kallend 2,147 #51 June 22, 2006 QuoteQuote>Brings many questions to mind. Like "how man people will believe anything politicians say if it agrees with what they desperately want to believe?" We've known about the traces of degraded Sarin in warheads for three years now. It reinforces the finding that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, end his WMD programs when the UN demanded he do so (and imposed sanctions.) Aha!! It also shows that he did not destroy his stockpiles though. It is relatively easy to remix the chemical agents (vs. maintain a nuke). Even in their degraded form, they are still deadly. . Let's see now. Iraq was bombed to hell in 1991, with special attention given to military installations. The US has not been bombed recently. According to figures from the USDOE, there are over 2.7 tons of weapons grade plutonium unaccounted for in the US inventory. Los Alamos (never bombed) alone can't account for 600 pounds of weapons grade plutonium. Is it not JUST POSSIBLE that given the intense bombing in 1991 et seq.. and destruction of buildings, facilities, records and personnel, that Iraq may have lost track of a bunch of old obsolete stuff, given that the US apparently has lost track of so much of its own potent WMD materiel without the benefit of being bombed? Really!... 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
billvon 3,114 #52 June 22, 2006 >500 warheads found - how many are still out there and where are they? There are probably pieces of thousands. We blew his stockpiles to bits. >Saddam's regime obviously did not have control over its WMDs Agreed there. He barely had control of his country. >Given the above fact, the U.S. should never again give any country > WMD's unless the circumstances are extraordinary. Even then. This > is just not good policy. Agreed 100%. >Why would any military organization be careless w/WMDs unless >they knew they could get more from some other source, indiginous >or otherwise? You would tend to be careless with your stock, too, if it was constantly being blown to bits, and if inventorying it meant you might get blown to bits too. >I am surprised the report didn't get more attention. It didn't get attention because it said something most people already knew - no WMD threat existed, either currently or when we invaded. I mean, a report might come out tomorrow that Chernobyl was a dangerous reactor design, or that Kim Jong-Il is a bit nuts. I doubt they will get much attention either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #53 June 22, 2006 Quote>SH had stopped active production but?????????? Come on finish the sentence. No buts. From the report: “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq inilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.” OK, and the report Santorum speaks of says (as many other reports have said) and I paraphrase, that SH has his weapons program is a state to start up immedeatly when santions were lifted. This also comes from interviewed scientists that worked for SH. Kind of changes the perspective a bit, don't you think?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #54 June 22, 2006 QuoteQuote>SH had stopped active production but?????????? Come on finish the sentence. No buts. From the report: “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq inilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.” OK, and the report Santorum speaks of says (as many other reports have said) and I paraphrase, that SH has his weapons program is a state to start up immedeatly when santions were lifted. This also comes from interviewed scientists that worked for SH. Kind of changes the perspective a bit, don't you think? What we need here is Graham Chapman dressed as The Colonel, interrupting the thread for being "too silly!"... 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
GTAVercetti 0 #55 June 22, 2006 QuoteQuote>SH had stopped active production but?????????? Come on finish the sentence. No buts. From the report: “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq inilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.” OK, and the report Santorum speaks of says (as many other reports have said) and I paraphrase, that SH has his weapons program is a state to start up immedeatly when santions were lifted. This also comes from interviewed scientists that worked for SH. Kind of changes the perspective a bit, don't you think? If I am wrong, correct me, but I believe the report billvon is refering to is the same you are refering to.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #56 June 22, 2006 >that SH has his weapons program is a state to start up >immedeatly when santions were lifted. Nope, sorry. From the Duefler report: "Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts." "Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure, although its overall industry had not fully recovered from the effects of sanctions, and had not regained pre-1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom." About the most damning thing in the report is: "Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable." In other words, Saddam wanted WMD's. The sanctions prevented him from developing them. If he had had the money and time, he could have begun to set up his programs again. So could any other country on the planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #57 June 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote>SH had stopped active production but?????????? Come on finish the sentence. No buts. From the report: “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq inilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.” OK, and the report Santorum speaks of says (as many other reports have said) and I paraphrase, that SH has his weapons program is a state to start up immedeatly when santions were lifted. This also comes from interviewed scientists that worked for SH. Kind of changes the perspective a bit, don't you think? What we need here is Graham Chapman dressed as The Colonel, interrupting the thread for being "too silly!" It is easy to know why you post as you do seeing as your GWB lied talking point is starting to fall apart in front of you............"