The WMD's May Have Been Found

It's amusing how anti-war folks (the ones who have been screaming that there are no chemical weapons) now mock the find of a cache of chem weapons...
A modest find, to be certain, but it proves them wrong nonetheless.
Chemical weapons are WMD by definition. WMD have been found. You were wrong. Deal.
 
Let's be realistic for a moment, shall we? We have heard a bunch of reports that turned out to be bogus. We have no idea who buried them, or why. America's military has a hard time keeping track of its own gear, why should be expect perfection from Iraq? And, please, spare me the "any noncompliance is worth invading over." Than's a load of crap. 36 shells lasts them 3 minutes, and then what? Wow, I'm so scared, whatever shall we do here in America, they could have launched those shells 6 WHOLE MILES!!!!!! Yep, that was the big threat.
 
geni said:


Well lets see then. The first thing that both sides seem to agree on is that it must be either chemical (and by that I mean poisnes gasses and that kind of thing not high explosives), biological or nuclear. so we can rule out conventional weapons.

My normal defintion is:
Any theromunuclear device (the easy one)
Strategic Biological agents with sufficent killing power and sufficant quantity to kill at ~10000 people in a normal urban enviroment (yes we know that this mean that one seringe contain the small pox virus is a weapon of mass disscrution it is)
Strategic chemical weapons

this does not mean that tactical chemical and biological weapons are accepterble (and I can't really se how you would make an effective taticle biological weapon that was not a strategic weapon as well) mearly that they are not WMD.
Click to expand...

Can you try that in english? Chemical mortars old ones or new, are they a WMD?
 
crackmonkey said:
It's amusing how anti-war folks (the ones who have been screaming that there are no chemical weapons) now mock the find of a cache of chem weapons...
A modest find, to be certain, but it proves them wrong nonetheless.
Chemical weapons are WMD by definition. WMD have been found. You were wrong. Deal.
Click to expand...

Really? The bleach under your sink is a chemical weapon. Kindly turn youself in as posessor of WMD.
 
crackmonkey said:
It's amusing how anti-war folks (the ones who have been screaming that there are no chemical weapons) now mock the find of a cache of chem weapons...
A modest find, to be certain, but it proves them wrong nonetheless.
Chemical weapons are WMD by definition. WMD have been found. You were wrong. Deal.
Click to expand...
Your idea of reality is pathetic...how does your family deal, besides with crack?
 
Zero said:
Let's be realistic for a moment, shall we? We have heard a bunch of reports that turned out to be bogus. We have no idea who buried them, or why. America's military has a hard time keeping track of its own gear, why should be expect perfection from Iraq? And, please, spare me the "any noncompliance is worth invading over." Than's a load of crap. 36 shells lasts them 3 minutes, and then what? Wow, I'm so scared, whatever shall we do here in America, they could have launched those shells 6 WHOLE MILES!!!!!! Yep, that was the big threat.
Click to expand...

Well hell, you getting ass raped by a neo-nazi doesn't affect me. But would you like me to stop him?
 
Troll said:


Can you try that in english? Chemical mortars old ones or new, are they a WMD?
Click to expand...

Mortars are tactical not strategic so no.
 
Troll said:


Can you try that in english? Chemical mortars old ones or new, are they a WMD?
Click to expand...
Probably not, from a certain standpoint...how effective is any chemical after being stored in dirt for a decade or more? Is it even usable? My guess it that it would give you a nasty rash, which doesn't qualify as a WMD in my book.
 
Troll said:


Well hell, you getting ass raped by a neo-nazi doesn't affect me. But would you like me to stop him?
Click to expand...
Yeah, unless your plan is to blow off my ass while you are doing it, in which case I would take my chances with the pain and humilation.Killing the patient to cure the disease is not exactly the most desirable method, is it?
 
I have a standing policy of stopping participation in any debate where my opponant stoops to a personal insult.

My participation here ended with the comment "you and any other inbred within 100 yards".


Edit to get the insult correct.
 
Zero said:
And, please, spare me the "any noncompliance is worth invading over."
Click to expand...

That is the attitude that had prolonged this Iraq mess for the past decade.
 
ssibal said:


That is the attitude that had prolonged this Iraq mess for the past decade.
Click to expand...
If you say so...I would have been happy if America hadn't supplied Iraq with the weapons in the first place.
 
Zero said:
If you say so...I would have been happy if America hadn't supplied Iraq with the weapons in the first place.
Click to expand...

Hey, maybe if the USSR and all those other European nations had not supplid Iraq with weapons they would not have invaded Kuwait! We cannot change the past. But if you want to blame the U.S. for Iraq's refusal to comply with its agreements might as well blame those other nations for Iraq invading Kuwait.
 
ssibal said:


Hey, maybe if the USSR and all those other European nations had not supplid Iraq with weapons they would not have invaded Kuwait! We cannot change the past. But if you want to blame the U.S. for Iraq's refusal to comply with its agreements might as well blame those other nations for Iraq invading Kuwait.
Click to expand...
And America...you can't blame the other countries without blaming America...

None of this has anything to do with THIS discussion, though.
 
geni said:


Mortars are tactical not strategic so no.
Click to expand...

well me and that damned charcoal lined freaking sweatsuit may disagree with ya, but hey, I'm asking you to make the definitions here.

so you say a mortar round with chemical compounds is not a wmd, so what is? How many people must it be able to affect or kil for you to consider it a wmd?
 
Zero said:
And America...you can't blame the other countries without blaming America...
Click to expand...

Sorry, did Iraq use chemical weapons during that invasion? What equipment were they using? Where was it made?
 
ssibal said:


Sorry, did Iraq use chemical weapons during that invasion? What equipment were they using? Where was it made?
Click to expand...
Don't know, don't care...I don't live in those countries...and it has nothing to do with this thread.
 
Some Friggin Guy said:
I have a standing policy of stopping participation in any debate where my opponant stoops to a personal insult.

My participation here ended with the comment "you and any other inbred within 100 yards".


Edit to get the insult correct.
Click to expand...

Wel to be honest, at the rate you were going you should have stopped five minutes prior. Because if you think about it, which may not be applicable due to inbreeding, you wouldn't have replied as you did to said post. :p

I'm just kidding really. When I mentioned inbreds I really was just refering to the idiots that think a chemical weapon loses it's ability to be a wmd if it has a smaller range.

You weren't one of those idiots were you?
 
Zero said:
Don't know, don't care...I don't live in those countries...and it has nothing to do with this thread.
Click to expand...

dude, did you read the post you made that begat these questions?

WTF?????????
 
Troll said:


well me and that damned charcoal lined freaking sweatsuit may disagree with ya, but hey, I'm asking you to make the definitions here.

so you say a mortar round with chemical compounds is not a wmd, so what is? How many people must it be able to affect or kil for you to consider it a wmd?
Click to expand...

Numbers of deaths is not the real issue after all MOAD it not consedered a WMD. If it is strategic then it and chemical or biological then it is a WMD (nuclear is always a WMD)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom