Report: Us has found over 500+ chemical munitions in IRAQ

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Jun 22 2006, 11:34 AM) [snapback]275252[/snapback]</div>

Well, yea, when before Gulf War I, I expect he planned on killing his enemies with them. Then he got his butt kicked, and was told to dump them. Some apparently didn't get dumped...

Hey, auto salvage yards around here have lots of cars, some of which might run. Some yards are abandoned, but the cars remain.

It's not hard to have stuff get left behind that you don't really want anymore...

Nah, I'm just pointing out how none of the actively-being-developed WOMD that Bush told us was there was there. Just old crap that some people think is worth mentioning to try to salvage Bush's unsalvageable creditability.

You know, where people told him new stuff wasn't there, but he told us it was anyway?

for i=1 to infinity
{
lie_to_invade():
}

That kind of thing...

 

Funny, here I was under the impression that the UNSCOM people did not find ANY WMD that was not accounted for.

Also, I seem to remember much rhetoric in the US Congress, from all 'sides' about WMD (Saddam had 'em, he still has 'em)

Then, there are those pesky UN resolutions, 17 of them defied , as I recall....

And, for all of you who think that 'old' munitions and chemicals are safe and benign, please go to your shed, find that old can of Raid or Malathion, read the label and if you still think the Iraqi stuff is safe, inhale deeply...

Pesticides are pesticides, even when given names like Sarin and Zyklon

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Jun 21 2006, 08:43 PM) [snapback]275064[/snapback]</div>

Hi. I'm an exception. I'm a Democrat. Have been my entire life, and probably will continue to be one for the rest of my life, though that's (hopefully) a long time from now, and anything could happen. I personally help others more than I help myself. I will gladly admit that I can be very selfish at times, but no more so than any random person you pick. Oh, and while I don't support the war, I do realize that at some point or another it (or another similar war) would have happened. Better that it happen on our terms rather than someone else's.

And while it may have been believed that bin Laden was in Iraq at one point or another (and probably was), as I recall, we did not invade Iraq to find him. We went there to hunt terrorists, and it quickly turned into liberating Iraq. Which I'm sure they are happy to be out from under Saddam. However (and I may be wrong on this), I don't think it will last. They didn't earn their freedom themselves, therefore they will have less appreciation of it, therefore they will be more likely to lose it. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion. We'll see how things go.

On the other hand, I would have much preferred that the money being spent on liberating and rebuilding Iraq have stayed in the U.S. and supported our people. We can't take care of others if we can't take care of ourselves.

 

For several of your points, especially relating to campaign tactics and hidden agendas, I could (and do on occasion) say the same of Republicans.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Jun 22 2006, 09:15 AM) [snapback]275276[/snapback]</div>

I don't. He is a little too stubborn about doing things his way instead of the "right" way. And yes, I realize that in many situations, defining the "right" way is EXTREMELY difficult and contentious, especially when a large portion of the population is misled into believing the wrong thing is "right."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Jun 22 2006, 09:15 AM) [snapback]275276[/snapback]</div>

I want someone with convictions and principles, but who also realizes that they may very well be wrong, and is willing to adjust their actions (and in some cases their convictions/principles) if they are wrong.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Jun 22 2006, 09:15 AM) [snapback]275276[/snapback]</div>

Now that, I agree with 100%.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jtullos @ Jun 22 2006, 09:02 AM) [snapback]275270[/snapback]</div>

There is hope for the Democratic Party which America needs.
Most of my rants do not include you or your type of liberal/democrat so sorry bout dat!
I don't think you are wrong with the longeitivy of democracy in that region of the world. Especially if we cut and run now.


OMG!

