WMD's found in Iraq - Page 5




 
--
 
June 23rd, 2006  
Rob Henderson
 
 
The chemicals may not be huge stockpiles of WMDs, but I still believe they could cause plenty of damage and chaos.
June 23rd, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
It is unwise to argue with fools. Present the information and walk away. People will draw their own conclusions regardless of what you or I or anyone says. Oftentimes they will do this without reading the entire source and if they do more often they will not comprehend what they are reading.
June 23rd, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Removing Saddam needed to be done regardless of the arguments presented. The right thing to do is the right thing to do whether one person or a billion people agree.
--
June 23rd, 2006  
Rob Henderson
 
 
It was on the priority list anyway wasn't it?

Edit, sorry, my connection is slow so i didnt see you said the same thing, bulldogg.
June 23rd, 2006  
Chief Bones
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
....
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.
You are wrong in your assertion ...
Not one single justification for the invasion has been proven to have ANY validity ... a hand full of WMDs doesn't prove a stockpile ... no chemical program was ever discovered ... no nuclear material or nuclear program was ever uncovered ... no major connection to Al-Qaeda have ever been proven .............. I can go on and on and on with the various excuses that have been spoon fed to the world as justification for the invasion and NOT ONE SINGLE reason has ever been proven.

The ONLY reason that HAS NOT been dis-proven, has been revenge for Saddam's plan to have Bush Sr assassinated. As a matter of fact, there is more evidence for this assertion than for any other justification that has been offered to date.
June 23rd, 2006  
Chief Bones
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moving0target
.......
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 too would like to see "definitive" information as to why they waited this long to divulge this information ... the main problem with reserving judgement, is the track record of the Bush administration and the Republicans during the time that GW and the Republicans have controlled the Whitehouse, the Senate and the House. Ever since GW made the decision to invade Iraq, any information which has been released by pro-Bush forces has had to be viewed with a whole lot of scepticism. Their spin control has twisted facts so far that you don't know where the truth starts and the lies end.

And yes, I have never denied that I don't like GW ... but ... that doesn't change the facts ... GW and the spin machine have raised grave doubts about the accuracy of information that is put out by Bush's minions. History has shown that they aren't to be trusted to tell the truth.
June 23rd, 2006  
Italian Guy
 
 
I happen to soundly disagree with you as I have explained everywhere. To this day, if someone still believes the major three reasons Bush mentioned to go into Iraq were lies it means they do not want to open their eyes on the truth.
June 23rd, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Give me an ounce of sarin and I can make an ied that will wipe out a battalion Chief. Doesn't need to be delivered by a known weapon system, ied's are all the rage and I have been making them since I was 14. Matchsticks, threaded 3/4 inch pipe and an ounce of sarin... g'night.
June 23rd, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
Henderson

I said Sarin gas. Not Mustard. Thats a big difference because Mustard gas can keep its potency much longer due to its higher pressure. And I am not saying the canisters arn't dangerous what I saying is there is far more dangerous stuff around then a few old shells. Follow on Bones reply he it the nail on the head. A degraded shell of sarin gas is unusable. That hardly represents a threat.

Besides these are artillery shells not a ballistic missile warheads. How on earth was Saddam supposed to deliever the gas to the USA. There is not an artillery piece in exsistence that could fire a shell that far. He wouldnt even have been able to have hit Isreal. These were tactical weapons not strategic...

Italian Guy

Those who dont want to open their eyes now represents almost 60% of Americans. More and more people view this war as a serious error including several neocons.
June 23rd, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Hundreds of artillery shells are being used with devestating effect in Iraq without an artillery piece in sight. IEDs ladies and germs, they can be chemical as well as conventional in their lethality.
 


Similar Topics
What you didn't know about Iraq
New Rules In Iraq May Make It Tougher To Keep Insurgents
Shaking hands with Sadam Hussein
PM to send more troops to Iraq
20 Lies of anti-terror and Iraq war by Bush in 90 mins!!!