TypicalFish 0 #51 September 14, 2004 Quote 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 It is a very fair question, actually. Either A.)What was indicated to the American people by our leaders that would be found there; or, B.) An existing quantity of weapons and a delivery system sufficient to propose a clear and present danger (to use a hackneyed phrase) to the United States. This could include evidence of a program to develop and deploy such weapons in the near term."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #52 September 14, 2004 Just a factual question. Does anyone know where the WMD's in Iraq came from to begin with? Were they left over from some earlier WMD production program there, or were they imported? And if imported, from where? I really don't know the answers, there. I'm not trying to sneak in a debating point.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #53 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuotethis 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. When have I EVER said that? (Use the "search" function if you need to) I am actually on the fence, my position has ALWAYS been that there is no conclusive evidence (as a matter of fact, alot of evidence to the contrary), therefore, I question their existence. Pardon my cynicism; I guess it is the product of the ADMITTED mistakes regarding the war and it's motivation on the part of the administration."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #54 September 14, 2004 QuoteB.) An existing quantity of weapons and a delivery system sufficient to propose a clear and present danger (to use a hackneyed phrase) to the United States. This could include evidence of a program to develop and deploy such weapons in the near term. Can you elaborate? By "United States" are you referring only to sovereign US territory (excluding embassies and the like)? Would a delivery system sufficient to deliver a nerve agent to Prince Sultan Air Base, for example, be adequate justification?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #55 September 14, 2004 QuoteCan you elaborate? By "United States" are you referring only to sovereign US territory (excluding embassies and the like)? Would a delivery system sufficient to deliver a nerve agent to Prince Sultan Air Base, for example, be adequate justification? I see your point; I guess it depends on your definition of American interests. If that was the case, shouldn't we be lined up across the border from North Korea next?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #56 September 14, 2004 Quoteyeah, guess not. I can tell you that I have at least one friend who is very happy that whatever Iraqi engineer put the Sarin into the two mortars that exploded near him didn't know a thing about mixing Sarin with a binary agent to prevent it from burning up with the explosion. You do recognize that sarin is not a biological weapon and that the existence of old mortars is not evidence of a capability to produce many more, right? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #57 September 14, 2004 QuoteJust a factual question. Does anyone know where the WMD's in Iraq came from to begin with? Were they left over from some earlier WMD production program there, or were they imported? And if imported, from where? I really don't know the answers, there. I'm not trying to sneak in a debating point. This is an interesting question; I would be interested to know the answer as well. Though I think in the long run (and you would probably agree) that where they came from has little do with it. If he had them and was willing to use them, that would be enough. Not to switch sides in mid-argument, but I always find it funny when the first thing people opposed to the war say is: "Well, we sold them to him"... Who cares? Would that make you feel better when they were used?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #58 September 14, 2004 QuoteEither A.)What was indicated to the American people by our leaders that would be found there; or, OK, I'll give you this one, the claim of 100 to 500 tons seems excessive, doesn't it? However, I was thinking - what if we had told the American people (or the world, for that matter), that SH had a few thousand, or even a few hundred gallons of some pretty nasty stuff. Do you think that would have flown? Remember, those quantities are enough to create a situation much worse than 9/11. But, come on, a few hundred or a few thousand gallons? That's nothing. Right? My point is that I don't think it's possible to convey the potency of these weapons/agents/chemicals (call them what you will) without a bit of exaggeration. I have no idea if that's the case, just one of a million scenarios (about about a million different things, too ) going through my head right now. QuoteB.) An existing quantity of weapons and a delivery system sufficient to propose a clear and present danger (to use a hackneyed phrase) to the United States. This could include evidence of a program to develop and deploy such weapons in the near term. Wouldn't Ricin, Sarin, and DU bombs qualify? Regarding the need for a delivery system, do you really think they need a complex delivery system? For terrorism, what better delivery system is there than someone taking this stuff over the border in a suitcaseor mailing it to himself FedEx? The quantify of Sarin and Ricin found in Iraq was certainly enough to claim several thousand innocent lives, isn't that justification enough? We know that our border security isn't all it could be, it's hardly inconceivable to me that someone could have easily snuck in enough of something to make life pretty nasty for us here at home. As far as the rest of it is concerned, I think someone posted some of Kay's notes in another thread. It's worth reading. