Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

[Billo_Really]

Irrelevant.

They DID under 18 USC §2332a) in that they consisted of being

(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;

Try again.

Ya know, it's pretty fuckin' embarassing when someone throws your own fuckin' post in your face to prove you're wrong.

But that's what you're forcing me to do.

 

[jtpr312]

I really don't understand how the leftists can continue to deny Sadam had WMD's when there is abundant evidence, from both civilized and muslim sources, that show HE USED WMD'S on many occassions.

Having viable chemical weapons in the 1980's is NOT synonymous with having them two decades later. The shelf life on those things is like strawberries.

And nothing Saddan EVER had - even if it WERE viable - would create a "mushroom cloud over an American city".

Well you're obviously misinformed. A small nuclear device, easily transportable, is quite capable of creating a mushroom cloud over an American city and that was one of the things sadam was trying to aquire, but that's irelevent. Sadam showed he had the ability to lauch missles into neighboring nations, such as Israel, so what would stop him from creating a mushroom cloud over an allie's city? Furthermore, though the shelf life on a chemical agent, ONCE MIXED, is relatively short, such as 5yrs for some agents, the chemical compounds needed to produce them are easily available, easily stockpiled and eaisly stored for long periods of time, meaning since we KNOW he used them as late as 1991, there was a better than even chance of him still retaining these compounds 10yrs later. We also KNOW that sadam started a Biological Weapons program in the 80's and these types of weapon payloads often times have shlf lives of decades and longer. We KNOW that as late as 91 the sadam government had weaponized 6,000 liters of B. anthracis spores and 12,000 liters of botulinum toxin in aerial bombs, rockets, and missile warheads that were deployed but never used. The Mukhabarat was know to have continued research and developement of biological weapons up till the late 90's and beyond into the early part of the new century.

 

[jtpr312]

He used chemical weapons on the Kurds that is definitely true.

Many of us, myself included, refute the claim that those are weapons of MASS destruction.

they're not.

They're tactical weapons with very limited killing power.

So what that means is that this isn't a debate about the facts, its a rhetorical debate about what a WMD is.

You can refute it all you wish to, that doesn't make it so. Chemical weapons ARE defined as WMD's. Below you will numerous defintions of the phrases WMD's and NBC Weapons, which EVERY reputable source, which leaves out liberals and their news propogandists out of course.

NBC Weapon-weapon of mass destruction (WMD). Weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction indiscriminately and on a massive scale.

Weapon of mass destruction-The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC)

NBC Weapons-Noun, 1. weapon of mass destruction - a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) ...
Brittanica; Weapons of mass destrcution; weaponary-Modern weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons—frequently referred to collectively as NBC weapons.

There's dozens more.

Nobody denies that chemical weapons ARe weapons.

But Define MASS destruction for me. Be specific.

How much area does a chemical attack include?

Is a chemical attack more destructive or deadly than a carpet bombing with napalm?

The answer is no, chemical weapons are NOT more destructive than CONVENTIONAL weapons.

There's the problem wqith calloing them weapons of MASS destruction.

That's not reality, kiddo, that hyperbole.

Chemical weapons do not meet the criteria that makes them suitable as a MASS weapon.

Until recently the term for those weapons were that they were part of the NBC warfare arsenal.

And this new definition of WMDs is entirely contrived FOR the purpose of making an scary excuse to invade this nation.

I did, right in this post you reponded to, did you actually read it? Let me highlight it for you. By the way, the definition of WMD is no longer considered to be carpet bombing and has not been since 45. Though that was the first usage of the term WMD, by the London Times, to describe a German bombing of a Basque town on Franco's orders, that definition went out of use after we dropped the Atomic weapons on Japan. Chemical weapons being classified as WMD's has been around since the Cold War. Nothing "new" about it. And yes one chemical warhead IS capable of being more desrtructive than one warhead carrying conventional weapons whether that warhead is delivered by bomb, missle, rocket or artillery shell, so the EXPERTS call chemical weapons WMD's. That some faceless, nameless, drone on a blog says it ain't so, means nothing. By the way, the term NBC describes WMD's as noted above in my post you responded to.

 

[jtpr312]

I really don't understand how the leftists can continue to deny Sadam had WMD's when there is abundant evidence, from both civilized and muslim sources, that show HE USED WMD'S on many occassions.

There were no WMD's in that country past 1993.

That's an unfactual statement according to the Iraqis themselves.

 

[jtpr312]

Look at all the right wing dunces here trying to convince, well themselves that the Iraq invasion and occupation was anything other than an illegal war for the control of oil.

Well the world has made it's judgment and all the hyperbolic insistence that a few leftover chemical weapons could ever justify what we did has been rejected by all but the few right wing nut jobs who populate this board.

