billvon 3,120 #26 September 13, 2004 >I guess the large amounts of casein, yeast extract, thioglycollate broth > and peptone Iraq imported since 1991 were because they were trying to > find the cure for cancer, huh? Or run their schools, which used to produce doctors and biologists. Hard to believe, I know, that any Iraqis had real lives before we invaded, but they actually had schools and hospitals even before the US entered the picture. The facts are that despite claiming we knew exactly where the WMD facilities were, we have not found a single biological weapons laboratory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #27 September 13, 2004 Quote What is wrong with wanting proof that my country did not go to war over a supposition? When it is proven that there is no WMDs in Iraq (which there has already been some found) then you'll have your proof. Until then we've done nothing wrong. Any attempt to say we are wrong is speculation. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #28 September 13, 2004 Quote>Who sees the differences in those 2 statements? I do! It will be another few months before he says the former. I don't think anyone is disputing that there was some quantity of nerve gas, as well as scud launchers in Iraq. The real debate appears to be how much, and how quickly more could have been produced.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #29 September 13, 2004 >When it is proven that there is no WMDs in Iraq . . . . Not possible. We will give up the search long before we can be sure, and then the next government will start mixing up some chemical weapons (with our approval, of course) so they can attack Iran for us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #30 September 13, 2004 Quote...we have not found a single biological weapons laboratory. True. But laboratory ? weapons Nerve gas and other chemical weapons have certainly been found in Iraq. So have delivery systems for them. I seem to remember this debate being about whether there were "WMD's" present in Iraq, a while back. When did it shift to being a debate about the presence of laboratories and factories?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #31 September 13, 2004 QuoteAny attempt to say we are wrong is speculation. Agreed, though by that rationale, isn't any supposition that we were right ALSO speculation? What I do NOT agree with is that there have been quantities found so far that support the invasion for that purpose. The people in this thread are confusing that with "there never were any", which is not what I said."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #32 September 13, 2004 QuoteWhen it is proven that there is no WMDs in Iraq . . . . QuoteNot possible. So if it's not possible to prove there aren't any how can you and all the other liberals be so sure there aren't? Liberals rant and rave about how there are no WMDs all the time. Now you say it's not possible to prove there isn't. Sounds contradicting to me. Is this where you start talking about science books and interpetation issues? Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #33 September 13, 2004 Tuna, You of all people are SO OBSESSED with concrete proof, yet you accept the fact that our government continues to occupy a country in which we have found nothing than a few mortar shells. Find your absolutely 100% concrete proof that you love so much, and maybe us "liberal sheep" will start to listen to your rants. Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #34 September 13, 2004 Quote...nothing than a few mortar shells. I'm just curious if you can tell me what the casualty count would be were those few mortar shells we've found detonated in downtown Atlanta at rush hour?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #35 September 13, 2004 The R-60? As in the Air-to-Ait missle? This is all google turns up: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/9/154650.shtml But I can't seem to find any other news source thats supporting it. Everyone seems to be linking to NewsMax for it. Guess that liberal FOX news wanted to suppress that story Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #36 September 13, 2004 Quotewe have found nothing than a few mortar shells. R60s with three and a half pounds of radioactive uranium wrapped around a high explosive warhead are not, "a few mortar shells." Those are considered WMDs wether it fits your political agenda or not. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #37 September 13, 2004 QuoteQuote...nothing than a few mortar shells. I'm just curious if you can tell me what the casualty count would be were those few mortar shells we've found detonated in downtown Atlanta at rush hour? What does this have to do with anything? They weren't. And Saddam Hussein had no way to get them here. I live in Long Beach south of the Port. Can you tell me what the casualty count would be if an LNG tanker were blown up in Atlanta at rush hour? And how would that discussion have ANYTHING to do with the war in Iraq? Would that mean the US Army should invade Long Beach?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #38 September 13, 2004 QuoteR60s with three and a half pounds of radioactive uranium wrapped around a high explosive warhead are not, "a few mortar shells." Those are considered WMDs wether it fits your political agenda or not. Hey, do you have a link to this? I (seriously) have not heard anything more about it..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #39 September 13, 2004 Would that mean the US Army should invade Long Beach?*** Well, the US Navy has already invaded the San Diego bay, so you never know... