10 more WMDs found in Iraq. Sorry Libs!

[M1A2U2]

Friday, June 25, 2004 11:36 a.m. EDT
Iraq Survey Chief: More WMD Found

The head of the U.S. team conducting the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq announced on Thursday that his group has uncovered at least ten more artillery shells filled with banned chemical weapons and is finding new WMD evidence "almost every day."

"We've found ten or twelve Sarin and Mustard rounds," said Charles Duelfer, who replaced David Kay as head of the Iraq survey group earlier this year after Kay concluded that WMDs were unlikely to be found.


"We're not sure how many more are out there that we haven't found," Duelfer added, in an exclusive interview with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume. "There are still surprises out there. We're finding things and we're getting reports of hidden caches almost every day which we have to investigate."
Last month, the Pentagon confirmed that the first of the Iraq WMD findings - two shells suspected of containing deadly chemical weapons - were indeed filled with Sarin and Mustard gas.

Still, despite the mounting tally of confirmed WMD findings, administration critics continue to insist that "Bush lied" about the presence of such weapons in Iraq before the war.

Duelfer told Fox that even if the shells had degraded over time, they were still capable of killing "dozens" of people. He warned that both soldiers and civilians in Iraq should carry gas masks and have access to chem-bio suits.

Before joining the U.S. team, Duelfer was a U.N. weapons inspector and was among the few who had investigated Saddam's top secret terrorist training camp Salman Pak.

In 2001 he confirmed that elite Fedayeen troops were conducting airplane hijacking drills aboard a parked Boeing 707, dismissing claims from Iraqi officials that what he saw was "counterterrorism training."

"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer told the London Observer. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq."

[Secret Squirrel]

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
Firstly, date the shells.
Secondly, prove Saddam knew they were there at that particular location
thirdly, and this is for Bush, kick the U.N inspectors out of Iraq and put in your own team...oh wait, he already did that. woot

[n4292936]

the date of the shells is the crucial issue here. stocks from the Iran-Iraq war that ended in 88 have been found buried and in degraded caches all around the country. It does little to nothing to change the debate.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Nothing to get excited about as they found ChemWar shells in various states of repair as far back as last year some from battlefield sites.
Mind you there is an presidential election soon and the incumbent is getting a bit of heat so they are needing some news like this. The mainstream media won't pick up on this in any big way. :lol:

[Mark Sman]

So to recap.

"Saddam did not have chemical weapons."

Even if you find them.

Also, "the Americans have not take Saddam International Airport."

"The checks in the mail."

"No baby, really."

[seruriermarshal]

So I say Saddam lie to the world .

[martinexsquaddie]

NO NO NO
the UN knew he had stocks after the first gulf war when a large percentage were destroyed under UN inspections.
what has'nt been found are any stockpiles of weapons ready to go none were used to halt the invasion.
no production facillities have turned up.
what seems to be turning up is the odd few rounds here the odd round there hardly a "smoking Gun" especially when date of manafacture is taken into account chemical weapons need careful storage.
so I think it will take more than that to convince the libs and me that the threat from WMDS was real :(

[seruriermarshal]

NO NO NO
the UN knew he had stocks after the first gulf war when a large percentage were destroyed under UN inspections.
what has'nt been found are any stockpiles of weapons ready to go none were used to halt the invasion.
no production facillities have turned up.
what seems to be turning up is the odd few rounds here the odd round there hardly a "smoking Gun" especially when date of manafacture is taken into account chemical weapons need careful storage.
so I think it will take more than that to convince the libs and me that the threat from WMDS was real :(

Saddam always say :"Iraq haven't WMD. "

[ronin2172]

not this again.... :cantbeli:
when u find a storage area with missles (SSMs not SAMs) of recent vintage call me. We all know he had them and used them in the past. that is not in dispute. THe point is did he pose a threat with his arsenal....sorry but rotting artlllery shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war don't count, as they r too old to be of any use. (and being buried in the sand doesn't help either)

[n4292936]

yes, we all know saddam wasnt the most scrupulously honest person there was.... the issue at hand is whether or not the few 16 year old shells found containing the ellicit chemical are such that they warranted an invasion, and whether or not they constitute the active weapons program and imminent threat that was the ostensive (and I emphasis ostensive) reason for going to war.
I dont think it was entirely about oil, but nor do I think that the WMD issue was foremost in the administrations mind when it justified war to itself. The latter issue was a publicly palatable rational, suitable for a time when Americans saw danger in the world and would support anyone willing to tackle a target. The most stridently militaristic voices were therefore heard and applauded. In this case, I think the target's threat status was largely fabricated and that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were not the ones given to the American public. Im glad Saddam is out of power yes, but it very much remains to be seen whether or not, on the basis of a utilitarian calculation, the war in Iraq was in fact justified. As it stands now I would say no it was not but admittedly the great game in Iraq has yet to play itself out to a conclusion and isnt likely to do so for some years to come.
Christ Marshal, must you see everything in black and white?

[Herrmannek]

Things are black and withe. But if you put them next to each other they seem to be gray :)

...esspecialy from distance of armchair gives.

Just some thoiughts not directly related to mentioned accident :)

[Uncle Chô]

Saddam always say :"Iraq haven't WMD. "
Saddam wasn't aware of a lot of things. The Iraqis top ranked officiers were so affraid of him that they hide a lot of what was really going on... After war reports said that they told him a lot of lies because that is what he wanted to hear (the dictator syndrom) :roll:

Unless they find hidden huge stocks of operational weapons a dozen of old chemical shells buried / abandoned here and there are not to be considered like WMD (BTW is a B-52 full load of conventional bombs a WMD?).

[n4292936]

Things are black and withe. But if you put them next to each other they seem to be gray :)

If you're seriously contending that conflict can be reduced to simplistic black and white idioms then your mind lacks depth of vision, historical perspective, understanding, imagination, a high order of intelligence, projection, analytical ability, intellectual courage... I could go on and on. Black and White is how those that cannot do otherwise see the world.