Whoa, slow down there skippy. Most right wing nut jobs as you call them, don't give a crap whether they had WMD's or not and consider the fact that we put paid to an enemy of civlized people everywhere, an enemy that fired on US Warplanes in pursuit of their legal duties, an anemy who refused, REPEATEDLY, to abide by the terms of a legal ceasefire, who had already invaded one ally and was a threat to others and to our interests abroad and who offered both monetary and moral supprt to those who wish our destrution, is reason enough for us to think the war was justified. To some of us smart people, the fact that we carried the war to the muslims, and killed hundreds of thousands, if not more, of those who wish to see the west destroyed, is plenty good enough reason. I didn't need any evidence of WMD's or even rumors of WMD's, or even the words of over a dozen democratic leaders from President Bill Clinton, down to democratic congressmen saying they had them to be convinced that killing muslims on muslim soil is a good idea and a benefit to civilization in general.

 

[editec]

I don't care if the FBI defines chemical weapons as muffins of mass destruction, the fact is the facts.

Chemical weapons are tactical weapons.

Their range and scope of destructive capacity are limited by the nature of dissemination pattern of the chemicals used.

 

[Mac1958]

.

They're just not gonna let this go. No matter what.

This is becoming pathetic.

Meanwhile:

• Thousands of American soldiers DEAD.
• Thousands of American soldiers MAIMED.
• Thousands of American soldiers emotionally DAMAGED.
• Thousands of American military families DESTROYED.
• Thousands of American children ORPHANED.
• Thousands of innocent Iraqis DEAD.
• Trillions of BORROWED dollars WASTED.

.

 

[expatriate]

I really don't understand how the leftists can continue to deny Sadam had WMD's when there is abundant evidence, from both civilized and muslim sources, that show HE USED WMD'S on many occassions.

Having viable chemical weapons in the 1980's is NOT synonymous with having them two decades later. The shelf life on those things is like strawberries.

And nothing Saddan EVER had - even if it WERE viable - would create a "mushroom cloud over an American city".

Well you're obviously misinformed. A small nuclear device, easily transportable, is quite capable of creating a mushroom cloud over an American city and that was one of the things sadam was trying to aquire, but that's irelevent. Sadam showed he had the ability to lauch missles into neighboring nations, such as Israel, so what would stop him from creating a mushroom cloud over an allie's city? Furthermore, though the shelf life on a chemical agent, ONCE MIXED, is relatively short, such as 5yrs for some agents, the chemical compounds needed to produce them are easily available, easily stockpiled and eaisly stored for long periods of time, meaning since we KNOW he used them as late as 1991, there was a better than even chance of him still retaining these compounds 10yrs later. We also KNOW that sadam started a Biological Weapons program in the 80's and these types of weapon payloads often times have shlf lives of decades and longer. We KNOW that as late as 91 the sadam government had weaponized 6,000 liters of B. anthracis spores and 12,000 liters of botulinum toxin in aerial bombs, rockets, and missile warheads that were deployed but never used. The Mukhabarat was know to have continued research and developement of biological weapons up till the late 90's and beyond into the early part of the new century.

Again and again and again. Dubya himself admitted that the primary reason for invading Iraq was to disarm him of his WMD's, but HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY. The lie about WMD's and the lie about an Al Qaeda connection were both necessary to scare the American sheeple into supporting a war against Iraq.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It's sad how many liberals cannot distinguish between saying something that is possibly inaccurate and lying.

In any event, the liberal parrots are busy squawking. This highly current, wow, now, topical story rolls along.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Irrelevant.

They DID under 18 USC §2332a) in that they consisted of being

(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;

Try again.

Ya know, it's pretty fuckin' embarassing when someone throws your own fuckin' post in your face to prove you're wrong.

But that's what you're forcing me to do.

I realize that you are hopelessly retarded.

But if the definition offers three separate alternatives the would constitute "WMD," then it is irrelevant that the items under discussion may not meet the first alternative.

Have an adult explain this to you. Clearly, it's miles over your poor laughable head.

You have not "thrown" my post in my face to prove me wrong loiny. You "threw" my post in my face to inadvertently underscore that you are too stupid to read straightforward alternative definitions without getting confused.

 

[Billo_Really]

I realize that you are hopelessly retarded.

But if the definition offers three separate alternatives the would constitute "WMD," then it is irrelevant that the items under discussion may not meet the first alternative.

Have an adult explain this to you. Clearly, it's miles over your poor laughable head.

You have not "thrown" my post in my face to prove me wrong loiny. You "threw" my post in my face to inadvertently underscore that you are too stupid to read straightforward alternative definitions without getting confused.

They're not alternatives, they're qualifiers.

