[$tinkle]

Agent France Presse

"Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein"

i, personally, am not surprised at this. I use this, however, to justify Paul O'Neill's comment on 60 min last night:

From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told "60 Minutes."

again, not surprised by this. Seems to me that a responsible cmdr-in-chief would have a desire & a plan to take him & his ilk out. Couple that with the finding of archived weapons w/ blistering agents last week, & hopefully this WMD topic can get going one way or the other.

EDITED to add source for blistering agents reports: google news

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by $tinkle
Couple that with the finding of archived weapons w/ blistering agents last week, & hopefully this WMD topic can get going one way or the other.

Source of this tidbit of info.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
EDITED to add source for blistering agents reports: google news

they WMDs are old, so that really doesn't say much.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by LordOpie
they WMDs are old, so that really doesn't say much.

let me see if i understand your position
- WMDs must be fresh
- WMDs must be in large quantity
- WMDs must be at the ready, in armed missles/rockets

if these criteria are met, then we have found WMD?

what disturbs me most about these recent reports of blistering agents is that the danes found them. We have 150,000 troops, they have - what - both?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
let me see if i understand your position
- WMDs must be fresh
- WMDs must be in large quantity
- WMDs must be at the ready, in armed missles/rockets

if these criteria are met, then we have found WMD?

You obviously haven't been here very long or you've been ignoring me (very likely )

My position has always been that we knew they had them, they admitted to having them, and that they needed an ass kicking. But yeah, fresh WMDs are needed cuz the average idiot needs them to not feel like Bush lied to them

Originally posted by $tinkle
what disturbs me most about these recent reports of blistering agents is that the danes found them. We have 150,000 troops, they have - what - both?

lmao, that's what I was thinking too! But I didn't think "both" and that's too funny!

 

[Tenchiro]

Can 36 decade old mortar shells with mustard gas in them really be considered WMD?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Can 36 decade old mortar shells with mustard gas in them really be considered WMD?

absolutely.

from Maryland Emergency Management Agency:

Weapons of Mass Destruction: In arms control usage, weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Can be nuclear, chemical biological and radiological weapons, but excludes the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon.

 

[brock]

They painted a picture of a large ongoing WMD program which presented an immediate threat to us.


It's going to take a little more than this discovery for me. I'm sure it will be enough for a lot of "I told so" press, but I'd like to see a lot more than just this.

Maybe once we have occupied the whole country we'll find more? Maybe when they are doing ground work for the Wallmart/McDonalds they find a bunker full.

Then I'll have to say, "Yup, they were right". To be totally honest, I hope that some day I will have to say that.

 

[Tenchiro]

Have you seen how absolutely decrepit those mortar rounds were? I bet the only danger from them is leakage, they certainly could not have been fired safely.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Iraq did have chemical weapons. This is common knowledge. They used them on Iran and the Kurds. During weapons inspections after the 1991 war, the inspectors found lots of chemical weapons.

The question isn't whether they have ever had chemical weapons. The question is whether they were still pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
The question isn't whether they have ever had chemical weapons. The question is whether they were still pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development.

while that is the question, it goes further than that... whose responsibility is it to prove they no longer are pursuing said weapons. The UN said it's Iraq's responsibility and Iraq consistently played the UN.

The problem for some of you is that you feel the US lied to you. Umm, so what? This admin ran the publicity machine as needed to accomplish it's goals. Do you really think any gov't./military will show you their cards? Get past this whole WMD thing and start analyzing/arguing whether the US did the right thing and/or is going in the right direction.

WMDs is no longer a relevant issue except for those who hold grudges

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Have you seen how absolutely decrepit those mortar rounds were?

no, please share these pictures.

Originally posted by Tenchiro
I bet the only danger from them is leakage, they certainly could not have been fired safely.

so, would you take umbrage to having them broken open in a movie theater near you?

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by $tinkle
no, please share these pictures.
so, would you take umbrage to having them broken open in a movie theater near you?

I saw the footage on TV, but I will try to look something up. But I would be far more worried about some 16 year old mixing bleach and ammonia when trying to clean the toilets, than someone smuggling a 20 year old mortar shell from halfway across the world and opening it during the trailer for Freddie vs Jason 2.

Not to mention the stockpile of nerve gas at the Umatilla Chemical Depot, our state houses.

EDIT - Just found a pic

 

[BurlyShirley]

I think its funny that people are even still complaining.



We foundMASS GRAVES of unidentified bodies for Chrissakes. That alone justifies it in my mind.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
I saw the footage on TV, but I will try to look something up. But I would be far more worried about some 16 year old mixing bleach and ammonia when trying to clean the toilets, than someone smuggling a 20 year old mortar shell from halfway across the world and opening it during the trailer for Freddie vs Jason 2.