[Herrmannek]

Things are black and withe. But if you put them next to each other they seem to be gray :)

If you're seriously contending that conflict can be reduced to simplistic black and white idioms then your mind lacks depth of vision, historical perspective, understanding, imagination, a high order of intelligence, projection, analytical ability, intellectual courage... I could go on and on. Black and White is how those cannot do otherwise see the world.

BS, being simple doesn't mean trivial..grays are trival and false because you don't need to search thruths deeper to get answer, but scale can change color diametraly ...

[joshfox0]

a clever man with a smokeing gun will cut it up and hide it all over the place

my wise words of today

[Pandy]

From what I always love to hear, if Saddam used any of his WMD on the American and Brits, you know Bush would have no problem and making a giant glass field in Iraq.

[cut]

From what I always love to hear, if Saddam used any of his WMD on the American and Brits, you know Bush would have no problem and making a giant glass field in Iraq.

would that be a heavily iradiated giant glass field?

[usa320]

Despite what you guys seem to think... The date of the weapons doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if they are from 1995 or 2002. Saddam Had them, he at some point hid them from UN inspectors, and he again lied about them in 2002.

[Secret Squirrel]

Despite what you guys seem to think... The date of the weapons doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if they are from 1995 or 2002. Saddam Had them, he at some point hid them from UN inspectors, and he again lied about them in 2002.

despite what you think you know about the burden of proof, you have to prove that Saddam was currently producing and stockpiling them, and that he knew exactly where they were.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Despite what you guys seem to think... The date of the weapons doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if they are from 1995 or 2002. Saddam Had them, he at some point hid them from UN inspectors, and he again lied about them in 2002.
Ha ha what happened to the exstensive chemical weapon manufacturing facilities and moblie bio warfare agent labs. :lol:

[cut]

Despite what you guys seem to think... The date of the weapons doesnt matter. It doesnt matter if they are from 1995 or 2002. Saddam Had them, he at some point hid them from UN inspectors, and he again lied about them in 2002.

maybe not but we went to war on the premise of a strike on British assests (cyprus) being possible within 60mins, artillery shells don't come anywhere near that. So the WMD thing will always be a joke and there is no point trying to justify it. The were other and far better reason to go, I think we should stick to those...

[usa320]

the question is what didnt happen to them.

Some were destroyed. Some were burried. Some are undoubtably hidden, and some are more than likely in Syria.

Hell they could have even been using Winnebagos or tractor trailers and just pulled all the equipment out and still be driving around in em.

[cut]

the question is what didnt happen to them.

Some were destroyed. Some were burried. Some are undoubtably hidden, and some are more than likely in Syria.

Hell they could have even been using Winnebagos or tractor trailers and just pulled all the equipment out and still be driving around in em.

that is unbelievably minor, and definately not worth my taxes

[Secret Squirrel]

the question is what didnt happen to them.

Some were destroyed. Some were burried. Some are undoubtably hidden, and some are more than likely in Syria.

Hell they could have even been using Winnebagos or tractor trailers and just pulled all the equipment out and still be driving around in em.

See this is exactly what you fail to understand; opinion is not proof. You take your army into war, ask them to sacrifice a lot for another nation, you better be damn sure you're acting on creible intelligence and that war was your only choice (not your prefered choice).

[Tane Angle]

cut brings up a good point. Anyone with minimal education in chemistry and the internet can create chemical weapons. In the US, scientists have successfullly created biological weapons through the use of mail-order gene sequences. Everyone and their brother has the means to create chemical weapons. Is everyone a threat? It is only when those weapons are in a position to be used is a war necessary. Old chemical shells requiring working artillery tubes are very different from new, transportable self-dispersing weapons systems.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

the question is what didnt happen to them.

Some were destroyed. Some were burried. Some are undoubtably hidden, and some are more than likely in Syria.

Hell they could have even been using Winnebagos or tractor trailers and just pulled all the equipment out and still be driving around in em.

Actually date does matter, because WMD has a shelf life. If its beyond 10-20 year old shell most likely the chemicals inside may or maynot be active or not. It all depends on the way its stored / year it was made to be determined if it was effective or not.

Considering the type of gas is I would expect them to be dated Iran-war era.

[Pooga]

Anyone with minimal education in chemistry and the internet can create chemical weapons.
But they can't handle them. With all due respect, that's like saying anybody could can some spam wrong and extract Botulinum toxin from it and use it in a biological weapon.


In the US, scientists have successfullly created biological weapons through the use of mail-order gene sequences.
Using gene sequences? Hmm, that sounds a bit fishy, Tane ;) . But I get the idea.


Everyone and their brother has the means to create chemical weapons. Is everyone a threat? It is only when those weapons are in a position to be used is a war necessary. Old chemical shells requiring working artillery tubes are very different from new, transportable self-dispersing weapons systems.
Saddam said he didn't have any. Those were the rules of the "game," and they were not accounted for to the UN. Aum Shinrikyo didn't need any arty.

Besides, to say WMDs don't exist in Iraq is the same as saying there were WMDs in Iraq. And there's more evidence to support the latter. They could literally be anywhere.

The media acts as a bellows for this "Bush lied" stuff. Don't be a mindless pawn to the media, peeps. No, I'm not being a fallguy for Bush, either.

ßå$tÄ®‹¢HÏ¿›: Do you want to take that risk of them being lethal or not? Assume they are. Trouble!

[Black Dots]

It's also improtant to consider that these rounds, if they are in fact from the Iran-Iraq war, are no longer effective because chemical weapons don't have much of a shelf life, especially if they've been buried for years. So, had they been found in 1992, then yes, they would be dangerous.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

ßå$tÄ®‹¢HÏ¿›: Do you want to take that risk of them being lethal or not? Assume they are. Trouble!

Correct Pooga they still are lethal and dangerous. But last time I checked Iraq was on the other side of the world, I fail to see how a couple Arty shells of Sarin is a "iminent threat" to United States national security. If anything they were putting there soldiers more at risk sending them there to liberate Iraq, then the people of the United States at home.

If 11 artillery shells of Sarin are enough justification (that and liberating the Iraqi people of course...) to go to war with a country the earth will be at war for the rest of its existance.

