The WMD's May Have Been Found

[geni]

Now you say there's nothing special about the weapon if it uses chemical components, like it doesn't add to the kill or injury factor, but shrapnel only travels so far, a breeze can carry a chemical agent for an undetermined distance, thus expanding the radius.

Shrapnel only travels so far. Now imagain if I up the power of the explosives chemical weapon will cover a larger area but so will more powerful explosives.

 

[Troll]

We do lose stuff all the time, in warehouses and stuff. Wouldn't it be EASIER to lose something buried 10 years ago in a hole, than something in a warehouse?

But do we bury and hide stuff and claim we don't have it?

 

[Troll]

Shrapnel only travels so far. Now imagain if I up the power of the explosives chemical weapon will cover a larger area but so will more powerful explosives.

Yes and that's why we have larger bombs that are not chemically enhanced. No one has claimed that a mortar round alone is what makes the find significant. Hell we've found planes and artillery as well. Bigger booms for both but still not a wmd as chemically enhanced weapons are considered to be.

Oh, and this is for Zero, planes, dude, they freaking buried planes. Do you think those were buried 10 years ago?

 

[Troll]

No offense, but if we found a freaking nuke I'd fully expect, based upon the examples of posts offered here, that we'd have a debate over the size of the nuke before some of you would accept it as a wmd.

 

[Zero]

No offense, but if we found a freaking nuke I'd fully expect, based upon the examples of posts offered here, that we'd have a debate over the size of the nuke before some of you would accept it as a wmd.

Strawman.

 

[Zero]

Let me be a bit more specific...if it were a similar quantity of some virulent disease that could spread from person to person, I would have a completely different view of it. Nukes are different from chemicals. A chemical weapon that can do significantly less harm than the legal conventional weapons Iraq has doesn't count IMO.

 

[RussDill]

We do lose stuff all the time, in warehouses and stuff. Wouldn't it be EASIER to lose something buried 10 years ago in a hole, than something in a warehouse?

It would have been pretty hard for them to lose *all* their chemical weapons and delivery systems. Someone, somewhere, knows where some of these weapons were buried. UN inspectors were lead to none of these sites. Unless of course the killed all the people who buried them, and then raped their families.

 

[Zero]

It would have been pretty hard for them to lose *all* their chemical weapons and delivery systems. Someone, somewhere, knows where some of these weapons were buried. UN inspectors were lead to none of these sites. Unless of course the killed all the people who buried them, and then raped their families.

Would you care to tell me where the rest of these weapons have been found by anyone?

 

[RussDill]

But do we bury and hide stuff and claim we don't have it?

Probably, ya. A good portion of our miliary serivices operates in secrecy.

 

[RussDill]

Would you care to tell me where the rest of these weapons have been found by anyone?

OK, I'll go bury a bunch of stuff in california, in random places. We'll wait 10 years, and then you can go find them.

I like in Phoenix, Phoenix grows pretty fast, new developments all the time. Finding stuff that people buried in the ground around a thousand years ago or more is pretty common here.

Edited to add: Or do you mean when, like around the 1990's?

 

[Troll]

Let me be a bit more specific...if it were a similar quantity of some virulent disease that could spread from person to person, I would have a completely different view of it. Nukes are different from chemicals. A chemical weapon that can do significantly less harm than the legal conventional weapons Iraq has doesn't count IMO.

But we're talking about a chemically enhanced conventional weapon. By most countries standards that has always equated to a wmd. Granted, mustard gas doesn't kill as many as it maims, but you have to be careful in the definition here. VX and sarin does kill and to add those to a mortar will increase the number killed significantly. And, again, by most countries standards mustard gas is a wmd.

 

[Zero]

OK, I'll go bury a bunch of stuff in california, in random places. We'll wait 10 years, and then you can go find them.

I like in Phoenix, Phoenix grows pretty fast, new developments all the time. Finding stuff that people buried in the ground around a thousand years ago or more is pretty common here.

Edited to add: Or do you mean when, like around the 1990's?

LOL

Yeah, I mean like the fact that evidence points to these weapons being buried back around Gulf War I...possibly in haste while expecting an invasion...

I know how bad American military record-keeping can be, which is why I bring up the posibility that the Iraqis really didn't know those weapons were there.

 

[Troll]

LOL

Yeah, I mean like the fact that evidence points to these weapons being buried back around Gulf War I...possibly in haste while expecting an invasion...

I know how bad American military record-keeping can be, which is why I bring up the posibility that the Iraqis really didn't know those weapons were there.

Dude, planes were buried days before the invasion. It took a few months before we found some of them. Mortar rounds with chemicals can fit in much smaller packages.

 

[Zero]

But we're talking about a chemically enhanced conventional weapon. By most countries standards that has always equated to a wmd. Granted, mustard gas doesn't kill as many as it maims, but you have to be careful in the definition here. VX and sarin does kill and to add those to a mortar will increase the number killed significantly. And, again, by most countries standards mustard gas is a wmd.

Uh huh...I draw the line at stuff that just makes you feel bad.

 

[ssibal]

And, of course, maybe they really didn't know where they were all buried. It happens all the time in America, so why hold Iraq to a higher standard?

Then they should have said "we burried our weapons but we do not know where they were burried" instead of lying about them and saying that they destroyed them all.

 

[Zero]

Then they should have said "we burried our weapons but we do not know where they were burried" instead of lying about them and saying that they destroyed them all.

Uh huh...maybe alot of things. I don't think THIS find means anything at all, though.

 

[ssibal]

Uh huh...maybe alot of things. I don't think THIS find means anything at all, though.

This find would mean that they were in violation of Resolution 687.

 

[Zero]

This find would mean that they were in violation of Resolution 687.

Then that would mean that the UN would have the say-so to invade, and not the U.S.

 

[crackmonkey]

No one, as far as I can see, is arguing over whether Bush had the authority to invade or not. The argument is that WMD (by the definition being used by the weapons inspectors, the UN, the US, and everyone else in the loop - by convention, blister gas is considered to be WMD) have been found in modest quantity, thus giving lie to Saddam's assertion that he had none. And, also, proving false the assertions that the weapons inspectors found all there was to find, and that Iraq had no more chemical weapons. What's left to argue? If you were one of those who mocked the idea of there being chemical weapons in Iraq, why not just be an adult and admit you were wrong?

 

[Zero]

No one, as far as I can see, is arguing over whether Bush had the authority to invade or not. The argument is that WMD (by the definition being used by the weapons inspectors, the UN, the US, and everyone else in the loop - by convention, blister gas is considered to be WMD) have been found in modest quantity, thus giving lie to Saddam's assertion that he had none. And, also, proving false the assertions that the weapons inspectors found all there was to find, and that Iraq had no more chemical weapons. What's left to argue? If you were one of those who mocked the idea of there being chemical weapons in Iraq, why not just be an adult and admit you were wrong?

Some of us consider a 5-minutes worth of blister agent buried in a hole for ten years to be less than compelling. I don't see why that is hard to understand.