With the majority of incoming container ships not being checked, i'm not convinced it isn't so hard to get stuff in country. (apologies for gratuitous double negatives)

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Not to mention the stockpile of nerve gas at the Umatilla Chemical Depot, our state houses.

& we have 23,000 acres & tons & tons of mustard gas only an hour south at the pueblo depot; but i rest easy each night that'll stay put.

thanks for the war-pr0n

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by $tinkle
With the majority of incoming container ships not being checked, i'm not convinced it isn't so hard to get stuff in country. (apologies for gratuitous double negatives)

& we have 23,000 acres & tons & tons of mustard gas only an hour south at the pueblo depot; but i rest easy each night that'll stay put.

thanks for the war-pr0n

Who's to say we won't have another Timothy Mcveigh, who has access to that stuff. I also saw an expose on 60 minutes about chemical depots in or near large metropolitan cities, that were largely unguarded. They had a news crew roaming around these places freely and pointed out a number of tanks, that if ruptured could kill thousands of people.

That seems alot more likely than someone smuggling something in from Iraq...

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by LordOpie


My position has always been that we knew they had them, they admitted to having them, and that they needed an ass kicking. But yeah, fresh WMDs are needed cuz the average idiot needs them to not feel like Bush lied to them

Really, I thought your position was that the war was about oil.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Really, I thought your position was that the war was about oil.

No way man, natural fluids only! :devil:

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I think its funny that people are even still complaining.



We foundMASS GRAVES of unidentified bodies for Chrissakes. That alone justifies it in my mind.

When did we start caring about dead foreigners?? Saddam had been killing his own people for years, and it was never a big secret. We supported Saddam while he was using WMD against the Iranians. No one really seemed to care when he gassed his own people. It only became an issue when it was felt that he was a threat to the US.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Westy
When did we start caring about dead foreigners?? Saddam had been killing his own people for years, and it was never a big secret. We supported Saddam while he was using WMD against the Iranians. No one really seemed to care when he gassed his own people. It only became an issue when it was felt that he was a threat to the US.

Clinton launched a few token cruise missiles at Iraq to divert the press from his odd cigar habits...

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by N8
Clinton launched a few token cruise missiles at Iraq to divert the press from his odd cigar habits...

Or maybe Bush launched a whole war against Iraq to cover up his whole Enron habit......

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Westy
When did we start caring about dead foreigners?? Saddam had been killing his own people for years, and it was never a big secret. We supported Saddam while he was using WMD against the Iranians. No one really seemed to care when he gassed his own people. It only became an issue when it was felt that he was a threat to the US.

...which make sense (to me at least).

to a man, we're all much more informed than 5 yrs ago. When applying "out-of-sight, out-of-mind", I submit this correlates to us only now caring more about "dead foreigners" & how this could in due time be us. In addition, I think a certain threshold (bodycount?) has been met that reminds us of our vow "never again". This certainly was true for the balkan conflict, but i'm still puzzled why we're not consistent with tribal conflicts in africa which have left many thousands dead/amputated.

Reckon machetes aren't as big a threat? And bodycount be damned.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by DRB
Or maybe Bush launched a whole war against Iraq to cover up his whole Enron habit......

good sh:t!

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by DRB
Or maybe Bush launched a whole war against Iraq to cover up his whole Enron habit......

2 demerits (trolling)

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by $tinkle
...which make sense (to me at least).

to a man, we're all much more informed than 5 yrs ago. When applying "out-of-sight, out-of-mind", I submit this correlates to us only now caring more about "dead foreigners" & how this could in due time be us. In addition, I think a certain threshold (bodycount?) has been met that reminds us of our vow "never again". This certainly was true for the balkan conflict, but i'm still puzzled why we're not consistent with tribal conflicts in africa which have left many thousands dead/amputated.

Reckon machetes aren't as big a threat? And bodycount be
damned.

Balkans-If I remember correctly the European community raised a stink and asked us for some muscle. Clinton was somewhat reluctant because he thought they should police their own backyard.

Somalia-Seemed like a good PR stunt. "Starving people saved by US". Ended up being more trouble than it was worth.

Rwanda/Liberia-Way too ugly to get involved with. No one else was going to shame us into getting involved because no one wanted to get involved. Resulting death and has no direct affect on US economy or security, no reason to get involved.