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #59 September 14, 2004 We use DU in our armor piercing weapons too. It's radioactivity is very low, so much so that our DoD claims it is not a hazard. If you think these are WMDs, then you have just laid a serious charge against the USA for actually using them and continuing to use them. The fact is that Bush and his cronies mislead the public, allies, and the UN security council with way overblown claims that turn out to have been false. A few leftover obsolete shells do not make a weapons program, and hydrogen gas generators do not constitute mobile bio weapons labs. Even more egregious is blaming the CIA's "bad intel" for the lies, then trying to use CIA reports as justification. That is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #60 September 14, 2004 QuoteNot 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 is absolutely the point. We don't say that there "definitely aren't any", but like YOU so often do, we want PROOF. Quantifiable proof that's not some old ass, proven-to-be-inaccurate report based on bad intel. Get some good intel and get back to us. Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #61 September 14, 2004 QuoteWe don't say that there "definitely aren't any" ROFLMAO. Really? LOL. You have a lot of back-reading to do. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #62 September 14, 2004 Even 1000 gallons of a chemical/bio agent have te capibility to make 9/11 look like a warm up, I'll give you that. I'll even give you that ifthey had a glass in every household in Bagdad that it would add up to several thousands of gallons rapidly. But the point could have been made, and I thought that it was with the vial and its potential effects in front of the UN, without exageration. Exagerating the facts to meet the desired result are the same thing that High school chem studnets do to make their experiments work after they don't follow the directions exactly. Was Iraq enganged in terrorism, or were groups inside Iraq that were enganged in terrorism? Was there evidence to show that the country was activelt assisting those groups? Thats about the only way I could see that CBN items from Iraq could be used in the pursuit of terrorism. I think one of the bigger worries then Iraq are the former Eastern bloc countries. Most of them still have former Russian ICBM's in the silos ready for launching. One of the biggest concerns during the break away of those states was that a rogue faction could take over a silo and would have a fully preped ICBM waiting for them to press the button on. Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #63 September 14, 2004 Oh yes, I do realize that sarin is a chemical weapon. As part of the NBC family, it is also considered a weapon of mass destruction. WMDs are the subject of this thread. I am sorry I misread your hair splitting attention diversion from WMDs to biological weaponry. Here's some things I think we can agree on: Have chemical WMDs been found? yes Have the chemical weapons been found in the quantities estimated based upon pre-war intelligence reports from exiled Iraqi WMD scientists and officials? no, not yet Have biological weapons been found yet? Nope Had Iraq been importing the large quantities of media to grow biological *substances?* Yes, but according to some here, it's probably just for the Iraqi students and the Iraqi doctors who were safely studying biological *substances* in an academic environment. Did the pre-war WMD intelligence from several countries convince the politicians of this country to act in a bipartisan manner to authorize the invasion of Iraq? yes Now, here's something we might not agree on: Now that we have removed the instigator of Iraqi WMD development and use, and have found our initial (international) intelligence to be somewhat lacking, do we point fingers at the current administration--laying full blame for that poor intelligence upon it--and remove our troops immediately to allow a full-blown civil war ensue in Iraq? No, we started this, so let's see it to the end. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #64 September 14, 2004 QuoteNOT the point I was making. The public was led to believe that there were EXTENSIVE stockpiles that could be deployed almost instantaneously. I think the question is: "Where are they"? I think the answer will be found eventually to be Syria. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #65 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteCan you elaborate? By "United States" are you referring only to sovereign US territory (excluding embassies and the like)? Would a delivery system sufficient to deliver a nerve agent to Prince Sultan Air Base, for example, be adequate justification? I see your point; I guess it depends on your definition of American interests. If that was the case, shouldn't we be lined up across the border from North Korea next? Well, in fairness the US military has been lined up on the North Korean border for the last 50 years or so.