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #58 June 22, 2006 Quote So could any other country on the planet. the WHOLE planet?!?!? Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #59 June 22, 2006 Perhaps you're thinking a bit differently, Bill. The report did not mention fragments of munitions. It mentioned munitions containing degraded sarin/mustard gas. Iraq fought a long war against Iran and fired many rounds in the Kuwait invasion and their defense of their own nation against U.S. forces. I find it quite hard to beleive that if their internal controls on WMDs were in as shoddy a state as implied by the random findings we've made, that a WMD munition was not accidentally used at some point. Very, very hard to believe. Stating that no WMD thread existed when we've found so many WMD's is preposterous by any standard. A WMD threat still exists because we have absolutely no idea where the remaining WMDs are or who has them. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #60 June 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>SH had stopped active production but?????????? Come on finish the sentence. No buts. From the report: “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq inilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.” OK, and the report Santorum speaks of says (as many other reports have said) and I paraphrase, that SH has his weapons program is a state to start up immedeatly when santions were lifted. This also comes from interviewed scientists that worked for SH. Kind of changes the perspective a bit, don't you think? What we need here is Graham Chapman dressed as The Colonel, interrupting the thread for being "too silly!" It is easy to know why you post as you do seeing as your GWB lied talking point is starting to fall apart in front of you............ Nonsense. The report very clearly says these junkers are NOT the WMD program and imminent threat referred to by Bush. As for SH's intentions after sanctions were lifted, keeping sanctions in place until he died of natural causes would not have resulted in the deaths of 2,500 American boys, the maiming of 10,000 more, and a cost to the US of $1Trillion when all the costs of Bush's war are added in.... 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
billvon 3,114 #61 June 22, 2006 >Stating that no WMD thread existed when we've found so many WMD's >is preposterous by any standard. I understand that's your opinion. Of course, this report says the opposite. >A WMD threat still exists because we have absolutely no idea where >the remaining WMDs are or who has them. In 2001, the US was attacked with a biological weapon, anthrax. The strain was a US military strain, and the letter came from within the US. The crime has never been solved. But that doesn't further anyone's political cause. Much more politically expedient to worry about imaginary WMD's that Saddam Hussein didn't have when we attacked. Live anthrax that we know exists within the US and has killed five people? Who cares? Old news. We have more important things to worry about than Saddam's imaginary WMD's - even if they don't retroactively justify anyone's rationale for war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #62 June 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>SH had stopped active production but?????????? Come on finish the sentence. No buts. From the report: “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq inilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.” OK, and the report Santorum speaks of says (as many other reports have said) and I paraphrase, that SH has his weapons program is a state to start up immedeatly when santions were lifted. This also comes from interviewed scientists that worked for SH. Kind of changes the perspective a bit, don't you think? What we need here is Graham Chapman dressed as The Colonel, interrupting the thread for being "too silly!" It is easy to know why you post as you do seeing as your GWB lied talking point is starting to fall apart in front of you............ Nonsense. The report very clearly says these junkers are NOT the WMD program and imminent threat referred to by Bush. As for SH's intentions after sanctions were lifted, keeping sanctions in place until he died of natural causes would not have resulted in the deaths of 2,500 American boys, the maiming of 10,000 more, and a cost to the US of $1Trillion when all the costs of Bush's war are added in. Nice thought. Only problem is many of the countries supporting sanctions were beginning to back away from them. Without the cooperation of these countries, US sanctions would have meant very little alone. SH was already bribing these countries as evidenced by the corrupt UN Oil for Food Program. I have absolutely no doubt the sanctions would have ended by now and SH would have been back with a vengence against the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #63 June 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>SH had stopped active production but?????????? Come on finish the sentence. No buts. From the report: “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq inilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.” OK, and the report Santorum speaks of says (as many other reports have said) and I paraphrase, that SH has his weapons program is a state to start up immedeatly when santions were lifted. This also comes from interviewed scientists that worked for SH. Kind of changes the perspective a bit, don't you think? What we need here is Graham Chapman dressed as The Colonel, interrupting the thread for being "too silly!" It is easy to know why you post as you do seeing as your GWB lied talking point is starting to fall apart in front of you............ Nonsense. The report very clearly says these junkers are NOT the WMD program and imminent threat referred to by Bush. As for SH's intentions after sanctions were lifted, keeping sanctions in place until he died of natural causes would not have resulted in the deaths of 2,500 American boys, the maiming of 10,000 more, and a cost to the US of $1Trillion when all the costs of Bush's war are added in. ......and you have not said a word about the 100s of thousands that SH killed before we got there so as I have stated before this is hollow point at pest. The 2500 is 2500 to many but I don't live in a fantisy land thinking if we place nice the rest of the world will too. I believe the cost to date is about 300 billion but I know the "trillion" word is a talking point you must like. WMD,s there are still reports that the newest ones were moved to syria. I still believe and time will tell but WMDs are WMDs regardless of your hopes and dreams of kicking the US in the nads. cumble crumble crumble.........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #64 June 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote>SH had stopped active production but?????????? Come on finish the sentence. No buts. From the report: “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq inilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.” OK, and the report Santorum speaks of says (as many other reports have said) and I paraphrase, that SH has his weapons program is a state to start up immedeatly when santions were lifted. This also comes from interviewed scientists that worked for SH. Kind of changes the perspective a bit, don't you think? If I am wrong, correct me, but I believe the report billvon is refering to is the same you are refering to. If is is then I am correct. I read the total speach and what is posted from the declassed docs (what is there anyway)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #65 June 22, 2006 Quote>that SH has his weapons program is a state to start up >immedeatly when santions were lifted. Nope, sorry. From the Duefler report: "Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW-related efforts." "Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure, although its overall industry had not fully recovered from the effects of sanctions, and had not regained pre-1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom." About the most damning thing in the report is: "Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable." In other words, Saddam wanted WMD's. The sanctions prevented him from developing them. If he had had the money and time, he could have begun to set up his programs again. So could any other country on the planet. The Deufler report? Give me a break........that one has been tore up so bad I am surprised you quote it."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #66 June 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>SH had stopped active production but?????????? Come on finish the sentence. No buts. From the report: “While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq inilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.” OK, and the report Santorum speaks of says (as many other reports have said) and I paraphrase, that SH has his weapons program is a state to start up immedeatly when santions were lifted. This also comes from interviewed scientists that worked for SH. Kind of changes the perspective a bit, don't you think? What we need here is Graham Chapman dressed as The Colonel, interrupting the thread for being "too silly!" It is easy to know why you post as you do seeing as your GWB lied talking point is starting to fall apart in front of you............ Nonsense. The report very clearly says these junkers are NOT the WMD program and imminent threat referred to by Bush. As for SH's intentions after sanctions were lifted, keeping sanctions in place until he died of natural causes would not have resulted in the deaths of 2,500 American boys, the maiming of 10,000 more, and a cost to the US of $1Trillion when all the costs of Bush's war are added in. Nice thought. Only problem is many of the countries supporting sanctions were beginning to back away from them. Without the cooperation of these countries, US sanctions would have meant very little alone. SH was already bribing these countries as evidenced by the corrupt UN Oil for Food Program. I have absolutely no doubt the sanctions would have ended by now and SH would have been back with a vengence against the US. And don't mention that SH was using the worshiped UN and the now famous food for oil program to just support hi people Of course Germany, France and others were not doing business with SH under the table........