Where did Syria get chemical weapons ??


Because like most of your questions, it's retarded.

Where did Syria get Chemical weapons? They made them.

We are talking about the cutting edge weapon of 1914 here, guy. Any fool can make a chemical weapon.
and if you people think that iraq didn't have chems you are insane.



Iraq did have chemical weapons! no doubt about it.
 
There is no such thing as "not subject to degradation". In binary chemical weapons, they are mixed after launch, so they won't degrade at the normal rate, however the components are still chemicals, and still degrade, and have a shelf life of their own.
 

Because like most of your questions, it's retarded.

Where did Syria get Chemical weapons? They made them.

We are talking about the cutting edge weapon of 1914 here, guy. Any fool can make a chemical weapon.
and if you people think that iraq didn't have chems you are insane.

No, insane is getting 4000+ Americans killed over Iraq.
 
Iraqi general Sada claimed that they moved chems and equipment to Syria.

Yeah, and yet no one was able to ever produce anyone who actually moved the WMD's,

nor were we ever able to find anyone who was involved in making them.

Apparently they were produced by magic, and moved by magic.

BBC News | Saddam's Iraq: Key events

I said to myself, don't bother opening that link because it will have nothing to do with anything I said.

I should have listened.
 

You can't get information from right-wing rags. Those chemical and even biological weapons are not that hard to make. There is a big damned desert between Iraq and Syria. There is one road through that desert to a border town that fell early in the Iraq War. It's absurd to play that Bush bullshit game that the WMD was moved to Syria. Cheney cooked the intelligence by using reports of raw intelligence that weren't confirmed. It's possible they even generated those intelligence reports. The CIA didn't sign off on the idea that Iraq had WMD, but that didn't stop Cheney. You idiots need to stop lying and realize the world knows they attacked Iraq without good cause. Once they got their hands on Saddam and no WMD, they should have withdrawn from Iraq to that neutral zone between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. They could always come back and kick their asses again, until they get it right.

That WMD in Iraq and the present "WMD" in Syria isn't uncommon for a country to have or manufacture. It would be uncommon for a country of any size or development to not have such weapons. Germany had plenty of those weapons, but didn't use them out of fear of retaliation. Some were destroyed after WWII in Huntsville, Alabama and hugh amounts were dumped into the Gulf of Mexico along with unexploded ordinance. It's something you have to watch out for when drilling for oil and gas in the Gulf.

Why do fools continue to post this crap and look for a fool to buy it? You need to stop looking for fools, you have them all.
 
Even is he gave Syria everything he had before he died, it wouldn't make a bit of difference now. There is no way chemicals from Saddam's era could still be viable now. Shelf life is a reality, even for evil dictators.

Wrong.

"CIA BELIEVES THAT A SUBSTANTIAL SEGMENT OF IRAQ'S NERVE AGENT STOCKPILE CONSISTS OF BINARY CHEMICAL WEAPONS--WHICH WOULD NOTBE SUBJECT TO DEGRADATION."

Subject: SHELF LIFE OF IRAQ'S CW AGENTS

Liberals are always spouting off on subjects they are totally ignorant about.

Irony.

You dipshits tried this before, and it was shown to you that the separated binary agents would degrade in less than ten years.
 
Last edited:
Keeping the precursors separate provides a shelf life of about 5 years:

Nations stockpiling sarin have tried to overcome the problem of its short shelf life in three ways. One way is to lengthen the shelf life of unitary (pure) sarin by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process. Another way to increase shelf life is by incorporating a stabilizer chemical. Initially used was tributylamine, but later this was replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), which allowed for sarin to be stored in aluminum casings. Finally, stockpiling of sarin can be improved by developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions. However, experts do not put the shelf life of this type of weapon past 5 years.

Sarin - New World Encyclopedia





The invasion of Iraq was nearly 10 years ago, people.
 
Because like most of your questions, it's retarded.

Where did Syria get Chemical weapons? They made them.

We are talking about the cutting edge weapon of 1914 here, guy. Any fool can make a chemical weapon.
and if you people think that iraq didn't have chems you are insane.

No, insane is getting 4000+ Americans killed over Iraq.
Not nearly as insane as getting 55,000+ Americans killed over Vietnam.
 
Even is he gave Syria everything he had before he died, it wouldn't make a bit of difference now. There is no way chemicals from Saddam's era could still be viable now. Shelf life is a reality, even for evil dictators.

Depends upon the chemical composition. The same applies to Biological. In addition storage temperature is another determining factor. Several people believe those responsible for Iraq's WMD's may have simply moved over to the highest bidder.

You're right, it does depend. I've seen reports that say as short as a few weeks and as long as a few years. But, going with the best possible scenario, that he gave them all he had the day he died, it would still be impossible for sarin to last that long.

So you're going to believe what you want to because after all it fits the liberal narrative. That BUSH was wrong about Iraq having WMD's...
It just cannot be true.
 

Because like most of your questions, it's retarded.

Where did Syria get Chemical weapons? They made them.

We are talking about the cutting edge weapon of 1914 here, guy. Any fool can make a chemical weapon.
and if you people think that iraq didn't have chems you are insane.

Except we invaded the country and found none.

Nor did we find one credible witness who claimed, "oh, yeah, we sent all of those to Saddam's mortal enemy, Bashir Assad... ummmm. because, yeah, we did!"

Frankly, exactly what would Saddam get out of that? It wouldn't have stopped the invasion, and Assad wouldn't have given them back if Saddam ever did get back into power.
 
Depends upon the chemical composition. The same applies to Biological. In addition storage temperature is another determining factor. Several people believe those responsible for Iraq's WMD's may have simply moved over to the highest bidder.

You're right, it does depend. I've seen reports that say as short as a few weeks and as long as a few years. But, going with the best possible scenario, that he gave them all he had the day he died, it would still be impossible for sarin to last that long.

So you're going to believe what you want to because after all it fits the liberal narrative. That BUSH was wrong about Iraq having WMD's...
It just cannot be true.

There are no such thing as liberal and conservative facts.

Bush claimed Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction". Note, he didn't say, "Old Mustard gas shells with degraded chemicals in them", because no one would have gotten terribly worked up about that. Biological and Nuclear weapons scare people.

Now, in the interest of equal time and fairness, Bill Clinton rattled the sabers just as loudly about the "WMD"s and links to Al Qaeda... neither of which turned out to be true. But Bush decided it was a big enough deal to go to war over... probably because Saddam tried to assassinate his pappy!
 

Forum List

Back
Top