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

[Saigon]

Edtiec -

I take your point and agree with you, but given this thread begins by asking why the left suffers the humiliation of being right about WMD, I think it is relevent to also look at how the majority of the board feels about that.

History tells us that US troops never found any evidence of WMD. We know that. It's a fact.

On a board that is at least 50% Republican, I think it should send a clear message to the OP that the response he is getting is so overwhelmingly negative.

 

[JoeB131]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

An indisputable fact. That fact has been confirmed by none other than the radical left-wing propaganda machine of the dumbocrat party - MSNBC (see link below which was initially on MSNBC's website and has since been migrated to the NBC website since the split). It has also been ....url]

Okay, one more time, Poodle.

We didn't go to war with Iraq, kill 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis, over inert, expired cannisters of chemical weapons, the cutting edge weapon of 1914.

We went to war because they supposedly had Nukes and Germ weapons, which it turns out they didn't have.

And frankly, somehow, I suspect you didn't rush down to the recruiter's office and sign up for the Army when this happened.

 

[Mac1958]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

An indisputable fact. That fact has been confirmed by none other than the radical left-wing propaganda machine of the dumbocrat party - MSNBC (see link below which was initially on MSNBC's website and has since been migrated to the NBC website since the split). It has also been ....url]

Okay, one more time, Poodle.

We didn't go to war with Iraq, kill 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis, over inert, expired cannisters of chemical weapons, the cutting edge weapon of 1914.

We went to war because they supposedly had Nukes and Germ weapons, which it turns out they didn't have.

And frankly, somehow, I suspect you didn't rush down to the recruiter's office and sign up for the Army when this happened.

Yup. And anyone who is intellectually honest knows that threats of a "mushroom cloud" were what animated us...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhIkzTg14M]Scared into Believing-THE GREAT MUSHROOM CLOUD - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw9BJ_Kh7mE]George W Bush threatens Mushroom Cloud pt 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[gwennie]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

An indisputable fact. That fact has been confirmed by none other than the radical left-wing propaganda machine of the dumbocrat party - MSNBC (see link below which was initially on MSNBC's website and has since been migrated to the NBC website since the split). It has also been confirmed by WikiLeak cables! It has been confirmed by former special forces operators, authors, reporters, and more. How the left can continue to deny the world is round, the sky is blue, and the sun is hot is simply absurd. They have ZERO credibility left when they try to deny fact.

From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD (instead of preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq has accelerated the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons by Al Qaeda).

The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment. And the press won't touch it because they had already convinced themselves, and most of the American public, that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any WMD's. The media turned a blind eye to continued reports of chemical weapon attacks because its own credibility was threatened. Several major outlets were deeply invested with the story line of an “unjustifiable war". Not many people can bear to admit they were wrong, especially in print, and especially if they have been very wrong for a very long time.

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

They humiliate themselves mostly because they are stupid....and also because they think that other people don't know any better. They absolutely hate to be proven wrong on anything and will engage in any tactic in an attempt to distract/deny/distort the obvious. The facts are that WMD were located in Iraq and it's also known that because we waited at least a year to invade, the Iraqis made many attempts to hide them.....essentially the US gave Iraq a good amount of time to play hide and seek with those weapons. Don't ever expect the liberals to accept these facts.....they are incapable of logic.

 

[gwennie]

Edtiec -

I take your point and agree with you, but given this thread begins by asking why the left suffers the humiliation of being right about WMD, I think it is relevent to also look at how the majority of the board feels about that.

History tells us that US troops never found any evidence of WMD. We know that. It's a fact.

On a board that is at least 50% Republican, I think it should send a clear message to the OP that the response he is getting is so overwhelmingly negative.

No....what is shows is that there were far more liberals on this message board at the time the OP started thsi thread.

 

[Mac1958]

.

While you brave folks are thumping your chests, take just a moment, please:

 

[tjvh]

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

Truth needs no defenders. But ignorance must be challenged.

There were no nuclear weapons, not biological weapons and nothing but some standard non-lethal chemical antipersonnel wepons to be found.

Nothing they found was of the WMD class, lad.

Wrong... Apparently you never bothered to read UNSCOM 1441 either. A missile with a range greater than 250km was also defined as a WMD. Kind of hard to argue with reality. LINK: Al-Samoud II - Iraq Special Weapons [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WdV2hT3Mow4]The Iraq Invasion Archive-Day 2-Al Samouds fired into Kuwait - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Saigon]

No....what is shows is that there were far more liberals on this message board at the time the OP started thsi thread.

Nonsense - no sane person is going to agree with the OP, because the OP is wrong.

Conservatives aren't as stupid as the OP would hope they were.

 

[JoeB131]

.

