Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-03-05 09:02:01
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|6611|InGerLand

CameronPoe wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Degraded or not. I'm not gonna do a line of it. It'll still fuck you up. But you must agree that your statement was not accurate.
A WMD that is beyond use is not a WMD. It's an ex-WMD. It's a useless pile of crap. I suggest you look up the word 'logic' and the phrase 'common sense' in your nearest dictionary/encyclopaedia. I really don't get those folk who cling to the dream of WMDs, especially when President Lloyd Bridges concedes that they found nothing.
how could America know that they were degraded before the war started
like a card game, you know he's got a card, but is it a good card or a bad card
America called Saddams bluff and it was a bad card so America won, in a really loose sense...
(though i dno why i say this since i'm an Iraq war = oil war person)
2007-03-07 08:40:47
CC-Marley
Member
+407|6821

CameronPoe wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Degraded or not. I'm not gonna do a line of it. It'll still fuck you up. But you must agree that your statement was not accurate.
A WMD that is beyond use is not a WMD. It's an ex-WMD. It's a useless pile of crap. I suggest you look up the word 'logic' and the phrase 'common sense' in your nearest dictionary/encyclopaedia. I really don't get those folk who cling to the dream of WMDs, especially when President Lloyd Bridges concedes that they found nothing.
It is not useless! And I'm not holding on to a dream. They found minimal amounts of deadly shit. Degraded or not it can kill you, me or others if we are exposed to it. I'll agree that the Saddam was bluffing the world. He fooled everyone. And I don't appreciate your comments about looking up words in a dictionary. But that is consistent coming from you. I merely stated that there was some WMD found which there was. Just not quality grade A. Making your statement WRONG. Dance around it all you want. WMD is WMD.
2007-03-07 13:17:24
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6379

CC-Marley wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Degraded or not. I'm not gonna do a line of it. It'll still fuck you up. But you must agree that your statement was not accurate.
A WMD that is beyond use is not a WMD. It's an ex-WMD. It's a useless pile of crap. I suggest you look up the word 'logic' and the phrase 'common sense' in your nearest dictionary/encyclopaedia. I really don't get those folk who cling to the dream of WMDs, especially when President Lloyd Bridges concedes that they found nothing.
It is not useless! And I'm not holding on to a dream. They found minimal amounts of deadly shit. Degraded or not it can kill you, me or others if we are exposed to it. I'll agree that the Saddam was bluffing the world. He fooled everyone. And I don't appreciate your comments about looking up words in a dictionary. But that is consistent coming from you. I merely stated that there was some WMD found which there was. Just not quality grade A. Making your statement WRONG. Dance around it all you want. WMD is WMD.
You need to understand that a few people on this forum, such as CamPoe and Bubbalo will not concede to being wrong.
2007-03-07 13:59:28
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6554

CC-Marley wrote:

Degraded or not it can kill you, me or others if we are exposed to it.
So will large quantities of water.  Are we going to invade Antarctica next?

Commie Killer wrote:

You need to understand that a few people on this forum, such as CamPoe and Bubbalo will not concede to being wrong.
And by contrast you've shown yourself to be so very open minded?
2007-03-07 14:00:14
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6642
https://www.hilarious-pictures.com/files/picture/86770621.jpg
2007-03-07 14:28:54
smtt686
this is the best we can do?
+95|6623|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Degraded or not. I'm not gonna do a line of it. It'll still fuck you up. But you must agree that your statement was not accurate.
A WMD that is beyond use is not a WMD. It's an ex-WMD. It's a useless pile of crap. I suggest you look up the word 'logic' and the phrase 'common sense' in your nearest dictionary/encyclopaedia. I really don't get those folk who cling to the dream of WMDs, especially when President Lloyd Bridges concedes that they found nothing.
Oh supreme educated one you are.  By your logic, poison past its useful shelf life is no longer poison? 

Go ahead and hang out in a room of expired mustard gas.  Please!
2007-03-07 14:48:02
PureFodder
Member
+225|6278
The only chemical weapons in Iraq were the white phosphorus rounds the US troops were firing.

Oh and chemical components of WMDs usually are not difficult to make and on the whole probably wouldn't constitute WMDs. It's more the delivery systems and actual use thats a violation. Chlorine gas, which can easily kill you and has been used as an offensive weapon in the past, can be made from bleach and vinegar.

Making chemical WMDs is childs play. storing them, firing them at people and not getting yourself killed in the process is the hard bit.

