Iraqi WMD's Finally Found? In Syria?

[Soggy in NOLA]

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"We are now convinced Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction or active programs." -President Bill Clinton, August 9th, 2000

He should have told his VP:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And is wife:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

[konradv]

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Iraq does not represent any threat to the United States at this time. Their weapons programs have been exaggerated by the Clinton Administration." - Tom Delay, 1999

 

[Si modo]

Some people won't even accept the fact that they were moved......because that would mean Bush was right!

Since everyone disregarded my last post on this I will repeat, even if Syria received every bit of Saddam's chemical weapons they would now be useless and dangerous to handle if they did not have a chemical weapons facility of their own to store and weaponize them and no active nuclear or bio-weapons programs existed at the time of invasion. Nerve gas alone was not enough of a reason to invade without the mushroom cloud scare and the little vial of white powder Powell scared the shit out of everyone with.

No. Not useless at all. Less dangerous, yes, but not at all useless and not at all non-lethal.

What makes the sarin-type nerve gases decompose is hydrolysis which is why keeping them as bicomponent weapons is desirable.

However, the hydrolysis of sarin (and other organophosphonates) is an equilibrium, meaning at any given time, there is still a significant amount of the dangerous product in existance.

With an LD50 of less than 1.5 mg with just dermal exposure (LD50 drastically reduces with inhalation - ~1000 fold), it doesn't take much at all to kill a single person. And, that's if the person is lucky enough to die after exposure.

So, even after years, sarin is quite lethal. And, if the weapons are bicomponent weapons? They are primely lethal.

 

[Buford]

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"We are now convinced Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction or active programs." -President Bill Clinton, August 9th, 2000

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Your turn.

 

[konradv]

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"Containment has been achieved, and we now believe Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction or the capability of producing them." -Colin Powell, February 23rd, 2001

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Iraq does not represent any threat to the United States at this time. Their weapons programs have been exaggerated by the Clinton Administration." - Tom Delay, 1999

Well, given this and the comments made by prominent Dems that there were still WMD's AFTER Clinton said there were none, including comments to the contrary by his own wife, these folks seem rather clueless, wouldn't you say?

 

[Si modo]

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Iraq does not represent any threat to the United States at this time. Their weapons programs have been exaggerated by the Clinton Administration." - Tom Delay, 1999

Well, given this and the comments made by prominent Dems that there were still WMD's AFTER Clinton said there were none, including comments to the contrary by his own wife, these folks seem rather clueless, wouldn't you say?

Yes, because WMD WERE found in Iraq. Not the huge 'stockpiles' we were led to believe, but certainly enough to kill thousands.

 

[The T]

Sada details how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in the weeks leading up to the US-led operation to eliminated Hussein’s weapons threat.

rather than using them ... whats your point?

and they were well documented by their use against the Curds a decade earlier with no response from the US.

they found nothing (new) they claimed existed as reason for their unprovoked and unfunded invasion of a sovereign nation.

We aren't talking cottage cheese son. you mean KURDS?

And what of the response from the US? Don't you mean the U.N. that foisted sanction after sanction that Saddam thumbed his nose at that gave him ample time to gather and remove them with the help of the Russian Spetnaz?

 

[konradv]

Your turn.

Sorry you missed it! Just issuing recaps.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/236071-iraqi-wmds-finally-found-in-syria-3.html#post5672257

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"Iraq does not represent any threat to the United States at this time. Their weapons programs have been exaggerated by the Clinton Administration." - Tom Delay, 1999

Well, given this and the comments made by prominent Dems that there were still WMD's AFTER Clinton said there were none, including comments to the contrary by his own wife, these folks seem rather clueless, wouldn't you say?

Yes, because WMD WERE found in Iraq. Not the huge 'stockpiles' we were led to believe, but certainly enough to kill thousands.

Of course there were WMD's in Iraq... they know it. This is usually the point when they start parsing and arguing that nukes are WMD's, not weaponized gasses.... tell that to the folks in Halabja.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sada details how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in the weeks leading up to the US-led operation to eliminated Hussein’s weapons threat.

rather than using them ... whats your point?

and they were well documented by their use against the Curds a decade earlier with no response from the US.

they found nothing (new) they claimed existed as reason for their unprovoked and unfunded invasion of a sovereign nation.

