WMD's found in Iraq

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GScholz
I wish I has a picture of a big ugly troll doing the Nazi salute. I would have named it "Hortlund, the big ugly Swedish troll".

Skuzzy, please ban GS, or tell him to stop or whatever. I am tired of personal attacks like these.

[Maniac]

Being called a troll/troller is not a personal attack.

[Sandman]

Prophetic... http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-19-03.html

Sometime in the coming months, U.S. forces may well happen upon some VX canisters or anthrax stockpiles, and the administration will breathe a sigh of relief. Such a discovery may change the media's focus, but it can't change the facts: This war did not avert a serious threat to the United States. Instead, it may have created new ones.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Maniac


Being called a troll/troller is not a personal attack.

Being called a nazi is.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Put shell in backpack
Put explosives around shell
Put backpack on suicide bomber
Have suicide bomber detonate explosives while in some form of crowd

*figures the suicide bomber would be dead before reaching the crowd*

[yowser]

"....And in what way does that change the fact that this is a WMD?   "Yes its a WMD, but its an old WMD" <-- so the ***** what?".

Well obviously what you think consitutes WMD and what Bush thinks constitutes WMD are two entirely different things.  Do you not think if this fit the bill Bush wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops?  Bush wants to find WMD "almost" as bad as you evidently do.

By the way, you do know what WMD stands for right?  Just checking.  Some people seem to displaying an ignorance of the most basic facts.

yowser

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by yowser
"....And in what way does that change the fact that this is a WMD?   "Yes its a WMD, but its an old WMD" <-- so the ***** what?".

Well obviously what you think consitutes WMD and what Bush thinks constitutes WMD are two entirely different things.  Do you not think if this fit the bill Bush wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops?  Bush wants to find WMD "almost" as bad as you evidently do.

By the way, you do know what WMD stands for right?

yowser

Weapon of mass destruction. Meaning a weapon that kills indiscriminately.

By definition a chemical weapon is a weapon of mass destruction.

[yowser]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Weapon of mass destruction. Meaning a weapon that kills indiscriminately.

By definition a chemical weapon is a weapon of mass destruction.

So I guess you and Bush will just have to agree to disagree that these are WMD?

I wouldn't plan a career as a chemical weapons expert if I were you.

yowser

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by yowser
So I guess you and Bush will just have to agree to disagree that these are WMD?

I wouldn't plan a career as a chemical weapons expert if I were you.

yowser

*shrug* neither would I since I enjoy being a lawyer.

By definition a chemical weapon is a WMD. If you have a problem with this definition, take it up with someone who cares.

[yowser]

"...I enjoy being a lawyer. ".

That explains A LOT.'

Carry on.

yowser

[Nilsen]

LOL yowser  

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Skuzzy, please ban GS, or tell him to stop or whatever. I am tired of personal attacks like these.

Personal attacks are not bannable.  Have him post some chopper vids.

On a side note - anyone have a good argument why these blister gas filled artillery shells, which were stored in definance of numerous resolutions, never destroyed as promised, and lied about on the floor of the United Nations - should not be considered exactly what we're looking for?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Personal attacks are not bannable.  Have him post some chopper vids.

On a side note - anyone have a good argument why these blister gas filled artillery shells, which were stored in definance of numerous resolutions, never destroyed as promised, and lied about on the floor of the United Nations - should not be considered exactly what we're looking for?

...because the U.S. did not invade Iraq to enforce U.N. resolutions. The U.S. invaded Iraq because they "were" an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States. This was the argument for pre-emptive attack. Munitions long buried are proof that Hussein lied, but not proof of an imminent threat.

[yowser]

W = Weapons

M = Mass

D = Destruction


Your welcome.


yowser

[Toad]

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, I'm sure a few corroded and leaky shells of mustard gas were a clear and imminent threat to the security of the United States of America. Sure.

And the time is not all that far off, now that Saddam is in hand.

I don't personally consider this "stash" of mustard gas to be WMD "enough" to trigger an invasion.

OTOH..... and some of you dance around this..... they ARE chemical weapons. Now I haven't checked all the various UN pronouncements to see if they were on the "banned list" for Iraq.

The search isn't over yet. Hold the bile on both sides; give it another few months.

If Bush proves right about WMD, I'll probably vote for him.

If he proves wrong, I'll be voting for someone else, contributing to someone else and trying to sway votes for someone else.

After all, you can't go vigilante on a President, even if he deserves it. But you can kick him out.