Last edited by PureFodder (2007-03-07 14:53:54)

2007-03-07 14:51:08
imortal
Member
+240|6657|Austin, TX

Fen321 wrote:

"So much for him not having Weapons [OF MASS DESTRUCTION]" -Marine Had to add the important part to his comment.

COULD COULD COULD do you know what that implies????
That they carry an ability to?  Oh, and yes, long range missiles WERE found in the Diyala province in 2003, just north of Baghdad, by 4ID.  A block away was a warehouse containing barrels of a pair of chemicals, that, if mixed, produced a lethal gas.  The rockets were just the missile bodies on top of the vehicle/ launch systems.  The rocket motors were found in another area 2 miles away.  The fuel for the system was never recovered.  But since the items were found in pieces, not together, it did not qualify as WMD.  Oh, well.
2007-03-07 14:51:37
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6554

smtt686 wrote:

By your logic, poison past its useful shelf life is no longer poison?
Well, yes actually.

smtt686 wrote:

Go ahead and hang out in a room of expired mustard gas.  Please!
I wouldn't want to hang out in a room full of Zyklon B, but that isn't a WMD.
2007-03-07 14:51:37
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6548

smtt686 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Degraded or not. I'm not gonna do a line of it. It'll still fuck you up. But you must agree that your statement was not accurate.
A WMD that is beyond use is not a WMD. It's an ex-WMD. It's a useless pile of crap. I suggest you look up the word 'logic' and the phrase 'common sense' in your nearest dictionary/encyclopaedia. I really don't get those folk who cling to the dream of WMDs, especially when President Lloyd Bridges concedes that they found nothing.
Oh supreme educated one you are.  By your logic, poison past its useful shelf life is no longer poison? 

Go ahead and hang out in a room of expired mustard gas.  Please!
@ CC-Marley also.

The 'weapons' were neither deliverable nor was there an intention to deliver them upon an enemy. As such they were not 'weapons', they were degraded chemical agents. Hans Blix told you that several months before you destroyed Iraq I seem to recall.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-07 14:52:11)

2007-03-07 14:56:08
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6386|The Gem Saloon

Spark wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Degraded or not. I'm not gonna do a line of it. It'll still fuck you up. But you must agree that your statement was not accurate.
A WMD that is beyond use is not a WMD. I suggest you look up the word 'logic' and the phrase 'common sense' in your nearest dictionary/encyclopaedia.
QFT.

A jammed gun is no use to anyone, correct? What makes WMD's different?
i dont know about WMDs but i have faith that i could get ANY gun unjammed and functional again. well, short of a breach in the barrel or chamber.
2007-03-07 14:56:28
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6554
Of course, this all misses the fact that a key part of the US rationale were supposed mobile weapon factories which could be found from orbit pre-invasion, but now that troops are on the ground have magically dissappeared.
2007-03-07 15:01:08
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6386|The Gem Saloon

Bubbalo wrote:

Of course, this all misses the fact that a key part of the US rationale were supposed mobile weapon factories which could be found from orbit pre-invasion, but now that troops are on the ground have magically dissappeared.
along with the rest of the worlds faulty intelligence....or thats right, its easy to blame it ALL on america.
what were putins reasons for providing faulty intelligence?
2007-03-07 15:01:56
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6554
Maybe he just wanted to lure a few stupid Americans into a quagmire, and didn't care who went with them.

And, as I recall, most of the world called bullshit on the US.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-03-07 15:02:24)

2007-03-07 15:03:25
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6485|Connecticut

Bubbalo wrote:

Of course, this all misses the fact that a key part of the US rationale were supposed mobile weapon factories which could be found from orbit pre-invasion, but now that troops are on the ground have magically dissappeared.
Found 'em, right................here!
Malloy must go
2007-03-07 15:04:48
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6386|The Gem Saloon

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Of course, this all misses the fact that a key part of the US rationale were supposed mobile weapon factories which could be found from orbit pre-invasion, but now that troops are on the ground have magically dissappeared.
Found 'em, right................here!
you know they are just going to start the "fox news haxors!!!!11!!!!!!" bullshit.
2007-03-07 15:07:09
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6485|Connecticut

Parker wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Of course, this all misses the fact that a key part of the US rationale were supposed mobile weapon factories which could be found from orbit pre-invasion, but now that troops are on the ground have magically dissappeared.
Found 'em, right................here!
you know they are just going to start the "fox news haxors!!!!11!!!!!!" bullshit.
Oh I know, I amwaiting with another link from the NY Times to counter it.
Malloy must go
2007-03-07 15:08:45
topal63
. . .
+533|6710

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Parker wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:


Found 'em, right................here!
you know they are just going to start the "fox news haxors!!!!11!!!!!!" bullshit.
Oh I know, I amwaiting with another link from the NY Times to counter it.
After reading through a bunch of opinions, political statements, I found these 2-facts therein.