While you brave folks are thumping your chests, take just a moment, please:

Well, it wasn't like they were the ones going over.

 

[P@triot]

So you support throwing away trillions in these wars and then blame Obama and democrats for it?

Only the left considers money spent on defense "waste" while money spent on waste, fraud, abuse, and pork in the U.S. to be "money well spent"

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

Congratulations, by the way, on becoming one of very few posters to unite both Democrats and Conservatives in becoming an object everyone can ridicule.

The last person to invite such universal derision was Pee Wee Herman.

 

[P@triot]

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:

These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure​

. [/I]

As I stated in my previous post, minor injuries to two soldiers, does not constitute a "large-scale impact on people".

You really need to read your links more thoroughly before posting.

Is a nuclear weapon a "WMD" in your own made up definition?

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

Congratulations, by the way, on becoming one of very few posters to unite both Democrats and Conservatives in becoming an object everyone can ridicule.

The last person to invite such universal derision was Pee Wee Herman.

I have yet to see one conservative "ridicule" here (in fact, they've all agreed).

The only people that are crying are the cowards that can't stand the fact that they've been completely disarmed of their "justification" for crying about the military operations.

You don't want to admit that your cowards - so you're pissed you've been stripped of the one excuse you've been hiding behind.

 

[editec]

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

Truth needs no defenders. But ignorance must be challenged.

There were no nuclear weapons, not biological weapons and nothing but some standard non-lethal chemical antipersonnel wepons to be found.

Nothing they found was of the WMD class, lad.

Wrong... Apparently you never bothered to read UNSCOM 1441 either. A missile with a range greater than 250km was also defined as a WMD. Kind of hard to argue with reality. LINK: Al-Samoud II - Iraq Special Weapons [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WdV2hT3Mow4]The Iraq Invasion Archive-Day 2-Al Samouds fired into Kuwait - YouTube[/ame]

A missle is defined as a weapon of mass destruction?

Interesting.

By whom?

 

[P@triot]

By my count:

16 posters believe Rottweiler is wrong

2 posters believe Rottweiler is correct, or may be correct

However, Rottweiler will absolutely never admit that he is wrong. It's biologically impossible for him to do so. I am sure he knows he is wrong - but he is going to be as honest about this as Dick Cheney was.

I've provided evidence - even radical left-wing MSNBC acknowledged WMD's. And yet here you sit trying to convince yourself the world is flat...

 

[Saigon]

I have yet to see one conservative "ridicule" here (in fact, they've all agreed).

Oh please do name them!

In fact - I insist that you name them.

 

[P@triot]

Truth needs no defenders. But ignorance must be challenged.

There were no nuclear weapons, not biological weapons and nothing but some standard non-lethal chemical antipersonnel wepons to be found.

Nothing they found was of the WMD class, lad.

You radicals just can't admit when you were wrong (and especially when it means Bush was right)

Sorry, it's illegal to move the goalposts. Chemical weapons are WMD's and thousands of chemical weapons were not only found, but they were actually also used.

You lose, stupid...

First, there is no clear definition of WMDs.

Tear gas, for example, is a chemical weapon but not one that is a WMD.

Now you can get all pissed off and call me stupid, but nevertheless NON_LETHAL chemical weapons are NOT part of anyones definition other than yours and the whackos who are apologists for BUSH II.

Ironically evenm BUSH II admitted there were no WMDs.

So he must stupid, too, eh?

Like loinboy, you're just making up your own definition (man, you guys are both ARROGANT and IGNORANT). You don't get to make up your own definition.

First of all, lethality is not the criteria for WMD's. If it were, every gun on Earth would be a "WMD" since 100% are lethal.

Second - Tear gas, formally known as a lachrymatory agent or lachrymator (from lacrima meaning "tear" in Latin), is a possibly lethal [1] chemical weapon

Tear gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[editec]

If one uses US law (18 USC §2332a) WMD

"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; and
(3) the term “property” includes all real and personal property.

By that definition every weapon known to man is a weapon of mass destruction.

If you doubt me, follow section 921 and SEE FOR YOURSELF.

18 USC § 921 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Saigon]

You don't get to make up your own definition.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[P@triot]

I have yet to see one conservative "ridicule" here (in fact, they've all agreed).

Oh please do name them!

In fact - I insist that you name them.

Isn't it interesting how you and your pals - who do a LOT of crying - can't provide one single link to dispute what I've said? I've provided links to MSNBC, Wikipedia, other web sites, and listed books and authors. A wide plethora of verifiable facts. In fact, the only person who finally added a link (g-string), was to an op-ed opinion piece which complained about Chuck Pfarrer's book while admitting that Iraq had WMD's!

All you've added is your whining little butt-hurt uninformed, uneducated opinions.