[Pooga]

If 11 artillery shells of Sarin are enough justification (that and liberating the Iraqi people of course...) to go to war with a country the earth will be at war for the rest of its existance.

C'mon, you know that's not the case. p-)

[usa320]

Actually date does matter, because WMD has a shelf life. If its beyond 10-20 year old shell most likely the chemicals inside may or maynot be active or not. It all depends on the way its stored / year it was made to be determined if it was effective or not.

Considering the type of gas is I would expect them to be dated Iran-war era.

It doesnt matter if they are active, working effective or whatever. He had them and he hid them and lied about them. That is all that matters.

And without a doubt he had the equipment, personel, knowledge and motive to produce mass quantities in a matter of days.

[Secret Squirrel]

Actually date does matter, because WMD has a shelf life. If its beyond 10-20 year old shell most likely the chemicals inside may or maynot be active or not. It all depends on the way its stored / year it was made to be determined if it was effective or not.

Considering the type of gas is I would expect them to be dated Iran-war era.

It doesnt matter if they are active, working effective or whatever. He had them and he hid them and lied about them. That is all that matters.

And without a doubt he had the equipment, personel, knowledge and motive to produce mass quantities in a matter of days.

Do you honestly have any conception regarding the infrastruction it requires to mass produces biological/checmical weapons? Prove he knew they were where they were. He had the equipment? where? did he hide that too? matter of days? Prove it.

[usa320]

No he didnt hide the equipment. It was all tagged and cataloged by the UN, and much of it was dual use so he didnt need to hide it... For example the same machines used to ferment beer could just as well be used to ferment anthrax. Materials used to make fertilizers could be used to make VX...ect...

[Secret Squirrel]

No he didnt hide the equipment. It was all tagged and cataloged by the UN, and much of it was dual use so he didnt need to hide it... For example the same machines used to ferment beer could just as well be used to ferment anthrax. Materials used to make fertilizers could be used to make VX...ect...

Oh so now just because it could be used to make chem. weapons, it must have been there for that sole reason? man you're grasping at straws. Again, do you have any conception regarding the infrastruction it requires to mass produces biological/checmical weapons? Prove he knew they were where they were. He had the equipment? where? did he hide that too? matter of days? Prove it.

[usa320]

To say that making chemical weapons was the sole purpose for the equipment is ridiculous. Its called DUAL USE equipment for a reason.

If you want the facts read the UN resolutions regarding it... He had tons of this equipment, more than the country would have needed for making beer, bleach and pesticide.

[n4292936]

so now you're also an expert on industrial manufacturing process and methods??? Oh I do dislike fanciful pretensions.

[Secret Squirrel]

so now you're also an expert on industrial manufacturing process and methods??? Oh I do dislike fanciful pretensions.

rofl He's just arguing on his own opinion. It's his opinion that Saddam was going to mass produce WMDs. But the fact remains, Bush claims before this war have yet to be conclusively proven. And i dont think 12 shells was worth over 800 American lives plus the lives of the other members of the "coalition".

[usa320]

I never claimed to be an expert, but i am knowledgable on this issue.

Go read some of the UN documentation regarding Dual use facilities and equipment, and you will see what im talking about.

[Secret Squirrel]

I never claimed to be an expert, but i am knowledgable on this issue.

Go read some of the UN documentation regarding Dual use facilities and equipment, and you will see what im talking about.

I have a spoon, i could use it to murder someone...should i be arrested because of the spoon? Or, i have a gun, a neighbor thinks, without any proof, that i'm going to kill him. He calls the police and they find an old rusty bullet in my yard. Should i be arrested on the charge of attempted murder?

[n4292936]

have you ever denied that you had the bullet. Maybe you could have given the bullet, if it still worked, to some other guy who would have used it for nefarious purposes ;) Its tantamount to an attack on your peace loving neighbors, clearly!

[Tane Angle]

"He's got a spoon!" (goes for spoon)

Sorry, couldn't resist. p-)

(Gives spoon back to Secret Squirrel. Turns out it was actually a spork.)

[Fintin]

"He's got a spoon!" (goes for spoon)

Sorry, couldn't resist. p-)

(Gives spoon back to Secret Squirrel. Turns out it was actually a spork.)


watch out for the all might spork...i have developed a method for removing testicals with them

[Tane Angle]

What are you doing posting here then, Fintin? If you can develop that, you should be off working for DARPA or someone. p-)

[Fintin]

What are you doing posting here then, Fintin? If you can develop that, you should be off working for DARPA or someone. p-)

for the insperation....but back on topic...i feel its a step...a small step but a step...he had stuff he destroyed most of it....we have found some of it...im not going to speculate or point fingers...but its not hard to do so if one chooses

[ArmedPacifist]

usa320, When your old enough and get to that grade in high school to study world history, you will be less ignorant than you already are. I look forward to that day.

Most of the "WMD's" being found in Iraq most likely still have the "made in the united states" brand on them.

[Fintin]

usa320, When your old enough and get to that grade in high school to study world history, you will be less ignorant than you already are. I look forward to that day.

Most of the "WMD's" being found in Iraq most likely still have the "made in the united states" brand on them.

oh you would....

[seruriermarshal]

usa320, When your old enough and get to that grade in high school to study world history, you will be less ignorant than you already are. I look forward to that day.

Most of the "WMD's" being found in Iraq most likely still have the "made in the united states" brand on them.

But in fact , WMD has found in Iraq .

p-)

[usa320]

and in fact i graduated from high school 6 years ago...

my major course sequence was in history, and i held an overall average of 99 in U.S. History, World History 1 and 2, Participation in Politics, Economics, Current Events, WWII studies and American History in Movies.

I got a perfect score on the World History 2 exam as a matter of fact...

[ArmedPacifist]

If you'll look closely I wrote "WMD's" with quotations, because they do not qualify as WMD's but some of the idiots on this board refer to them as that.

[KML]

The Russians have used a ton of gas in Chechnya, why doesn't Bush invade Russia... no oil?