From that very same article:
1.) “The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. ”

2.) “Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.”
2007-03-07 15:14:53
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6379

Bubbalo wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Degraded or not it can kill you, me or others if we are exposed to it.
So will large quantities of water.  Are we going to invade Antarctica next?

Commie Killer wrote:

You need to understand that a few people on this forum, such as CamPoe and Bubbalo will not concede to being wrong.
And by contrast you've shown yourself to be so very open minded?
Actually I consider myself to be, I have change my political stances on a lot of issues as I have become more informed.
2007-03-07 15:15:11
PureFodder
Member
+225|6278

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Of course, this all misses the fact that a key part of the US rationale were supposed mobile weapon factories which could be found from orbit pre-invasion, but now that troops are on the ground have magically dissappeared.
Found 'em, right................here!
Highly reactive chemicals, after being stored (most likely poorly) for 15 years, ain't much use to anyone.

On the other hand they also found this chemical weapon.

"The weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. The burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure. These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because it continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone. In some cases, burns may be limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed."
2007-03-07 15:23:43
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6485|Connecticut

topal63 wrote:

From that very same article:
1.) “The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. ”
Ok, so because they were made pre 1991 they are inoperable? Their entire fucking arsenal practically comes from the cold war era, does that negate their ability to use it?

topal63 wrote:

2.) “Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.”
Right again, *sighing* they had almost a year before we infiltrated to dismantle them. Im sure they were knitting bullet proof sweaters instead.
Malloy must go
2007-03-07 15:29:43
topal63
. . .
+533|6710

deeznutz1245 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

From that very same article:
1.) “The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. ”
Ok, so because they were made pre 1991 they are inoperable? Their entire fucking arsenal practically comes from the cold war era, does that negate their ability to use it?

topal63 wrote:

2.) “Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.”
Right again, *sighing* they had almost a year before we infiltrated to dismantle them. Im sure they were knitting bullet proof sweaters instead.
I am only stating what the article said... you're effectively reacting and / or arguing with an article and / or the Official (Admin.) position.
2007-03-07 15:33:20
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

smtt686 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

A WMD that is beyond use is not a WMD. It's an ex-WMD. It's a useless pile of crap. I suggest you look up the word 'logic' and the phrase 'common sense' in your nearest dictionary/encyclopaedia. I really don't get those folk who cling to the dream of WMDs, especially when President Lloyd Bridges concedes that they found nothing.
Oh supreme educated one you are.  By your logic, poison past its useful shelf life is no longer poison? 

Go ahead and hang out in a room of expired mustard gas.  Please!
@ CC-Marley also.

The 'weapons' were neither deliverable nor was there an intention to deliver them upon an enemy. As such they were not 'weapons', they were degraded chemical agents. Hans Blix told you that several months before you destroyed Iraq I seem to recall.
Yes he most certainly did..

Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

In an interview with London's Guardian newspaper, Hans Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media"

It should also be noted .. Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament -- under resolution 687 -- could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-07 15:33:55)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-03-07 15:36:04
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6485|Connecticut

topal63 wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

From that very same article:
1.) “The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. ”
Ok, so because they were made pre 1991 they are inoperable? Their entire fucking arsenal practically comes from the cold war era, does that negate their ability to use it?

topal63 wrote:

2.) “Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.”
Right again, *sighing* they had almost a year before we infiltrated to dismantle them. Im sure they were knitting bullet proof sweaters instead.
I am only stating what the article said... you're effectively reacting and / or arguing with an article and / or the Official (Admin.) position.
I know, its just that we have exlored I think every avenue for an excuse (not you, Im aiming it our conspiracy theorists). Why cant we just admit that they had the stuff. I am well aware they probably were not going to use it, but they werent supposed to have it at all. And they did.
Malloy must go
2007-03-07 15:43:15
topal63
. . .
+533|6710
^^^ My conundrum, confusion in retrospect, is why we just didn't take him out in 1991 with Stormin Normin at the Gates of Baghdad, & destroy / defeat the remaining republican guard.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard