Does what you just said make any sense to you? We give WMD. We ask for WMD back. They say no/maybe/whatever. We invade. huh?

Does what you just said make any sense to you? We give WMD. We ask for WMD back. They say no/maybe/whatever. We invade. huh?

The United Nations, the liberal's favorite world body of regulation, told Iraq to give it back. We just enforced the United Nation's resolutions.

Truth is it came from us, but Saddam didn't obey the UN orders for him to hand it back and that is why we are in Iraq.

Excuse me if, I'm wrong but you say that The Un said Saddam should have handed it back because The Un Said so. Saddam didn't so we went to war.

 

I believe it was The Same Un who said they did not approve of a war in Iraq but we went anyway.

 

So please tell me, how THe UN is the reason for us in Iraq, not The Administration's desires to be there.

i forget what the UN said....but did they really say GIVE THEM BACK TO THE US?

How does this make anyone eat any crow? Its a small amount of the large so called "unaccounted for" batch of WMDs. This is no smoking gun. Plus what proof is there that it wasnt brought in by foreign insurrgents?! I mean its not like they discovered this in a bunker. For all you know Hussein sold this stuff off on the black market and now its being brought back.

 

 

Youre reading an awful lot into something that needs a lot more hashing out. Oh wait...thats the definition of spin. No wonder its from foxnews.

i forget what the UN said....but did they really say GIVE THEM BACK TO THE US?

The Treaty Saddam signed to end the Gulf War required him to give them back or destroy them. The UN just affirmed it by sending in inspectors, then Saddam kicked them out, and the standoff started.

Does what you just said make any sense to you? We give WMD. We ask for WMD back. They say no/maybe/whatever. We invade. huh?

You are smarter than that.

i forget what the UN said....but did they really say GIVE THEM BACK TO THE US?

The Treaty Saddam signed to end the Gulf War required him to give them back or destroy them. The UN just affirmed it by sending in inspectors, then Saddam kicked them out, and the standoff started. yes or destroy them.

 

 

 

there is no way in hell we should get them.

woooo... so Bush's ratings are down!

 

 

WMD = Bush's best friend (ratings wise)!

 

 

 

 

wooo!

 

 

 

 

*awaits the usual "Typical Socialist Liberal statement... move to france SUV driver" comments.*

NEWS FLASH:

 

Mustard found in NYC hot dog stand. Pundits predict Bush ratings to soar 10%.

Methinks that this will turn into a really insignificant development.

 

Yes, the conservatives want this to be a great, corrabative piece of evidence. And of course, the liberals want to downplay and discredit it.

 

But in the end this isn's going to help either side politically.

 

Yes, it will prove the physical presence of a WMD in Iraq. So Yay! to the conservatives, who can take pleasure in knowing that with a strict interpretation of the facts they stand affirmed.

 

But no, they won't be able to place the old Iraqi regime in direct possesion of the weapon, since I'm guessing that forensics will not really tell us much, nor will any investigation into the origin of the artillery shell. Which then devolves the arguement into a who put it there, when did they have it and where did they get it kind of cable news talk show arguement. And since the specifics of the weapon won't be concretely identified, the floodgates of interpretation by both sides leave the American public the ability to believe whatever the hell they want to about the whole mess, regardless of how amazingly stupid their theories may be.

 

So unless this shell can be traced back in some definitive way both in origin and timeline this will turn into another political shouting match, as both parties try to grab the attention of the American public and appeal to it's microscopic intelligence.

I understand... I was a little vague. By "origin" I meant more of a chain of custody. I'm sure they'll be able to identify make/manufacturer, but if the shell is , say some 20 year old munition that could of been in the posession of several diferrent regimes/groups/individuals it really won't matter much.

 

If I see you get hit by a car when you cross the street, I'll be able to tell the investigators whether it was a Ford or a Chevy, but I won't be able to tell them who was driving.... That kind of thing.

Hmm, Bush HIMSELF said there were no WMDs, was he lying then?

 

These weapons are in the hands of political seperatists. What this has to do with Saddam is beyond me.

Hmm, Bush HIMSELF said there were no WMDs, was he lying then?

:plain

because i'm smarter than just posting an emotionless smiley:

 

Bush when asked if there were any weapons of mass destruction, February

9th, he says "[iraq having weapons of mass destruction was] apparently not

the case." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/08/...bush/index.html

 

The point is the "WMDs" found now were not the ones that we were after, purely because Saddam didn't have his hands on them.

How can you assert this with certainty? Prior to the invasion, all Iraq's weapons, by definition, were under Saddam's control.

 

I find it very unlikely such weapons would have been in Saddam's hands and with our military around attained by political seperatists that existed before Saddam. Aren't these old left-overs and therefore long "lost" to begin with? I'm sorry, we all know that this was not the reason we attacked Iraq.

That's good info, but how new was this weapon. Pre 1998? How do we not know these weapons were shipped in Iran? My knowledge of military history dictates me to beleive Saddam would consolidate such weapons before falling, not leave them all out for terrorist groups/political seperatists (his enemies) to get their hands on. That's why I have strong doubt these are newer Iraqi weapons.

NEWS FLASH:

 

Mustard found in NYC hot dog stand. Pundits predict Bush ratings to soar 10%.

Are you really that ignorant?

 

 

Look, I just did a 21 page report on chemical and biological weapons and believe me Mustard Gas is a deadly weapon. Go look up World War 1 and see what happened to the people that were affected by mustard gas. In a span of a few days, mustard gas caused a 2 mile wide breach in the Allied forces line in France by causing many injuries and fatalities.

 

 

Mustard Gas is one of the most versatile of all chemical weapons. Most any gas can be disolved in it. Chlorine gas was very widely used in World War 1. And guess what delivered it, Mustard Gas. You may well say "It's WW1 and that was a long time ago," but in reality, it only occured a little over 80 years ago. Imagine what can be put in it today.

 

 

BTW: If you want the report, PM me.