[seruriermarshal]

If you'll look closely I wrote "WMD's" with quotations, because they do not qualify as WMD's but some of the idiots on this board refer to them as that.

Sorry I don't know , why Sarin and Mustard rounds aren't WMD ?

[ArmedPacifist]

If you'll look closely I wrote "WMD's" with quotations, because they do not qualify as WMD's but some of the idiots on this board refer to them as that.

Sorry I don't know , why Sarin and Mustard rounds aren't WMD ?

Because they have a shelf life?

And if that is your case, then we should attack the people supplying these terrorists shouldn't we?

Destination: Washington

...."Checkmate"....

[seruriermarshal]

The Russians have used a ton of gas in Chechnya, why doesn't Bush invade Russia... no oil?

You have more messages about this event ?

:roll:

[Tane Angle]

I could be wrong, but he might be referring to the shells as being a component of WMDs, but not necessarily WMDs unless and until used in conjunction with artillery tubes. Those tubes present lack the range to hit the US, correct?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[KML]

It's a well known fact that the russians used Mustard Gas in their second Chechan War. Do a search on Google

[usa320]

It doesnt matter if the tubes lack the range to hit us...

Some nutjob (and this was already attempted once) can take a shell of sarin or VX, wrap it in TNT and kill just as many people.

[seruriermarshal]

If you'll look closely I wrote "WMD's" with quotations, because they do not qualify as WMD's but some of the idiots on this board refer to them as that.

Sorry I don't know , why Sarin and Mustard rounds aren't WMD ?

Because they have a shelf life?

And if that is your case, then we should attack the people supplying these terrorists shouldn't we?

Destination: Washington

...."Checkmate"....

And your meaning is those Sarin and Mustard are harmless to the human body. Perhaps the people can contact to them ?

[SpazzMunky]

It doesnt matter if the tubes lack the range to hit us...

Some nutjob (and this was already attempted once) can take a shell of sarin or VX, wrap it in TNT and kill just as many people.
True, but that wasn't really likely to happen until we invaded. There was no immediate threat.

[seruriermarshal]

It's a well known fact that the russians used Mustard Gas in their second Chechan War. Do a search on Google

But UN never said these event .

:roll:

[Fintin]

It doesnt matter if the tubes lack the range to hit us...

Some nutjob (and this was already attempted once) can take a shell of sarin or VX, wrap it in TNT and kill just as many people.
True, but that wasn't really likely to happen until we invaded. There was no immediate threat.


but there were threats to US intrests...Israel, Saudi Arabia, Quaite, i cant spell for ****

[Tane Angle]

usa320, not quite true, fortunately for us. As was shown a few weeks ago, the binary shells do not seem to combine correctly when not used with tubes. The IEDs using chemical shells didn't really work as planned.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[ArmedPacifist]

If you'll look closely I wrote "WMD's" with quotations, because they do not qualify as WMD's but some of the idiots on this board refer to them as that.

Sorry I don't know , why Sarin and Mustard rounds aren't WMD ?

Because they have a shelf life?

And if that is your case, then we should attack the people supplying these terrorists shouldn't we?

Destination: Washington

...."Checkmate"....

And your meaning is those Sarin and Mustard are harmless to the human body. Perhaps the people can contact to them ?

Maybe you didn't read the part where I wrote checkmate. That means I win.

[ronin2172]

It doesnt matter if the tubes lack the range to hit us...

Some nutjob (and this was already attempted once) can take a shell of sarin or VX, wrap it in TNT and kill just as many people.
True, but that wasn't really likely to happen until we invaded. There was no immediate threat.


but there were threats to US intrests...Israel, Saudi Arabia, Quaite, i cant spell for ****
if these were missles i would agree with u, but we r talkin bout artillery Saddam doesn't have any guns that can reach israel and to be a threat to Saudi or Kuwait he'd have to get pretty close to the border...good luck with trying that with the US and Royal air forces constantly patrolling the skies over southern Iraq (not to mention all the big eye's in the sky looking down as well)

[Pooga]

infrastruction
Talk about a Bush-ism! ;) . That's horocious!


Do you honestly have any conception regarding the infrastruction (sic) it requires to mass produces biological/checmical weapons?
One, do you? Two, why does it matter the infrastructure (?) it requires to mass produced bio/chem weapons? I mean, respectfully frankly (is that legal? two -ly words together?), what's your point?


Prove he knew they were where they were. [say that five times fast. I can't. Tried.] He had the equipment? where? did he hide that too? matter of days? Prove it.
Don't say "prove it!" Because then I ask you an ambiguous "prove that he didn't," even if I don't know what the monkeys you are talking about. ;) Have you ever wondered why the plural "monkeys" is not "monkies?" And isn't "put" a stupid word? I mean, "poot?" What the heck is that? Put. Gotta go back to sleep. Whoa I think there's a barn owl outside. Cuz I just heard it go SCREECH!

By the way, when I use ;) , I really mean ;) . So don't get in a tizzy if I'm sounding rude, because usually I put a ;) to tell you that I'm not really being rude. If I was really being rude, I wouldn't put a ;) .





Fudgenuggets. I guess I'm late. Shoot, I don't wanna respond to all that. :(

[M1A2U2]

Russia was told by the UN 17 times to disarm. Iraq was. i dont see what that is so hard to understand?

[n4292936]

Prove he knew they were where they were. [say that five times fast. I can't. Tried.] He had the equipment? where? did he hide that too? matter of days? Prove it.
Don't say "prove it!" Because then I ask you an ambiguous "prove that he didn't,"

I see your point and if it were not made in this context it could be the debate ending proposition that Im dying to hear. As it is however, the burden of proof lies with those that must "prove he did" since it was used as the justification for war, not vice versa.

p.s. I couldnt say it five times fast either, I tried ;)

[usa320]

Russia was told by the UN 17 times to disarm. Iraq was. i dont see what that is so hard to understand?

You mean WASNT and it was 19 times.

;)

[Pooga]

usa320, not quite true, fortunately for us. As was shown a few weeks ago, the binary shells do not seem to combine correctly when not used with tubes. The IEDs using chemical shells didn't really work as planned.
Yeah. They gotta mix. When they spin through the air, it mixes. In an icyhot, slushy blend of hot-hot mustard gas and some random gooey agent, badda-bing-badda-boom, you got active chemical weapons ready to go. I don't know the extraction process of a shell's contents, but if it's possible, I'd be scared. Meaning, if they can make it efficient and effective, problems will soon result.



Maybe you didn't read the part where I wrote checkmate. That means I win.
Whoa-ho! Take it easy feller! ;)

[Pooga]

As it is however, the burden of proof lies with those that must "prove he did" since it was used as the justification for war, not vice versa.
Good point. Eh…I still think that he has WMDs lying around somewhere. We just gotta wait till we strike it rich. But "faith" (I suppose) isn't enough for some people. For me, it's common sense that he has them somwhere (not saying that in a degrading fashion).

[seruriermarshal]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040521/bok.gif

:roll:

[tacticalmanta]

lol, now that is a perfect cartoon

[BlackRain]

The Russians have used a ton of gas in Chechnya, why doesn't Bush invade Russia... no oil?


I am sorry that you never received a quality education. So I will attempt to educate you about Russia and the oil industry.


Since 1999, Russia's petroleum production has increased 48 percent, primarily on the back of flows from new wells. Producing 9 million barrels of oil a day, Russia is the world's largest producer.

...

Some oil executives here estimate that Russia, which currently supplies virtually no oil to the United States, could soon provide as much as 1 million barrels a day, or nearly 10 percent of U.S. imports, replacing most of Saudi Arabia's supplies if necessary. As Russia's surging oil industry recovers from its post-Soviet hangover, it has now surpassed Saudi Arabia in oil production.



Kind of defeats your attempt at an argument. Tell you what, go see a few more Michael Moore movies and come on back. Mmmm Kay

[OB Kenobi]

Friday, June 25, 2004 11:36 a.m. EDT
Iraq Survey Chief: More WMD Found

"We've found ten or twelve Sarin and Mustard rounds," said Charles Duelfer, who replaced David Kay as head of the Iraq survey group earlier this year after Kay concluded that WMDs were unlikely to be found.

"We're not sure how many more are out there that we haven't found," Duelfer added, in an exclusive interview with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume."

Source: Newsmax, Fox News, AKA the Bu$h administration PR department.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

[usa320]

To continue any conversation with OB Kenobi would be like carrying on a conversation with a brick wall...only you might get more out of the wall.

[Fintin]

To continue any conversation with OB Kenobi would be like carrying on a conversation with a brick wall...only you might get more out of the wall.

you can atleast drill a hole in the wall and hump it...face it...we found some...its not what we expected....but its something...its improvement...


side note...we found alot of mass graves....

[A Soldier]

All I can say what is done is done, why, or howcome does not matter Iraq has just opened up a new page of history, how it turns out is up to them and the rest of the world, YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH ME , BUT CAN YOU AGREE THAT IT IS THE PAST. If the rest of the world thinks Americans are evil, I hope that they will keep in the back of their mind that their country can be paved in about a week. ( not that we would really do it of course)

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Newsmax rofl

Well, theres no point arguing that the WMD in the form of artillery shells (most likely from Iran-ear) would post absolutely no threat to the United States, even with the tubes. And defineatly shouldnt be considered an iminent (sp?) threat in any way, its just hardcore right wing's searching for reasons to justify there war for there president.

If it was a threat to anyone from the US it would be to the soldiers dealing with the weapons / testing them. Some iminent threat.....

[Pooga]

go see a few more Michael Moore movies

OB Kenobi, do you agree with this statement?

[OB Kenobi]

go see a few more Michael Moore movies

OB Kenobi, do you agree with this statement?

Well, honestly, Michael Moore is completely irrelevant to me. I already know everything he is showing in his movie, this info has been around for years. I also disagree with his opinions about gun control.

[Pooga]

I'm going to lose my cookies if you think Fox is propoganda and Michael Moore isn't. On you. ;)

[chauncy republicans]

To continue any conversation with OB Kenobi would be like carrying on a conversation with a brick wall...only you might get more out of the wall.

you can atleast drill a hole in the wall and hump it...face it...we found some...its not what we expected....but its something...its improvement...


side note...we found alot of mass graves....
:cantbeli:

[n4292936]

Ok here is the debate ending point!!!
A: the presidential administration has a high interest is seeing that WMDs are found since its credibility is staked on it.
B: Therefore if they are found in Iraq and are the correct quantity, type, and of the magnitude that the administration led us to believe we were fighting the war for they would no doubt proclaim a great victory. Powell would be singing praise and hailing his sweet lambchop Condaleza as the macest of all the NSAs, Rummy wouldnt shut his yap for another decade, Wolfowitz would be all over Hannity like white on rice proclaiming his vindication and the entire world would know that the US administration now felt they had the evidence that vindicated their position.

From the propositional calculus that we all know so well it holds true that If A & B then C as long as C has A and B as its premises
I dont think either A or B is debatable really.
C: That none of the above things are happening is a very good sign that what has been found to date is not substantial enough proof of active WMD programs to warrant a victory by those who chose to base war on the premise of WMDs
so to recap
A the admin wants to find them (in such a way that they are vindicated)
B the admin will celebrate when they do
C they are not celebrating in such a way as to indicate that they feel vindicated
therefore it is logically true that
D they have not found them

Die thread! Die!

[budanski]

Well, theres no point arguing that the WMD in the form of artillery shells (most likely from Iran-ear) would post absolutely no threat to the United States, even with the tubes. And defineatly shouldnt be considered an iminent (sp?) threat in any way, its just hardcore right wing's searching for reasons to justify there war for there president.

If it was a threat to anyone from the US it would be to the soldiers dealing with the weapons / testing them. Some iminent threat.....
Keep moving the goal posts.:roll: Ah, so now it's been redefined to: 'pose no threat to the United States...' They were required to destroy EVERYTHING they had, right down to the very last vial of anthrax and sarin gas shell. This according to the UN Resolutions Iraq had broken. The UN resolution regarding Iraq's WMDs states that any and all banned weapons had to be destroyed and their destruction verified. NO mention is made as to dates of manufacture, methods used, quantities etc. Also, Iraq was prohibited from even having programmes related to banned weapons. Oh well, the critics has never allowed facts to get in the way of their rhetoric.