We aren't talking cottage cheese son. you mean KURDS?

And what of the response from the US? Don't you mean the U.N. that foisted sanction after sanction that Saddam thumbed his nose at that gave him ample time to gather and remove them with the help of the Russian Spetnaz?

No shit huh....

 

[Buford]

There's nothing quite as pitiful as a know-it-all lefty being disingenuous when called for.

 

[occupied]

Some people won't even accept the fact that they were moved......because that would mean Bush was right!

Since everyone disregarded my last post on this I will repeat, even if Syria received every bit of Saddam's chemical weapons they would now be useless and dangerous to handle if they did not have a chemical weapons facility of their own to store and weaponize them and no active nuclear or bio-weapons programs existed at the time of invasion. Nerve gas alone was not enough of a reason to invade without the mushroom cloud scare and the little vial of white powder Powell scared the shit out of everyone with.

No. Not useless at all. Less dangerous, yes, but not at all useless and not at all non-lethal.

What makes the sarin-type nerve gases decompose is hydrolysis which is why keeping them as bicomponent weapons is desirable.

However, the hydrolysis of sarin (and other organophosphonates) is an equilibrium, meaning at any given time, there is still a significant amount of the dangerous product in existance.

With an LD50 of less than 1.5 mg with just dermal exposure (LD50 drastically reduces with inhalation - ~1000 fold), it doesn't take much at all to kill a single person. And, that's if the person is lucky enough to die after exposure.

So, even after years, sarin is quite lethal. And, if the weapons are bicomponent weapons? They are primely lethal.

I suppose, I am not anything like an expert in nerve gas, all they ever found was in decaying shell casings that were useless as weapons, but would a stockpile of nerve gas alone have been enough of a reason to invade and occupy the country? You know the answer to that question. Where are the nuclear missiles and industrial anthrax factories we were promised?

 

[DontBeStupid]

So when do you prove there were none. As evidence suggests they did in fact have possession.

You can't prove there are none. That's attempting to prove a negative and has as much success as you attempting to prove unicorns don't exist.

The burden has always been on Bush and his supporters to prove the positive. Prove Saddam had WMDs in the earl 00s. Prove Saddam was planning on using them. Prove the WMDs were moved to Syria.

To date, none of that has been proven.

We know for fact they were in existence because of use.

Now quit squirming and making excuses.

I"m not squirming or making excuses. We know Saddam had WMDs in the 80s and early 90s. But, like Soggy, you seem be confused as to what year we invaded.

We didn't invade in 1995.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Since everyone disregarded my last post on this I will repeat, even if Syria received every bit of Saddam's chemical weapons they would now be useless and dangerous to handle if they did not have a chemical weapons facility of their own to store and weaponize them and no active nuclear or bio-weapons programs existed at the time of invasion. Nerve gas alone was not enough of a reason to invade without the mushroom cloud scare and the little vial of white powder Powell scared the shit out of everyone with.

No. Not useless at all. Less dangerous, yes, but not at all useless and not at all non-lethal.

What makes the sarin-type nerve gases decompose is hydrolysis which is why keeping them as bicomponent weapons is desirable.

However, the hydrolysis of sarin (and other organophosphonates) is an equilibrium, meaning at any given time, there is still a significant amount of the dangerous product in existance.

With an LD50 of less than 1.5 mg with just dermal exposure (LD50 drastically reduces with inhalation - ~1000 fold), it doesn't take much at all to kill a single person. And, that's if the person is lucky enough to die after exposure.

So, even after years, sarin is quite lethal. And, if the weapons are bicomponent weapons? They are primely lethal.

I suppose, I am not anything like an expert in nerve gas, all they ever found was in decaying shell casings that were useless as weapons, but would a stockpile of nerve gas alone have been enough of a reason to invade and occupy the country? You know the answer to that question. Where are the nuclear missiles and industrial anthrax factories we were promised?