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #66 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteCan you elaborate? By "United States" are you referring only to sovereign US territory (excluding embassies and the like)? Would a delivery system sufficient to deliver a nerve agent to Prince Sultan Air Base, for example, be adequate justification? I see your point; I guess it depends on your definition of American interests. If that was the case, shouldn't we be lined up across the border from North Korea next? Well, in fairness the US military has been lined up on the North Korean border for the last 50 years or so. That's true, I meant it more along the lines of a pre-emptory invasion."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #67 September 14, 2004 Quote The fact that no proof has been shown that they don't have them. Isn't that a double negative? What does that mean? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #68 September 14, 2004 Actually, it was livendive that first mentioned DU. Jimbo mentioned a warhead wrapped in uranium, e.g. a "dirty bomb", or at least that's how I understood it. Jimbo, if I'm wrong, please sing out. I've seen a lot of stuff online that says that Hussein may have shifted quite a lot of stuff to Syria. Of course, that info seems to have originally come from Israel, and it doesn't make the President look bad, so it hasn't gotten a whole lot of play in the left-leaning media.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #69 September 14, 2004 I think some here are missing the point. Whether or not SH actually still had wmd in 2003 and if so how much, is secondary to the fact that the primary justification for invading iraq was SH failed to allow the verification of the destruction of wmd and programs they had (ask the kurds if you don't believe he had them). SH's agreement in 1991 was that he would allow the UN to verify the destruction of his wmd or face consequences possibly including military force. The inspectors weren't there to hunt for wmd (since such a hunt could easily be made impossible), their job was to verify and document. His "bribing the UN" plan failed. Bush called his bluff. SH brought this war on himself. All he had to do was abide by his 1991 agreement and he'd still be in power and his murderous spawn would be alive today. Comes down to it, we didn't have to prove that he still had wmd. SH was supposed to prove he no longer did. (ed to remove response name from subject) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #70 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuote The fact that no proof has been shown that they don't have them. Isn't that a double negative? What does that mean? t It means something very different from: The fact that proof has been shown that they have them. Add the two negatives and the statement is that we can't be sure of the fact. And given SH's history and the terms of the 1991 surrender, to many that alone is sufficient cause. I tend to agree. The climate in the US post the attacks is not to leave unknowns to chance. Bush utilized that to achieve a long standing (3 Presidents) goal of outing Hussein. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #71 September 14, 2004 It is quite worrying though. How did witches proove they were not witches during the witch hunts? Could I proove today that I'm not a drug dealer? How would I go about prooving something like that? tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 September 14, 2004 QuoteIt is quite worrying though. How did witches proove they were not witches during the witch hunts? Could I proove today that I'm not a drug dealer? How would I go about prooving something like that? Ah, but Hussein did have the opportunity to prove his innocence. He chose a different path. And let's not forget he was already found guilty of the behavior in the past. He wasn't an innocent woman being drowned or burned after someone cried "witch." Or a 20 year old black man walking down the street when the cops picked him up on a random sweep. Your questions are troubling ones from a look at history, but they are not applicable here. People who don't meet the terms of their parole are thrown back in jail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 619 #73 September 14, 2004 I believe that both the Reagan administration on the US side and Margaret Thatcher on UK side were key suppliers of WMD to Saddam to aid in the fight against Iran. My source for this allegation is from Robin Cook's biography (ex-foreign minister UK) and hence should know the facts and unlikely to libbel people who are still around. There might be online links I don't know...Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #74 September 14, 2004 Valid points, and a good reason to keep ones nose clean. Thanks for the input. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #75 September 14, 2004 Bluesky, I think what you forget is that it wasn't "GW administration" only that said there was WMD in IRAQ. Hans Blix agreed there had to be in Jan/Feb 2003. Tony Blair did as well. As a matter of fact almost 90% of the security counsel felt/knew there were WMD's there. However, it was the US that felt we needed to go to war. SO, try not to spin too much buddy.... I am feeling dizzy just watching you. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
