WMD's found in Iraq

Missileer said:
Well, if Dan Rather, poster boy of the left, hadn't been kicked off the air for blatantly lieing, he could have broke this story.
Click to expand...
I'm Dan Rather and tonight on CBS NewSS: SSSeven SSSSaudi SSSSSoldiers SSSSSSSodomized SSSSSSSeveral of SSSSSSSSudan'S SSSSSSSSouthern SSSSSSSSSSettlement SSSSSSSSSSquatters.

This article said they were old decayed weapons. Hardly able to cause mass destruction.
 
mmarsh said:
True, but I happen to agree with that. I think the Guard shouldnt be used in combat except in thr case of a National Emergency. The Guards absence during KATRINA was particularily noticable.
Click to expand...
That is what they are intended for...National Guard...just look at the name...They are meant to protect the nation...I suppose when you've exhausted the nations Active Duty and Reserves, you just have to call the National Guard.
 
To all of you who say the sarin shells are useless, would you lick one of them? Just because sarin and mustard gas is old doesn't mean it's not deadly, just degraded.
 
See that, what Henderson just said is exactly the reason why I think the Guard should be abolished and we should have Regular Army and Reserves. So many people think that the Guard's job is just to sit at home, do their thing once a week and collect a paycheck. If the Guard's only reason for existing is to protect the Homeland then there is no point in it existing, the Navy has and will continue to handle that job with relative ease. Sorry to break it to you guys, but when a nation is surrounded by 3,000 miles of ocean on one side and 7,000 on the other a land based Army will have very little say in defending the nation.

The Guard is a reserve unit, to back up the Regular Army in times of need, thanks to the effects of Vietnam the Guard is now taking a more active role in any military action that the United States takes part in. If you have a problem with this you need to get your a** out of the Guard because when/if I go into combat I don't want the guy beside me there because he thought he was joining the Guard to defend against some threat that doesn't even exist and that he thought would never come.

BTW, Henderson, was it not you who sent me several PM's saying that by going out and attacking Al Qaeda positions in Afghanistan the Guard was in effect guarding the nation from possible future terrorist attacks?
 
Damien435 said:
See that, what Henderson just said is exactly the reason why I think the Guard should be abolished and we should have Regular Army and Reserves. So many people think that the Guard's job is just to sit at home, do their thing once a week and collect a paycheck. If the Guard's only reason for existing is to protect the Homeland then there is no point in it existing, the Navy has and will continue to handle that job with relative ease. Sorry to break it to you guys, but when a nation is surrounded by 3,000 miles of ocean on one side and 7,000 on the other a land based Army will have very little say in defending the nation.

The Guard is a reserve unit, to back up the Regular Army in times of need, thanks to the effects of Vietnam the Guard is now taking a more active role in any military action that the United States takes part in. If you have a problem with this you need to get your a** out of the Guard because when/if I go into combat I don't want the guy beside me there because he thought he was joining the Guard to defend against some threat that doesn't even exist and that he thought would never come.

BTW, Henderson, was it not you who sent me several PM's saying that by going out and attacking Al Qaeda positions in Afghanistan the Guard was in effect guarding the nation from possible future terrorist attacks?
Click to expand...
The National Guard has turned away or discharged more potential recruits because of that very mindset. They think that by joining the Guard, they will not go to war. The thing is, just about now, the Army National Guard IS the regular Army...They are being deployed just as fast as the regular active duty...Just last week we had an MP unit deploy.:salute:. Yes, Damien, that was me, and I still stand by that logic. They are doing their part to Guard the Nation. Someone once said, "The best defence is a good offence."
 
Missileer said:
To all of you who say the sarin shells are useless, would you lick one of them? Just because sarin and mustard gas is old doesn't mean it's not deadly, just degraded.
Click to expand...


That depends on the level of the degradation. Sarin gas has a very short life span and evaporates very quickly in the air at room temperature. The Sarin gas Iraq uses is particulary weak due to a unknown containment during production. Given this and the amount of time they were sitting around I'll hazard a guess that within 30 years they had lost most of their potency. Not that I would want to lick one, but then again I wouldnt lick a smokestack belching arsenic 24 hours a day either, and there is a much greater risk or Arsenic poisoning then of Sarin gas in the US.
 
Mid-term Election FUBAR ....

moving0target said:
Yes. Let us all laud CNN for only presenting one side of the story.

Topic:

It may be that 500 is "not very much" but it isn't a bad find in a 437,072 sq km sand pile. I fail to understand how this gets turned around, though. Somehow finding 500 shells of "old" chemicals that are "less dangerous than waste from factories" means that Saddam didn't have WMDs? I may not drive around with a Bush sticker on my car, but I really feel for the guy on this point. They could find an ICBM fueled up on a launch pad in Iraq, and Bush bashers would still claim he lied.
Click to expand...

What's so suspicious to me is the fact that this information has been available since 2003 and it's ONLY NOW being released by Republican politicians and Republican mouthpieces as we approach the Mid-term Elections ... how sad.

I hate to further disabuse you ... even the weapons inspectors stated in their final reports that Saddam DID NOT have a major stockpile of WMDs NOR a viable military Chemical program at the time of the invasion.