See? What'd I tell you... now it's gas? No problem. Where's the nukes?

 

[occupied]

No. Not useless at all. Less dangerous, yes, but not at all useless and not at all non-lethal.

What makes the sarin-type nerve gases decompose is hydrolysis which is why keeping them as bicomponent weapons is desirable.

However, the hydrolysis of sarin (and other organophosphonates) is an equilibrium, meaning at any given time, there is still a significant amount of the dangerous product in existance.

With an LD50 of less than 1.5 mg with just dermal exposure (LD50 drastically reduces with inhalation - ~1000 fold), it doesn't take much at all to kill a single person. And, that's if the person is lucky enough to die after exposure.

So, even after years, sarin is quite lethal. And, if the weapons are bicomponent weapons? They are primely lethal.

I suppose, I am not anything like an expert in nerve gas, all they ever found was in decaying shell casings that were useless as weapons, but would a stockpile of nerve gas alone have been enough of a reason to invade and occupy the country? You know the answer to that question. Where are the nuclear missiles and industrial anthrax factories we were promised?

See? What'd I tell you... now it's gas? No problem. Where's the nukes?

So you are saying that nerve gas alone in the hands of a country not kissing our ass is enough of a reason to invade and occupy? Long list there, the war profiteers should be happy to hear that opinion coming from the right.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I suppose, I am not anything like an expert in nerve gas, all they ever found was in decaying shell casings that were useless as weapons, but would a stockpile of nerve gas alone have been enough of a reason to invade and occupy the country? You know the answer to that question. Where are the nuclear missiles and industrial anthrax factories we were promised?

See? What'd I tell you... now it's gas? No problem. Where's the nukes?

So you are saying that nerve gas alone in the hands of a country not kissing our ass is enough of a reason to invade and occupy? Long list there, the war profiteers should be happy to hear that opinion coming from the right.

That's another topic and there are valid arguments both pro and con.

Now, back to the current topic bub.. stop moving the goal posts.

 

[Buford]

Since everyone disregarded my last post on this I will repeat, even if Syria received every bit of Saddam's chemical weapons they would now be useless and dangerous to handle if they did not have a chemical weapons facility of their own to store and weaponize them and no active nuclear or bio-weapons programs existed at the time of invasion. Nerve gas alone was not enough of a reason to invade without the mushroom cloud scare and the little vial of white powder Powell scared the shit out of everyone with.

No. Not useless at all. Less dangerous, yes, but not at all useless and not at all non-lethal.

What makes the sarin-type nerve gases decompose is hydrolysis which is why keeping them as bicomponent weapons is desirable.

However, the hydrolysis of sarin (and other organophosphonates) is an equilibrium, meaning at any given time, there is still a significant amount of the dangerous product in existance.

With an LD50 of less than 1.5 mg with just dermal exposure (LD50 drastically reduces with inhalation - ~1000 fold), it doesn't take much at all to kill a single person. And, that's if the person is lucky enough to die after exposure.

So, even after years, sarin is quite lethal. And, if the weapons are bicomponent weapons? They are primely lethal.

I suppose, I am not anything like an expert in nerve gas, all they ever found was in decaying shell casings that were useless as weapons, but would a stockpile of nerve gas alone have been enough of a reason to invade and occupy the country? You know the answer to that question. Where are the nuclear missiles and industrial anthrax factories we were promised?

There were more than enough reasons to remove Saddam. He ran out of time in 1991.

 

[The T]

I suppose, I am not anything like an expert in nerve gas, all they ever found was in decaying shell casings that were useless as weapons, but would a stockpile of nerve gas alone have been enough of a reason to invade and occupy the country? You know the answer to that question. Where are the nuclear missiles and industrial anthrax factories we were promised?

See? What'd I tell you... now it's gas? No problem. Where's the nukes?

So you are saying that nerve gas alone in the hands of a country not kissing our ass is enough of a reason to invade and occupy? Long list there, the war profiteers should be happy to hear that opinion coming from the right.