Bush never said imminent threat or anything remotely close when he made the case for war (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html). Bush described Iraq’s chemical weapons programs and Saddam’s willingness to use them. Bush then asked, ‘does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?’ Bush is clear, Iraq might be dangerous now, but the real threat is in the future.

I don't like sounding like a broken record but this topic comes back up everytime. WMD was but one of many reasons to go into iraq. Future threats from WMDs, Saddam's human right abuses, A threat to the area, Saddam's support of terrorism, Iraq’s failure to meet its obligations it agreed to as conditions to ending the Persian Gulf War and Saddam’s ‘eleven-year history of defiance’. This defiance by many is considered the primary justification of war. However, Bush’s critics conveniently don’t mention this.

[n4292936]

Ok here is the debate ending point!!!
A: the presidential administration has a high interest is seeing that WMDs are found since its credibility is staked on it.
B: Therefore if they are found in Iraq and are the correct quantity, type, and of the magnitude that the administration led us to believe we were fighting the war for they would no doubt proclaim a great victory. Powell would be singing praise and hailing his sweet lambchop Condaleza as the macest of all the NSAs, Rummy wouldnt shut his yap for another decade, Wolfowitz would be all over Hannity like white on rice proclaiming his vindication and the entire world would know that the US administration now felt they had the evidence that vindicated their position.

From the propositional calculus that we all know so well it holds true that If A & B then C as long as C has A and B as its premises
I dont think either A or B is debatable really.
C: That none of the above things are happening is a very good sign that what has been found to date is not substantial enough proof of active WMD programs to warrant a victory by those who chose to base war on the premise of WMDs
so to recap
A the admin wants to find them (in such a way that they are vindicated)
B the admin will celebrate when they do
C they are not celebrating in such a way as to indicate that they feel vindicated
therefore it is logically true that
D they have not found them

Die thread! Die!
didnt you read this? no one's allowed to post here anymore - any further commentary is superflous. Please think about the poor electrons you're inconveniencing.

[Roxer]

Although Iraq is a big place (it took 4 years to find the first WMDs), I am not so concerned with the US finding them as I am the terrorists. That was the reason for the fear of WMDs in the first place - Saddam would give them to the terroists to use, not that he himself would use them. Hopefully they have not found a hidden stock pile, previously accounted for or not. . .

[budanski]

didnt you read this? no one's allowed to post here anymore - any further commentary is superflous. Please think about the poor electrons you're inconveniencing.
Who died and made you mod? ;)

[Trigger]

didnt you read this? no one's allowed to post here anymore - any further commentary is superflous. Please think about the poor electrons you're inconveniencing.
Who died and made you mod? ;)
Apparently no one told you: He knows it all.

[budanski]

Although Iraq is a big place (it took 4 years to find the first WMDs), I am not so concerned with the US finding them as I am the terrorists. That was the reason for the fear of WMDs in the first place - Saddam would give them to the terroists to use, not that he himself would use them. Hopefully they have not found a hidden stock pile, previously accounted for or not. . .
It took them almost 60 years to uncover some of Japan's WMDs (http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=270458)... ;)

[budanski]

Apparently no one told you: He knows it all.
It wouldnt hurt if you guys would just shoot me a pm. :(

[n4292936]

didnt you read this? no one's allowed to post here anymore - any further commentary is superflous. Please think about the poor electrons you're inconveniencing.
Who died and made you mod? ;)
Apparently no one told you: He knows it all.
ahh my unfailingly loyal supporter Trigger :D cheers bro

Im not the mod I just happen to have the rare gift of suffering from an acute case of alwaysisrightism. Of course I always defer to those whose affliction is worse than mine. Then there are others like Tane who suffer from the enviable illness of actuallyisrightitis.

[Tane Angle]

Yeah right. :oops: Try telling that to my wife next time her and I get in a disagreement.

Budanski and Trigger are actually often right on things too, we should remember. I'd say we all probably support a strong military, no? Besides, I'd like to consider them to be my friends, so let's be nice and respectful everyone.

Budanski does actually make some very good points, and I would agree that they would be valid causes for invading Iraq on two conditions: 1) If we had five to ten years to prepare and educate our forces and complete the transformation to a bi-force military. And 2) If limited-resources were not more urgently needed elsewhere. For starters, I think budanski knows that I am still concerned about the limited number of teams available to locate and track personnel, shipments, or other items.

I don't think the war in Iraq was the appropriate course of action, regardless of it being a good and, I think, moral cause. The humanitarian causes alone would have been enough under other circumstances, no? Were it not for AQO and other, more pressing threats, I would support such intervention. Perhaps budanski and those who agree with him, as well as n4292936 and those who agree with him, are both right in this discussion? They are not mutually exclusive, no? "Yes, a good and just war? No, not the right course of action at the current time?" No?

Also, let's face it, it's all a bit irrelavant now, as we have to stay there. Regardless of not really supporting being there in the first place, we are there now, and I would certainly not support a withdrawal or reduction in our efforts at rebuilding and restoring Iraq for the Iraqi people. So I'm not sure if any of the rest of it matters. Then again, this discussion is a bit like philosophy, in that even though it doesn't really matter what we think, because it doesn't change much of anything, it's still interesting to talk about.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Secret Squirrel]

Then again, this discussion is a bit like philosophy, in that even though it doesn't really matter what we think, because it doesn't change much of anything, it's still interesting to talk about.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Agreed, it's still philosophically and historically interesting to talk about. And it may have certain ramifications when Nov. rolls around.

[BlackRain]

It does not matter how many WMD are found in Iraq.

Some people are so firmly entrenched in their opinions that physical evidence would not convince them of the error of their ways.

It is anti-scientific thinking.