For it to be a WMD, it has to satisfy 921's definition of a "weapon". Then the type of weapon, is described below. But first, it has to be a "weapon". If it's not a weapon, then it's just a can of gas.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I realize that you are hopelessly retarded.

But if the definition offers three separate alternatives the would constitute "WMD," then it is irrelevant that the items under discussion may not meet the first alternative.

Have an adult explain this to you. Clearly, it's miles over your poor laughable head.

You have not "thrown" my post in my face to prove me wrong loiny. You "threw" my post in my face to inadvertently underscore that you are too stupid to read straightforward alternative definitions without getting confused.

They're not alternatives, they're qualifiers.

For it to be a WMD, it has to satisfy 921's definition of a "weapon". Then the type of weapon, is described below. But first, it has to be a "weapon". If it's not a weapon, then it's just a can of gas.

No. They are alternatives.

You can't read or you lack basic comprehension skills.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Although you are probably too ignorant, stupid or dishonest to grasp it, I will now prove that the items in that list are couched (clearly, by the way) IN THE ALTERNATIVE:

(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life . . . .

Look at the "definitions" section of the law, 18 USC § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a

That word "OR" preceding the final alternative indicates unequivocally that the list consists of alternatives. IF your "interpretation" were accurate, that disjunction would instead be the conjunction, "AND." And if your silly mistaken read were correct (don't worry, it aint) then the only WMD would be one that meets ALL of the conditions. A nuclear biological agent would have to be intended to be delivered by the destructive device.

Sarin gas? Not nuclear. So according to the imbecile, loinboy, it couldn't be a WMD.

Anthrax? Not nuclear. So according to the imbecile, loinboy, it couldn't be a WMD.

A suitcase nuke? Not a biological weapon. So according to the imbecile, loinboy, it couldn't be a WMD.

 

[expatriate]

This topic always seems to devolve into minutia. Like arguing for days about how many angels can dnance on the head of a pin. The overarching fact is: Team Dubya scared us by telling us there was an absolute certainty that Saddam had weapons of MASS destruction. They talked about mushroom clouds and yellowcake and told us with absolute certainty that not only did Saddam have these enormous stockpiles of weapons of MASS destruction, but that he was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden - AND HAD BEEN SINCE BEFORE 9/11 - and he would, no doubt, give those weapons of MASS destruction to Osama to use against US if we didn't immediately invade conquer and occupy Iraq. Bush scared the sheeple with lies. And to this day, republicans continue to deny that fact. Sad.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This topic always seems to devolve into minutia. Like arguing for days about how many angels can dnance on the head of a pin. The overarching fact is: Team Dubya scared us by telling us there was an absolute certainty that Saddam had weapons of MASS destruction. They talked about mushroom clouds and yellowcake and told us with absolute certainty that not only did Saddam have these enormous stockpiles of weapons of MASS destruction, but that he was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden - AND HAD BEEN SINCE BEFORE 9/11 - and he would, no doubt, give those weapons of MASS destruction to Osama to use against US if we didn't immediately invade conquer and occupy Iraq. Bush scared the sheeple with lies. And to this day, republicans continue to deny that fact. Sad.

The argument is taken up wherever you dipshits spin your dishonesty.

he belief that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD was completely reasonable based on the circumstances at that time and what we knew or believed we knew.

They made some references to mushroom clouds because tht is the very thing that we wanted to make sure could never happen. There was never a claim that he had nuclear weapons at that time. But he most definitely did have nuclear weapons objectives. And even though you are too dishonest to admit it, not only had he previously had lots of yellowcake, there was a decent basis to believe that he was again seeking more yellowcake.

President Bush ALSO said that there were apparent links between al qaeda and Saddam's Iraq. That too was true.

In short, you lie. President Bush didn't lie. He didn't lie to scare the people nor did he lie at all in this regard (even though it may be fair to say that he was wrong to some degree).

Finally, the people don't vote to go to war, you simpleton. Congress does. And they were very clear as to WHY they voted to authorize that war. It's more than a bit revealing that the actual official and stated reasons don't correspond with your bullshit claims.

 

[Faun]

President Bush ALSO said that there were apparent links between al qaeda and Saddam's Iraq. That too was true.

Prove it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

President Bush ALSO said that there were apparent links between al qaeda and Saddam's Iraq. That too was true.

Prove it.

Damn. You brain dead liberals endlessly need to have long settled shit proved all over again.

Tell you what, you fuckwit.

Anybody can prove that one. Even you. So, now do it, and then fuck yourself.

Deal?

 

[Truthmatters]

so the right wing is still lying to itsself about these facts?

what exactly do you think it gains you to lie to yourselves?

 

[Truthmatters]

Top CIA Expert Slams Bush Anti-Terror Actions

 

[Truthmatters]

CNN.com - CIA insider slams Bush antiterror policies - Jun 27, 2004