As far as your ICBM comment ... IF this were to happen I WOULD retract every single statement that I have made on this subject since the first day of the invasion ... but ... it's just like every other pro-Bush statement that I have thus far seen, IT'S A GREAT BIG EMPTY BAG OF AIR WHERE CONTENT IS CONCERNED, WITH NO BASIS IN FACT AND NO HOPE OF EVER BEARING FRUIT.
 
I said it in the 'other' thread and I'll say it again ... I find it awfully suspicious that this information (which was known since 2003), was promulgated by Republican politicians and Republican mouthpieces just prior to the Mid-term Elections ... HOW SAD. The released information about WMDs that are so degraded that they CAN NOT be used, was divulged in hopes of bolstering GW's and the Republican's sagging numbers. Definitely NOT proof of the large WMD stockpiles (or) the Chemical Program which was used as justification for the invasion.

Typical partisan political plan for Washington DC. (Almost as good as the post-Iraqi War policy).
 
IF this were to happen I WOULD retract every single statement that I have made on this subject since the first day of the invasion ... but ... it's just like every other pro-Bush statement that I have thus far seen, IT'S A GREAT BIG EMPTY BAG OF AIR WHERE CONTENT IS CONCERNED, WITH NO BASIS IN FACT AND NO HOPE OF EVER BEARING FRUIT.
Click to expand...

I'd have to ask for the removal of your caps lock key and your bold button along with that retraction. :D

I, too, am interested to learn the real reason this report wasn't made public earlier. I'll hold my judgement as to whether it's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy until a few more facts have come out. I certainly don't expect Bush-haters to do that, since they're largely a judgmental bunch who usually aren't terribly concerned with facts when there's hangin' to be done.
 
I'll say it again, this story is Bull. I don't think this is even Karl Rove's handiwork as Rove tends to be much more clever in the bogus stories he plants. This one is was just plain sloppy. A 3 years old newssource? A couple of ancient arty shells from 30 years ago? Does they really think we dont know the difference between a viable weapons program and leftover unusable junk? This was amateur hour ain the GOP spin machine and it underscores how totally out of touch the Bush Administration is from reality.

The thing is the GOP might have gotten away with it had they not been caught in so many lies previously. The GOP biggest problem is not the Democrats, its the fact that with the exception of the Bush apologists, nobody believes a damn word they say anymore, not even from within their own party.
 
Last edited:
No, I only joined this board 8 months ago.

And lets be honest Bush won because of a highly effective smear campaign. The same way he won against Al Gore, the same way he beat John McCain, the same way he beat Ann Richards.

The difference was in 2004, Bush enjoyed a popularity of 52% now its down to 35%. Even killing Zarquiwi didnt help him much. Guess who America blames for all our problems? ALL the polls say that the GOP will most certainly pay for its incompentance, the question is by how much. Which is the $64K question.
 
Wait...You're saying the mustard gas is unusable? Then do what Missileer said to do, go lick a tank of it. A European farmer was plowing fields, hit a WW2 mustard gas tank, and wiped out an entire village. Don't try to tell me that mustard gas has an expiration date.
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
Wait...You're saying the mustard gas is unusable? Then do what Missileer said to do, go lick a tank of it. A European farmer was plowing fields, hit a WW2 mustard gas tank, and wiped out an entire village. Don't try to tell me that mustard gas has an expiration date.
Click to expand...
You won't hear me say that ... what I will tell you is that the weapons were and are unusable by any weapons system that I have ever heard of. The degradation of the containers precludes them being utilized.

Can the chemicals be used in ANY way, I don't know and the disclosure documents didn't say. The bottom line however, is that these weapons were pre-1990 weapons and can no longer be utilized in a conventional delivery system. The number of weapons found (500) is such a small drop in the bucket of the total claimed by GW, that I ask the following: Where are the major stockpiles and where are the chemical programs that were supposed to exist prior to the invasion of Iraq??? Non-existent..............
 
I used the caps to make a valid observation ... every time that I have seen any comment that is pro-Bush, closer investigation shows that the commentary has absolutely little or no valid content. Otherwise - a big empty bag of air.
 
500 chemical weapons? Big deal. Dig a while in France and you will find hundreds more. Send some divers to the North Sea...crates of the stuff. I find it hard to imagine that the United States would attack a country because of 500 surplus chemical weapons. And, come on, sarin? Mustard gas? Unlike Sarin, that stuff does not even kill. Will the US now classify phosgene or chlorine as a chemical weapon? How about salt? It causes a burning sensation when exposed to skin...after a while...and if you rub the skin beforehand, that is. And DAMN! Them Arabs got lots of salt.

My Question: Was the Bush administration referring to Gulf I surplus or the facilities for producing more?
 
mmarsh said:
No, I only joined this board 8 months ago.
Click to expand...
And I asked if you thought and said the same things before 2004, not if you told them here.

Chief Bones, so many times have I repeated how the WMD's (of which we have found less quantities but not "nothing whatsoever"=> the WMD's were not "non-existent") were only one of three main reasons Bush brought out to go into Iraq, and the other two were proved right.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top