Anyway....

http://www.scifhost.com/images/guns/diethread2.jpg

[ArmedPacifist]

Anti-Semitic? WTF is wrong with your brain?

[Secret Squirrel]

Anti-Semitic? WTF is wrong with your brain?

Since when is anti-scientific also anti-semitic?

[ArmedPacifist]

WHOA!!! Huge error on my part. I apologize.

Anti-Scientific

Anti-Semetic

I just quickly read over his post because I was paying more attention to his graphic.

[Fintin]

so thats why scientests wear long white coats....

[WARPIG]

I don't get why there is such a need for proof or justification for the US to have gone to war with Iraq. One side says that there was WMD and it was all moved. I doubt it. The other side says that there were no WMD and the war is about oil. Get friggin real. The election coming up just brings a whole new crop of nit-picking and spin. What kind of moron really believes that there is this conspiracy by Bush and company to start a war in Iraq for frigging oil? The same kind of moron from the other side that thinks that Saddam Hussein moved all his WMD to Syria. Black on one side white on the other. Who cares about the age of the arty shells found! There were more than enough justifcations to go into Iraq. Yes.. oil was one of them. Terrorism was another. WMD was yet another. Some of you morons are chasing these bits and pieces of factoids from the media like a dog chasing it's tail. Keep letting the media supply your education and build a fortress of ignorance out of it.

Look past the little biased bits of facts and see the big picture. Bush put us into Iraq for a number of reasons. WMD, Saddam, terrorism, oil... all contribute to the USA making a democratic presence in the arabic world. What.. now I suppose someone wants some facts or a news article to show them where the connection is between Iraq and terrorism. Get a damn clue! WMD being found now is peanuts! We could find a couple of mobile WMD launchers, a logistics link to supply delivery systems, dual purpose factories... etc. All of it in Syria.. or wherever... and it still changes nothing. We are there now. We have a job to finish.

[Secret Squirrel]

Look past the little biased bits of facts and see the big picture. Bush put us into Iraq for a number of reasons. WMD, Saddam, terrorism, oil... all contribute to the USA making a democratic presence in the arabic world. What.. now I suppose someone wants some facts or a news article to show them where the connection is between Iraq and terrorism. Get a damn clue! WMD being found now is peanuts! We could find a couple of mobile WMD launchers, a logistics link to supply delivery systems, dual purpose factories... etc. All of it in Syria.. or wherever... and it still changes nothing. We are there now. We have a job to finish.

The big picture is Bush needs his claims to be proven to keep his credibility. Without that credibility, he has no right to condemn any other country who chooses to do what he did. What happens now if China invades Taiwan? China has released reports that Taiwan might attack a dam; oh my god, China better invade and occupy Taiwan before Taiwan attacks. Or how far do you think Bush's condemnation of Isreal's attacks on Hamas leaders go? I believe after one assassination Bush condemned it...why? Because some civilians died? The number of civilians who died during apache airstrikes pales in comparsion to the number who died during the invasion and ensuing occupation. Bush went to Iraq to get terrorists right? Isnt this the same thing for Isreal? Or can Bush do what he wants now, but every other country has to play by another set of rules? These are the questions and concerns that flood my mind when i think about the "evidence" Bush used to go to war.

[usa320]

boohoo...israel offed the Hamas leadership, cry me a river.

[Tane Angle]

Nice post, WARPIG. How are you doing?

Ok, this is purely a question of just rambling and too little sleep. After water and food, is there any natural resource more worth fighting over than oil? Believe me, you will be hard pressed to find anyone more supportive of a clean economy. However, even clean economies rely on plastics, which rely on low-grade petroleum, correct? I'm 54. Say I might need a pacemaker soon. Pacemakers have plastic in them, do they not?

Granted, the "No Blood for Oil" people might be referring to corporate control of Iraqi oil. I don't really buy into that, but that's just me. But in theoretical terms, say we faced a shortage of the petroleum needed for plastics? Or say that all of a sudden-theoretically-the OPEC nations refused to export oil to us any more. Think of the consequences if heating oil ran out and the power grid was threatened. Think of the consequences if fire, police, and rescue vehicles had no fuel? Or if the trains and trucks that bring us our food and other needs were going without fuel?

If the oil supply was threatened, there might be little worth fighting for more than oil. Again, this is just purely theoretical and philosophical ramblings.

Anyways, have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Secret Squirrel]

boohoo...israel offed the Hamas leadership, cry me a river.

So now you're against Bush's condemnation of at least one of Isreal's airstrikes. Cant you make up your mind? Dont you love Bush's America so much that you'll support Bush?

[WARPIG]

Nice post, WARPIG. How are you doing?

Ok, this is purely a question of just rambling and too little sleep. After water and food, is there any natural resource more worth fighting over than oil? Believe me, you will be hard pressed to find anyone more supportive of a clean economy. However, even clean economies rely on plastics, which rely on low-grade petroleum, correct? I'm 54. Say I might need a pacemaker soon. Pacemakers have plastic in them, do they not?

Granted, the "No Blood for Oil" people might be referring to corporate control of Iraqi oil. I don't really buy into that, but that's just me. But in theoretical terms, say we faced a shortage of the petroleum needed for plastics? Or say that all of a sudden-theoretically-the OPEC nations refused to export oil to us any more. Think of the consequences if heating oil ran out and the power grid was threatened. Think of the consequences if fire, police, and rescue vehicles had no fuel? Or if the trains and trucks that bring us our food and other needs were going without fuel?

If the oil supply was threatened, there might be little worth fighting for more than oil. Again, this is just purely theoretical and philosophical ramblings.

Anyways, have a good one, and just some thoughts...

I'm doing great boss!


Good point. I don't believe that oil has been the prime motivator in Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. But, like I said before.. there are too many other factors.

As far as having to prove his credibilty goes (secretsquirrel) any incumbant or presidential hopeful has to prove their credibility. If it truly is "Bush's America".. which it is not... then he doesn't really need to prove anything.. does he? We would all mindlessly just accept what we are told. Truth be told.. I think that George W's good ol boy politics are both hurting and helping him. Liberals and Democrats have plenty of fire power to sharp shoot him. But, those who support him see him as determined and no-nonsense. Both are a bit too naive.