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #67 June 22, 2006 One wonders which report you're reading. The report faxed to Senator Santorum from Mr. Negroponte says that terrorists would love to acquire such munitions. Odd that you do not consider this a threat. I consider any WMD's unaccounted for extremely dangerous - especially in a region of the world rife with insurgents and somewhat easily accessible to Iran. There's no need to worry about Saddam's imaginary WMDs - real ones have been found. Repeatedly. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #68 June 22, 2006 >The report faxed to Senator Santorum from Mr. Negroponte says >that terrorists would love to acquire such munitions. Of course. Terrorists would love to acquire ANY munitions. That's why they're terrorists. >Odd that you do not consider this a threat. I do not consider it a threat because no one has found ANY usable WMD's in Iraq, beyond degraded bits of debris. (That's none, zero, zip, nada.) Have you? >I consider any WMD's unaccounted for extremely dangerous - Then be afraid of the tons of plutonium and uranium we've lost, the US strain of anthrax used to attack us and the nuclear weapons we've lost track of rather than Saddam's nonexistent WMD's. Being wary of real instead of imaginary threats leads to a safer US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #69 June 22, 2006 You've data that shows the chemical agents in the WMD's discovered had degraded to the point that they were no longer lethal? Odd I didn't read that in Mr. Negroponte's letter to Senator Santorum. Could you please post a link? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #70 June 22, 2006 Quote I believe the cost to date is about 300 billion but I know the "trillion" word is a talking point you must like. WMD,s there are still reports that the newest ones were moved to syria. I still believe and time will tell but WMDs are WMDs regardless of your hopes and dreams of kicking the US in the nads. cumble crumble crumble.......... The $300B is just direct costs. The long term costs of caring for the maimed veterans, etc, etc., are estimated to bring the total cost of Bush's not-so-excellent grossly mismanaged misadventure to over $1Trillion. It's funny watching you clutch at straws. "Imminent threat", ha ha.... 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
TheAnvil 0 #71 June 22, 2006 I think your $300 billion figure is a bit low. Where did you get it, out of curiosity? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #72 June 23, 2006 Isn't it amazing, that if it's a deteriorating stockpile of weapons in our country, then they are absolutely dangerous, and must be disposed of with the utmost care, but these weapons in Iraq are totally inert, and don't mean a thing. Can you say hypocrite? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #73 June 23, 2006 >You've data that shows the chemical agents in the WMD's >discovered had degraded to the point that they were no longer lethal? ----------- AP today: Intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed. They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004. He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous. "It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said. . . . One official conceded that these pre-Gulf War weapons did not pose a threat to the U.S. military before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They were not maintained or part of any organized program run by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. ---------------------- Which is no different from the CIA's report: Updated: 6:24 p.m. PT April 25, 2005 WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion. Again, note the "nothing." Not "small amounts of active ingredients." Not "just some shells with a little bit of Sarin left in em. Nothing. From dictionary.com: ---------- noth·ing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nthng) pron. No thing; not anything: The box contained nothing. I've heard nothing about it. No part; no portion: Nothing remains of the old house but the cellar hole. One of no consequence, significance, or interest: The new nonsmoking policy is nothing to me. n. Something that has no existence. Something that has no quantitative value; zero: a score of two to nothing. One that has no substance or importance; a nonentity: “A nothing is a dreadful thing to hold onto” ----------- >Odd I didn't read that in Mr. Negroponte's letter to Senator Santorum. Hmm. Perhaps tomorrow Rush Limbaugh will write a letter to FOX News saying he believes there are nuclear weapons in Iraq! That would be proof positive that the war was 100% justified. This latest attempt to justify a failed war is pretty pathetic. Maybe someone out there will buy it. Heck, there are still people who think the earth is flat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #74 June 23, 2006 Quote Isn't it amazing, that if it's a deteriorating stockpile of weapons in our country, then they are absolutely dangerous, and must be disposed of with the utmost care, but these weapons in Iraq are totally inert, and don't mean a thing. Can you say hypocrite? Dangerous /= WMDDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #75 June 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo who will be the first liberal here to acknowledge that Bush didn't "lie" about WMDs? It'll never happen. Looks like you are correct. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