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #40 September 13, 2004 QuoteWould that mean the US Army should invade Long Beach?*** Well, the US Navy has already invaded the San Diego bay, so you never know... That must have been right after they pulled out of Long Beach... It was really weird to see them tear down what used to be such a big base..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #41 September 13, 2004 QuoteQuotewe have found nothing than a few mortar shells. R60s with three and a half pounds of radioactive uranium wrapped around a high explosive warhead are not, "a few mortar shells." Those are considered WMDs wether it fits your political agenda or not. What "mass destruction" is a DU air-to-air missile going to cause? It's no more dangerous than the DU anti-tank shells we use. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #42 September 13, 2004 Here's a good article for anyone that has a larger mental capacity than, "Bush lied/No WMDs". It's lengthy and at times uses big words. If you're up for it check it out. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #43 September 13, 2004 QuoteIt's lengthy and at times uses big words. If you're up for it check it out. A good read, and good food for thought. However, how does it address the fact that no weapons have been found? Additionally, isn't a good portion of this report based on older intelligence, which the adminstration has pointed out as inaccurate and faulty alot of the time to dilute their culpability for its use?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #44 September 14, 2004 Quoteisn't a good portion of this report based on older intelligence, which the adminstration has pointed out as inaccurate and faulty alot of the time to dilute their culpability for its use? No. Quotethe fact that no weapons have been found The fact that no proof has been shown that they don't have them. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #45 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote...nothing than a few mortar shells. I'm just curious if you can tell me what the casualty count would be were those few mortar shells we've found detonated in downtown Atlanta at rush hour? What does this have to do with anything? I was curious as to why mortar shells loaded with Ricin were not being considered weapons of mass destruction. I was trying to illustrate that if they were set off in an urban area, they would actually be quite massively destructive. edit to add: out of curiosity, would you be more or less concerned if my example were the same shells being detonated in Baghdad at rush hour?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #46 September 14, 2004 QuoteI was curious as to why mortar shells loaded with Ricin were not being considered weapons of mass destruction. Because it would prove the liberals liars. Can't have that. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #47 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteI was curious as to why mortar shells loaded with Ricin were not being considered weapons of mass destruction. Because it would prove the liberals liars. Can't have that. ANYONE who believes that any administration or political party does not include a group of self-interested liars has been living on the moon for the last 30 years. I just want to make sure I am clear on the point here. If Colin Powell had gone in front of the American people and the world and said "the Iraqis have (let's call it) 50 shells loaded with Ricin, and this is adequate reason for us to invade their country", you would be in agreement? My point is, where do YOU draw the line? Is one enough? Two? Fifty? Would there be any that were too little? Any answer is fine, I am just trying to get a handle on where you are going with this. Why is it such a bad thing to question (notice I did not say "discount") the original justification when there has not been the quantities found that we were assured would be? I am willing to accept the fact that they may be there; and would just like to see some proof. The people on this board are so quick to throw the word "sheep" out there; what do you call someone who blindly believes and refuses to question an assertion that has yet to be proven?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #48 September 14, 2004 QuoteMy point is, where do YOU draw the line? Is one enough? Two? Fifty? Would there be any that were too little? What is enough for you? I think that's a fair question. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #49 September 14, 2004 QuoteIf Colin Powell had gone in front of the American people and the world and said "the Iraqis have (let's call it) 50 shells loaded with Ricin, and this is adequate reason for us to invade their country"... I really don't believe Colin Powell knew what quantity of those weapons were present in Iraq. QuoteWhy is it such a bad thing to question (notice I did not say "discount") the original justification when there has not been the quantities found that we were assured would be? I don't think it's a bad thing. I do think it's a little silly to criticize people for making the same decisions you would have made in their shoes. So, a better question might be: "If you were Colin Powell/George Bush/dictator of the US/whatever and you were told by your staff, who you trusted, that Iraq had the capability to produce those weapons, what would you have done?"-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #50 September 14, 2004 Quotethis is adequate reason for us to invade their country Not the point. The point is you and the liberals have cried from the mountain-tops that there are NO WMDs in Iraq and clearly there are. That, my friend, is the point. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