Just one question... what amount..how new.. what kind... and where... would be an acceptable measure of proof that WMD existed pre-OIF? Rusty old shells not enough? Chemical stockpiles not enough? How about one of those James-bond style evil lairs under a lake? I understand that the WMD sell that Bush was using to get us to war doesn't seem too seaworthy. It is definately full of holes and stinks. But, what amount of proof would be enough at this point?

[usa320]

So now you're against Bush's condemnation of at least one of Isreal's airstrikes. Cant you make up your mind? Dont you love Bush's America so much that you'll support Bush?

Hey just because i support Bush's efforts in Iraq and most of his policies doesnt mean that i support his policies with regards to Israel. And lets face it, if it were up to Bush he would let Israel take the gloves off and demolish Hamas. But Bush has to condemn the attack to keep the whiners from whining.

[Secret Squirrel]

So now you're against Bush's condemnation of at least one of Isreal's airstrikes. Cant you make up your mind? Dont you love Bush's America so much that you'll support Bush?

Hey just because i support Bush's efforts in Iraq and most of his policies doesnt mean that i support his policies with regards to Israel. And lets face it, if it were up to Bush he would let Israel take the gloves off and demolish Hamas. But Bush has to condemn the attack to keep the whiners from whining.

So Bush has to be a hypocrite? No one could stop him from going to war in Iraq. So whats he afraid of if he shows support for Isreal's attacks on a group that is offically listed as a terrorist group by the U.S.

[Secret Squirrel]

Just one question... what amount..how new.. what kind... and where... would be an acceptable measure of proof that WMD existed pre-OIF? Rusty old shells not enough? Chemical stockpiles not enough? How about one of those James-bond style evil lairs under a lake? I understand that the WMD sell that Bush was using to get us to war doesn't seem too seaworthy. It is definately full of holes and stinks. But, what amount of proof would be enough at this point?

Bush mentioned in one speech about tons of chemical weapons that Saddam had stock piled (if it dates back to the Iraq-Iran war it wouldnt matter to me). So if at least a ton of chemical/biological WMDs were found that would satisify me.

Infrastructure that showed recent use, since 2001, and that could be confirmed that chemical/biological WMDs were produced (ie. residue testing or some way to confirm it).

A few shells that contain chemical/biological WMDs that were created since 2001; it wouldnt have to be a large amount of WMD's, even a couple shells that were created since 2001 would certainly make me bite my tongue.

[fantassin]

STOP PRESS !

WMD found in France !

About 150 tons of WW1 shells found every year in the fields of the North East of France since 1918, including dozens of chemical shells....

Shame ! the French have done it again....the first waves of TLAMs are expected any minutes over Paris....

[Secret Squirrel]

edit; already mentioned. :bash:

"Newsmax! Newsmax!" *hundreds of running people*

[WARPIG]

Just one question... what amount..how new.. what kind... and where... would be an acceptable measure of proof that WMD existed pre-OIF? Rusty old shells not enough? Chemical stockpiles not enough? How about one of those James-bond style evil lairs under a lake? I understand that the WMD sell that Bush was using to get us to war doesn't seem too seaworthy. It is definately full of holes and stinks. But, what amount of proof would be enough at this point?

Bush mentioned in one speech about tons of chemical weapons that Saddam had stock piled (if it dates back to the Iraq-Iran war it wouldnt matter to me). So if at least a ton of chemical/biological WMDs were found that would satisify me.

Infrastructure that showed recent use, since 2001, and that could be confirmed that chemical/biological WMDs were produced (ie. residue testing or some way to confirm it).

A few shells that contain chemical/biological WMDs that were created since 2001; it wouldnt have to be a large amount of WMD's, even a couple shells that were created since 2001 would certainly make me bite my tongue.

I understand. Secret squirrel will bite his tongue if we can find 1 ton of WMD but the fresh kind... not the old stale kind. Something to aspire to. What amount of WMD would it take to convince you of not being a quitter? More? Or is that just not something within our grasp?


Hate to be such a cynical a55 but ignoring all the other factors that led us to war is just stupid. Granted, George W. and gang have stepped on their own peckers more than once. I just don't get the whole "pull troops out.. it's not our problem," crap. If we waited for 100% proof or permission from everyone...well, I have always said that I'd rather act at the risk of failure rather than choose apathy for the safety of indifference.

[Secret Squirrel]

Just one question... what amount..how new.. what kind... and where... would be an acceptable measure of proof that WMD existed pre-OIF? Rusty old shells not enough? Chemical stockpiles not enough? How about one of those James-bond style evil lairs under a lake? I understand that the WMD sell that Bush was using to get us to war doesn't seem too seaworthy. It is definately full of holes and stinks. But, what amount of proof would be enough at this point?

Bush mentioned in one speech about tons of chemical weapons that Saddam had stock piled (if it dates back to the Iraq-Iran war it wouldnt matter to me). So if at least a ton of chemical/biological WMDs were found that would satisify me.

Infrastructure that showed recent use, since 2001, and that could be confirmed that chemical/biological WMDs were produced (ie. residue testing or some way to confirm it).

A few shells that contain chemical/biological WMDs that were created since 2001; it wouldnt have to be a large amount of WMD's, even a couple shells that were created since 2001 would certainly make me bite my tongue.

I understand. Secret squirrel will bite his tongue if we can find 1 ton of WMD but the fresh kind... not the old stale kind. Something to aspire to. What amount of WMD would it take to convince you of not being a quitter? More? Or is that just not something within our grasp?


Hate to be such a cynical a55 but ignoring all the other factors that led us to war is just stupid. Granted, George W. and gang have stepped on their own peckers more than once. I just don't get the whole "pull troops out.. it's not our problem," crap. If we waited for 100% proof or permission from everyone...well, I have always said that I'd rather act at the risk of failure rather than choose apathy for the safety of indifference.

No i said a stockpile of the old stuff would be fine. When did i say it would be wise to pull all the troops out of Iraq?