Remember folks when you read this ...THERE WERE NEVER NEVER any WMDs!!!

[mudwhistle]

Is this big news to the rwers today? Since multiple threads are sprouting..

Yeah.

It means the center piece of the argument "Bush Lied, People Died" is a Bullshit, and thus the argument that the Iraqi War was based on a falsehood is an epic fail.

Bush said history would eventually vindicate him. He knew they found them and knew that it was decided not to reveal this fact because of the origin of the weapons. Anyone who has been to the Middle East knows Arabs always buy everything. They rarely make it themselves. The threat that Saddam was planning on doing it was too great to risk to allow it to continue. Political pressure was building and it appeared that Iraq was going the route that Iran currently is. Imagine Iran and Iraq trading thermonuclear bombs in an all out war.

 

[Theowl32]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

 

[GreenBean]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

The U.S. military refers to WMD as: Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear,radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Care4all]

That makes two threads on this topic....both misrepresenting the matter. Congrats.

actually it is now the 3RD thread on this...

How many bullshit threads have we see that BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED? And your panties are in a twist because breaking news is being reported that exposes the truth?

you can see my panties grampa?

 

[Kondor3]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

Then we will simply have to disagree.

Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, repeatedly, during their 1980s war.

Iraq used chemical weapons against their own people at Halabja in 1988.

Nobody believed that he had destroyed his stockpiles.

Like I said... old news... dog bites man.

 

[Kondor3]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

The U.S. military refers to WMD as: Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear,radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nobody disputes the nature or definition of WMD.

The entire world already knew that Iraq had chemical weapons.

The entire world already knew that Iraq had biological weapons.

Why?

Because they'd already used them - repeatedly - against Iran, and, to a lesser extent, domestically (chemical ones, anyway).

The (supposed) mystery lay in the nuclear component.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

That makes two threads on this topic....both misrepresenting the matter. Congrats.

actually it is now the 3RD thread on this...

How many bullshit threads have we see that BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED? And your panties are in a twist because breaking news is being reported that exposes the truth?

you can see my panties grampa?

Are you offering?

 

[GreenBean]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

 

[GreenBean]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

The U.S. military refers to WMD as: Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear,radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nobody disputes the nature or definition of WMD.

The entire world already knew that Iraq had chemical weapons.

The entire world already knew that Iraq had biological weapons.

Why?

Because they'd already used them - repeatedly - against Iran, and, to a lesser extent, domestically (chemical ones, anyway).

The (supposed) mystery lay in the nuclear component.

This Semantic two step shuffle shoe kinda reminds me of slick Willy Clinton "I did not have Sex with that Woman !" then a few months later "Define Sex"

 

[Kondor3]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

What matters is 4000 dead American kids - and 32000 wounded ones - as well as Coalition troops, mercs and scores of thousands of civilians.

 

[ogibillm]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

These unusable, leaking shells with unstable contents were not wmds

 

[Care4all]

That makes two threads on this topic....both misrepresenting the matter. Congrats.

actually it is now the 3RD thread on this...

How many bullshit threads have we see that BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED? And your panties are in a twist because breaking news is being reported that exposes the truth?

you can see my panties grampa?

Are you offering?

uhhhhhh, no!

 

[mudwhistle]

The elites are laughing at you chattle. Really, they are.

==============
chattle..???
an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property

what fuck is this supposed to mean ? CHATTLE ?????

Chattel is the same as property.

 

[Theowl32]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

These unusable, leaking shells with unstable contents were not wmds

Actually read the article.

BTW Kondor. You see how the liberals all along tried to say that saddam did not even have chemical weapons?

This one is still trying to claim it.

It is almost as though he did not read the article.

Man, it really is a conundrum for the left being that it is being reported by the NY Times and not Breitbart. It will not matter. They climbed too high on the ladder trying to claim saddam did not have ANY WMDs, that they need to just ignore the NY Times article and simply assume that the source is from some Tea Party site.

What a conundrum.

 

[GreenBean]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

 

[mudwhistle]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

These unusable, leaking shells with unstable contents were not wmds

They we're usable and it doesn't take much of a dosage to cause a reaction. There is usually some residual spillage when filling warheads. The trick is wearing protective gear when handling them.

 

[Theowl32]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

These unusable, leaking shells with unstable contents were not wmds

They we're usable and it doesn't take much of a dosage to cause a reaction. There is usually some residual spillage when filling warheads. The trick is wearing protective gear when handling them.

Plus, according to the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE, they were used.

So, he can shove that up his ass.

 

[ogibillm]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

These unusable, leaking shells with unstable contents were not wmds

They we're usable and it doesn't take much of a dosage to cause a reaction. There is usually some residual spillage when filling warheads. The trick is wearing protective gear when handling them.

According to the article, they were not usable. They were also all pre-1991. They are not validation for the wmd claims made by the bush admin

 

[ogibillm]

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

These unusable, leaking shells with unstable contents were not wmds

They we're usable and it doesn't take much of a dosage to cause a reaction. There is usually some residual spillage when filling warheads. The trick is wearing protective gear when handling them.

Plus, according to the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE, they were used.

So, he can shove that up his ass.

Not in their intended manner. Additionally, they weren't capable of causing mass destruction

 

[Care4all]

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

That's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES

it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES

it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...

It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....