willing to go with David Kay to teh point that you'd be willing to be exposed to the sarin to prove his assumption?

I bet not.

Would you be willing to go on a 3-4 month bus tour of America with Santorum showing this rusted old shit to the families of the 20,000+ casualties of this war and try to pass it off as a imminent threat, as justification for the war and their loss of life and limb, of mind, body, and soul?

I bet not.

 

[CockySOB]

He addressed both.

And thats only addressing the potency of chemicals... then you throw in the fact that many of these couldn't even be fired or detenated properly on account of their age and how or where they were stored.

You guys ever wonder why you're the only ones clinging to this?

USDD says no.

The White House says no.

Hell, even Fox News says no.

Why don't you run back to DailyKOS-East, and rejoin the little pat-each-other-on-the-back-fest that's going on there.

David Kay made speculative comments on the viability of such weapons, whereas the source I cited provided specific evidence that such munitions could very well remain viable over time. But hey, why let new facts spoil your worldview? After all, you know best, right?

 

[Redhots]

Why don't you run back to DailyKOS-East, and rejoin the little pat-each-other-on-the-back-fest that's going on there.

Its nice to see some people can still be so partisan about something like this.

David Kay made speculative comments on the viability of such weapons, whereas the source I cited provided specific evidence that such munitions could very well remain viable over time. But hey, why let new facts spoil your worldview? After all, you know best, right?

Yeah, silly me, David Kay only lead the report that Santorum is quoting... wtf does he know right?

Silly me for taking his word over that of a handfull of anonymous people on the internet and a report that was filed 3-4 years before weapons inspectors were able to actually inspect these weapons ("new facts" indeed) and file their own report.

But hey, like I said earlier, you better get on the horn with the White House, the DoD, and all the major news networks and clue them all in.

And just to be clear. I've never said that these things are all 100% harmless or that none of them could be detonated by a secondary means, but when you compare this rusted degraded scrap to the cost of the war it becomes a patheticly sad joke.

 

[jimnyc]

Would you be willing to go on a 3-4 month bus tour of America with Santorum showing this rusted old shit to the families of the 20,000+ casualties of this war and try to pass it off as a imminent threat, as justification for the war and their loss of life and limb, of mind, body, and soul?

I bet not.

I'd be happy to go on that tour and explain the failed/breached resolutions that had Saddam's signature and make sure those who are uninformed understand why we invaded. Maybe show them some photos of those he killed or maimed, and show his prior use of WMD's.

Doesn't matter if the WMD's are useless or not, existed or not, the invasion was necessary due to their continued breach of resolutions.

 

[KarlMarx]

I'd be happy to go on that tour and explain the failed/breached resolutions that had Saddam's signature and make sure those who are uninformed understand why we invaded. Maybe show them some photos of those he killed or maimed, and show his prior use of WMD's.

Doesn't matter if the WMD's are useless or not, existed or not, the invasion was necessary due to their continued breach of resolutions.

State Department Page listing UN resolutions involving Iraq
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

 

[Gunny]

Would you be willing to go on a 3-4 month bus tour of America with Santorum showing this rusted old shit to the families of the 20,000+ casualties of this war and try to pass it off as a imminent threat, as justification for the war and their loss of life and limb, of mind, body, and soul?

I bet not.

Piss-poor deflection.

Either way, I'd have no problem. Your assumptive statement that family members of people who have lost their lives in this or any other war are victims is the first ptoblem with your scenario. While I am sympathetic to their loss, I don't consider them victims, martyrs, nor to have themselves sacrificed jack shit.

The servicemember made the sacrifice and did so willingly. The decision was not theirs to make, and whining about it does nothing in reality but bitch about their family member's decision.

And if I saw any of that "rusty old shit" during the any of the deployments I made to the Middle East you can bet your ass I'm going to treat it as if it is in 100% working order because I'm not an idiot, know-it-all Monday morning quarterback like you.

Why don't you head on over to Iraq and be sure and go along the Iraq-Turkey border and tell some of those Kurds over there it's nothing but "rusty old shit." The your family members can wail and cry about YOU, dipshit.

 

[KarlMarx]

Would you be willing to go on a 3-4 month bus tour of America with Santorum showing this rusted old shit to the families of the 20,000+ casualties of this war and try to pass it off as a imminent threat, as justification for the war and their loss of life and limb, of mind, body, and soul?

I bet not.

the 20,000 number that you refer to ... who is that?

Only 2,400 have been suffered by Americans

 

[Gunny]

the 20,000 number that you refer to ... who is that?

Only 2,400 have been suffered by Americans

What's and extra zero when you can call artillery rounds "rusty old shit." I think we should be allowed to fire them at his house to ensure they are in fact, rusty old shit.

 

[Redhots]

the 20,000 number that you refer to ... who is that?

Only 2,400 have been suffered by Americans

20,000 casualties, not killed.

 

[Redhots]

Doesn't matter if the WMD's are useless or not, existed or not, the invasion was necessary due to their continued breach of resolutions.

That is just a convenient excuse and you know it.

Plenty of other countries violate UN resolutions and we hardly bat an eyelash. Many other countries slaughter their citizens and neighbors and we stand by and say "not our problem".

So what made Iraq so different?

 

[jimnyc]

That is just a convenient excuse and you know it.

Plenty of other countries violate UN resolutions and we hardly bat an eyelash. Many other countries slaughter their citizens and neighbors and we stand by and say "not our problem".

So what made Iraq so different?

Not an excuse at all, those are the FACTS.

And I agree, I can think of several other countries we should invade. Whether or not we don't in no way invalidates what we did in Iraq.

 

[Gunny]

That is just a convenient excuse and you know it.

Plenty of other countries violate UN resolutions and we hardly bat an eyelash. Many other countries slaughter their citizens and neighbors and we stand by and say "not our problem".

So what made Iraq so different?

Actually it is no excuse at all. Saddam repeatedly refused to comply with the UN Resolution and the terms he agreed to in order to effect a cease-fire from the ass-whoopin' he was taking.

Fact. Simple as THAT.

 

[Redhots]

Actually it is no excuse at all. Saddam repeatedly refused to comply with the UN Resolution and the terms he agreed to in order to effect a cease-fire from the ass-whoopin' he was taking.

Fact. Simple as THAT.

Facts... yeah, the report that Santorum waves around has this little tid-bit in it too.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.