1) I said something nice about the Libs!
2) Gave an apology.
3) An agreed with "one of them"


We're Doomed boys, cut and run for the hills. . . :lol:

Wildkow

 

My three-tiered argument for classifying this as ultimately hogwash (in the context of trying to use it to justify the arguments used in the Iraq war):

-There was said to be an IMMEDIATE and URGENT threat of danger from the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
-The arguments that IsrAmeriPrius cited, along with the Defense Dept. official
-A look at Iraq history to see how these degraded (probably completely unusable) weapons got into Iraq, and how Saddam got power. I suggest you start with Wikipedia for this third tier.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jun 22 2006, 09:58 AM) [snapback]275296[/snapback]</div>

Don't feel too bad, I've had people mistakenly think I'm Republican and/or Conservative before. And people have said I'm one of the best Christians they've ever met. Which is even funnier to me, because I'm an Atheist. I've also had annoyances getting on a plane before because my seat was in the exit row and they thought I was under 16 (I was 21 at the time).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Jun 22 2006, 08:49 AM) [snapback]275259[/snapback]</div>

Did it ever occur to you that given the age of these chemicals that they may have been part of the Rumsfeld package that we provided Saddam during the 80's? You know, like the same ones used to gas the Kurds. Perhaps that's why the White House hasn't touted the discovery.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 21 2006, 07:50 PM) [snapback]275024[/snapback]</div>

One of the things I've heard about 'degraded' weapons like this is that they are still just as dangerous as always in terms of the chemicals, but the capacity for the shell to burn rapidly and disperse the chemical over a wide area is degraded. They would still be great to use in an improvised manner on a subway, for instance. But on the battlefield they would have limited range.

I wonder how much time is required to restore the capacity for the shells to explode overhead and wipe out thousands?

There is a reason the government did not want this report declassified, and while this is only conjecture, it may be that it would be better for Al Quida to believe that there are no WMD than to think that somewhere in Iraq are still "degraded" chemical weapons lying about and available for the taking.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Begreen @ Jun 22 2006, 08:31 PM) [snapback]275627[/snapback]</div>

Your saying we supplied WMD to the Iraqi's? If so yeah, I guess I would say that could be the reason they didn't tout the discovery except they used it as a part of the justification to invade and therefore knew it before hand. Even so I think we have had a ban on the production and distribution so you will have to furnish some proof before I believe this story.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jun 22 2006, 10:28 PM) [snapback]275671[/snapback]</div>

We did give money, weapons, and training to the Iraqi's (remember way back) to fight the Iranians. It conceivable that Saddam took the money and the resources to buy and stockpile other stuff while being an ally of the U.S.

 

Excerpted from Philadelphia Inquirer

dickpolman.blogspot.com


This purported revelation about the 500 chemical munition shells has already been knocked down by: Bush himself, the White House's Iraq Survey Group, and (yesterday) a senior Defense Department official. In addition, a Bush national security official refused today to characterize the story as important; last Sunday, when Bush press secretary Tony Snow was first asked about it, he simply brushed it off.

The shells, found buried in 2004 near the Iranian border, were leftovers from Iraq's war with Iran, which ended in 1988; U.S. inspectors have long concluded that these shells were no longer active, and should not be categorized as part of the WMD stockpile that Saddam Hussein supposedly possessed on the eve of the American invasion. Even the declassified document cited by Santorum points out that the shells were "degraded."

Indeed, the Iraq Survey Group, led by Charles Duelfer, concluded two years ago that Hussein "unilaterally" destroyed his active chemical weapons in 1991, and wrote that "there are no credible indications that (he) resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Jun 23 2006, 02:56 AM) [snapback]275710[/snapback]</div>

That's not what begreen is saying. He states that we, the USA, gave him the WMD's. A typical ploy used by his kind, make a false accusation and then "Cut N Run" to another topic and use the same tactic. Look up larkinmj and IsrAmeriPrius they do it all the time and never respond when challenged. This type will never tell you the truth even when it benefits their cause because it is an anathema to them. They support terror, dicator's and despot's all the while tearing down America. Just more Bottom Feeding Scum from the Far Far Left.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jun 23 2006, 06:23 PM) [snapback]276095[/snapback]</div>

And I'm saying we need to take responsibility for helping Saddam directly or indirectly. We gave training/weapons to the Taliban also.

Many of our problems seem self-inflicted.