China-Regularly executes polital prisoners. We react by buying cheap crap at Walmart made by unexecuted prisoners.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
2 demerits (trolling)

don't be so partisan

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by $tinkle
...which make sense (to me at least).

to a man, we're all much more informed than 5 yrs ago. When applying "out-of-sight, out-of-mind", I submit this correlates to us only now caring more about "dead foreigners" & how this could in due time be us. In addition, I think a certain threshold (bodycount?) has been met that reminds us of our vow "never again". This certainly was true for the balkan conflict, but i'm still puzzled why we're not consistent with tribal conflicts in africa which have left many thousands dead/amputated.

Reckon machetes aren't as big a threat? And bodycount be damned.

I think that little mess should be more correctly placed at the feet of the French but the rest of the West must take some blame for the do nothing attitude. I think you're right though, I don't think Rwanda could happen now although the happenings in the Congo were pretty brutal but we do need our coltan now, don't we. (almost as much as we need oil)

 

[Trond]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Iraq did have chemical weapons. This is common knowledge. They used them on Iran and the Kurds. During weapons inspections after the 1991 war, the inspectors found lots of chemical weapons.

The question isn't whether they have ever had chemical weapons. The question is whether they were still pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development.

True. Maybe that's what Rumsie and Saddam was shaking on in 83?

Totally agree on the second part.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by $tinkle
2 demerits (trolling)

Its no more or less trolling than N8 cracking on about Clinton.

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
Iraq did have chemical weapons. This is common knowledge. They used them on Iran and the Kurds. During weapons inspections after the 1991 war, the inspectors found lots of chemical weapons.

The question isn't whether they have ever had chemical weapons. The question is whether they were still pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development.

The US gave all those chemical weapons to Iraq in the '80s....duh, everyone whos looked into it knows that.

What about our chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development...when will the US be put in check for this?
What about the resurection of Star Wars programs?
What about our strong arm foreign policy and increasingly frightening domestic policy?

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by DRB
Or maybe Bush launched a whole war against Iraq to cover up his whole Enron habit......

The war was planned before the whole Enron deal made it public.
Iraq was a major topic of discussion from the very begining of his office.

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by Trond
True. Maybe that's what Rumsie and Saddam was shaking on in 83?

Totally agree on the second part.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Sideways
The war was planned before the whole Enron deal made it public.
Iraq was a major topic of discussion from the very begining of his office.

bush had a plan? how republican of you. But, what exactly did Enron have to do with outing his plan? I'm rather confused. Perhaps you meant, "I knew about Enron first; ipso facto, bush was hiding it from me".

Originally posted by Sideways
What about our chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development...when will the US be put in check for this?

indeed

Originally posted by Sideways
What about the resurection of Star Wars programs?

what about it?

Originally posted by Sideways
What about our strong arm foreign policy and increasingly frightening domestic policy?

imagine that. The strongest country in the world exercising strong arm foreign policy. As far as your alarmist rhetoric for "frightening domestic policy", i shall respond in kind: "Der Feind Hort mit!"

from whom do you get your talking points? Lew Rockwell? Micheal Moore? Eric Alterman?

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by $tinkle
bush had a plan? how republican of you. But, what exactly did Enron have to do with outing his plan? I'm rather confused. Perhaps you meant, "I knew about Enron first; ipso facto, bush was hiding it from me".
...

from whom do you get your talking points? Lew Rockwell? Micheal Moore? Eric Alterman?

What I'm saying is that Bush was planning war in Iraq before even making into office.

And no, I just pay attention to the headlines and the people I see.

 

[$tinkle]

perhaps it's nothing by itself, but may be part of the puzzle:

IAEA confirms yellowcake found in Rotterdam likely from Iraq
"AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — The U.N. nuclear watchdog confirmed Friday that Iraq was the likely source of radioactive material known as yellowcake that was found in a shipment of scrap metal at Rotterdam harbor. "

i think somebody touched on this last week before the threads all got flushed. Anyhoot, joe wilson could clear all this up, eh?

link

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Sideways
What I'm saying is that Bush was planning war in Iraq before even making into office.

(I will keep posting this as long as necessary.)

Bush, himself, planned nothing, but this administration has "publically" (via a somewhat obscure website) planned for taking out Iraq since 1997... www.newamericancentury.org -- so it had nothing directly to do with Enron, Oil, Haliburton, Bush Sr. Those things may have been a factor, but the biggest factor is the long-term vision of PNAC.

Originally posted by Sideways
What about our chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development...when will the US be put in check for this?

(I will keep posting this as long as necessary.)
Iraq had WMDs, that is a FACT. Period. End of discussion. Just because no one has found any yet, does NOT change the past. They admitted it, they were caught, and they played the UN for more than a decade. http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65190&highlight=wmd

 

[fluff]

I'm sure this thread was of higher quality the first time around.

Damn that database rollback.

There's no evidence of a discussion about WMD, what does that mean?