BREAKING NEWS: nerve gas found in road side bomb in Iraq

[Robert]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

Most of them do not stand the test of time very well. In other words, there's a best-before-date for most so called weapons of massdestruction. So your conclutions are based on false premises.

'most of them' doesn't cover 'all of them'
and apparently some still work. (read todays news)

cheg, of course it's valid to question the USA's way of handling these kinds of weapons, but that's another discussion. Unless you of course suggest that the bomb that exploded today is one of those unaccounted american bombs.

And your 2nd theory is interesting, and most obviously true in some way. But that still leaves the question open why Sadam didn't come with the evidence when the USA were knocking on his door.

It's a little bit silly to keep the idea of having WMD to keep small enemies out of your territory, but fail to see that a bigger enemy will break your door because of it.

[SlowwHand]

What Che? What's it going to take, bud?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by CyberShy
cheg, of course it's valid to question the USA's way of handling these kinds of weapons, but that's another discussion. Unless you of course suggest that the bomb that exploded today is one of those unaccounted american bombs.

I really hate having to hold people's hands. Okay, real simple. If the United States, which has vastly superior accounting methods and a much stricter hierarchy and oversight for handling these weapons cannot account for all of its own weapons, is it reasonable to assume that a Third-World nationa with very poor accountability and oversight would be able to achieve 100% knowledge of all weapons it may have had?

And your 2nd theory is interesting, and most obviously true in some way. But that still leaves the question open why Sadam didn't come with the evidence when the USA were knocking on his door.

They tried. The problem is, they don't know what happened to a lot of it or can't account for its destruction. We know they destroyed a lot of weapons without documenting it.

[SlowwHand]

Another illustration of their stupidity, if they did.

[Japher]

We know they destroyed a lot of weapons without documenting it.

We do? Prove that they are destroyed... oh, you can't. You don't even have some documents to question.

If the United States, which has vastly superior accounting methods and a much stricter hierarchy and oversight for handling these weapons cannot account for all of its own weapons, is it reasonable to assume that a Third-World nationa with very poor accountability and oversight would be able to achieve 100% knowledge of all weapons it may have had?

This isn't about the US' accounting methods... It's about the US' claim that Iraq had WMD. What was found may or may not be from Sadam, it may just be a small portion of what he had, or it may of been all he had. The point is, a WMD was found in Iraq, why is that so hard to believe? And, why are you defending him, Che?

Hell, I bet we could find a whole cache of weapons over there that they weren't suppose to have and you would somehow find a way to dismiss the findings.

[SlowwHand]

And Japher hammers the nailhead right into the ground.

[Jamski]

Proposition A : Saddam was an evil murderer of innocent civillians
Proposition B : Saddam had WMD

If A and B are true, then why didn't he use them on the American forces?
If either one is not true, then why the war? USA has WMD but is (supposedly) not evil. Libya the reverse.

The real question is, though : Since we're SURE than N.Korea has WMD and is "evil", why does the Bush administration do nothing against them?
Answer : They are clearly not dumb enough to attack a mad dictator
with access to WMD. Therefore they KNEW that Saddam was "clean", and they waited for the report proving his WMDs were gone, so they'd know it was safe to attack.

Proven by logic!

-Jam

[Sava]

I think the bigger news story is that the President of the Iraqi governing council has been killed.

And diplomat, post an article or something.

[Japher]

If A and B are true, then why didn't he use them on the American forces?

Cause he's a coward who thought it would be so much easier to become a martyr. Also, he was an aggressor not a defender.

If either one is not true, then why the war?

Both are true, or at least one, this is part of a war on terror... or did you miss that part?

The real question is, though : Since we're SURE than N.Korea has WMD and is "evil", why does the Bush administration do nothing against them?

Because they aren't blowing up our buildings.

They are clearly not dumb enough to attack a mad dictator
with access to WMD. Therefore they KNEW that Saddam was "clean", and they waited for the report proving his WMDs were gone, so they'd know it was safe to attack.

Proven by logic!

I fart better logic than that!

The ME is and has been a hot bed for terrorist activity. Saddam was and is a known supporter of such terrorist activity not only amongst his own people but those of neighboring countries (see Kuwait). He had the desire and ability to continue to threaten this country through acts of terror or acts of war, either directly or non-directly. Our actions in Iraq have shown that we will not go gently and other would be threats have since voiced their support in our efforts (see Libya).

Most ppls problem is that thinks this attack was an attack on Iraq, and only Iraq, and have already forgotten Afghanistan and the fighting that continues there. These battles are not individual wars but are a part of a bigger war, a war against terrorist hot bed communities, supporters, and those who harbor them… Just as Bush said he would do in 2001.

[DinoDoc]

I think the bigger news you people seem to be missing is that the insurgents have access to chemical weapons.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think the bigger news you people seem to be missing is that the insurgents have access to chemical weapons.

a decade old artillery shell... OOOOOHHHH ALERT THE MEDIA... according to CNN, the shell was improvised and detonated... not doing much of anything. Sorry, find me a hangar filled with chemical weapons, and you got a story. But if this is all they had, this war was a bigger mistake than I thought.

[Japher]

Sorry, find me a hangar filled with chemical weapons, and you got a story. But if this is all they had, this war was a bigger mistake than I thought.

Just as I thought.




I could give them a definitive proof of a martian, but they'd want the whole race. Yet, still, they see one dumb republican and that's proof enough that we're all stupid.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Japher
Also, he was an aggressor not a defender.

This should be interesting.

[GePap]

1. 100% the the prelimenary tests done that "found chemical weapons" were found negative at the end. Until all the tests are done, this is as believable

2. IF that is Sarin, that is no proof that is came from past Iraqi stocks as opposed to being newly created, or from stocks elsewhere. If we remember, it was sarin that the Japanese terror group was able to make on their own.

[blackice]

post an article or something.

Interesting it was an older shell, ok where are the rest?
Buried in the cemetary? A religious building? It is interesting to note it was also designed to mix the gas after being fired from artillery. So this was not designed recently and could link back to the 90's when Sadman had these weapons. Obviously it was not designed by a cult in Japan either. This was obviously designed for a military for military use.